Promising New Apple Cuitivars for 1994 



Duane W. Greene and Wesley R. Autio 



Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts 



Diiring the past three seasons, we have 

 evaluated over 100 new apple cuitivars. Some 

 of these cuitivars are newly named and are 

 available currently, while others are only num- 

 bered selections and are not available widely. 

 Last year we reported on all cuitivars evaluated 

 in 1992 [Fruit Notes 58(2):4-14]. This year we 

 are reporting only on those cxiltivars that ap- 

 pear to have promise in wholesale operations or 

 fit into a special slot in retail sales operations. 



Fruit evaluation began the first week in 

 July and ended the fourth week in October. 

 Where sufficient fi*uit were available, multiple 

 harvests were made. Fruit were evaluated both 

 objectively and subjectively (similar to the ways 

 reported last year). Ten fruit were harvested 

 fi"om each cultivar one to five times at weekly 

 intervals, and flesh firmness, percent red color 

 (or percent red cheek if the apple was yellow), 

 diameter, and weight were assessed. Fruit also 

 were cut and dipped into iodine solution and 

 starch was evaluated using a generic starch 

 chart developed at Cornell University. The 

 starch chart allowed us to assess taste at times 

 when the fi-uit were ripening, and it also gave us 

 an idea when fruit should be harvested for 

 storage. Fruit were evaluated for visual and 

 sensory characteristics using a specially de- 

 signed sheet with subjective rating scales simi- 

 lar to the one described last year. Mcintosh was 

 evaluated at four different times and included 

 in this report as a commercial cultivar check. 



The Most Promising 

 New Apple Cuitivars 



Below are listed what we consider to be the 

 most promising new cuitivars for New England. 

 They appear in alphabetical order. 



was introduced in 1983. Arlet was an outstand- 

 ing apple again this year even though it has 

 several major faults: surface russetting, 

 preharvest drop, and a greasy feel when fi*uit 

 ripen. Individuals hking a tart apple may select 

 Arlet over Gala, which is harvested in the same 

 season. It is conic, has yellowish white flesh, 

 and a finiity pineapple taste. Firmness is main- 

 tained over a long period of time. If a stop-drop 

 chemical is appUed, drop can be controlled and 

 firaiit will develop a very attractive cardinal red 

 color without losing much firmness. The deep 

 red color more-or-less masks the russet even 

 though as much as 25% of the surface can be 

 russetted. It is one of the best storing apples 

 that was evaluated. Grease that developed on 

 the surface can be washed off easily. 



Ginger Gold 



Ginger Gold emerged as the best early yel- 

 low apple and one of the top apples evaluated. It 

 is a large apple that has a very attractive waxy 

 lemon yellow color and no apparent russet. 

 Ginger Gold can be picked over a long period. 

 Fruit had acceptable flavor and good appear- 

 ance on August 24, in late Paulared season. 

 Three weeks later the starch rating was only 

 3.3, with firmness nearly 20 pounds, and fruit 

 were still crisp. Ginger Grold has a pleasant but 

 weak apple flavor. Fruit were harvested weekly 

 and placed in cold storage at four different times 

 starting on August 24. Two months later fruit 

 fi-om all harvest dates tasted mealy and unap- 

 pealing and firmness had dropped to 13.5 

 fKJunds. Ginger Gold should not be considered a 

 long storing apple; however, it is an outstanding 

 apple at harvest and afl;er a short period of 

 storage. 



Arlet Golden Glory 



This apple originated in Switzerland and This limb sport ofSmoothee produces a very 



Fruit Notes, Spring, 1994 



13 



