Technical and Scientific Report of Bursa Peach

Home , Bursa Province, Kumlu, Mudanya, Orhaneli, Orhangazi

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC REPORT OF BURSA PEACH

BURSA – 2018

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned Table of content

1. Historical Background of Bursa Peach ...... 6 2. Sensory, physical and chemical properties of Bursa Peach ...... 12 2.1. Identification of the sample...... 12 2.2. Frequency and Collection Conditions ...... 13 2.3. Analysis Results ...... 13 2.3.1. Sensorial Analysis ...... 13 2.3.2. Physical and Chemical Analysis ...... 20 3. LINK with the AREA ...... 28 3.1. Reputation of the Bursa Peach ...... 28 3.2. Natural factors ...... 29 4. DELIMITATION of the AREA ...... 32 5. PRODUCER’S SURVEY RESULTS ...... 35 ANNEXES ...... 58 Annex 1 Codes of Bursa Peach Samples ...... 58 Annex 2. Statistical Results ...... 60 Annex 3. Maps ...... 63

TABLES

Table 1. Some Publications on the History of Bursa Peach ...... 6 Table 2. Sensorial Analysis Criteria ...... 15 Table 3. Minimum Required Sensorial Points ...... 19 Table 4. Analysis Equipment ...... 21 Table 5. Averages and Value Interval of Physical Analysis Results ...... 27 Table 6. Averages and Value Interval of Chemical Analysis Results ...... 27 Table 7. Soil and Climate Comparison between Regions ...... 30 Table 8. Wind Speed According to Provinces ...... 30 Table 9. Meteorological Stations and Data Set Interval ...... 32 Table 10. Coordinates and Values ...... 33 Table 11. Villages in the Geographical Limits of Bursa Peach ...... 34 Table 12. Villages, Average Orchard Size and Number of Trees ...... 35 Table 13. Number of Varieties in One Orchard ...... 35 Table 14. Name of the Varieties of Peach and Nectarines ...... 36 Table 15. Reason of Variety Choice ...... 37 Table 16. Peach Orchard Groups (da) ...... 38 Table 17. Yield Groups (kg/tree) ...... 38

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned Table 18. Mineral Fertilizer Application Rate, Interval and Amount ...... 39 Table 19. Fertilizer Implementation Months ...... 40 Table 20. Foliar Fertilizer Application Rate, Interval and Amount ...... 41 Table 21. Content of Mineral Fertilizer ...... 42 Table 22. Application Month of Manure ...... 42 Table 23. Apllication Interval of Manure ...... 43 Table 24. Type of Manure ...... 43 Table 25. Reason of Performing Soil and Foliar Analysis ...... 44 Table 26. Different Fertilizing Methods ...... 45 Table 27. Peach Diseases, Symptoms and Effect on the Yield ...... 45 Table 28. Chemical Usage for Plant Protection ...... 46 Table 29. Active Substance of the Chemical ...... 46 Table 30. Chemical Application Interval ...... 47 Table 31. Chemical Application Month ...... 47 Table 32. Commercial Name and Active substance of the Herbicides...... 48 Table 33. Application Interval of Herbicides ...... 48 Table 34. Application Month of the Herbicides ...... 49 Table 35. Self-evaluation of Peach Producers ...... 51 Table 36. Quality Perception of Producers; ...... 51 Table 37. Reasons of Specific Quality ...... 52 Table 38. Natural Factors that Effects Product Quality ...... 53 Table 39. Source of traditional knowledge ...... 54 Table 40. Orchard History ...... 54 Table 41. Peach Harvest Period and Yield According to Varieties...... 55 Table 42. Post Harvest Activities ...... 55 Table 43. Irrigation Efficiency Scale ...... 57 Table 44. Composition of Peach Orchards ...... 57

PHOTOS

Photo 1. Letter of Ahmed Cevdet Pasha ...... 8 Photo 2. Record of 3 box of peach has been send from Bursa to Istanbul...... 9 Photo 3. Some Pictures from peach producers ...... 11 Photo 4. Sensorial Analysis ...... 15

GRAPHS

Graph 1. Overall Score of Sensorial Analysis according to Varieties - Bursa ...... 16 Graph 2. Overall Score of Sensorial Analysis according to Varieties - Çanakkale ...... 16 Graph 3. Taste Comparison between Bursa and Çanakkale ...... 17 Graph 4. Aroma Comparison between Bursa and Çanakkale ...... 17 Graph 5. Comparative Sensorial Analysis Results for J.H. Hale ...... 18 Graph 6. Comparative Sensorial Analysis Results for Glohaven ...... 18 Graph 7. Comparative Sensorial Analysis Results for Cresthaven ...... 19 Graph 8. J.H. Hale Skin and Flesh Colour ...... 21 Graph 9. Glohaven Skin and Flesh Colour ...... 22

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned Graph 10. Cresthaven Skin and Flesh Colour ...... 22 Graph 11. Phenolic Compounds according to Varieties ...... 23 Graph 12. Antioxidant Value (FRAP) ...... 23 Graph 13. Antioksidant Value (DPPH) ...... 24 Graph 14. Brix Value ...... 24 Graph 15. pH Value ...... 25 Graph 16. Firmness Value ...... 25 Graph 17. Number of Fruits in 1 kg ...... 26 Graph 18. Distribution of Peach Varieties...... 37 Graph 19. Mineral Fertilizer Usage ...... 38 Graph 20. Foliar Fertilizer Usage ...... 41 Graph 21. Manure Usage...... 42 Graph 22. Soil Analysis ...... 43 Graph 23. Foliar Analysis ...... 43 Graph 24. Different Fertilizing Methods ...... 44 Graph 25. Herbicide Usage ...... 48 Graph 26. Biological Methods Usage ...... 49 Graph 27. Advisory Service Usage ...... 50 Graph 28. Knowledge about Good Agricultural Practices ...... 50 Graph 29. Quality of the Product ...... 52 Graph 30. Traditational Knowledge ...... 53 Graph 31. Existence of Irrigation System ...... 56 Graph 32. Type of Irrigation System ...... 56 Graph 33. Quality of Irrigation Water ...... 57

MAPS

Map 1. Peach Production Area of Turkey (da) - 2016 ...... 29 Map 2. Map of Bursa Peach Geographical Indication Area ...... 34 Map 3. Map of Turkey with Provinces ...... 63 Map 4. Main Soil Group Map of Turkey...... 63 Map 5. Turkish Climate Map ...... 64 Map 6. Wind Map of Turkey ...... 64 Map 7. Physical map of Bursa...... 65 Map 8. Great Soil Groups of Bursa ...... 66 Map 9. Elevation Map of Bursa ...... 67 Map 10. Aspect Map of Bursa ...... 68 Map 11. Slope Map of Bursa ...... 69 Map 12. Average Maximum Temperature Map of Bursa ...... 70 Map 13. Average Minimum Temperature of Bursa ...... 71 Map 14. Average Soil Temperature (20 cm) Map of Bursa ...... 72 Map 15. Average Wind Speed Map of Bursa ...... 73 Map 16. Main Wind Direction of Bursa ...... 74

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned ANNEXES

Annex 1 Codes of Bursa Peach Samples ...... 58 Annex 2. Statistical Results ...... 60 Annex 3. Maps ...... 63

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

1. Historical Background of Bursa Peach

The history of Bursa peach dates back to very old times. In a study, records dating back to 1848 and 1881 were found in the Ottoman archives. These records show that Bursa peach was famous for being delicious and it was sent to family members as well as the palace as a gift. In the Ottoman food policy, the Ottoman Palace kitchen called “matbah-ı amire” in the capital had a significant place. Products that will be bought for the kitchen were picked carefully and expenses were kept in the accounting records. Products sent from Bursa to the palace were always the best ones. After all, places that had the highest quality production were chosen in purchases made for the palace kitchen by the national government. The fact that palace was the favorite place in the city and the elites lived there necessitated to meet the food need in a regular, high-quality and continuous manner and with priority (Çiftçi, 2004).

In studies related to the history of Bursa, it is frequently expressed that peach production was widely spread in Bursa and Turkey’s peach export was only made from Bursa for long years. Peach is a product that identifies with Bursa. According to the published literature on this subject, the climate in Bursa creates a suitable environment for peach production. The production of Hale variety that is very well adapted to Bursa started in a widespread manner especially as of 1934 (Table 1).

Table 1 lists the different publications dealing with the History of Bursa Peach.

Table 1. Some Publications on the History of Bursa Peach

Type of Date Reference Author/s Content Publication

Ottoman Archives A letter reported that three boxes of Official No:A.}M... / 7 - 17 - 0 1848 Unknown peaches were sent to Istanbul from Letter Date: Hijri Calender Bursa. 29-12-1265 Ottoman Archives. A letter to the wife of Ahmed Cevdet No: Y..EE.. / 142 - 119 - 0 Ahmed Cevdet Pasha, reported that he sent two 1881 Letter Date : Hijri Calendar Pasha baskets of Bursa's famous peach as a 15-10-1298 - gift. Hale peach has been begun to Türkün Journal, Peach 1936 Journal Adnan Mete widespread since 1934. It has a big Varieties in Bursa, 7:48 -51 sized and late harvested variety. 1/3 of Turkish peach has been producing in Bursa province. The most common variety is Hale. Peach and Grape Production Consumers prefer this variety. It has 1968 Newspaper of Bursa, Turkish Economics Arslan Karabağlı been exported only 34 tones. Gazette, 15 August 1968 Because there was no refrigerated trucks or containers. In this period all exported peaches were origin of Bursa Socio-Economic Structure of There were 2,440,100 peach trees 1990 Book Bursa Agriculture 1989, Erkan Rehber and 89,110 tons of peach production Uludag University, in Bursa in 1988.

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Type of Date Reference Author/s Content Publication

Department of Agricultural Economics, (1): 22. Socio-Economic Structure of Bursa Agriculture 1993, There were 2,354,010 peach trees 1993 Book Uludag University, Erkan Rehber and 82,994 tons of peach production Department of Agricultural in Bursa in 1991. Economics, pp. 25-26. Socio-Economic Structure of Bursa Agriculture 1993, There were 2,445,171 peach trees 1995 Book Uludağ University, Erkan Rehber and 82,079 tons of peach production Department of Agricultural in Bursa in 1993. Economics, p: 25-26 Bursa canning industry is a very Bursa and Merinos in the important for our country. High Foundation Years of the quality fruits and vegetables are Metin Altun, Republic, T.C. Uludag producing in Bursa. In 1929, 18,000 Hasan Ünlü and 2001 Book University Atatürk Principles boxes of peach composts and 5000 Fatma and Revolution History boxes of marmalade were made, it Kesiriklioğlu Application and Research enjoyed by consumers and sold all Center, (3): 48. over them. In 1931, 20,000 boxes of peach compost has been produced. Climatic conditions and water comes Historical records of the from Uludag mountain allows the culinary culture of Bursa, grow lots of different varieties, high Bursa Folk Culture: Uludag Symposium quality and productive plants in the 2002 University I. Bursa Folk Yusuf Oğuzoğlu Proceedings plains of Bursa. 500 years ago, Culture Symposium, 4 – 6 historical records shows that peach April 2002, Proceedings, (1): was growing and exporting from 81 – 85. Bursa plains. Comparison between West Trace Traditional Cuisine Culture and Bursa Cuisine Strawberry, peach, plum, quince and Symposium Culture, Bursa Folk Culture: sour cherry were consuming fresh 2005 İlknur Halil Proceedings Uludag University II. Bursa and they were prepared as canned to Folk Culture Symposium, 20- consume in winter. 22 October 2005, Proceedings, (3): 1052-1053. It is stated that one of the most From Prusa to Bursa, Silk Akif Koçyiğit important values of the Bursa City of Civilization, Bursa 2008 Book (Project province Bursa is the Bursa peach Municipality Publications, Coordinator) that comes from the past to the 4th Edition, Istanbul. present day. The book contains information and Story of Nilüfer; Oral History memories about Bursa history of old and Research Project of Onur Ulutaş people. 2014 Book Nilüfer Municipality, (Project They stated that peach is one of the September 2014, Bursa, p. Coordinator) most important product of Bursa and 5-304. it was exported.

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Photo 1. Letter of Ahmed Cevdet Pasha

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Photo 2. Record of 3 box of peach has been send from Bursa to Istanbul

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Photo 3. Some Pictures from peach producers

2. Sensory, physical and chemical properties of Bursa Peach

Sensory, physical and chemical analyses were performed in order to reveal the unique properties of Bursa peach and its differences from peaches produced in other cities. Nearly 20% of peach production in Turkey is made in Bursa followed by İzmir and Çanakkale approximately 11% each. The city of İzmir differs from Bursa in terms of both climate and soil structure, and the harvest season in İzmir is earlier than Bursa. When the varieties of Bursa peach arrive at the market, the same varieties in İzmir cannot be found in the market. Therefore, Çanakkale peach, which is more similar in terms of climate and soil structure and can be found in the market within similar periods, was used in comparing the sensory, physical and chemical properties. Soil properties and climate differences were provided in the “Natural factors” section of the study. 2.1. Identification of the sample

7 sensorial analysis panels were organized by collecting 53 samples in 2016. Since there are more than one peach varieties in Bursa, samples for the same variety were collected from orchards in two different villages and the villages from which the samples were collected were not changed so as to reveal the difference between varieties. Peach samples were collected from Barakfakih and Narlıdere villages, which are the two oldest peach production areas in Bursa, and variety of the collected peach was different each time according to the harvest period.

Each sample was assigned a certain code. The following rules were applied while determining sample codes.

The name and surname of the producer from whom the sample was obtained formed the basis of the coding system. The first letter of the producer’s name and the first and last letters of the producer’s surname were used as the “name code”.

For example; for the sample obtained from the producer called Haluk Kürel, the code was HKL.

The first and last letters of the variety name were used in determining the codes for varieties.

For example; the code for Cresthaven was determined as CN.

Sample collection date was also included in the sample codes.

Code number designation: name code/ date (day/month)

For example; HKL-CN-15/06

Samples were also collected from outside of Bursa for analysis. At this stage it was decided to obtain samples from Çanakkale, which is the most similar city to Bursa in terms of climate and soil structure and has a very close harvest season to Bursa peach. The same coding method was used for samples obtained from outside of Bursa.

Collected samples and their codes are provided in the Annexes (Annex 1).

2.2. Frequency and Collection Conditions

All samples were collected during the time period when producers performed harvest. All collected samples were constituted by completely ripe peaches ready for eating. For both cities, samples were collected from different varieties.

The average weight of each sample was 5 kg.

Collected peaches were stored at +4 °C in the cold storage room in the Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture in Uludağ University. Collected samples were transferred from the cold storage room to the tasting panel and the laboratory so as to be analyzed latest within 2 days.

After the sensory panel, products were sent to the lab within the same day for chemical and physical analyses. Physical and chemical analyses were also performed in the laboratories of Food Engineering Department in Uludağ University Faculty of Agriculture. Sensory color and taste analyses were also performed by physical and chemical analysis (measurement) and hence, sensorial analysis results were confirmed.

All sensory, physical and chemical analyses were performed as a “blind analysis” only using the codes. 2.3. Analysis Results 2.3.1. Sensorial Analysis

The following characteristics were evaluated within the scope of sensorial analysis;

Sensorial analysis

 Skin color  Flesh color  Separation of stone from flesh  Stone slot color  Separation of skin from flesh  Smell  Sweetness  Floury  Firmness  Juiciness  Aroma

Sensorial analyses were performed in the Food Engineering Department in Uludağ University Department of Agriculture by the Faculty members. 5 panelists participated in the sensorial analysis and 7 different tasting panels were organized between the dates 15 June 2016 - 5 August 2016 with the samples collected from Bursa and Çanakkale during the harvest season.

Photo 4. Sensorial Analysis

Samples that will be tasted were taken out of the cold storage room 2-3 hours before the panel depending on the air temperature and brought to room temperature.

5-point hedonic assessment scale was used in sensorial analyses. The highest and lowest scores in 5- point hedonic scale were 5 and 1, respectively according to the below-defined status of the characteristic. Quality features of the product used in sensorial analysis are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Sensorial Analysis Criteria

(0) weak → (5) powerful Sensory Features Description Skin colour Light → dark Flesh colour Light → dark Separation of stone from flesh Hard → easy Stone slot colour White → red Separation of skin from flesh Hard → easy Smell Odourless → Intense peach odour Sweetness Not sweet → very sweet Floury Floury → not floury Firmness Soft → hard juiciness Dry and fibrous → Juicy Aroma Very low → very intense

Panel assessment mean scores of 9 peach varieties included in the evaluation from Bursa according to sensorial analysis results are shown in Graph 1. Panel assessment mean scores of 4 peach varieties included in the evaluation from Çanakkale are shown in Graph 2.

Overall Acceptance - Bursa

Royal Glory

Jarselet

Royal Gem

Dixired

Elegant Lady

Şentürk

Glohaven

Cresthaven

J.H. Hale

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00 4,50

Graph 1. Overall Score of Sensorial Analysis according to Varieties - Bursa

Overall Acceptance - Canakkale

Elegant Lady

Glohaven

J.H. Hale

Cresthaven

3,00 3,10 3,20 3,30 3,40 3,50 3,60 3,70 3,80 3,90

Graph 2. Overall Score of Sensorial Analysis according to Varieties - Çanakkale

According to assessment results, favorite varieties from the sensory aspect were respectively J.H. Hale, Cresthaven and Glohaven in Bursa and Cresthaven, J.H. Hale and Glohaven in Çanakkale.

Taste and aroma are the two most important sensory criteria. Analyzing these two criteria in terms of cities and varieties, the results in Graph 3 and Graph 4 were obtained.

Taste 5,00 4,45 4,50 4,00 3,85 3,90 4,00 3,40 3,50 3,15 2,85 3,00 3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven Elegant Lady

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 3. Taste Comparison between Bursa and Çanakkale

Aroma 4,50 4,25 3,90 4,00 3,75 3,55 3,50 3,50 3,20 3,00 2,80 2,80 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven Elegant Lady

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 4. Aroma Comparison between Bursa and Çanakkale

It is observed that J.H. Hale variety cultivated in Bursa is significantly different than the same variety cultivated in Çanakkale in terms of taste and aroma. A similar difference can also be seen in Cresthaven and Glohaven varieties, although the difference between scores is not as significant as in J.H. variety. Elegant Lady variety was not included in the evaluation due to its lowest taste and aroma scores.

J.H. Hale

Skin Colour 5,00 Aroma Flesh Colour 4,00 3,00 Juiciness 2,00 Separation of kernel 1,00 0,00 Firmness Colour of kernel gap

Floury Separation of Skin

Taste Smell

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 5. Comparative Sensorial Analysis Results for J.H. Hale

Sensorial analysis results were evaluated as a whole according to varieties and cities. Accordingly, considering the J.H. Hale variety in graph 5, it is apparent that there is a significant difference in all evaluations except for the skin color.

Glohaven Skin Colour 5,00 Aroma Flesh Colour 4,00 3,00 Juiciness 2,00 Separation of kernel 1,00 0,00 Firmness Colour of kernel gap

Floury Separation of Skin

Taste Smell

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 6. Comparative Sensorial Analysis Results for Glohaven

Glohaven variety cultivated in Bursa differs from the same variety cultivated in Çanakkale especially in terms of taste and juiciness.

Cresthaven Skin Colour 5,00 Aroma Flesh Colour 4,00 3,00 Juiciness 2,00 Separation of kernel 1,00 0,00 Firmness Colour of kernel gap

Floury Separation of Skin

Taste Smell

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 7. Comparative Sensorial Analysis Results for Cresthaven

The most important difference between Cresthaven varieties cultivated in Bursa and Çanakkale is the skin color. Skin color of the Cresthaven variety cultivated in Bursa is more lighter than the one cultivated in Çanakkale. Cresthaven variety cultivated in Bursa is slightly different from the products in Çanakkale from the sensory aspect in terms of aroma, smell and juiciness. The most appropriate varieties for geographical indication are J.H. Hale and Glohaven. Minimum scores required from these two varieties according to the 5-point hedonic scale in the sensory evaluation are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Minimum Required Sensorial Points

Sensorial Evaluation J.H. Hale Glohaven Skin Colour 3,50 3,50 Flesh Colour 4,00 3,50 Separation of kernel 4,50 4,00 Colour of kernel gap 4,50 3,50 Separation of Skin 3,00 2,50 Smell 4,00 3,50 Taste 4,00 3,50 Floury 4,00 3,00 Firmness 3,50 3,50 Juiciness 4,00 4,00 Aroma 4,00 3,50

Sensory definition of J.H. Hale is as follows; medium-sized, pubescent, firm, sweet, juicy peach, whose stone can be easily and completely separated from the flesh, with yellow skin blushed with red and yellow flesh.

Sensory definition of Glohaven is as follows; medium-sized, slightly pubescent, medium firm, sweet, juicy peach, whose stone can be separated from the flesh, with yellow skin blushed with light red and yellow flesh.

2.3.2. Physical and Chemical Analysis

The following analyses were made for physical and chemical analysis;

Physical analaysis;

 Number of fruits in 1 kg  Firmness (kg/cm2)  L – skin  a – skin  b – skin  L – flesh  a – flesh  b – flesh Chemical analysis;

 Brix  pH  Antioxidant Values (FRAP and DPPH methods)  Total Phenolic Compounds

Physical colour analysis was done with Hunter Lab. Hunter L, a and b colour means. L;maximum 100 and minimum 0. The maximum for L is 100 which be a perfect reflecting diffuser – towards to white. The minimum for L would be zero which would be black. The “a” and “b” values there is no specific numerical limits.

L = 100 is white

L = 0 is black

Positive (+) a is red

Negative (-) a is green

Positive (+) b is yellow

Negative (-) b is blue

In antioxidant assay, Radical Quenching Capacity Method (diphenyl-1-picrihydrazyl-DPPH) and Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power – FRAP methods were applied. Equitpments that are used in the analysis has been shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Analysis Equipment

Analysis Equipment Miniscan EZ4500L model Colour HunterLab colorimeter Sartorius Basic PB-11 pH meter Model Laboratory pH meter. Refractometer RA-500 model KEM trademark digital refractometer Penetrometer 10 mm diameter hand penetrometer Total Phenolic Compounds Shimatzu UV-1208 model visible spectrophotometer FRAP Shimatzu UV-1208 model visible spectrophotometer DPPH Shimatzu UV-1208 model visible spectrophotometer

Physical and chemical analysis results according to varieties and cities are shown in the graphs below.

J.H. Hale

L - skin 80,00 Bursa 60,00 b - flesh a- skin 40,00 Çanakkale 20,00

0,00

a - flesh b- skin

L - flesh

Graph 8. J.H. Hale Skin and Flesh Colour

Glohaven

L - skin 80,00 70,00 60,00 50,00 Bursa b - flesh 40,00 a- skin 30,00 20,00 Çanakkale 10,00 0,00

a - flesh b- skin

L - flesh

Graph 9. Glohaven Skin and Flesh Colour

Cresthaven

L - skin 80,00

60,00 Bursa b - flesh 40,00 a- skin

20,00 Çanakkale

0,00

a - flesh b- skin

L - flesh

Graph 10. Cresthaven Skin and Flesh Colour

Chemical analysis results according to varieties and cities are shown in the graphs below.

Phenolic Compounds 700,00

600,00

500,00

400,00

300,00

200,00

100,00

0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 11. Phenolic Compounds according to Varieties

FRAP 10,00 9,00 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 12. Antioxidant Value (FRAP)

DPPH 16,00 14,00 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 13. Antioksidant Value (DPPH)

Brix 16,00 14,00 12,00 10,00 8,00 6,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 14. Brix Value

pH 3,65 3,60 3,55 3,50 3,45 3,40 3,35 3,30 3,25 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 15. pH Value

Firmness 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 16. Firmness Value

1 Kg'daki Meyve Adedi 5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00 J.H. Hale Cresthaven Glohaven

Bursa Çanakkale

Graph 17. Number of Fruits in 1 kg

All chemical analysis results were evaluated statistically and it was assessed if the difference between two cities was significant. Statistical analysis results are provided in Annex 2.

As a result of the statistical evaluations;

For J.H. Hale variety;

 Antioxidant values (DPPH and FRAP)  Total Phenolic Compounds  Brix values were statistically different than the same variety cultivated in Çanakkale.

For Glohaven variety;

 Antioxidant (FRAP)  Total Phenolic Compounds  Firmness  Size values were statistically different than the same variety cultivated in Çanakkale.

For Cresthaven variety;

 Antioxidant (DPPH and FRAP)  Total Phenolic Compounds  Brix values were statistically different than the same variety cultivated in Çanakkale.

Phenolic compounds can be effective in many physiological events in fruits. They are effective in the formation of fruit taste and especially the sour taste in the mouth. Anthocyanins, which are among the phenolics, also enable the formation of colors specific to fruits and vegetables (Küçük, 2015).

Conducted studies show that phenolic compounds differ depending on the peach variety and in addition to variety difference, they are also affected by the climate and soil conditions as well as cultural applications in the region that the same variety is cultivated in (Crisosto and Costa, 2008; Küçük, 2015). In other words, the same variety may have different characteristics in different regions. Therefore, the amount of phenolics is a distinctive feature.

One of the chemical properties, which is an indicator of quality for peaches and shows the difference between varieties as well as between the same varieties cultivated in different regions, is the water-soluble solid content (Brix). According to the results of studies conducted in USA, France and Italy, peaches with yellow flesh having a Brix value above 10% is considered a positive quality criterion. In Italy, a Brix ratio of at least 10% for varieties that are harvested early, 11% for varieties harvested in mid-season and 12% for varieties that are harvested late is an indicator of high-quality product (Crisosto and Costa, 2008). Brix values of J.H. Hale and Glohaven varieties cultivated in Bursa are above 10% (Table 6).

Table 5. Averages and Value Interval of Physical Analysis Results

J.H. Hale Glohaven Physical Values Mean Interval Mean Interval Skin L 63,47 60,00 - 70,00 52,69 45,00 - 65,00 Skin a 25,85 20,00 - 30,00 36,10 30,00 - 40,00 Skin b 44,96 40,00 - 50,00 32,43 25,00 - 45,00 Flesh L 78,26 70,00 - 80,00 77,87 75,00 - 80,00 Flesh a 14,47 10,00 -20,00 16,79 14,50 - 20,50 Flesh b 57,87 55,00 - 60,00 59,48 55,00 - 65,00 Firmness (kg/cm2) 5,82 5,00 - 7,00 1,33 0,80 - 2,50 Number of Fruits in 1 kg 3,16 3,00 - 3,50 3,92 3,50 - 4,50

Table 6. Averages and Value Interval of Chemical Analysis Results

J.H. Hale Glohaven Chemical Values Mean Interval Mean Interval Brix (%) 12,64 11,00 - 14,00 11,28 10,00 - 13,00 pH 3,55 3,50 - 3,65 3,59 3,50 - 3,70 Phenolic Compounds (mgl/l) 574,90 300,00 - 900,00 275,93 200,00 - 350,00 DPPH (mmol/l) 13,77 13,00 - 15,00 14,07 11,00 - 15,00 FRAP (mmol/l) 9,07 6,00 - 15,00 4,29 3,00 - 6,50

3. LINK with the AREA 3.1. Reputation of the Bursa Peach

Bursa peach is a product that identifies with Bursa and that is famous for its taste. The reputation of Bursa peach is not limited to Turkey as it is also mentioned in some international books and columns. Some examples of these publications are provided below.

In the issue of the New York Times dated 13 April 1997 a column titled “Bursa’s Double Image” by Staphen Kinzer was published and it included the statement “Specialists say that peach is the most delicious product of Bursa”. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/13/travel/bursa-s-double-image.html

Quivertreeworld, which is one of the tourism companies in Canada, wrote in its website where it promoted Bursa that Bursa had a significant fruit production area and that it was famous for its peach. http://quivertreeworld.com/travelwithkidz/turkey-with-the-kids-2010-part-2-bursa-day-2/

Similarly, in some blog sites that contain articles or websites of the world’s bestselling travel publishing companies such as Lonely Planet, it is stated in articles promoting Bursa that one of the most famous products of Bursa is peach. https://lunyr.com/article/Bursa https://www.lonelyplanet.com/turkey/uludag/activities/day-trip-from-istanbul-to-bursa-the-ottoman- capital/a/pa-act/v-16879P3/1319698# http://oceanwidepropertiesnews.co.uk/bbq-peaches-cinnamon-butter-and-ice-cream/

European Historic Thermal Towns Association (EHTTA) published an article promoting the city of Bursa in Turkey and mentioned that the peaches, figs, chestnuts, pears and cherries cultivated in Bursa were more delicious than those cultivated in other places. http://www.ehtta.eu/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=75

The reputation of Bursa Peach was also mentioned in some books. The travel book called “An American Women’s Letters to Turkey; Yes, I Would…” written by Katharine Braninng and first published in 2010 mentions that Bursa Peach is famous and it was the sweetest peach that the author ate in her entire life in the section that makes mention of Bursa.

In Chapter 22 of the biography called “Commander of the Faithful: The Life and Times of Emir Abd El-Kader” written by John W. Kiser and first published in 2008, it is said that Bursa’s textiles have an international reputation besides the fame of its melons, strawberries and raisins and above all, its peaches. Bursa peach was mentioned as “To taste a large, succulent Bursa peach was to taste the divine”.

The novel called “MiddleSex” written by Jeffrey Eugenides that tells the life of a family throughout several generations was first published in 2002. On page 113, it is mentioned that one of the characters of the novel “misses the delicious peaches, figs and chestnuts of Bursa” in the first month spent in America.

3.2. Natural factors

In the past, peach was only produced and traded in Bursa, whereas today it is produced in many cities throughout Turkey. However, three leading cities in Turkey in terms of production area and amount are Bursa (72.000 da), Çanakkale (46.000 da) and İzmir (46.000 da), respectively (Map 1).

Map 1. Peach Production Area of Turkey (da) - 2016

Generally, climate and soil conditions are among the important factors that affect the quality of agricultural products. The large soil area in the Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean Regions that have a high amount peach production creates an ideal environment for peach cultivation. Although soil requirement is suitable for peach cultivation in these 3 regions, there are also some differences between them (Annex 3 – Maps). Soil and climate properties of these three regions are provided in table 7.

Accordingly, all these regions possess alluvial soil, however the Aegean Region has reddish Mediterranean soil and the Mediterranean region has a sandy and stony structure. In Çanakkale, the ratio of alluvial soil is much lower as compared to Bursa.

Bursa and Çanakkale have a transition climate. Therefore, many agricultural products can be easily cultivated in these cities. The mentioned transition climate possesses certain characteristics of both the Mediterranean and Black Sea climates. In other words, Bursa and Çanakkale have a special climate corridor between the Black Sea and Mediterranean.

Table 7. Soil and Climate Comparison between Regions

Bursa (Marmara Çanakkale Soil and Climate Aegean Region Mediterranean Region Region) (Marmara Region) Alüvyal ve asit Alüvyal ve asit Alüvyal ve asit reaksiyonlu reaksiyonlu orman Alüvyal ve kırmızımsı reaksiyonlu orman Main Soil Group orman toprakları. toprakları. Akdeniz toprakları toprakları, kumlu ve Alüvyal oranı Alüvyal oranı %11,06 taşlı topraklar %6,51 Geçiş İklimi Geçiş İklimi (Akdeniz Climate (Akdeniz ve Akdeniz İklimi Akdeniz İklimi ve Karadeniz iklimi) Karadeniz iklimi) Average 14,6 15,0 17,7 18,2 Temperature (0C) Average sunshine 74,9 87 83,2 87,7 duration (h) Average Annual 707,5 616,3 645,1 1.126,6 Rain (mm) Resource: Turkish State Meteorological Service, https://mgm.gov.tr

Bursa differs from Çanakkale in terms of the amount of alluvial soil. Mean temperature, sunshine duration and rainfall of these cities (except for the Mediterranean Region) are similar.

Wind is an important factor that affects peach quality. Strong winds cause leaves to fall, fruits to get damaged, shape deformation in harvested products and obtaining fruits smaller than normal. Wind also increases the damage by frost that results in significant quality and production losses in peach production (Anonymous, 2010; Faci et al., 2014; Vashtisth and Olmstead, 2011; Taylor, 2008). Windy and rainy weather conditions especially during the blooming season results in weak fruits as they negatively affect factors that enable pollination (bees etc.). Wind also affects the water consumption and irrigation efficiency of trees. Especially after long periods of strong winds, water need of the soil increases and this need should be met (Anonymous, 2011; Faci et al. 2014). Another important effect of wind is that it facilitates spreading of diseases. One of the important causes of disease, i.e. fungal spores are transported with the wind (Anonymous, 2010; Vashtisth and Olmstead, 2011). The recommended maximum wind speed in the production area for high-quality and healthy peach cultivation is 10 mph and lower. If the wind speed exceeds 10 mph, events such as shedding of flowers, frost, disruption of irrigation efficiency can be encountered (Vashtisth and Olmstead, 2011; Taylor, 2008).

Mean wind speeds in open fields and at 50 m height in the most important cities that have peach production are provided in Table 8. Turkey wind atlas is also shown in the Annexes Section.

Table 8. Wind Speed According to Provinces

Wind Speed Provinces ms-1 mph Bursa <4,5 < 10 Mersin 5,5 – 6,5 13 – 15 İzmir 5,5 – 6,5 13 – 15 Çanakkale 6,5 – 7,5 15 - 17 Kaynak: Türkiye Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, https://mgm.gov.tr

Bursa differs from Çanakkale, which is the most similar city to Bursa in terms of soil structure and general climatic conditions, and from other cities in terms of especially wind speed. When Bursa is compared to other cities, the peach cultivation area, i.e. Bursa Plain has a milder wind with the effect of Uludağ.

A combination of the factors mentioned above; soil structure, rainfall, rainfall regime, humidity rate, temperature, sunshine duration and wind make it possible to produce peach in Bursa at a higher quality than other cities. Sensory, physical and chemical analyses also reveal this difference.

4. DELIMITATION of the AREA Geographical area delimitation has been done after the evaluation of sensory, physical and chemical analysis results. When the best quality products area has been determined, the coordinated of the orchards has been measured by using Magellan GPS device. Afterwards climatic and soil data has been gathered.

Basic steps of area determination as follows;

•Sensorial analysis •Physical analaysis Determination of Best Quality •Chemical analysis

•The coordinates of best quality products has been measured by Magellan GPS - Gold Determination Series in the area of Coordinates

•Climatic Data has been collected fromTurkish State Meteorological Service Statistical Database Climatic Data Gathering • 13 meteorological station, averages of long - time series

•Soil data maps has been collected from Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock of Soil Data Turkey Gathering

•Determination of best areas has been done by using GIS based MCDA ( Multi Criteria Determination Desicion Analysis) of Best Area

Table 9 illustrates the meteorological data used for the delimitation of the area.

Table 9. Meteorological Stations and Data Set Interval

Meteorological Stations Time Series Bursa 1960 – 2016 Mustafa Kemal Paşa 1963 – 2016 Gemlik, İnegöl, Mudanya 1964 – 2016 Uludağ, İznik 1968 – 2016 Orhangazi 1976 – 2016 Orhaneli 1986 – 2016 Karacabey 1987 – 2016 Harmancık, Büyükorhan 1988 – 2016 Yenişehir 2004 – 2016

All obtained data were input to the software ArcGIS version 9.1. This software performs data analysis and mapping by using multi-criteria decision making techniques. In this method, maps for each criterion were created separately in digital environment and input to the database in GIS (Geographical Information Systems) environment (Annex 3). All digital maps (layers) that were input to the database and that will be used as criteria, e.g. temperature, wind, sunshine duration etc., were overlaid with the aid of the positions (geographical coordinates) of parcels that have high-quality product cultivation, the most suitable areas among the entire area were shaded based on minimum and maximum limits of the areas identified as best for each criterion and consequently the area that can provide high quality product cultivation was determined. Currently, all areas indicated by the software do not have peach production. However, the area indicated is significantly similar (80%) to the areas in which high quality products are cultivated, and this implies that products with similar quality can be obtained when peach cultivation is started in the indicated area.

Table 10. Coordinates and Values

20 cm Average Wind Average Minimum Main Height from Slope Maximum Soil X_Koord Y_Koord Aspect Sunshine Speed Rain Temp. Soil Sea level (m) (%) Temp. (0C) Temp Duration (h) (m/s) (mm) (0C) Group (0C) 694433 4454401 111,5 321,4 1,9 265,2 2,2 60,5 7,4 17,7 15,8 1 693802 4455127 103,0 285,9 1,5 266,9 2,2 60,4 7,5 17,7 15,9 1 693746 4454717 103,3 300,7 1,1 267,2 2,2 60,8 7,5 17,6 15,9 1 693056 4454557 100,0 -1,0 0,0 269,3 2,2 61,6 7,4 17,5 15,9 1 693131 4454088 100,9 304,5 0,7 269,2 2,2 62,0 7,3 17,4 15,9 1 694468 4454427 111,6 291,0 1,9 265,1 2,2 60,4 7,4 17,7 15,8 1 693032 4454307 100,0 -1,0 0,0 269,4 2,2 61,8 7,4 17,5 15,9 1 695944 4454513 123,2 296,0 1,0 260,7 2,2 59,0 7,5 17,9 15,7 1 695364 4454121 122,3 293,4 1,1 262,5 2,2 59,9 7,4 17,8 15,7 1 696132 4455003 115,4 336,2 2,8 260,0 2,2 58,6 7,6 18,0 15,7 1 695471 4455502 115,0 -1,0 0,0 261,8 2,2 58,7 7,6 18,0 15,8 11 713772 4437249 303,2 355,9 1,0 242,1 1,6 48,4 8,1 19,9 13,6 1 715587 4435268 327,2 7,6 2,4 242,6 1,7 49,1 8,0 19,7 13,8 11 717967 4457663 233,0 39,0 0,2 229,2 1,2 46,8 6,7 19,5 15,6 1 717103 4456520 234,2 2,4 0,1 229,4 1,2 47,0 6,8 19,5 15,6 1

A list of the districts and villages in which Bursa peach can be cultivated at the same quality is provided in Table 11. The map of the mentioned area is provided in Map 2.

Table 11. Villages in the Geographical Limits of Bursa Peach

Province Villages Gürsu Merkez, Adaköy, Cambazlar, İğdir, Karahıdır, Kazıklı İnegöl Merkez, Akhisar, Akıncılar, Alanyurt, Alibey, Bilalköy, Boğazköy, Cerrah, Çavuşköy, Çeltikçi, Çitli, Deydinler, Dipsizgöl, Edebey, Eymir, Hamamlı, Hamzabey, Hasanpaşa, Hocaköy, İsaören, Karagölet, Karalar, Kınık, Kozluca, Kulaca, Kurşunlu, Küçükyenice, Ortaköy, Özlüce, Sungurpaşa, Süpürtü, Şipali, Tokuş, Yeniceköy, Yiğit İznik Boyalıca Kestel Merkez, Aksu, Barakfaki, Çataltepe, Dudaklı, Erdoğan, Gölbaşı, Gölcük, Gözede, Kozluören, Narlıdere, Serme, Seymen, Soguksu, Turanköy, Yağmurlu Nilüfer Merkez, Çalı, Kayapa, Tahtalı, Yaylacık Orhangazi Akharem, Çakırlı, Dutluca, Gedelek, Gemiç, Gölyaka, Gürle, Heceler, Keramet, Orhangazi, Sölöz, Üreğil, Yenigürle, Yenisölöz Osmangazi Merkez, Çağlayan, Demirtaş, Ovaakça Yenişehir Merkez, ,Afşar, Akdere, Alaylı, Barcın, Burcun, Cihadiye, Çamönü, Çardak, Çayırlı, Çelebi, Demirboğa, Dereköy, Ebeköy, Fethiye, Günece, Hayriye, İncirli, Karabahadır, Karacaahmet, Karacaali, Karaköy, Karasıl, Kavaklı, Koyunhisar, Kozdere, Köprülühisar, Mahmudiye, Marmaracık, Menteşe, Osmaniye, Papatya, Selimiye, Söylemiş, Subaşı, Toprakdere , Toprakocak, Yeniköy, Yolören Yıldırım Merkez

Map 2. Map of Bursa Peach Geographical Indication Area

5. PRODUCER’S SURVEY RESULTS

32 producer’s surveys were conducted in 12 different villages in 2017 in order to reveal the production practices of Bursa Peach producers and also to determine their knowledge level regarding geographical indications, good agricultural practices etc., and to evaluate their capacity of cooperation and solidarity (Table 12). Survey results constitute the basis of revealing high-quality peach production practices of producers.

In some questions of the surveys, producers were asked to evaluate themselves or certain criteria. 4-point rating scale was used in such questions. Producers evaluated the weakest expression/criterion with “1” point and the strongest expression with “4” points.

Table 12. Villages, Average Orchard Size and Number of Trees

Name of the Village Survey Number Average Number of Peach Trees Barakfakif 3 1305 Çağlayan 3 390 Çayırlı 3 860 Çeltikçi 3 1470 Deydinler 3 2973 Hasköy 3 567 İğdir 2 625 İsaören 3 857 Kazıklı 1 5550 Kumlukalan 3 1203 Narlıdere 3 683 Samanlı 2 425 General Total 32 1205

In peach production, there are more than one varieties in the same orchard. The most commonly seen case is the presence of 3 varieties (22%) in the same orchard.

Table 13. Number of Varieties in One Orchard

Number of Varieties in % one Orchard 3 varieties 21,88 2 varieties 18,75 4 varieties 18,75 1 varieties 12,50 5 varieties 9,38 7 varieties 9,38 6 varieties 6,25 9 varieties 3,13

Peach and nectarine varieties found in the area of interest and the number of trees in the businesses that were included in the survey are shown in Table 14. The most widely cultivated varieties are provided in graph 18.

Table 14. Name of the Varieties of Peach and Nectarines

Name of the Number of trees in Name of the Number of trees in % % variety surveyed orchard variety surveyed orchard Glohaven 5435 13,97 Monreo 400 1,03 Cresthaven 5185 13,33 Nektarin 400 1,03 Hale 5025 12,92 Vaskirton 400 1,03 Jarselet 2700 6,94 Plus Plus 370 0,95 Dikseret 1620 4,17 Fransua 350 0,90 Elegant Lady 1610 4,14 Oralet 350 0,90 Şentürk 1550 3,99 Extrem Great 300 0,77 Caldesi 2000 1000 2,57 Ruby Rich 300 0,77 Royal Pride 1000 2,57 Extrem514 250 0,64 A8 900 2,31 Extreme Glow 250 0,64 Royal Glory 900 2,31 My Grass 220 0,57 Sweet Lady 900 2,31 10 Numara 200 0,51 Venüs 830 2,13 Extrem314 200 0,51 Extem Juli 800 2,06 Rich Lady 200 0,51 Takunyacı 730 1,88 Royal Majestik 200 0,51 Royal Summer 700 1,80 Süper Gold 200 0,51 Altop 600 1,54 Extrem28 170 0,44 Amiga 600 1,54 Spring 150 0,39 Extrem Sweet 600 1,54 Extrem 436 120 0,31 Extrem Red 500 1,29 R1 100 0,26 Royal Gem 500 1,29 Tüysüz 80 0,21

The highest amount of production is seen in Glohaven, Cresthaven and Hale varieties, respectively. There are countless varieties throughout the region.

Common Varieties

elegant lady dikseret 7% glohaven 8% 25% jarselet 13%

cresthaven hale 24% 23%

Graph 18. Distribution of Peach Varieties

Producers primarily consider the yield of the variety while making a variety selection. Early, high-quality products, products with a beautiful color, durability and such factors are among the most important ones (Table 15). The main reason why early and later varieties are preferred and more than one variety is cultivated in the same orchard is the desire to extend the harvest period in the orchard. When more than one varieties are cultivated, the beginning of harvest for one variety is coincided with the end of harvest for the other, and therefore products are harvested in the same orchard for a longer period.

Table 15. Reason of Variety Choice

Reasons % High yield 15,43 Early variety 9,57 High quality 9,04 Colour 7,45 Resistant 6,91 Taste 6,91 Long harvest period 6,91 Long shelf life 6,38 Late variety 4,26 Others 27,14

In the visited villages, peach orchards vary in size between 3,5 da and 150 da and the mean size is 36 da. Distribution of gardens by size is provided in Table 16.

Table 16. Peach Orchard Groups (da)

Orchard Size (da) % 0-10 10% 10-20 34% 20-30 10% 30-40 3% 40-50 7% 50-60 17% 60-70 3% 70-80 3% 80-90 3% 90-100 3% >100 3%

In the investigated businesses, different yields were present depending on the age of the trees and peach variety. Product yield per tree is between 50-69 kg and the mean yield was found to be 62,75 kg/tree (Table 17).

Table 17. Yield Groups (kg/tree)

Yield Groups (kg/tree) % 30-49 21,88% 50-69 34,38% 70-89 28,13% 90-109 6,25% >110 9,38%

91% of the producers use mineral fertilizer.

Do you Use Mineral Fertilizer?

No 9%

Yes 91%

Graph 19. Mineral Fertilizer Usage

Table 18. Mineral Fertilizer Application Rate, Interval and Amount

Usage Ratio of Implementation Interval Amount Fertilizer Fertilizer Once in a year Twice a year (kg/tree) DAP 23% 24% 1,64 NPK 23% 24% 2,15 Smart fertilizer 12% 100% 3,00 Ammonium Nitrate 10% 10% 3,13 Ammonium Sulphate 6% 6% 1,47 Urea 6% 6% 1,17 MAP 4% 4% 2,25 N Fertilizers 4% 4% 4,00 Bottom fertilizer 2% 2% 3,00 Leonardit 2% 2% 4,00 NPK + Nitrate 2% 2% 3,00 Potassium Nitrate 2% 2% 0,50 Root Fertilizer 2% 2% 2,00 Super hexal 2% 2% 3,00 Dosen't know 2% 2% 2,00

The most commonly used mineral fertilizers are Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) and 15:15:15 N, P, K. Mean mineral fertilizer amount per tree is 2,22 kg. All fertilizers other than the smart fertilizer are applied once a year. The most frequent fertilizer application is seen in February and March. Distribution of fertilizers by application month is provided in table 19.

Table 19. Fertilizer Implementation Months

Ammonium Ammonium Bottom N NPK + Potassium Root Smart Super Ratio of Months Nitrate Sulphate fertilizer DAP Leonardit MAP Fertilizers NPK Nitrate Nitrate Fertilizer fertilizer hexal Urea Months May 40,00% 50,00% 33,33% 7,69% April 20,00% 16,67% 33,33% 7,69% April - May 20,00% 1,92% December - January - February 8,33% 1,92% End of August 100,00% 1,92% February 16,67% 25,00% 100,00% 33,33% 15,38% February - July 16,67% 1,92% February - March 100,00% 16,67% 5,77% February - March - April 50,00% 1,92% January 8,33% 25,00% 16,67% 9,62% January - February 8,33% 1,92% July 20,00% 1,92% June 66,67% 3,85% June - July 100,00% 1,92% March 33,33% 50,00% 16,67% 15,38% March - July 8,33% 1,92% March - April 33,33% 50,00% 100,00% 16,67% 33,33% 9,62% November 16,67% 100,00% 5,77% November - January 16,67% 1,92%

Do you Use Foliar Fertilizer?

No 28%

Yes 72%

Graph 20. Foliar Fertilizer Usage

72% of the producers use foliar fertilizer. 40% of those using foliar fertilizers do not know which fertilizer they use. Commercial foliar fertilizers that are used, usage rate, frequency and amount are provided in table 20. The most commonly used foliar fertilizers by producers are Crop Extra, Nutrifol and Organic foliar fertilizer. Foliar fertilizers are applied more than once annually. Mean amount of foliar fertilizer use is 0,16 kg/tree and it is most frequently applied in May and June.

Table 20. Foliar Fertilizer Application Rate, Interval and Amount

Yaprak Gübresi Kullanım Uygulama Sıklığı Amount Oranı 1- 2 times 3 times Twice in (kg/tree) in a year in a year a year

Doesn’t know 40% 14,29% 50,00% 0,904

Crop extra 8% 20,00% 0,8

Nutrifol 8% 28,57% 0,26

Organic Leaf Fertilizer 8% 14,29% 10,00% 0,24

Agroleaf power 4% 14,29% 0,1

Explorer 4% 14,29% 0,16

Golden potassium 4% 50,00% 0,2

Maxi combi 4% 14,29% 0,16

NPK 4% 50,00% 0,16

Potassium and 4% 10,00% 0,34 Calcium Potassium 4% 10,00% 0,032

When producers were asked about the contents of the foliar fertilizer, 40% replied, “I don’t know”. Producers who know the contents of the foliar fertilizer commonly use fertilizers containing N, P, K and trace elements (Table 21).

Table 21. Content of Mineral Fertilizer

Content of foliar fertilizer Usage Ratio doesn't know 40,00% N + P + K 8,00% N + P + K + Fe + Zn 8,00% N+P+K and micro elements 8,00% Potassium 8,00% NPK (10-40-10) 8,00% 20-20-20 4,00% B, Fe, Mn, Zn, CU 4,00% Ca and P 4,00% potassium + calcium 4,00% Potassium and micro 4,00% elements

69% of the producers use farm manure.

Do you Use Manure?

No 31%

Yes 69%

Graph 21. Manure Usage

Farm manure is generally applied during autumn.

Table 22. Application Month of Manure

Application month of manure % Autumn 63,64% Winter 31,82% Autumn - winter 4,55%

Farm manure is generally used once a year.

Table 23. Apllication Interval of Manure Application Interval of manure % Once a year 50,00% 1 in every 2 years 27,27% 1 in every 3 years 13,64% 1 - 2 in a year 4,55% Twice in a year 4,55%

Majority (57%) of the utilized farm manure is obtained from bovine animals. This situation also depends on animal breeding practices in the place that has peach production. On average 2341 kg farm manure is used in 1 da area.

Table 24. Type of Manure Type of Manure % Application Amount (kg/da) Bovine 57 2304 Sheep 5 4000 Both 38 2194 Average - 2341

Soil Analysis

Yes No 47% 53%

Graph 22. Soil Analysis

Foliar Analysis

yes 13%

no 87%

Graph 23. Foliar Analysis

A majority of the producers do not have soil and leaf analysis performed. In addition, the rate of producers that have soil analysis performed (47%) is higher than those that have leaf analysis performed (13%). Table 25 shows the producers’ reasons for having soil and leaf analysis performed.

Table 25. Reason of Performing Soil and Foliar Analysis

Reason for soil analysis % learn the real need of the soil 71,43% yield was lower than other orchards 14,29% advice of district of ministry 7,14% better use for fertilizer 7,14% Reason for foliar analysis % advice of district of ministry 33,33% to find out the reason for the yellowing 33,33% on the leaves to learn the situation of the leaves 33,33%

The most important reason for having a soil analysis done is to learn the needs of the soil and make fertilization decisions accordingly. The reasons for having a leaf analysis done include recommendations, to learn the cause of leaves turning yellow and to determine the amount of nutrition elements.

Different Fertilizing Methods

yes 25% no 75%

Graph 24. Different Fertilizing Methods

25% of the producers use fertilization methods other than mineral fertilization, farm manure and foliar fertilization. The most commonly applied method is to plant vegetables in peach orchards (Table 26) and the most widely planted vegetables are eggplants and lettuce as well as peas as legumes.

Table 26. Different Fertilizing Methods

Different fertilizing % methods vegetables 66,67% legumes 33,34%

Fertilization Management

 Producers use mineral fertilizer, foliar fertilizer and farm manure.  The most widely used mineral fertilizers are diammonium phosphate (DAP) and 15:15:15 N, P, K.  Mean mineral fertilizer amount per tree is 2,22 kg.  Mineral fertilizer is applied once a year. The most frequent fertilizer application is seen in February and March.  The most commonly used foliar fertilizers are those containing NPK and trace elements.  Foliar fertilizer is applied twice a year, most frequently in May-June and April-June.  Mean amount of foliar fertilizer use is 0,16 kg/tree.  Farm manure is applied once a year in autumn in an average amount of 2.300 kg per da.  Nearly 50% of the producers have soil analysis performed so as to learn the needs of their soil. The rate of performing leaf analysis is low.  25% of the producers plant vegetables and legumes in their orchard.

Table 27. Peach Diseases, Symptoms and Effect on the Yield

Average Disease % Symptom Effect on Yield Taphrina deformans 27,50 Leaf curl, reddish colour 3,59 15,00 Stickiness, leaf curl, destruction in fruit 3,75 Myzus persicae (aphid) shoots, decay after fruit maturity 10,00 Drying in tree trunks and sprouts, in-fruit 3,5 Anarsia lineatella and Cydia rotting, rotting on the product, fruit worm, molesta moth 10,00 Leaf curl, drying in branches, stain on fruit, 3,37 Monilinia laxa slow growth of fruit, drying of fresh shoots, destruction in fruit and leaf eyes Ceratitis capitata 8,75 Fruit decay, decay after harvest, stain on the 3,71 (Mediterranean fruit fly) skin, holes on the fruit 8,75 Whiteness in tree bark, discoloration in fruit 3,57 color, spotting, red formation in tree bark, Quadraspidiotus perniciosus stickiness and drying in tree bark, leaf yellowing, spotting in the branches Fungal diseases 7,50 Lead mildew, decay of fruit, moth formation 3,16 Diaspididae (leafhoppers) 3,75 Decay of leaves, trunk and fruit 3,33

3,75 leaf yellowing and discoloration, leaf 3 T. Urticae and P. ulmi browning, spots on fruits Cloroz 1,25 Leaf yellowing 3 Coryneum beijerinckii 1,25 Holes on the leaf 4 Empoasca spp. 1,25 Leaf curl 4 Nematod 1,25 Death of tree 4

The most common diseases seen in Bursa Peach are Taphrina deformans also called leaf curl and Myzus persicae also called white fly, aphid and “ballıca” among the producers (Table 27).

Table 28. Chemical Usage for Plant Protection

Trade Name of the Trade Name of Trade Name of % % % Chemical the Chemical the Chemical doesn't know 28,99 bestbakır 1,45 m 22 1,45 Copper Sulphate 15,94 calypso 1,45 macconi 1,45 captan 13,04 crop extra 1,45 malathion 1,45 dursban4 8,70 deltamethrin 1,45 mavrik 2f 1,45 Hektaş copper 4,35 fungozet 1,45 mospilan 1,45 bellis 2,90 hekzan 1,45 oksijen 1,45 ABC 1,45 karate 1,45 signum 1,45 antracol 1,45 Sulphur 1,45 takistin 1,45

Nearly 30% of the producers don’t know the name of the chemicals they use to fight diseases and pests. Active ingredients in the most widely used chemicals consist of; copper sulfate, Carbendazim and Chlorpyrifos ethyl.

Table 29. Active Substance of the Chemical

Active substance of the chemical % Active substance of the chemical % doesn't know 28,99 %70 propineb 1,45 Copper Sulphate 15,94 %80 mancozeb 1,45 % 50 Carbendazim 10,14 240 g/l Tau-Fluvalinate 1,45 480 g/l Chlorpyrifos ethyl 8,70 240 g/l Thiacloprid 1,45 %50 captan 4,35 50g Lambda-cyhalothrin 1,45 % 50 Metalic copper (%50 copper oxychlorure) 4,35 acetamiprid 1,45 pylaclostrobin+boscalid 2,90 C6-H14 1,45 Copper 2,90 cu,zn,çinko,potasyum,mn,mo,b,s 1,45 % 80 Maneb 1,45 dnoc ammonium 1,45 %12 dithianon, %4 pyraclostrobin 1,45 Sulphate 1,45 %26,7 boscalid, &6,7 pyroclostrobin 1,45 190 g/l Malathion 1,45 50 g/l Deltametrine 1,45

Table 30. Chemical Application Interval

Chemical Application Interval % 1 in a year 25,00 2 times in a year 19,12 3 times in a year 13,24 2 - 3 times in a year 8,82 When disease appears 7,35 3 - 4 times in a year 5,88 1 or 2 in a year 4,41 4 - 5 times in a year 4,41 4 times in a year 2,94 7 - 8 times in a year 2,94 One in 15 days 2,94 6 - 7 times in a year 1,47 6 times in a year 1,47

Chemicals for plant protection are applied once a year. The most frequent pesticide application is seen in February, May and June.

Table 31. Chemical Application Month

Chemical Application Month % February 13,43 May - June 13,43 June - July 11,94 March - April - May 10,45 May 7,46 April - May 7,46 February - March 7,46 Others 28,37

Do you use herbicide?

Yes 34%

No 66%

Graph 25. Herbicide Usage

A majority of the producers use herbicides. Approximately half of herbicide users use the product that contains Paraquat as active ingredient.

Table 32. Commercial Name and Active substance of the Herbicides

Trade Mark of Herbicide Active substance % Gramoxone Paraquat 47,06 Raindrop Glyphosate Isopropylamıne Salt 35,29 Super gallant Haloxyfop-R-Methylester 11,76 Doesn’t know 5,88

Herbicide application is most commonly performed once a year. However, the rate of producers that apply herbicides three times a year is also high.

Table 33. Application Interval of Herbicides

Application interval of herbicide % once in a year 41,18 3 times in a year 35,29 When it needs 11,76 2 in a year 5,88 2 - 3 times in a year 5,88

Herbicide application is commonly performed in May.

Table 34. Application Month of the Herbicides

Application month of the herbicide % May 50 May - June 20 April 10 January 10 February - April - June 10

Weed control is not conducted using biological methods instead of herbicide use. The rate of producers that use biological methods for weed control is very low around 3%. Producers who use biological methods also use soil cultivation methods.

Do you use biological methods instead of herbicide?

yes 3%

no 97%

Graph 26. Biological Methods Usage

Plant Protection Management

 The most frequently seen diseases and pests in peach consist of peach leaf curl (Taphrina deformans), peach aphid (Myzus oersicae), peach twig borer (Anarsia lineatella ve Cydia molesta) and Monilinia laxa. The effect of these diseases and pests on yield is significant.  Copper Sulphate and Captan are the most commonly used products in fighting diseases and pests.  Plant protection chemicals are applied once a year at most. The most frequent chemical application is seen in February, May and July.  Herbicide use is common, and the most widely used herbicides are those containing Paraquat as active ingredient. Herbicides are generally applied in May.

Do you use any advisory service?

yes 44% no 56%

Graph 27. Advisory Service Usage

44% of the producers receive consultancy services before using chemicals. 50% of the producers consult vendors that sell pesticides and fertilizers, and 25% of the producers consult Provincial and District Directorates of Agriculture.

Knowledge on GAP

no yes 47% 53%

Graph 28. Knowledge about Good Agricultural Practices

53% of peach producers are knowledgeable about good agricultural practices (GAP). Producers that are knowledgeable about GAP received this information from provincial and district agricultural organizations and by participating in seminars organized by some retailers.

Producers find themselves highly successful in terms of irrigation, rarefaction and plant protection measures. Producers see themselves less competent in packaging and weed control.

Table 35. Self-evaluation of Peach Producers

Scale Sufficiency Criteria YES NO 1 2 3 4 Fertilizing 81% 19% 6,67% 16,67% 16,67% 60,00% Pruning 94% 6% 6,67% 93,33% Plant Protection 97% 3% 9,68% 29,03% 61,29% Soil Cultivation 94% 6% 13,33% 86,67% Weed Control 75% 22% 4,00% 4,00% 24,00% 68,00% Deciding the rarefaction 97% 3% 3,23% 96,77% Irrigation 100% 0% 6,25% 93,75% Marketing 88% 13% 6,90% 17,24% 17,24% 58,62% Packaging 53% 47% 33,33% 14,29% 19,05% 33,33% Harvest 91% 9% 6,67% 6,67% 3,33% 83,33%

All producers think that their product has high quality.

Analyzing the understanding of high quality among producers regarding peach, it was stated that the most important quality element was the origin of peach being Bursa. The most important properties following origin are taste and freshness of the product.

Table 36. Quality Perception of Producers;

Quality Criteria Yes (%) No /%) 1 2 3 4 Bursa Origin 100,00 0,00 3,23 96,77 Taste 93,75 6,25 3,33 16,67 80,00 Freshness 93,75 6,25 100,00 Aroma 90,62 9,38 3,57 14,29 82,14 Hygiene 90,62 9,38 3,57 3,57 17,86 75,00 Variety 90,62 9,38 3,57 3,57 92,86 Size 87,50 12,50 18,52 81,48 Color 84,32 15,63 11,54 88,46 Pesticide 81,25 18,75 4,00 8,00 88,00 Packaging 81,25 18,75 7,69 11,54 3,85 76,92 Marketing 80,65 19,35 4,17 4,17 4,17 87,49 Price 75,00 25,00 4,35 4,35 4,35 86,95 Retailer Presentation 71,88 28,12 4,35 4,35 4,35 86,95

97% of the producers think that their product has a special quality.

Do you think that your product has a private quality?

no 3%

yes 97%

Graph 29. Quality of the Product

The rate of producers who think that the quality of peach produced in other regions cannot be the same as the quality of peach produced in Bursa is 94%. The most important reasons for this were stated as the perfect adaptation of old varieties to the region as well as different soil and climatic conditions.

Table 37. Reasons of Specific Quality

Reason of specific quality %

Good adoption to the Region 46,43% climate 10,71% soil and climate 10,71% soil 7,14% Others 25,01%

All producers expressed that product quality is affected by natural conditions. According to their experiences, factors that highly affect product quality consist of events such as frost, hail and rime. Other factors include rain, cold weather, extremely hot temperature and wind. These factors negatively affect product quality.

Table 38. Natural Factors that Effects Product Quality

Natural Effect % effect on quality

frost burn, deformity, rust appearance on the fruit, damage on fruit, decrease yield, deformity on fruit skin, loss of quality, prevent 32,88% flowering, prevent fruit growing, small sized fruits and spots on fruit, sprinkling flowers loss of fruit hail damage on fruit, flowers are burning, loss of fruit, prevent growing 21,92% of fruit, shell peeling, fruit decay, spots on fruit, sprinkling flowers, black spots, fungus, sprinkling flowers white frost burning of flower, damage on the skin of the fruit, deformity of 20,55% fruit, frozen flower, deformity on fruit shape, prevent fruit growing

rain 10,96% fungus, black spots, decay, small sized fruits wind 4,11% splitting fruits and flowers extreme cold 4,11% prevent flowering, dullness of colour extreme hot burns peach buttons, damage fruits, prepare an appropriate 4,11% environment for insects drought 1,37% Shape deformity of fruits

Traditional knowledge or know-how?

no 19%

yes 81%

Graph 30. Traditational Knowledge

81% of the producers expressed that they had traditional knowledge from the past regarding peach production. Majority of the producers learned about this from their families and especially their fathers.

Table 39. Source of traditional knowledge

Source of traditional knowledge / know-how % family 44,44% father 40,74% grand father 3,70% himself 7,41% himself by courses and research 3,70%

Peach Quality

 Producers consider the most important quality criterion to be the origin of peach being Bursa.  They say that Bursa peach has a special quality and other regions cannot reach the same quality level.  The leading factor that provides the special quality of Bursa peach is the climatic and soil conditions.  Frost, hail and rime are the most important natural factors that negatively affect peach quality. The first well-ordered peach orchard in the region of the producers dates back to 1936 as they remember. Peach orchards became more common around 1976-1985.

Table 40. Orchard History

First orchard has been known since % 1936-1945 9,68% 1946-1955 6,45% 1956-1965 16,13% 1966-1975 22,58% 1976-1985 29,03% 1986-1995 9,68% 1996-2005 3,23% 2006-2015 3,23%

All peach producers in Bursa express that peach has been produced in their region for many years and that peach production is a part of Bursa’s history and the region is very suitable for peach cultivation.

Harvest seasons and average yields of peach varieties produced in Bursa are shown in Table 41.

Table 41. Peach Harvest Period and Yield According to Varieties

Varieties Average Harvest Month Varieties Average Harvest Month Yield Yield (kg/tree) (kg/tree) 10 Numara 60,00 July Jarselet 64,29 June-July A8 55,00 July-August Monreo 60,00 August-September Altop 60,00 June My Grass 65,00 June Amiga 60,00 July Nektarin 55,00 May Caldesi 2000 73,33 July Oralet 55,00 June - July Cresthaven 73,89 August - September Plus Plus 30,00 September Dikseret 49,29 June R1 50,00 July Elegant Lady 49,00 July-August Rich Lady 30,00 July Extem Juli 75,00 July Royal Gem 50,00 June Extrem 436 65,00 July Royal Glory 21,67 July Extrem Great 40,00 July Royal 30,00 June Majestik Extrem Red 30,00 July Royal Pride 20,00 August-September Extrem Sweet 82,50 July Royal 40,00 July - August Summer Extrem28 40,00 June Ruby Rich 60,00 June Extrem314 40,00 June Spring 30,00 June Extrem514 40,00 July Süper Gold 60,00 July Extreme Glow 40,00 July Sweet Lady 55,00 August-September Fransua 40,00 June Şentürk 66,00 June-July Glohaven 67,94 July Takunyacı 65,00 August-September Hale 58,13 August-September Venüs 76,67 August

Post-harvest practices performed by producers are provided below. The most common post-harvest processing performed by producers is grading, which is done in orchards.

Table 42. Post Harvest Activities

Post Harvest Yes No Activities Trimming 19% 81% Sorting 78% 22% Washing 0% 100% Curing 0% 100% Cooling 38% 63%

94% of the producers in the area of interest have an irrigation system.

Existence of Irrigation System

no 6%

yes 94%

Graph 31. Existence of Irrigation System

The most widely used irrigation system is drip irrigation.

Type of Irrigation System

Sprinkler 28% Drip 46% Submersion 26%

Graph 32. Type of Irrigation System

Quality of Irrigation Water

Bad 7%

Good 93%

Graph 33. Quality of Irrigation Water

The quality of irrigation water in the region was rated as substantially high. Producers think that they perform substantially effective irrigation.

Table 43. Irrigation Efficiency Scale

İrrigation Efficiency 1 3,33% 2 16,67% 3 16,67% 4 63,33% General Total 100,00%

Irrigation management

 Majority of the producers in the region where Bursa peach is cultivated have an irrigation system.  The quality of irrigation water is good.  The most commonly used methods are drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation. Majority of peach orchards also include other fruits. Only 37.50% of the orchards are comprised of single-variety orchards. Gardens that contain various fruit trees mostly include pear, apple, olive and cherry trees.

Table 44. Composition of Peach Orchards

Orchard Composition % Less than 30% of the orchard mixed with other fruit trees 31,25 More than 30% of the orchard mixed with other fruit trees 31,25 Only peach trees 37,50

ANNEXES Annex 1 Codes of Bursa Peach Samples

No Name and Surname Village/Province Variety Sample Date Analysis Date LOT NO 1 Mehmet Kürel Barakfakih Royalgem 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 MKL-RM-15/06 2 Muhittin Kaplan Narlıdere Dixared 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 MKN-DD-15/06 3 Şenol Kürel Narlıdere Şentürk 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 ŞKL-ŞK-15/06 4 Samet Çoksayan Barakfakih Dixared 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 SÇN-DD-15/06 5 Ali Erkaplan Narlıdere Dixared 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 AEN-DD-15/06 6 Mustafa Şener Barakfakih Royalgem 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 MŞR-RM-15/06 7 Mustafa Ünlü Barakfakih Şentürk 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 MÜÜ-ŞK-15/06 8 Ali Şahin Narlıdere Royalgem 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 AŞN-RM-15/06 9 Muhittin Kaplan Narlıdere Şentürk 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 MKN-ŞK-15/06 10 Sabri Küçük Barakfakih Dixared 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 SKK-DD-15/06 11 Necip Yüksel Narlıdere Şentürk 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 NYL-ŞK-15/06 12 Aziz Mütevelli Narlıdere Royalgem 15.06.2016 17.06.2016 AMİ-RM-15/06 13 Abdullah Yaldız Narlıdere Realgüleri 21.06.2016 22.06.2016 AYZ-Rİ-21/06 14 Sabri Küçük Barakfakih Dixared 21.06.2016 22.06.2016 SKK-DD-21/06 15 Talip Kürel Barakfakih Realgüleri 21.06.2016 22.06.2016 TKL-Rİ-21/06 16 Muhittin Kaplan Narlıdere Realgüleri 21.06.2016 22.06.2016 MKN-Rİ-21/06 17 Ahmet Gül Barakfakih Realgüleri 21.06.2016 22.06.2016 AGL-Rİ-21/06 18 Ömer Gökaydın Barakfakih Jarselet 29.06.2016 30.06.2016 ÖGN-JT-29/06 19 Ali Çakır Narlıdere Jarselet 29.06.2016 30.06.2016 AÇR-JT-29/06 20 Muhittin Kaplan Narlıdere Jarselet 29.06.2016 30.06.2016 MKN-JT-29/06 21 Mehmet Ürtürk Barakfakih Jarselet 29.06.2016 30.06.2016 MÜK-JT-29/06 22 Hasan Okay Çanakkale Elegant Lady 17.07.2016 18.07.2016 HOY-EY-17/07 23 Ömer Gökaydın Brakfakih Gülhaven 16.07.2016 18.07.2016 ÖGN-GN-16/07 24 Mehmet Eroğlu Çanakkale Gülhaven 17.07.2016 18.07.2016 MEU-GN-17/07 25 Sinan Ünlü Brakfakih Elegant Lady 16.07.2016 18.07.2016 SÜÜ-EY-16/07 26 Tevfik Karaca Çanakkale Elegant Lady 17.07.2016 18.07.2016 TKA-EY-17/07 27 Recep Eroğlu Çanakkale Gülhaven 17.07.2016 18.07.2016 REU-GN-17/07 28 Halil Kara Narlıdere Gülhaven 16.07.2016 18.07.2016 HKA-GN-16/07 29 Halil Kara Narlıdere Elegant Lady 17.07.2016 18.07.2016 HKA-EY-16/07 30 İbrahim Kahraman Çanakkale Gülhaven 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 İKN-GN-17/07 31 Özgür Sezen Brakfakih Elegant Lady 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 ÖSN-EY-17/07 32 Halil Kahraman Çanakkale Elegant Lady 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 HKN-EY-17/07 33 Osman Şen Narlıdere Gülhaven 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 OŞN-GN-17/07 34 Hasan Can Çanakkale Elegant Lady 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 HCN-EY-17/07 35 İsmail Kaçan Narlıdere Elegant Lady 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 İKN-EY-17/07 36 Faruk Albayrak Brakfakih Gülhaven 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 FAK-GN-17/07 37 Hasan Yıldırım Çanakkale Gülhaven 17.07.2016 19.07.2016 HYM-GN-17/07 38 Yakup Görsüz Çanakkale Christhaven 3.08.2016 4.08.2016 YGZ-CN-03/08 39 İdris Çankara Çanakkale Christhaven 3.08.2016 4.08.2016 İCA-CN-03/08 40 Ersel Gür Çanakkale Hale 3.08.2016 4.08.2016 EGR-HE-03/08 41 Hasan Yıldırım Çanakkale Hale 3.08.2016 4.08.2016 HYM-HE-03/08 42 Hasan Bekar Çanakkale Christhaven 3.08.2016 4.08.2016 HBR-CN-03/08 43 Ali Çakır Narlıdere Christhaven 4.08.2016 4.08.2016 AÇR-CN-04/08 44 Sedat Ören Çanakkale Hale 3.08.2016 4.08.2016 SÖN-HE-03/08 45 İbrahim Ünal Narlıdere Hale 4.08.2016 4.08.2016 İÜL-HE-04/08 58

No Name and Surname Village/Province Variety Sample Date Analysis Date LOT NO 46 Rıdvan Koçan Çanakkale Christhaven 3.08.2016 5.08.2016 RKN-CN-03/08 47 Sabri Küçük Barakfakih Hale 4.08.2016 5.08.2016 SKK-HE-04/08 48 Ahmet Ataç Barakfakih Christhaven 4.08.2016 5.08.2016 AAÇ-CN-04/08 49 İbrahim Balta Çanakkale Hale 3.08.2016 5.08.2016 İBA-HE-03/08 50 İsmail Kaçar Narlıdere Christhaven 4.08.2016 5.08.2016 İKR-CN-04/08 51 İmdat Çetinkaya Barakfakih Hale 4.08.2016 5.08.2016 İÇA-HE-04/08 52 Ömer Gökaydın Barakfakih Christhaven 4.08.2016 5.08.2016 ÖGN-CN-04/08 53 Ali Çakır Narlıdere Hale 4.08.2016 5.08.2016 AÇR-HE-04/08

Annex 2. Statistical Results Group Statisticsa Kriter ilkodu N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Bursa 12 13,7692 ,71767 ,20717 DPPH Çanakkale 12 11,8650 3,30731 ,95474 Bursa 12 9,0667 4,25092 1,22713 FRAP Çanakkale 12 7,8108 1,81532 ,52404 Bursa 12 574,8958 299,52919 86,46663 FENOL Çanakkale 12 568,6183 61,91367 17,87294 Bursa 12 3,5500 ,08399 ,02425 pH Çanakkale 12 3,6017 ,07043 ,02033 Bursa 12 12,6417 1,19807 ,34585 Brix Çanakkale 12 11,7833 1,88623 ,54451 Bursa 12 68,8450 6,37538 1,84041 L-Skin Çanakkale 12 61,4225 13,38850 3,86493 Bursa 12 26,2783 7,54664 2,17853 a-Skin Çanakkale 12 29,4683 4,81898 1,39112 Bursa 12 48,5242 8,80482 2,54173 b-Skin Çanakkale 12 41,5733 13,44563 3,88142 Bursa 12 78,2550 3,19292 ,92172 L-flesh Çanakkale 12 78,2142 2,39785 ,69220 Bursa 12 14,4675 4,06468 1,17337 a-flesh Çanakkale 12 13,7350 2,33312 ,67351 Bursa 12 57,8742 2,08774 ,60268 b-flesh Çanakkale 12 55,0183 2,77563 ,80126 Bursa 12 5,8167 2,15948 ,62339 Firmness Çanakkale 12 5,7583 1,55298 ,44831 Bursa 12 3,1633 ,32828 ,09477 Kg/nr. Çanakkale 12 3,3400 ,55878 ,16131 a. çeşit = J.H. Hale Independent Samples Testa Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means J.H. Hale 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper DPPH 15,401 ,001*** 1,949 22 ,064 1,90417 ,97696 -,12192 3,93025 FRAP 35,127 ,000*** ,941 22 ,357 1,25583 1,33434 -1,51143 4,02309 PHENOL 87,017 ,000*** ,071 22 ,944 6,27750 88,29451 -176,83410 189,38910 pH ,178 ,677 -1,633 22 ,117 -,05167 ,03164 -,11729 ,01396 Brix 10,268 ,004*** 1,331 22 ,197 ,85833 ,64506 -,47944 2,19611 L-skin 4,076 ,056* 1,734 22 ,097 7,42250 4,28075 -1,45522 16,30022 a-skin 2,557 ,124 -1,234 22 ,230 -3,19000 2,58480 -8,55055 2,17055 b-skin 1,311 ,264 1,498 22 ,148 6,95083 4,63959 -2,67109 16,57276 L-flesh ,234 ,633 ,035 22 ,972 ,04083 1,15269 -2,34970 2,43137 a-flesh 2,734 ,112 ,541 22 ,594 ,73250 1,35293 -2,07331 3,53831 b-flesh ,553 ,465 2,848 22 ,009 2,85583 1,00261 ,77654 4,93512 Firmness 1,426 ,245 ,076 22 ,940 ,05833 ,76785 -1,53408 1,65075 Kg/nr 6,573 ,018** -,944 22 ,355 -,17667 ,18708 -,56466 ,21132 a. çeşit = J.H. Hale

Group Statisticsa Kriter ilkodu N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Bursa 12 14,0708 1,18207 ,34123 DPPH Çanakkale 12 14,6192 1,23756 ,35725 Bursa 12 4,2900 1,01516 ,29305 FRAP Çanakkale 12 6,1408 2,07915 ,60020 Bursa 12 275,9350 46,01679 13,28390 PHENOL Çanakkale 12 428,1417 134,29313 38,76709 Bursa 12 3,5858 ,09268 ,02676 pH Çanakkale 12 3,3692 ,10740 ,03100 Bursa 12 11,2833 1,33746 ,38609 Brix Çanakkale 12 12,0333 ,89578 ,25859 Bursa 12 52,6875 9,73884 2,81136 L-Skin Çanakkale 12 60,8300 10,42549 3,00958 Bursa 12 36,1008 4,71324 1,36060 a-Skin Çanakkale 12 36,8283 6,50659 1,87829 Bursa 12 32,4292 9,68205 2,79497 b-Skin Çanakkale 12 40,8983 8,68324 2,50664 Bursa 12 77,8675 2,11389 ,61023 L-flesh Çanakkale 12 77,4675 2,23821 ,64612 Bursa 12 16,7858 2,40735 ,69494 a-flesh Çanakkale 12 16,9500 3,52374 1,01722 Bursa 12 59,4833 4,57365 1,32030 b-flesh Çanakkale 12 58,9150 3,50447 1,01165 Bursa 12 1,3250 ,65522 ,18915 Firmness Çanakkale 12 3,2417 2,64041 ,76222 Bursa 12 3,9200 ,28598 ,08255 Kg/nr. Çanakkale 12 3,7050 ,87182 ,25167 a. çeşit = Glohaven Independent Samples Testa Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Glohaven 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error F Sig. t df Difference tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper DPPH ,609 ,444 -1,110 22 ,279 -,54833 ,49403 -1,57290 ,47623 FRAP 4,577 ,044** -2,771 22 ,011 -1,85083 ,66792 -3,23602 -,46565 PHENOL 7,889 ,010** -3,714 22 ,001 -152,20667 40,97986 -237,19370 -67,21963 pH ,636 ,434 5,291 22 ,000 ,21667 ,04095 ,13174 ,30160 Brix 1,025 ,322 -1,614 22 ,121 -,75000 ,46469 -1,71370 ,21370 L-skin ,010 ,922 -1,977 22 ,061 -8,14250 4,11841 -16,68356 ,39856 a-skin ,173 ,681 -,314 22 ,757 -,72750 2,31931 -5,53745 4,08245 b-skin ,004 ,950 -2,256 22 ,034 -8,46917 3,75434 -16,25519 -,68314 L-flesh ,023 ,881 ,450 22 ,657 ,40000 ,88873 -1,44312 2,24312 a-flesh ,893 ,355 -,133 22 ,895 -,16417 1,23194 -2,71905 2,39072 b-flesh 2,184 ,154 ,342 22 ,736 ,56833 1,66332 -2,88118 4,01785 Firmness 43,296 ,000*** -2,441 22 ,023 -1,91667 ,78534 -3,54536 -,28798 Kg/nr 38,289 ,000*** ,812 22 ,426 ,21500 ,26487 -,33430 ,76430 a. çeşit = Glohaven

Group Statisticsa Kriter İl N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Bursa 12 14,3008 1,22821 ,35455 DPPH Çanakkale 12 13,6533 2,28223 ,65882 Bursa 12 8,0383 4,48335 1,29423 FRAP Çanakkale 12 8,2500 ,47423 ,13690 Bursa 12 453,0183 186,69977 53,89558 PHENOL Çanakkale 12 537,4058 47,20125 13,62583 Bursa 12 3,5900 ,09420 ,02719 pH Çanakkale 12 3,5742 ,10698 ,03088 Bursa 12 13,9417 2,80372 ,80936 Brix Çanakkale 12 12,4083 1,17044 ,33788 Bursa 12 63,8025 8,10730 2,34038 L-Skin Çanakkale 12 59,6558 11,99185 3,46175 Bursa 12 27,8458 6,01544 1,73651 a-Skin Çanakkale 12 29,7683 4,79862 1,38524 Bursa 12 47,4225 8,74339 2,52400 b-Skin Çanakkale 12 35,6325 12,90033 3,72400 Bursa 12 78,3600 2,35282 ,67920 L-flesh Çanakkale 12 79,5692 1,38867 ,40087 Bursa 12 12,9842 3,38667 ,97765 a-flesh Çanakkale 12 12,4025 2,61172 ,75394 Bursa 12 57,6558 3,20784 ,92602 b-flesh Çanakkale 12 54,8308 4,54088 1,31084 Bursa 12 5,6250 2,71833 ,78471 Firmness Çanakkale 12 7,0917 2,53071 ,73055 Bursa 12 4,2367 1,11013 ,32047 Kg/nr. Çanakkale 12 4,0817 1,16588 ,33656 a. çeşit = Cresthaven Independent Samples Testa Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances Cresthaven 95% Confidence Interval of the Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error F Sig. t df Difference tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper DPPH 1,867 0,186 0,865 22 0,396 0,6475 0,74817 -0,90411 2,19911 FRAP 111,664 0,000*** -0,163 22 0,872 -0,21167 1,30145 -2,91071 2,48738 PHENOL 99,181 0,000*** -1,518 22 0,143 -84,3875 55,59134 -199,677 30,90188 pH 0,437 0,515 0,385 22 0,704 0,01583 0,04115 -0,0695 0,10117 Brix 42,598 0,000*** 1,748 22 0,094 1,53333 0,87706 -0,28557 3,35224 L-skin 0,608 0,444 0,992 22 0,332 4,14667 4,17864 -4,51931 12,81264 a-skin 2,299 0,144 -0,865 22 0,396 -1,9225 2,22134 -6,52928 2,68428 b-skin 1,91 0,181 2,621 22 0,016 11,79 4,49875 2,46016 21,11984 L-flesh 2,749 0,112 -1,533 22 0,139 -1,20917 0,78868 -2,84478 0,42645 a-flesh 0,321 0,577 0,471 22 0,642 0,58167 1,23459 -1,97872 3,14206 b-flesh 1,712 0,204 1,76 22 0,092 2,825 1,60494 -0,50343 6,15343 Firmness 0,062 0,806 -1,368 22 0,185 -1,46667 1,07214 -3,69015 0,75681 Kg/nr 0,104 0,750 0,334 22 0,742 0,155 0,46473 -0,80879 1,11879 a. çeşit = Cresthaven *** Significant at 1%; ** Significant at 5%; * Significant at 10%

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Annex 3. Maps

Map 3. Map of Turkey with Provinces

Map 4. Main Soil Group Map of Turkey

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 5. Turkish Climate Map

Map 6. Wind Map of Turkey

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 7. Physical map of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 8. Great Soil Groups of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 9. Elevation Map of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 10. Aspect Map of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 11. Slope Map of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 12. Average Maximum Temperature Map of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 13. Average Minimum Temperature of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 14. Average Soil Temperature (20 cm) Map of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 15. Average Wind Speed Map of Bursa

Support to the development of geographical indications in the Bursa region, Turkey and the promotion of local exchange of lessons learned

Map 16. Main Wind Direction of Bursa