Evaluation of Peach and Nectarine 

 Cultivars for Massachusetts Orchards 



Karen I. Hauschild 



Deparfment of Plant & Soil Sciences, University ofMcissachusetts 



As Massachusetts apple growers face in- 

 creasing competition from producers worldwide, 

 they are turning to retail sales to maintain or 

 enhance their economic viability. Additionally, 

 the popularity of new apple cultivars has con- 

 tributed to the decline in market share for Mcin- 

 tosh, the major variety. 



As an alternative to apples, Western Mas- 

 sachusetts growers have been especially suc- 

 cessful with peaches. They rarely lose a crop to 

 cold or frost injury, and have a clientele base 

 that is looking for local, tree-ripened fruit. Cen- 

 tral and Eastern Massachusetts retail growers 

 also grow peaches, but these areas have been 

 more likely to experience partial or full crop 

 losses due to spring frosts. These growers, then, 

 are constantly searching for hardier cultivars. 



For most retail growers, the decision to grow 

 or add additional peaches is an easy one. Choos- 

 ing cultivars is more difficult. In an effort to 

 assist Massachusetts growers with cultivar 

 choices, a cultivar trial was established at the 

 University of Massachusetts Horticultural Re- 

 search Center (HRC), included Flower bud har- 

 diness, fruit size, harvest season, and fruit qual- 

 ity have been evaluated. 



The first trees in the cultivar evaluation 

 trial were planted in 1990, and cultivars were 

 added in 1998, 1994, and 1996. Trees were pur- 

 chased from commercial nurseries and planted 

 in a 10' X 20' spacing. Four-tree plots of each 

 cultivar were used. Trees were mananged as 

 in commercial plantings. 



Results 



Cultivars included in the trial are listed in 

 Table 1 was evaluated following a test winter 

 of 1993-4 during which a low of -15EF was re- 

 corded at Quabbin Reservoir (approx. 1.5 miles 



north of the HRC). On 4 May 1994, 1 evaluated 

 bloom visually on all trees that were planted in 

 1990. I estimated bud survival on the top and 

 bottom (below 4 feet) half of each tree. Table 2 

 lists cultivars that averaged more than 30% bud 

 survival. From these results it appears that 

 Madison has relatively hardy flower buds. Al- 

 though most of the trees in the 1990 planting 

 began fruiting in 1991 or 1992, data recorded 

 from 1991-96 is incomplete. Fruit quality was 

 evaluated yearly, and yield data is available for 

 several cultivars during this time, however 



In 1997, at least one 10-fruit sample per cul- 

 tivar (except the 1996 planting) was weighed, 

 measured, and judged for quality. Table 3 lists 

 the most promising cultivars based on size, as 

 well as average weight, average size, and har- 

 vest date. 



Recommendations 



Of the yellow-fleshed cultivars that met the 

 three-inch size criterion determined by grow- 

 ers, eight also met the criteria for quality: 

 Bounty, Encore, Fayette, Flavorcrest, 

 JimDandee, Madison, Salem, and Sentry. Al- 

 though the size and quality assessments of both 

 Fayette and Encore were very favorable, the har- 

 vest timings of both cultivars very likely are 

 too late for the majority of growers whose main 

 crop is apples. Summer Pearl was the only 

 white-fleshed peach that met size and quality 

 criteria. It is 75% -i- red to dark red; firm, juicy, 

 with sweet, melting flesh. Of the nectarines 

 evaluated, Earliscarlet and Fantasia have both 

 consistently maintained heavy yields, good size, 

 excellent color and exceptional fruit quality. 



Of the cultivars that met the size criteron, 

 but did not meet quality standards in 1997, sev- 

 eral have shown promise in other years: 



12 



Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 3), Summer, 1997 



