Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/79982
Table 1 Fruit quality comparison Instrumental fruit quality in 2009, 2010, and 2011 for WA 38, WA 2, and four commercial cultivars for fruit after 60 days in regular cold storage from two locations in central Washington. Firmness (pounds) Cultivar russet or bitter pit and no apparent sun- burn when grown in the apple-growing regions of central Washington. Greening in the stem cavity can occur some seasons, but this rarely detracts from the overall appearance and does not influence eating quality. Instrumental measurements of fruit WA 38 WA 2 Gala Fuji Braeburn Cripps Pink size, firmness, soluble solids (sweetness), and acidity (tartness) of WA 38 fruit com- pare favorably with standard cultivars. Empirical data from several locations and multiple harvests per locations are pre- sented for three representative seasons: 2009, 2010, and 2011 (Table 1). For fruit size, WA 38 is larger than Fuji, Braeburn, and WA 2, and considerably larger than Gala and Cripps Pink. For fruit firmness (pressure), WA 38 is intermediate: It is less firm than Cripps Pink, comparable to WA 2 and Braeburn, and considerably firmer than Fuji and Gala. Soluble solids of WA 38 are midrange, being lower than for Fuji, WA 2, and Cripps Pink, and comparable to Gala and Braeburn. WA 38 is more tart than Gala, WA 2 and Fuji, comparable to Braeburn, and less tart than Cripps Pink. Sensory evaluations of crispness, juiciness, and hardness show the exceptional eating WA 38 WA 2 Gala Fuji Braeburn Cripps Pink characteristics of WA 38. Observations in 2010 for fruit from several locations and harvest dates are representative of many years of tasting both fresh and stored fruit (Table 2). Sensory evaluation of hardness (the force needed to bite the apple) show WA 38 to be intermediate—less hard than WA 2, Braeburn, and Cripps Pink, and comparable to Fuji 18.3 17.9 17.8 17.3 18.9 17.6 18.3 18.0 15.0 16.7 17.3 15.4 19.1 21.1 17.9 21.8 22.1 17.9 18.6 16.1 17.5 18.0 18.9 18.4 18.7 15.6 15.5 16.7 15.8 15.9 18.0 18.6 17.9 20.2 19.0 18.1 Sugars (% soluble solids) 13.8 13.5 14.2 14.3 15.9 13.7 14.6 13.6 13.4 14.4 13.9 15.2 13.6 12.7 14.2 14.8 14.8 15.8 14.0 13.2 14.6 14.6 15.9 14.6 14.6 12.6 14.1 14.2 13.8 14.6 13.3 14.1 14.7 14.8 14.7 16.0 and Gala. WA 38 fruit is more crisp than Gala, Fuji, Braeburn, and Cripps Pink. Juiciness of WA 38 is impressive, being greater than WA 2, Gala, Fuji, Braeburn, and Cripps Pink. When sensory com- parisons are made with Honeycrisp, WA 38 is harder and has similar crispness and juiciness. Consumer evaluations Now is the time to order for spring planting! Acidity (mg/l malic acid) 0.60 0.62 0.61 0.40 0.52 0.44 0.47 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.38 0.66 0.63 0.65 0.92 0.72 0.73 Location B: north of Richland 0.73 0.61 0.60 0.53 0.52 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.55 0.57 0.53 0.88 0.74 0.71 Table 2 Sensory ratings Mean sensory ratings of fruit quality (hardness, crispness, and juiciness) for WA 38, WA 2, and four commercial culti- vars based on data from several harvest dates in 2010 from fresh and stored fruit from two locations in central Washington State. by Dr. Carolyn Ross, Department of Food Sci- ence and Nutrition, WSU, were carried out in 2009 with WA 38 fruit after four months in regular air stor- age, along with several other breeding selections and Fuji as a standard (all from the same storage regime). WA 38 was rated higher than Fuji for overall acceptance, as well for flavor intensity, crispness, firmness, and juiciness. WA 38 fruit from controlled-atmosphere storage and treated with MCP (1-methylcy- WA 38 WA 2 Gala Fuji Braeburn Cripps Pink Hardness Crispness Juiciness 3.3 3.9 3.0 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.5 2.9 2.6 3.3 2.3 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 2.7 Values are subjective ratings on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 extremely poor, 2 poor, 3 average, 4 very good, and 5 outstanding. clopropene) was presented to consumers in Spokane, Washington, in March, 2012, for a direct paired preference test with Gala (also CA stored and 1-MCP treated). The WA 38 fruit was preferred overall by consumers and significantly preferred for the attributes of appearance and texture. It is the breeder's goal that each new apple variety must have at least one, but hope- fully several, competitive advantages. A status quo variety, although new, will not be commercially successful for growers, packer-shippers, or consumers. Fortunately, WA 38 has several advantages for all three groups. First, for growers, WA 38 has a high packout thanks to 90 to 100% red color, large size, and absence of sunburn, russet, or bitter pit. It also matures mid-season. Second, for packer-shippers, WA 38 has the combination of high packout, leading to efficiencies in the warehouse, and good firmness and suitability for long-term storage. Third, for con- sumers, WA 38 combines excellent shelf-life, firmness, crispness, and juiciness with a full and well-balanced flavor, attractive appearance, and nonbrowning flesh. These advantages also extend to marketers and retailers. We can compare WA 38 with three of the highest-paying and highest-quality varieties A Growing Legacy Since 1816 Many of our varieties are going fast. Don't wait to order! Call to guarantee best selection from our 2013 crop. Stark Bro's Nurseries & Orchards Co. Shawn Debi Della 40 SEPTEMBER 2012 GOOD FRUIT GROWER www.goodfruit.com produced today. In comparison with Cripps Pink, WA 38 is more crisp, juicier, and larger, has nonbrowning flesh, and is harvested earlier before the danger of hard fall freezes. In comparison with Jazz, WA 38 is larger, has more red color and nonbrowning flesh, and is available to all Washington growers. WA 38 is generally comparable with Honeycrisp (one of its parents) in crispness, juiciness, and flavor but has greater color and firmness, non- browning flesh, a longer storage life, and does not develop bitter pit. The release strategy for WA 38 is still to be determined and will be reported in a later edition of Good Fruit Grower. The WSU Research Foundation has applied for a plant patent. Certified virus-tested mother trees are established at five Washington nurseries in preparation for propagation of commercial trees. The authors acknowledge the financial support of WSU and the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission. • 0.65 0.79 0.66 0.61 0.65 0.55 0.47 0.44 0.35 0.68 0.70 0.54 0.57 0.63 0.60 0.53 0.58 0.43 Fruit weight (lb) 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Location A: near Lake Chelan 0.81 0.58 0.64 0.55 0.65 0.36 0.34 0.42 0.36 0.60 0.63 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.45 0.37 0.43 0.28