www.goodfruit.com GOOD FRUIT GROWER JUNE 2014 29
By March, there was no difference in consumer pref-
erence for the appearance of the fruit. However, the WA
38 was signifi cantly preferred to the Honeycrisp for taste/
fl avor, texture, and for overall acceptance. WA 38 sam-
ples from Prosser and Quincy had hail marks, which may
account for differences in appearance ratings. These tests
confi rm the consistency of the quality of WA 38 through
storage. While the texture was rated similarly on all three
dates, the preference for WA 38's fl avor improved over
time from 58 consumers in October to more than 70
consumers in December and March.
For more information, check the website: www.tfrec.
wsu.edu/pages/breed/WA38.
•
Consumer preference:
WA 38 and Honeycrisp.
SOURCE: Kate Evans, WSU
Preference of 103 consumers who sampled WA 38 and
Honeycrisp in March.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall Appearance Taste/ Texture
¾EZSV
Number
of
consumers
Preference of 125 consumers who sampled WA 38
and Honeycrisp in October.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Overall Appearance Taste/ Texture
¾EZSV
WA 38 (regular storage)
Honeycrisp (regular storage + 1-MCP)
Number
of
consumers
Preference of 130 consumers who sampled WA 38 and
Honeycrisp in December.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Number
of
consumers
Overall Appearance Taste/ Texture
¾EZSV
