University of WisconsinUrban and Regional Food Systems2015 Vegetable Variety Screening Trials

KALE

Cultivar Company//BreederTotal/M/weight/(kg)

Avg/Weight/(gm):/10/Leaf/bunches

Avg/Disease/Damage/Score/1=low,//5=high

Avg/Pest/Damage/Score//1=low,/5=high

Avg/Mature/Height/(cm)

STDEV/Mature/Height/(cm)

Kale%Coalition Adaptive%Seeds 9.96 453 1.4 2.4 48.7 16.6

Russian%Hungergap Adaptive%Seeds 10.78 383 1.4 2 74.6 7.1

Western%Front Adaptive%Seeds 10.66 303 1.4 2.2 67.0 6.8

Darkibor Bejo%Seeds 9.66 367 1.0 1.4 72.5 5.7

Redbor Bejo%Seeds 10.70 295 1.4 1.4 116.9 12.8

Ripbor Bejo%Seeds 11.63 363 1.2 1.2 97.0 3.8

Curly%Roja High%Mowing%Organic%Seeds 13.43 336 1.0 1 125.2 24.9

Meadowlark High%Mowing%Organic%Seeds 15.20 351 1.6 1.2 94.6 12.9

Red%Russian High%Mowing%Organic%Seeds 10.31 324 1.8 2.2 71.2 8.8

Westlander High%Mowing%Organic%Seeds 11.22 385 1.6 1.4 101.3 19.0

Hudson%Valley%Dino Hudson%Valley%Seed%Library 4.58 198 1.2 3.2 75.2 17.7

Wild%Garden%Mix Wild%Garden%Seed 11.27 410 1.8 2.2 47.0 12.0

Trial Notes: 15 plants of each variety were planted May 20, 2015. 10 middle plants of each variety were harvested from bottom up. Seven harvests were completed at 10 day intervals mid June to mid August.10 leaf bunches of marketable leaves were counted and weighed. Final mature height taken at end of season.

Cultivar Company//BreederTotal/M/weight/(kg)

Avg/Weight/(gm):/10/Leaf/bunches

Avg/Disease/Damage/Score/1=low,//5=high

Avg/Pest/Damage/Score//1=low,/5=high

Avg/Mature/Height/(cm)

STDEV/Mature/Height/(cm)

Cavolo%Nero Seeds%of%Italy 7.91 341 1.2 2.6 99.4 15.4

Galega%de%Folhas%Lisas Seeds%of%Italy 10.22 486 1.0 2.6 85.7 15.0

Wild%Garden%Lacinato Wild%Garden%Seed 5.11 214 1.4 2.6 74.6 12.6

Old%Growth%Palm Wild%Garden%Seed 5.25 181 1.0 3.2 91.6 15.1

Red%Ruffled Wild%Garden%Seed 10.93 357 1.8 2.4 69.8 20.9

Red%Ursa Wild%Garden%Seed 14.51 427 1.8 1.8 53.5 14.8

White%Russian Wild%Garden%Seed 12.99 427 1.6 2 51.4 15.7

Wild%Red Wild%Garden%Seed 13.59 400 1.8 1.8 30.8 10.8

Farm Farmer Species Varieties

Would2you2grow2this2again? How2marketable2is2it?

What2did2you2think2of2the2flavor? Strongest2point Major2flaws

Which2variety2was2the2best/worst?

Voss$Organics Mark$Voss kale Darkibor YES! VERY great leaf$size,$production $none best

Voss$Organics Mark$Voss kale Redbor maybe somewhat OK color texture$a$bit$tough OK

Amy's$AcreAmy$Wallner greens ErosGEndive no not$very,$for$me fine consistent$size huge worst

Wild$RidgeAnna$Metscher greens ErosGEndive yes very mild smaller$than$I$like 5

Shooting$Star$Farms Jenny$Bonde greens ErosGEndive maybe

Better$than$the$bigger$escaroles.$More$compact$is$more$desireable.$But$outer$color$is$darker$G$not$a$good$quality.

Mild.$Good$flavor.$Tough$outer$leaves$like$all$escaroles,$but$very$tasty$inner$leaves.

More$compact.$Center$selfGblanches$to$a$nice$yellow$if$spaced$at$8"$or$so.$

Eros$is$also$a$bit$dark.$Lighter$escaroles$are$more$appealing.$We$also$grew$Natacha$escarole$which$resisted$disease$better$than$Eros.$

Amy's$AcreAmy$Wallner greens

RhodosGEndive yes very!

expected$chicory$bitterness consistant$size

if$left$too$long,$middle$rots$but$outside$still$looks$good

good,$consistent$sized$head

Wild$RidgeAnna$Metscher greens

RhodosGEndive yes very mild$and$delicious

very$flavorful,$easy$to$grow tip$burn 1$(best)

Shooting$Star$Farms Jenny$Bonde greens

RhodosGEndive maybe

Good.$Has$nice,$frilly$cutGleaf$that$chefs$like.$

Good.$Bitter,$but$not$unpleasant

Good$shape;$Uniform;$can$be$closely$spaced$for$center$blanching.$Potential$for$big$heads$

Compared$to$Tres$Fine$Maraichere$(our$usual$frisee),$it$had$faster$rotting$issues$with$our$very$wet$fall.$Although$neither$were$very$resistant$to$rot.

Amy's$AcreAmy$Wallner greens

LeonardoGRaddicchio yes very!

typical$raddicchio$flavor color

smaller$than$other$raddicchio,$sometimes$too$small best

Wild$RidgeAnna$Metscher greens

LeonardoGRaddicchio yes very nice$bitterness uniform$size different$coloration 3

Shooting$Star$Farms Jenny$Bonde greens

LeonardoGRaddicchio yes Decent.$But$somewhat$big.

Typical$of$radicchio$G$stonger$early;$much$milder$after$frost.$Crunchy$leaf;$average$bitterness.

Similar$maturity$in$planting;$solid$heads;$beautiful$color.

Not$uniform$size;$rather$large$heads;$longer$season$variety$than$many$other$round$radicchios.

Of$radicchios,$Leonardo$has$best$marketability.$

one$chef$noted$how$color$changed$if$soaked$in$cold$water.$$I$didn't$verify$this$but$thought$that$was$interesting

Indigo$(hybrid)$is$smaller,$more$uniform,$earlier,$more$purple$in$color.$More$marketable,$but$not$better$in$flavor$than$Leonardo.$I$prefer$the$red$of$Leonardo,$but$

some$like$the$more$purple$coloring.$A$good$question$for$chefs.

General2Notes

Probably$won't$switch$it$out$with$our$usual$Tres$Fine$Mariachere$since$

it's$not$better$in$any$way$we$could$see.$

really$good,$much$better$than$other$winterbor$

substitutesnot$as$productive$and$has$smaller$leaves$than$darkibor$but$quality$

good

Farm Farmer Species Varieties

Would2you2grow2this2again? How2marketable2is2it?

What2did2you2think2of2the2flavor? Strongest2point Major2flaws

Which2variety2was2the2best/worst? General2Notes

really$good,$much$better$

than$other$winterbor$

substitutes

Amy's$Acre

Amy$

Wallner greens

RubroG

Raddicchio no

variable,$and$it$is$much$

larger$than$what$

restaurants$seemed$to$be$

expecting bitter,$as$expected fast$growing Huge worst

Wild$Ridge

Anna$

Metscher greens

RubroG

Raddicchio yes somewhat just$okay good$size ready$at$different$times 4

Shooting$Star$

Farms Jenny$Bonde greens

RubroG

Raddicchio maybe

A$bit$big.$Unusual$

elongated$shape$&$size$

might$make$marketing$

more$difficult.$I$like$

new/unusal$varieties.$

Similar$to$

castelfranco$types;$

Not$excessively$

bitter$like$treviso$

types$can$be.$

Texture$is$softer,$

too.

Didn't$bolt$G$even$

with$long$season;$

Pretty$coloring$

when$allowed$to$

head$and$peeled$

back.$

Long$Season$for$heads.$

Harvest$about$4$weeks$

after$Leonardo.$$Not$

uniform,$but$quite$big.

Amy's$Acre

Amy$

Wallner greens

VirtusG

Chicory no not

I$did$not$enjoy$it,$

very$bitter

no$disease$or$pest$

issues not$a$big$customer$draw

Wild$Ridge

Anna$

Metscher greens

VirtusG

Chicory yes somewhat best! size$was$great ready$at$different$times 2

Shooting$Star$

Farms Jenny$Bonde greens

VirtusG

Chicory yes

Average.$Big$size$is$hard$

sell.$Flavor$is$an$easy$sell.

Very$mild$chicory.$

Quite$good$raw$or$

cooked.$No$special$

treatment$like$

soaking$needed$to$

mellow$flavor$even$

in$late$summer.$

Still$best$in$fall,$

though. Flavor

Large$size.$Cooks$don't$

need$many!

Virtus$has$best$

flavor$of$all$in$

trial.$

Trial2Management soil2type prior2crop cover2crop

bed2preparation planting2method planting2date plant2spacing fertilizer mulch irrigation

pest2or2pathogen2treatments

Voss$Organics silt$loam leeks

buckwheat,$

oats,$peas

soil$fork$

tiller transplants$by$hand 5.22.15 18" compost straw$ drip none

Amy's$Acre clay/loam beans,$snap none

disc$

rotofiller

transplanted$3$rows/bed$

@$12"$bun$rows 6.5.15 12" compost,$fall$2014 none none none

Wild$Ridge$

Farm sandy$loam spring$successionclover tillage transplant

seed$7/11,$

transplant$8/6 3$rows$at$1' no no no no

Shooting$Star$

Farm Dubuque$Silt$Loam

$2014$

Lettuce$

2015$Spring$

brassica

Cover$

cropped$in$

2013$winter$

wheat

Rototil$and$

dibble$beds$

after$

spreading$

fertilizer Hand$transplant

Greenhouse$

seeding:$6/22/15;$

Transplant:$

7/16/2015

Radicchio$&$

Escarole:$12"$on$

center;$Endive$

(frisee)$6"$on$center

Midwest$bioGag$Veggies$

Plus$and$Veggies$NKO$@$

400#/A$each;$Soybean$meal$

@$400#/A None

Overhead$

sprinkler

Dipel$DF$

8/24$&$9/24$

for$worms

Leaf$is$softer$like$a$

castelfranco$type$G$

though$not$as$pale$and$

splashed$with$color.$

Similar$in$flavor.$

Castelfranco$is$more$

visually$appealing.

KaleVariety intensity* bitter*** color* sweet* acidity* saltiness* textureWild%Garden%Lacinato%N4.0 3.8 3.1 1.6 2.3 1.8 2.6Nashs%Green 3.5 3.6 2.7 1.6 2.5 2.0 2.9Hudson%Valley%Dino%N 3.5 3.2 3.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.9Wild%Red 3.4 3.1 2.9 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.6Ripbor 3.4 3.1 2.7 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.7Wild%Garden%Lacinato%G3.3 2.9 3.2 2.1 1.9 1.6 2.9Black%Magic 3.3 2.5 3.5 2.3 1.7 1.8 3.1Nashs%Red 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.8 2.0 3.0Red%Ruffled 3.3 3.1 2.5 2.2 2.1 1.7 2.5Toscano 3.3 3.2 3.2 1.8 2.2 1.5 2.7Wild%Garden%Mix 3.3 3.0 2.7 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.5Redbor 3.3 3.6 3.5 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.8Westlander 3.2 3.5 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.7White%Russian 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 2.6Sutherland 3.2 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.5Meadowlark 3.2 3.6 3.0 2.0 2.3 1.9 3.1Cavolo%Nero 3.2 3.1 3.2 1.8 2.2 1.6 2.8Red%Russian 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.6Starbor 3.1 2.5 3.0 2.5 1.8 1.7 3.3Curly%Roja 3.1 2.9 3.6 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.9Galega%de%Folhas%Lisas 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.4Kale%Coalition 3.0 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.7 2.6Old%Growth%Palm 2.9 2.8 3.3 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.8Western%Front 2.9 3.2 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.6Russian%Hungergap 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.7Hudson%Valley%Dino%G 2.8 2.4 3.1 2.3 1.7 1.6 2.8Black%Tuscan 2.7 2.6 3.3 1.9 1.9 1.6 2.8Red%Ursa 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.2 1.8 1.7 2.7Darkibor 2.4 2.5 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.6

GreensVariety intensity*** color*** texture* sweet*** acidity* bitter*** saltinessBau$Sin$mustard 4.4 3.3 2.8 1.5 2.2 2.7 1.6Osaka$Purple$mustard 4.0 3.1 2.6 1.5 2.9 3.4 1.5Virtus$radicchio 4.0 2.6 3.0 1.5 2.2 3.8 1.4HoCMiCZ$mustard 3.7 3.2 3.0 1.3 2.6 2.6 1.4Astro$arugula 3.6 3.5 2.5 1.5 2.6 3.5 1.4Eros$endive 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.0 1.9 2.2 1.5

LettuceRed$Evolution 3.3 3.1 1.9 1.4 1.6 3.0 1.4Rhazes 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.6 1.3 1.7 1.3Coastal$Star 2.7 3.3 3.1 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Lovelock 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5Alkindus 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.4Wilshire 2.6 3.3 3.1 2.7 1.3 1.9 1.3Wander$Von$Stuttgart 2.6 2.4 2.5 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.7Encino 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.9 1.3Unicum 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.1 1.4 1.7 1.3Barilla 2.3 1.7 2.6 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.6

Greens

color

texture

sweetness

acidity

saltiness

bitterness

intensity

0 1 2 3 4 5

AlkindusAstroBarillaBau SinCoastal StarEncinoErosHo−Mi−ZLovelockOsaka PurpleRed EvolutionRhazesUnicumVirtusWander Von StuttgartWilshire

14

scor

e

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

color

textur

e

swee

tness

acidit

y

saltin

ess

bitter

ness

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

AlkindusAstroBarillaBau SinCoastal StarEncinoErosHo−Mi−ZLovelockOsaka PurpleRed EvolutionRhazesUnicumVirtusWander Von StuttgartWilshire

15

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Variables factor map (PCA)

Dim 1 (67.96%)

Dim

2 (1

7.97

%)

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

color

texturesweetness

aciditysaltiness bitterness

Representation of quality characteristics, based on crew evaluation, resulting from a principal component analysis of

all crew quality evaluation data. The length of the arrow for each characteristic is proportional to its contribution

to the variation among varieties, and the direction of the arrow is in the direction of increasing scores for that

characteristic. This shows how related the characteristics are to each other, and is also used to read the following

graph of varieties. The individual (variety) factor map on the next page plots where each variety lands relative to

these quality components

16

-1 0 1 2

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Individuals factor map (PCA)

Dim 1 (67.96%)

Dim

2 (1

7.97

%) Alkindus

Astro

Barilla

Bau Sin

Coastal Star

Encino

Eros

Ho-Mi-Z

Lovelock

Osaka Purple

Red Evolution

Rhazes

Unicum

Virtus

Wander Von Stuttgart

Wilshire

Representation of varieties, based on crew evaluation, resulting from a principal component analysis of all crew quality

evaluation data. The position of each variety shows how it was evaluated for the di↵erent quality characteristics on

the previous page. For example, a variety that near or beyond the end of the color arrow would show particularly

intense color and a variety on the opposite side of the graph than the direction in which the color arrow points would

have poor color. This can be done for each of the quality characteristics. This graph also shows how varieties are

related to each other for the complete set of quality characteristics, and characteristics that contributed more to the

variation among varieties have greater weight in determining where varieties are positioned on the graph. This can

be helpful in making selections based on multiple characteristics at once. This graph helps us select which varieties

we send to the group of chefs we are working with for further quality evaluation

17

Kale

color

texture

sweetness

acidity

saltiness

bitterness

intensity

0 1 2 3 4 5

Black MagicBlack TuscanCavolo NeroCurly RojaDarkiborGalega de Folhas LisasHudson Valley Dino GHudson Valley Dino NKale CoalitionMeadowlarkNashs GreenNashs RedOld Growth PalmRed RuffledRed RussianRed UrsaRedborRipborRussian HungergapStarborSutherlandToscanoWestern FrontWestlanderWhite RussianWild Garden Lacinato GWild Garden Lacinato NWild Garden Mix

18

scor

e

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

color

textur

e

swee

tness

acidit

y

saltin

ess

bitter

ness

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

● ●

●

●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Black MagicBlack TuscanCavolo NeroCurly RojaDarkiborGalega de Folhas LisasHudson Valley Dino GHudson Valley Dino NKale CoalitionMeadowlarkNashs GreenNashs RedOld Growth PalmRed RuffledRed RussianRed UrsaRedborRipborRussian HungergapStarborSutherlandToscanoWestern FrontWestlanderWhite RussianWild Garden Lacinato GWild Garden Lacinato NWild Garden MixWild Red

19

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Variables factor map (PCA)

Dim 1 (49.36%)

Dim

2 (2

8.26

%)

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

color

texture

sweetnessacidity

saltiness bitterness

Representation of quality characteristics, based on crew evaluation, resulting from a principal component analysis of

all crew quality evaluation data. The length of the arrow for each characteristic is proportional to its contribution

to the variation among varieties, and the direction of the arrow is in the direction of increasing scores for that

characteristic. This shows how related the characteristics are to each other, and is also used to read the following

graph of varieties. The individual (variety) factor map on the next page plots where each variety lands relative to

these quality components

20

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

Individuals factor map (PCA)

Dim 1 (49.36%)

Dim

2 (2

8.26

%)

Black Magic

Black Tuscan

Cavolo Nero

Curly Roja

Darkibor

Galega de Folhas Lisas

Hudson Valley Dino GHudson Valley Dino N

Kale Coalition

Meadowlark

Nashs Green

Nashs Red

Old Growth Palm

Red Ruffled

Red Russian

Red Ursa

Redbor

Ripbor

Russian Hungergap

Starbor

Sutherland

Toscano

Western Front

Westlander

White Russian

Wild Garden Lacinato G

Wild Garden Lacinato N

Wild Garden Mix

Wild Red

Representation of varieties, based on crew evaluation, resulting from a principal component analysis of all crew quality

evaluation data. The position of each variety shows how it was evaluated for the di↵erent quality characteristics on

the previous page. For example, a variety that near or beyond the end of the color arrow would show particularly

intense color and a variety on the opposite side of the graph than the direction in which the color arrow points would

have poor color. This can be done for each of the quality characteristics. This graph also shows how varieties are

related to each other for the complete set of quality characteristics, and characteristics that contributed more to the

variation among varieties have greater weight in determining where varieties are positioned on the graph. This can

be helpful in making selections based on multiple characteristics at once. This graph helps us select which varieties

we send to the group of chefs we are working with for further quality evaluation

21

Kale%Variety Date Number%of%Chefs

Flavor%Intensity%%%%(1;9,%

9=high)

Buy%for%yourself%%(y/n)

Buy%for%your%restaurant%%

(y/n)How%would%you%serve%it? Description%of%unique%flavor%

characteristicsStrongest%point

Major%flaws

Starbor 7.14.15 6 4.33 0.17 0.33 braised0;0everything0;0.0;0blanched0;0cooked0;0.

average0;0well0balanced0;0very0mild0with0hearty0texture0and0grass0flavor0;0kind0of0spicy0;0vegetable0flavor,0mineral,0stringy0;0confusing,0mellow;0bitterness0is0nice

hearty0leaves0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0vegetable0flavor0;0bitter

bland0;0.0;0lacking0flavor0;0grainy0;0.0;0mellowness

Wild%Red 7.14.15 6 4.83 0.67 0.83

raw,0fresh0;0raw0w/0warm0vin0;0raw0or0in0a0bright0vinaigrette0or0puree0;0blanched0w/0lemon,0salt,0oil0;0raw0;0raw

very0peppery0;0mild0flavor;0could0be0paired0w/0anything0;0mild0with0slight0peppery0flavor0and0hint0of0lemon0and0sorrel0;0.0;0veg;0crispy;0pepper;0mineral0;0.

pepper0;0.0;0tenderness,0citrus0like0flavors0;0.0;0crisp,0loved0texture0and0mild0flavor0;0.

floppy0leaves0;0.0;0.0;0grainy0;0.0;0.

Redbor 7.14.15 6 5.00 0.50 0.67

braised0;0many0ways0;0braised0;0blanched0w/0lemon,0salt,0butter0;0cooked,0brasied;0dehydrated0;0raw

onion,0mellow0;0well0balanced0;0deep0collard0like0flavor0with0lemon0sorrel0finish0;0strong0bitterness,0tough0;0tough,0bland,0mild0aftertaste0;0crispness,0clean0flavors

.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0texture

looks0like0leaves0bruise0easily0;0.0;0.0;0bitter0;0gritty,0low0flavor0;0.

Red%Ursa 7.14.15 6 5.17 0.67 0.50

braised0;0braised0;0mildness,0would0make0it0good0for0juicing0or0smoothies0;0slow0cooked0w/0salt,0pepper,0butter0;0raw0;0raw

dandelion,0grassy0;0well0balanced0;0mild0flavor,0slight0bitter0finish0;0bitter0;0crispy,0bitter0mineral0flavor0;0.

.0;0.0;0.0;0texture0;0crispy0;0acidic0finish

grassy0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.

Sutherland 7.14.15 6 5.33 0.83 1.00

raw,0fresh;0braised0;0raw;0braised;0wilted0;0chopped0raw0as0a0salad0or0sandwich0garnish0;0raw0w/0aioli;0cooked0w/0butter0;0raw0;0.

Nash's%Red 7.14.15 6 5.33 0.17 0.50

raw;0braised0;0brasied0w/0meat,0bacon/pork0;0fried0or0baked0to0crisp0;0would0not0serve0;0raw0;0.

beet0green,0darker0;0crunchy,0bitter,0spicy0;0spicy0to0start,0bitter0to0finish0;0bland,0tastes0like0grass0;0fresh,0mild;0a0little0sweetness0;0.

beet0green0;0.0;0peppery0flavor0;0.0;0mild0;0.

.0;0.0;0.0;0flavorless0;0needs0more0sweetness0;0.

Kale%Variety Date Number%of%Chefs

Flavor%Intensity%%%%(1;9,%

9=high)

Buy%for%yourself%%(y/n)

Buy%for%your%restaurant%%

(y/n)How%would%you%serve%it? Description%of%unique%flavor%

characteristicsStrongest%point

Major%flaws

Wild%Garden%Lacinato 7.14.15 6 5.50 0.50 0.83

brasied0;0raw0;0braized0with0bacon0or0butter0;0raw0w/0vin;0cooked0w/0butter0;0raw0;0cooked

very0mild0;0great0crispy0texture;0mild0flavor0;0asringent0finish,0earthy,0deep0green0flavor0;0lemon,0hearty0texture0;0bland,0crispy,0not0bitter0;0spicy

hearty0leaves0;0broccoli0flavor0;0great0earthy0depth0of0flavor0;0texture0;0texture0;0.

kind0of0bland0;0.0;0bitterness0;0.0;0.0;0.

Meadowlark 7.14.15 6 5.50 0.67 0.67

braised0;0braised0;0.0;0raw0w/0aioli;0cooked0w/0butter0;0cooked0;0cooked,0brasied;0raw0in0salad

dandelion,0bitter0;0bland,0no0flavor0;0very0spinach0like0flavor0;0sweet,0great0texture0;0bland,0spicy,0sweet0;0balanced,0bitter,0sweet,0acidic

pretty0hearty0leaves0;0.0;0.0;0wellGrounded0;0spicy,0texture0;0this0is0pretty0great

bitter0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.0;0.

Nash's%Green 7.14.15 6 5.50 0.50 0.67

would0not0serve0;0soup/beans0;0braised0or0soup0with0white0beans0and0pork0;0raw,0julienned0;0raw0;0raw

great0balance0w/0bitter,0spice0;0earthy0mineral0flavor0;0mild0sweetness0;0vegetable,0bitter,0iron0;0cats;0tastes0like0a0cat0box0in0the0summer0;0.

.0;0balanced0;0.0;0

.0;0iron0;0acidic0finish

cats0;0.0;0.0;0grainy0;0.0;0.

Red%Ruffled 7.14.15 6 5.83 0.83 0.67

braised0;0raw,0brasied,0quickly0sauteed0;0.0;0blanched,0cooked0w/0butter0;0raw,0salad,0garnish0;0raw

dandelion0;0very0tender,0watery0w/0nice0smoky0finish0;0sweet0pea0like0flavor0;0bitter,0creamy0;0vegetable,0spicy,0smooth,0sweet0;0bright0finish,0lemony,0acidic

.0;0.0;0taste0and0sweetness0;0.0;0spicy,0texture0;0lemony

floppy0leaves0;0.0;0.0;0slimy0raw0mouthfeel0;0.0;0.

Black%Magic 7.14.15 6 6.33 0.50 0.50

raw,0fresh0;0brasied;0fried0;0braised0;0blanched,0cooked0w/0butter0;0cooked0;0cooked

seaweed,0blueberry0;0dry0;0peppery0and0slightly0sweet0comparatively0;0bitter,0spicy0;0bland,0bitter0aftertaste,0crispy0texture0;0spicy

flavor0;0very0dry0;0sweetness0;0.0;0texture0;0.

.0;0.0;0.0;0too0bitter0;0.0;0.

Hudson%Valley%Dino 7.14.15 6 6.67 0.50 0.83

raw,0fresh0;0brasied,0w/0spicy0peppers0;0think0sliced0and0raw0in0salad0;0raw,0julienned0;0raw0;0cooked

mild,0lemony0;0spicy,0bitter0;0grassy0with0almost0mushroom0like0earthiness0;0almost0creamy0texture0;0bitter,0minerally;0tangy0;0spicy

lemony0;0.0;0.0;0texture0;0mineral0;0.

.0;0too0spicy0;0.0;0.0;0too0bitter0;0.

Curly%Roja 12.8.15 3 3.33 0.67 0.67

raw0in0a0salad,0very0lightly0dressed0;0slightly0more0fiborous0version0of0Redbor.0Serve0braised0;0chips/salad

nutty0after0taste0;0not0as0unique0as0Redbor,0more0grassy0and0bitter0;0mild,0pretty0versital0

color0;0apperance0;0pretty0color

lack0of0flavor(can0be0stregnth)0;0NA0;0no0major0flaws

Kale%Variety Date Number%of%Chefs

Flavor%Intensity%%%%(1;9,%

9=high)

Buy%for%yourself%%(y/n)

Buy%for%your%restaurant%%

(y/n)How%would%you%serve%it? Description%of%unique%flavor%

characteristicsStrongest%point

Major%flaws

Redbor 12.8.15 3 4.33 0.67 1.00

briney0soup0with0cabbage0;0salads0;0fried,0roasted.0Dense0but0not0overly0fiborous0texture,0would0be0good0for0crispy0prep.0

great0flavor,0can0be0very0versatile/0veggie0flav0;0milder0;0earthy0carrot0like0sweetness0with0a0hint0of0red0beet

not0too0strong0or0flavorless0;0pretty0color0;0texture0mild0flavor

none0;0no0major0flaws0;0NA

Meadowlark 12.8.15 3 5.33 0.67 1.00

possibly0a0fried0garnish0for0soup0;0salad,0nice0texture0and0flavor0raw.00;0soup,0main0ingredient

citrus0and0buttery0;0green0and0fresh,0but0not0too0bitter,0nutty0finish0;0strong0kale0earthy0flavor

mildness0;0texture,0finish0;0strong0flavor

NA0;0NA0;0N/A

Westlander 12.8.15 3 6.33 0.67 0.67

cook0possibly0in0our0spin0art0dip0to0add0texture0and0body0;0braised0or0juiced0;0salads

mild0at0first0with0a0strong0lingering0flavor0;0green0and0bitter,0very0little0sweetness,0zinc0finish0;0good0kale0flavor0with0a0little0sweetness

after0taste0;0NA0;0sweet0after0taste

strong0flavor0;0bitter,0astringent0finish0;0N/A

Ripbor 12.8.15 3 6.67 0.67 1.00

brothy0soup0vegetarian0lasagna0;0braised0with0a0touch0of0sugar0or0stewed0to0over0come0the0bitter0flavor0;0many0uses

citrus0and0not0too0fiberous0;0grassy,0but0bitter.0Pleasing/mineral0and0copper0finish0;0great0balanced0flavor

strong0flavor0right0away0;0NA0;0balanced

NA0;0bitterness0;0N/A

Darkibor 12.8.15 3 7.00 0.67 0.67

raw0with0a0creamy0dip0maybe0a0lightly0dressed0stew0;0dense0texture,0would0stand0up0to0braising0or0roasting,0would0be0good0juiced0;0soup0or0broth,0not0a0main0ingredient

earthy0veggie0;0broccoli0flavor,0fresh0and0green.0Not0as0bitter0on0finish,0grassy,0minerally0;0intense0flavor,0slightly0bitter0aftertaste

crip0;0brocoli0flavor0;0intense0kale0flavor

none0;0slightly0metalic0finish0;0bitter0after0taste

Grand 5.44 0.54 0.67

Greens%VarietyOsaka0Purple 7.14.15 2 9 1 1 w/0cured0meats pure0mustard,0raw0cauliflower

Bau0Sin7.14.15 4 8 1 1 great0pairing0w/0anything0

acid0;0braised0;0raw

pure0mustard,0raw0cauliflower0;0spicy,0crisp,0mineral0;0so0spicy,0fresh0wasabi0taste

0;0spice0;0so0good,0mustard0spice

Ho0Mi0Z 7.14.15 2 7 1 1 raw,0cooked,0roaster spicy,0crisp,0mineral spicePhodos0Endive 7.14.15 2 7 1 1 raw mellow,0sweet0crisp0texture