Appearance vs. Taste , all of which samples earned scores of 6.8 or higher for Harvest Dates of Top Scoring Varieties Commercial fruit breeding, production and marketing place top overall fresh-eating quality – placing them in the top 11% of Varieties achieving an overall score of 6.5 or higher in two or more tastings priority on the appearance of fruit. In the 53 fruit tastings, if samples tested! Harvest Periods are for Hickman, CA (Near Modesto) only the most attractive 50% of fruit samples had been selected for further evaluation (attractiveness scores of 3.6 or higher), Favorite Fruits MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER In the 53 tastings to date, 96 samples of named fruit varieties 5 10 15 20 25 samples of the following would have been rejected(!): Heavenly 5 10 15 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 White, Arctic Jay, Arctic Rose, Arctic Queen and Snow Queen have received scores of 7.0 or better (95th percentile). Among Flordaking white nectarines, Indian Free and Donut white peaches, Red this elite group 66 of the samples were either nectarines, cher- Flavor Delight Baron, Eva’s Pride, Halehaven and Veteran peaches, Double ries or plums/ hybrids. 43% of yellow nectarines, 57% of Arctic Star Delight, Flavortop, Juneglo, Harko and Zee Glo nectarines, Red white nectarines, 63% of ®, and 46% of cherries have Gold Dust Fuji and Spitzenburg apples, Blenheim and Canadian White earned overall scores of 6.08 or higher (in the top 1/3 of all Sugar May Blenheim , Comice pear, Emerald Beaut and Laroda overall scores). By earning a disproportionate share of the top Cot-N-Candy plums, plus Dapple Dandy, Flavor Supreme, Flavor Grenade, scores these fruit types have demonstrated broad appeal among Flavor Supreme Flavor Queen, Splash and Emerald Drop ® interspecific the fruit tasters. June Gold Juneglo How do the fruit characteristics of the “Top 100 Varieties” and the “Bottom 100 Varieties” Snow Queen compare to the average of all fruit tasting samples? Eva's Pride attractiveness firmness ripeness texture acid sugar flavor overall Arctic Glo Top 100 3.85 3.07 3.45 4.09 3.00 3.77 4.28 7.38 Blenheim Average of all samples 3.51 3.08 3.19 3.51 2.86 3.00 3.27 5.54 Independence Bottom 100 3.18 2.99 3.13 2.66 2.29 2.05 2.06 3.38 Honeykist Harko From the data we can see that all of the components with have pleasant mouth feel. Additionally, Attractiveness plays Donut the exception of Firmness played a role in the Overall scores. a role in our overall perception. It sets an expectation that is Craigs Crimson Varieties with high Overall scores were rated as having above either confirmed by the eating experience, or creates surprise Royal Rainier Double Delight average sugar and acid, which contribute to our perception when the result varies from the expectation. The Top 100 Utah Giant Snow Beauty Bing Mericrest of flavor, and above-average texture appeal, which, for most varieties rated according to our scoring system as Moderately Van Splash people, contributes to the overall enjoyment of fruit. Tast- to Very Attractive, Fully Ripe Firm to Fully Ripe Soft, with Southmoon Arctic Jay ers tend to allocate high scores to varieties that have complex texture that was described as Appealing, acid that rated as character, not just sweet or tart, crunchy or soft. While some Slightly Tart, Balanced. Sugar scores were rated as Slightly Arctic Rose individuals may key on those specific characteristics, in order Sweet to Very Sweet, and Flavor scores that were rated as Very Mid Pride to have broad appeal, varieties need to excite the palate and Good to Rich, Intense and Superior. Suncrest Halehaven 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER

Average Scores by Year Top 20 Varieties 1993-2014 acid sugar flavor overall acid sugar flavor overall Snow Queen Nectarine Dapple Dandy Pluot® Indian Free Peach Flavor Supreme Pluot® 1993 2.94 3.12 3.45 5.98 Arctic Jay white nectarine (Z) 2.73 4.00 4.79 8.23 1994 3.00 2.96 3.20 5.61 Flavor King Pluot® (Z) 3.10 3.90 4.40 8.10 1995 3.00 2.98 3.30 5.68 Snow Beauty peach (Z) 2.40 4.10 4.80 7.90 1996 3.06 2.95 3.30 5.59 Dapple Dandy Pluot® (Z) 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.90 1997 2.85 3.12 3.38 5.76 Indian Free white peach 3.20 3.80 4.30 7.90 1998 2.77 2.99 3.23 5.51 Snow Queen white nect. (Z) 3.13 3.87 4.50 7.87 1999 2.87 2.91 3.19 5.35 Arctic Sweet white nect. (Z) 2.51 3.88 4.43 7.84 2000 2.78 2.92 3.25 5.33 Flavortop nectarine (Z) 2.90 4.10 4.50 7.80 ® 2001 2.76 2.96 3.14 5.27 ® Craig’s Crimson Cherry Emerald Drop Pluot Arctic Star Nectarine Blenheim 2002 2.79 2.95 3.28 5.26 Flavor Supreme Pluot (Z) 3.30 3.70 4.50 7.70 2003 2.95 2.98 3.23 5.52 Van cherry 3.20 3.90 4.50 7.70 Notes Regarding Published Taste Scores and Rankings 2004 2.77 2.98 3.19 5.37 Arctic Star white nect. (Z) 2.73 3.78 4.38 7.65 1) It is not possible to assess definitively the fresh-eating quality of a fruit variety at one tasting. The flavor and sweetness of fruits depend on 2005 2.84 3.15 3.37 5.74 Harken peach 2.78 3.65 4.18 7.51 many variable factors. On the day of a tasting, some varieties may not be at peak quality. 2006 2.90 3.16 3.41 5.82 Arctic Supreme wht. pch. (Z) 3.50 3.50 4.30 7.50 2) Variation within a fruit sample can be a source of fluctuation in the scoring. To minimize this possibility, tasters are asked to taste two or more 2007 3.01 3.17 3.56 6.10 Heavenly White wht. nect. (Z) 3.10 3.70 4.10 7.50 samples from each fruit variety, and when they vary significantly in ripeness, to score the one that has the ripeness they would choose if they 2008 2.60 2.95 3.09 5.37 Liz’s Late nectarine (Z) 3.50 3.80 4.70 7.50 were picking it from their own tree. 2009 2.89 2.96 3.25 5.45 Craig’s Crimson cherry (Z) 2.10 3.50 4.30 7.50 3) One of the most significant variables in fruit judging is the difference in personal preferences among tasters. For example, tasters often dis- 2010 2.88 2.96 3.21 5.41 Emerald Drop Pluot® (Z) 3.00 3.75 4.43 7.46 agree on the appeal of sub acid fruit (fruit with little or no tartness). 2011 2.82 3.21 3.48 6.10 August Glo nectarine (Z) 3.10 3.78 4.14 7.42 4) Since different groups of tasters can have different taste preferences and different scoring tendencies, comparisons of scores from one tasting 2012 2.68 3.10 3.43 5.94 to another are not strictly valid. After many tastings, however, such variations in scoring should even out. 2013 2.78 3.23 3.50 6.09 O’Henry peach 3.00 3.80 4.20 7.40 Royal Rainier cherry (Z) 3.07 3.67 4.25 7.31 5) Obviously, the data in this report is preliminary and incomplete. The list of varieties tested is not comprehensive for all fruit types nor is it 2014 2.86 3.17 3.46 5.92 complete for any of the specific fruit types tested. The various summaries and lists are relative only to fruit varieties tested, not to the entire (Z) Indicates Zaiger Varieties All Years 2.86 3.01 3.28 5.55 spectrum of contemporary tree fruits. Weeping Santa Rosa Plum Black Jack Fig June Pride Peach Donut Peach

Master Fruit Taster™ Award Recipients Scoring System Nursery Industry California Rare Fruit Growers EXTERIOR ATTRACTIVENESS Almaden Valley Nursery Matt Lepow Andrew Mariani John Long 5 extraordinarily attractive 4 very attractive Armstrong Gardens Chris Greenwood Carol Scott Karen Payton 3 moderately attractive Armstrong Gardens Leah Greenwood Charles Allen Kit Long 2 not especially attractive Armstrong Gardens Liz Greenwood Choung Crowe Larry Hollis 1 ugly Bay Laurel Nursery Jim Patterson David Maislen Larry Shore FIRMNESS Bay Laurel Nursery Kristie Wells David Payton Jill Sabol 5 very hard Bay Laurel Nursery Marcia Guelff Debbie Sortomme Joe Sabol 4 hard Berkeley Hort. Nursery Ann Ralph Dick Potratz Lyle Overley 3 firm C&W Nursery Steve Campbell 2 soft Don Gholston Marv Daniels 1 very soft Cal Poly Pomona Shaun Overstreet Don Johnson Michael Zarkey CANGC Steve List Doreen Wendell Paul Guy RIPENESS Capital Nursery Ken Brizzi 5 too ripe, past peak quality Eph Konigsberg Pet Daniels 4 fully ripe, soft Certified Consulting Arborist Kurt Peacock George Quesada Phoebe Liebig 3 fully ripe, firm Dale Hardware MJ Penovich Gretchen Sanders Robert Scott 2 not quite fully ripe Dinuba Garden Center Jose Garcia Jerry Sortomme Thomas Pope 1 not ripe Donlen Nursery Darlene Donlen Jim Neitzel W. Karl Gross TEXTURE Donlen Nursery Elicia James Joan Maislen Nino Cupaiuolo 5 especially appealing East Bay Nursery Doris Roth John Crowe Paul Fisher 4 appealing East Bay Nursery Jose Iniguez 3 not notable one way or another Eisley’s Nursery Earlene Freeman 2 slightly disagreeable 1 very disagreeable Four Winds Growers Ed Laivo Radio Personalities Front Yard Nursery Kristie Lamb ACID KSRO Radio Beverly Tanem 5 too tart, sour Front Yard Nursery Sandy Hendricks KSRO Radio Bob Tanem 4 tart Hodges Nursery Ken Hodge KSTE Radio Fred Hoffman 3 slightly tart, balanced Johnson Garden Center Kelley Corbett KSTE Radio Jeanne Hoffman 2 not tart, but enjoyable Jon’s Nursery Jon Freeman-Wood 1 not tart, bland Mc Shane’s Nursery Steve Mcshane SUGAR Mid City Nursery Jake Mikolajic Master Gardeners 5 too sweet Regan Nursery Victoria Evanoff 4 very sweet Barbara Lauck Roger Reynolds Mary Walcher 3 slightly sweet Roger Reynolds Nikki Karimzad Bettina Gotti 2 not especially sweet 1 lacks sweetness, needs more Scenic Nursery Colette Hull Carole Maertweiler Sierra Nursery & Rock Janet Simkins John G. Ernsberger FLAVOR Sonoma Mission Gardens Lydia Constantini Mike Maertzweiler 5 rich, intense, superior Shelly Wardrop 4 very good Summer Winds Nursery Brian Hjelmstad 3 average The Greenery George Schumacher Tom Savio 2 somewhat lacking, mild The Greenery Jay Degraff William D. Hollins 1 absent or disagreeable The Greenery Patty Ekenberg Winnie Wu OVERALL Tree People Steve Hofvendahl Yvonne Savio 9 have never had better Univ Ca Coop Ext Nancy Garrison 8 excellent, outstanding Univ Ca Coop Ext. Riverside Tom Shea 7 very good, well above average Talk with people who know what it’s like to eat 6 good above average Urban Tree Farm Travis Woodard it fresh from the tree! Just click the Master Fruit 5 acceptable, average Vanwinden’s Pueblo Gdn. Peter Van Winden Taster symbol when you see it next to the name of 4 below å Western Sierra Nursery Robyn Holland a local retail nursery on www.davewilson.com 3 mediocre, barely worthwhile Western Sierra Nursery Mark Holland 2 poor, not suitable for fresh use West Side Nursery Chris Sullivan 1 atrocious Yamagami’s Nursery Carolyn Villa-Scott Yamagami’s Nursery Cindi Felde-Ricca 2014 Fruit Tasting Report © 2014 Dave Wilson Nursery 95323. Pluot®, Aprium® Yamagami’s Nursery Rus Scott & ® are registered trademarks of Zaiger Inc. Genetics, Modesto, CA.