Performance of Apple Cultivars in the 1995 NE-183 Regional Project Planting: II. Fruit Quality Characteristics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.2004.58.2.65Abstract
The fruit quality performance of 19 apple ( Malusx domesticaBorkh.) cultivars on Mailing.9 (M.9) rootstock was evaluated for four growing seasons at 13 locations across North America as part of the NE-183 Regional Project, “Multidisciplinary Evaluation of New Apple Cultivars.” At each site, trees were planted in 1995 in five randomized blocks with single-tree plots. Orchard management followed regional commercial recommendations for apple culture. ‘Fortune’ produced the largest fruit followed closely by ‘Shizuka’ and ‘Enterprise’. ‘Pristine’ were the smallest fruit. Fruit shape of six cultivars was characterized as conic based on length/diameter (L/D) ratio. Three cultivars, ‘Gala Supreme’, ‘NY 75414-1’, and ‘Pristine’, were best described as oblate based on L/D ratio. At harvest ‘Braeburn’ and ‘GoldRush’ had the highest flesh firmness. ‘Pristine’ and ‘Sunrise’, both summer cultivars, had the lowest flesh firmness and soluble solids concentration (SSC). ‘Gala Supreme’ and ‘GoldRush’ had the highest SSC and ‘GoldRush’ and ‘Pristine’ produced fruit with the highest titratable acidity (TA) levels. Among red skin cultivars, ‘Enterprise’ and ‘NY 75414-1’ stood out with more than 85% surface red overcolor. ‘Suncrisp’ had about 28% of the fruit surface covered with a reddish blush, which was significantly more than the other yellow skin cultivars. ‘Arlet’ and ‘Gala Supreme’ rated highest in skin surface russet formation. A stability analysis was performed for all variables measured. No cultivar proved perfectly stable, but ‘Enterprise’ and ‘Ginger Gold’ were stable for seven of nine variables. In contrast, ‘Honeycrisp’, ‘NY 75414-1’ and ‘Suncrisp’ were consistently unstable cultivars in all variables measured.
Downloads
Published
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The American Pomological Society and Editors cannot be held responsible for the views and opinions expressed by individual authors of articles published herein. This also applies to any supplemental materials residing on this website that are linked to these articles. The publication of advertisements does not constitute any endorsement of products by the American Pomological Society or Editors.