Harvest Dates of Top Scoring Varieties Appearance vs ... · Appearance vs. Taste ... Bay Laurel...
2
acid sugar flavor overall 1993 2.94 3.12 3.45 5.98 1994 3.00 2.96 3.20 5.61 1995 3.00 2.98 3.30 5.68 1996 3.06 2.95 3.30 5.59 1997 2.85 3.12 3.38 5.76 1998 2.77 2.99 3.23 5.51 1999 2.87 2.91 3.19 5.35 2000 2.78 2.92 3.25 5.33 2001 2.76 2.96 3.14 5.27 2002 2.79 2.95 3.28 5.26 2003 2.95 2.98 3.23 5.52 2004 2.77 2.98 3.19 5.37 2005 2.84 3.15 3.37 5.74 2006 2.90 3.16 3.41 5.82 2007 3.01 3.17 3.56 6.10 2008 2.60 2.95 3.09 5.37 2009 2.89 2.96 3.25 5.45 2010 2.88 2.96 3.21 5.41 2011 2.82 3.21 3.48 6.10 2012 2.68 3.10 3.43 5.94 2013 2.78 3.23 3.50 6.09 2014 2.86 3.17 3.46 5.92 All Years 2.86 3.01 3.28 5.55 Average Scores by Year Appearance vs. Taste Commercial fruit breeding, production and marketing place top priority on the appearance of fruit. In the 53 fruit tastings, if only the most attractive 50% of fruit samples had been selected for further evaluation (attractiveness scores of 3.6 or higher), samples of the following would have been rejected(!): Heavenly White, Arctic Jay, Arctic Rose, Arctic Queen and Snow Queen white nectarines, Indian Free and Donut white peaches, Red Baron, Eva’s Pride, Halehaven and Veteran peaches, Double Delight, Flavortop, Juneglo, Harko and Zee Glo nectarines, Red Fuji and Spitzenburg apples, Blenheim and Canadian White Blenheim apricots, Comice pear, Emerald Beaut and Laroda plums, plus Dapple Dandy, Flavor Supreme, Flavor Grenade, Flavor Queen, Splash and Emerald Drop Pluot ® interspecific How do the fruit characteristics of the “Top 100 Varieties” and the “Bottom 100 Varieties” compare to the average of all fruit tasting samples? attractiveness firmness ripeness texture acid sugar flavor overall Top 100 3.85 3.07 3.45 4.09 3.00 3.77 4.28 7.38 Average of all samples 3.51 3.08 3.19 3.51 2.86 3.00 3.27 5.54 Bottom 100 3.18 2.99 3.13 2.66 2.29 2.05 2.06 3.38 acid sugar flavor overall Arctic Jay white nectarine (Z) 2.73 4.00 4.79 8.23 Flavor King Pluot® (Z) 3.10 3.90 4.40 8.10 Snow Beauty peach (Z) 2.40 4.10 4.80 7.90 Dapple Dandy Pluot ® (Z) 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.90 Indian Free white peach 3.20 3.80 4.30 7.90 Snow Queen white nect. (Z) 3.13 3.87 4.50 7.87 Arctic Sweet white nect. (Z) 2.51 3.88 4.43 7.84 Flavortop nectarine (Z) 2.90 4.10 4.50 7.80 Flavor Supreme Pluot ® (Z) 3.30 3.70 4.50 7.70 Van cherry 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.70 Arctic Star white nect. (Z) 2.73 3.78 4.38 7.65 Harken peach 2.78 3.65 4.18 7.51 Arctic Supreme wht. pch. (Z) 3.50 3.50 4.30 7.50 Heavenly White wht. nect. (Z) 3.10 3.70 4.10 7.50 Liz’s Late nectarine (Z) 3.50 3.80 4.70 7.50 Craig’s Crimson cherry (Z) 2.10 3.50 4.30 7.50 Emerald Drop Pluot ® (Z) 3.00 3.75 4.43 7.46 August Glo nectarine (Z) 3.10 3.78 4.14 7.42 O’Henry peach 3.00 3.80 4.20 7.40 Royal Rainier cherry (Z) 3.07 3.67 4.25 7.31 (Z) Indicates Zaiger Varieties Top 20 Varieties 1993-2014 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 15 20 25 5 10 15 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 MAY MAY JUNE JUNE JULY JULY AUGUST AUGUST SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER OCTOBER OCTOBER Craigs Crimson Royal Rainier Utah Giant Bing Van Southmoon Blenheim Honeykist Harko Donut Independence Snow Queen Arctic Glo Eva's Pride Splash Arctic Jay Arctic Rose Snow Beauty Mericrest Mid Pride Suncrest Halehaven Double Delight June Gold Juneglo Flavor Supreme Cot-N-Candy Sugar May Gold Dust Arctic Star Flavor Delight Flordaking Harvest Dates of Top Scoring Varieties Varieties achieving an overall score of 6.5 or higher in two or more tastings Harvest Periods are for Hickman, CA (Near Modesto) Notes Regarding Published Taste Scores and Rankings 1) It is not possible to assess definitively the fresh-eating quality of a fruit variety at one tasting. The flavor and sweetness of fruits depend on many variable factors. On the day of a tasting, some varieties may not be at peak quality. 2) Variation within a fruit sample can be a source of fluctuation in the scoring. To minimize this possibility, tasters are asked to taste two or more samples from each fruit variety, and when they vary significantly in ripeness, to score the one that has the ripeness they would choose if they were picking it from their own tree. 3) One of the most significant variables in fruit judging is the difference in personal preferences among tasters. For example, tasters often dis- agree on the appeal of sub acid fruit (fruit with little or no tartness). 4) Since different groups of tasters can have different taste preferences and different scoring tendencies, comparisons of scores from one tasting to another are not strictly valid. After many tastings, however, such variations in scoring should even out. 5) Obviously, the data in this report is preliminary and incomplete. The list of varieties tested is not comprehensive for all fruit types nor is it complete for any of the specific fruit types tested. The various summaries and lists are relative only to fruit varieties tested, not to the entire spectrum of contemporary tree fruits. plums, all of which samples earned scores of 6.8 or higher for overall fresh-eating quality – placing them in the top 11% of samples tested! Favorite Fruits In the 53 tastings to date, 96 samples of named fruit varieties have received scores of 7.0 or better (95th percentile). Among this elite group 66 of the samples were either nectarines, cher- ries or plums/ plum hybrids. 43% of yellow nectarines, 57% of white nectarines, 63% of Pluots®, and 46% of cherries have earned overall scores of 6.08 or higher (in the top 1/3 of all overall scores). By earning a disproportionate share of the top scores these fruit types have demonstrated broad appeal among the fruit tasters. From the data we can see that all of the components with the exception of Firmness played a role in the Overall scores. Varieties with high Overall scores were rated as having above average sugar and acid, which contribute to our perception of flavor, and above-average texture appeal, which, for most people, contributes to the overall enjoyment of fruit. Tast- ers tend to allocate high scores to varieties that have complex character, not just sweet or tart, crunchy or soft. While some individuals may key on those specific characteristics, in order to have broad appeal, varieties need to excite the palate and have pleasant mouth feel. Additionally, Attractiveness plays a role in our overall perception. It sets an expectation that is either confirmed by the eating experience, or creates surprise when the result varies from the expectation. The Top 100 varieties rated according to our scoring system as Moderately to Very Attractive, Fully Ripe Firm to Fully Ripe Soft, with texture that was described as Appealing, acid that rated as Slightly Tart, Balanced. Sugar scores were rated as Slightly Sweet to Very Sweet, and Flavor scores that were rated as Very Good to Rich, Intense and Superior. Snow Queen Nectarine Craig’s Crimson Cherry Emerald Drop Pluot ® Arctic Star Nectarine Blenheim Apricot Dapple Dandy Pluot ® Indian Free Peach Flavor Supreme Pluot ®
Transcript of Harvest Dates of Top Scoring Varieties Appearance vs ... · Appearance vs. Taste ... Bay Laurel...
acid sugar flavor overall1993 2.94 3.12 3.45 5.981994 3.00 2.96 3.20 5.611995 3.00 2.98 3.30 5.681996 3.06 2.95 3.30 5.591997 2.85 3.12 3.38 5.761998 2.77 2.99 3.23 5.511999 2.87 2.91 3.19 5.352000 2.78 2.92 3.25 5.332001 2.76 2.96 3.14 5.272002 2.79 2.95 3.28 5.262003 2.95 2.98 3.23 5.522004 2.77 2.98 3.19 5.372005 2.84 3.15 3.37 5.742006 2.90 3.16 3.41 5.822007 3.01 3.17 3.56 6.102008 2.60 2.95 3.09 5.372009 2.89 2.96 3.25 5.452010 2.88 2.96 3.21 5.412011 2.82 3.21 3.48 6.102012 2.68 3.10 3.43 5.942013 2.78 3.23 3.50 6.092014 2.86 3.17 3.46 5.92All Years 2.86 3.01 3.28 5.55
Average Scores by Year
Appearance vs. TasteCommercial fruit breeding, production and marketing place top priority on the appearance of fruit. In the 53 fruit tastings, if only the most attractive 50% of fruit samples had been selected for further evaluation (attractiveness scores of 3.6 or higher), samples of the following would have been rejected(!): Heavenly White, Arctic Jay, Arctic Rose, Arctic Queen and Snow Queen white nectarines, Indian Free and Donut white peaches, Red Baron, Eva’s Pride, Halehaven and Veteran peaches, Double Delight, Flavortop, Juneglo, Harko and Zee Glo nectarines, Red Fuji and Spitzenburg apples, Blenheim and Canadian White Blenheim apricots, Comice pear, Emerald Beaut and Laroda plums, plus Dapple Dandy, Flavor Supreme, Flavor Grenade, Flavor Queen, Splash and Emerald Drop Pluot® interspecific
How do the fruit characteristics of the “Top 100 Varieties” and the “Bottom 100 Varieties”compare to the average of all fruit tasting samples?
attractiveness firmness ripeness texture acid sugar flavor overallTop 100 3.85 3.07 3.45 4.09 3.00 3.77 4.28 7.38Average of all samples 3.51 3.08 3.19 3.51 2.86 3.00 3.27 5.54Bottom 100 3.18 2.99 3.13 2.66 2.29 2.05 2.06 3.38
acid sugar flavor overallArctic Jay white nectarine (Z) 2.73 4.00 4.79 8.23Flavor King Pluot® (Z) 3.10 3.90 4.40 8.10Snow Beauty peach (Z) 2.40 4.10 4.80 7.90Dapple Dandy Pluot® (Z) 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.90Indian Free white peach 3.20 3.80 4.30 7.90Snow Queen white nect. (Z) 3.13 3.87 4.50 7.87Arctic Sweet white nect. (Z) 2.51 3.88 4.43 7.84Flavortop nectarine (Z) 2.90 4.10 4.50 7.80Flavor Supreme Pluot® (Z) 3.30 3.70 4.50 7.70Van cherry 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.70Arctic Star white nect. (Z) 2.73 3.78 4.38 7.65Harken peach 2.78 3.65 4.18 7.51Arctic Supreme wht. pch. (Z) 3.50 3.50 4.30 7.50Heavenly White wht. nect. (Z) 3.10 3.70 4.10 7.50Liz’s Late nectarine (Z) 3.50 3.80 4.70 7.50Craig’s Crimson cherry (Z) 2.10 3.50 4.30 7.50Emerald Drop Pluot® (Z) 3.00 3.75 4.43 7.46August Glo nectarine (Z) 3.10 3.78 4.14 7.42O’Henry peach 3.00 3.80 4.20 7.40Royal Rainier cherry (Z) 3.07 3.67 4.25 7.31 (Z) Indicates Zaiger Varieties
Top 20 Varieties 1993-2014
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
15 20 25
5 10 15
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25
MAY
MAY
JUNE
JUNE
JULY
JULY
AUGUST
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
OCTOBER
Craigs CrimsonRoyal Rainier
Utah GiantBing
VanSouthmoon
Blenheim
HoneykistHarko
Donut
Independence
Snow Queen
Arctic GloEva's Pride
SplashArctic Jay
Arctic Rose
Snow BeautyMericrest
Mid PrideSuncrestHalehaven
Double Delight
June GoldJuneglo
Flavor SupremeCot-N-Candy
Sugar MayGold DustArctic Star
Flavor DelightFlordaking
Harvest Dates of Top Scoring VarietiesVarieties achieving an overall score of 6.5 or higher in two or more tastings
Harvest Periods are for Hickman, CA (Near Modesto)
Notes Regarding Published Taste Scores and Rankings1) It is not possible to assess definitively the fresh-eating quality of a fruit variety at one tasting. The flavor and sweetness of fruits depend on many variable factors. On the day of a tasting, some varieties may not be at peak quality.2) Variation within a fruit sample can be a source of fluctuation in the scoring. To minimize this possibility, tasters are asked to taste two or more samples from each fruit variety, and when they vary significantly in ripeness, to score the one that has the ripeness they would choose if they were picking it from their own tree.3) One of the most significant variables in fruit judging is the difference in personal preferences among tasters. For example, tasters often dis-agree on the appeal of sub acid fruit (fruit with little or no tartness). 4) Since different groups of tasters can have different taste preferences and different scoring tendencies, comparisons of scores from one tasting to another are not strictly valid. After many tastings, however, such variations in scoring should even out.5) Obviously, the data in this report is preliminary and incomplete. The list of varieties tested is not comprehensive for all fruit types nor is it complete for any of the specific fruit types tested. The various summaries and lists are relative only to fruit varieties tested, not to the entire spectrum of contemporary tree fruits.
plums, all of which samples earned scores of 6.8 or higher for overall fresh-eating quality – placing them in the top 11% of samples tested!
Favorite FruitsIn the 53 tastings to date, 96 samples of named fruit varieties have received scores of 7.0 or better (95th percentile). Among this elite group 66 of the samples were either nectarines, cher-ries or plums/ plum hybrids. 43% of yellow nectarines, 57% of white nectarines, 63% of Pluots®, and 46% of cherries have earned overall scores of 6.08 or higher (in the top 1/3 of all overall scores). By earning a disproportionate share of the top scores these fruit types have demonstrated broad appeal among the fruit tasters.
From the data we can see that all of the components with the exception of Firmness played a role in the Overall scores. Varieties with high Overall scores were rated as having above average sugar and acid, which contribute to our perception of flavor, and above-average texture appeal, which, for most people, contributes to the overall enjoyment of fruit. Tast-ers tend to allocate high scores to varieties that have complex character, not just sweet or tart, crunchy or soft. While some individuals may key on those specific characteristics, in order to have broad appeal, varieties need to excite the palate and
have pleasant mouth feel. Additionally, Attractiveness plays a role in our overall perception. It sets an expectation that is either confirmed by the eating experience, or creates surprise when the result varies from the expectation. The Top 100 varieties rated according to our scoring system as Moderately to Very Attractive, Fully Ripe Firm to Fully Ripe Soft, with texture that was described as Appealing, acid that rated as Slightly Tart, Balanced. Sugar scores were rated as Slightly Sweet to Very Sweet, and Flavor scores that were rated as Very Good to Rich, Intense and Superior.
Snow Queen Nectarine
Craig’s Crimson Cherry Emerald Drop Pluot® Arctic Star Nectarine Blenheim Apricot
Dapple Dandy Pluot® Indian Free Peach Flavor Supreme Pluot®
2014 Fruit Tasting Report © 2014 Dave Wilson Nursery 95323. Pluot®, Aprium® & NectaPlum® are registered trademarks of Zaiger Inc. Genetics, Modesto, CA.
Nursery IndustryAlmaden Valley Nursery Matt LepowArmstrong Gardens Chris GreenwoodArmstrong Gardens Leah GreenwoodArmstrong Gardens Liz GreenwoodBay Laurel Nursery Jim PattersonBay Laurel Nursery Kristie WellsBay Laurel Nursery Marcia GuelffBerkeley Hort. Nursery Ann RalphC&W Nursery Steve CampbellCal Poly Pomona Shaun OverstreetCANGC Steve ListCapital Nursery Ken BrizziCertified Consulting Arborist Kurt PeacockDale Hardware MJ PenovichDinuba Garden Center Jose GarciaDonlen Nursery Darlene DonlenDonlen Nursery Elicia JamesEast Bay Nursery Doris RothEast Bay Nursery Jose IniguezEisley’s Nursery Earlene FreemanFour Winds Growers Ed LaivoFront Yard Nursery Kristie LambFront Yard Nursery Sandy HendricksHodges Nursery Ken HodgeJohnson Garden Center Kelley CorbettJon’s Nursery Jon Freeman-WoodMc Shane’s Nursery Steve McshaneMid City Nursery Jake MikolajicRegan Nursery Victoria EvanoffRoger Reynolds Mary WalcherRoger Reynolds Nikki KarimzadScenic Nursery Colette HullSierra Nursery & Rock Janet SimkinsSonoma Mission Gardens Lydia ConstantiniSummer Winds Nursery Brian HjelmstadThe Greenery George SchumacherThe Greenery Jay DegraffThe Greenery Patty EkenbergTree People Steve HofvendahlUniv Ca Coop Ext Nancy GarrisonUniv Ca Coop Ext. Riverside Tom SheaUrban Tree Farm Travis WoodardVanwinden’s Pueblo Gdn. Peter Van WindenWestern Sierra Nursery Robyn HollandWestern Sierra Nursery Mark HollandWest Side Nursery Chris SullivanYamagami’s Nursery Carolyn Villa-ScottYamagami’s Nursery Cindi Felde-RiccaYamagami’s Nursery Rus Scott
California Rare Fruit GrowersAndrew MarianiCarol ScottCharles AllenChoung CroweDavid MaislenDavid PaytonDebbie SortommeDick PotratzDon GholstonDon JohnsonDoreen WendellEph KonigsbergGeorge QuesadaGretchen SandersJerry SortommeJim NeitzelJoan MaislenJohn Crowe
Radio PersonalitiesKSRO Radio Beverly TanemKSRO Radio Bob TanemKSTE Radio Fred HoffmanKSTE Radio Jeanne Hoffman
Master GardenersBarbara LauckBettina GottiCarole MaertweilerJohn G. ErnsbergerMike MaertzweilerShelly WardropTom SavioWilliam D. HollinsWinnie WuYvonne Savio
Talk with people who know what it’s like to eat it fresh from the tree! Just click the Master Fruit Taster symbol when you see it next to the name of a local retail nursery on www.davewilson.com
Scoring SystemEXTERIOR ATTRACTIVENESS5 extraordinarily attractive4 very attractive3 moderately attractive2 not especially attractive1 uglyFIRMNESS5 very hard4 hard3 firm2 soft1 very softRIPENESS5 too ripe, past peak quality4 fully ripe, soft3 fully ripe, firm2 not quite fully ripe1 not ripeTEXTURE5 especially appealing4 appealing3 not notable one way or another2 slightly disagreeable1 very disagreeableACID5 too tart, sour4 tart3 slightly tart, balanced2 not tart, but enjoyable1 not tart, blandSUGAR5 too sweet4 very sweet3 slightly sweet2 not especially sweet1 lacks sweetness, needs moreFLAVOR5 rich, intense, superior4 very good3 average2 somewhat lacking, mild1 absent or disagreeableOVERALL9 have never had better8 excellent, outstanding7 very good, well above average6 good above average5 acceptable, average4 below å3 mediocre, barely worthwhile2 poor, not suitable for fresh use1 atrocious
John LongKaren PaytonKit LongLarry HollisLarry ShoreJill SabolJoe SabolLyle OverleyMarv DanielsMichael ZarkeyPaul GuyPet DanielsPhoebe LiebigRobert ScottThomas PopeW. Karl GrossNino CupaiuoloPaul Fisher
Master Fruit Taster™ Award Recipients
Weeping Santa Rosa Plum Black Jack Fig June Pride Peach Donut Peach
