Assessment of B.C. Stone Fruit & Pear Varieties March 23, 2015 A Study for the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture Contractors: Globalwise Inc., Vancouver, WA, Belrose Inc., Pullman, WA & Postharvest Quality Consultants LLC, Woodland, CA Ministry Contract No.: GS15AGR-118

Peach, nectarine, apricot, plum, prune and pear producers in British Columbia are being squeezed by low profit margins and generally stagnant demand. In recent years growers have favored apple and sweet cherry crops over the stone fruit and pear crops covered in this report. Note that this report does not include sweet cherries. Competition from other producers with lower production costs have also led to greater imports to Canada. Higher labor costs and greater regulation for environmental protection and food safety are also challenging factors. To reverse these unfavorable trends one key need is variety improvements. Old cultivars and rootstocks will need replacement with better yielding varieties that fill market gaps and have broader consumer appeal. Achieving these goals would allow growers to realize higher profits and stabilize the industry. A set of recommendations will be given in a forthcoming companion report.

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture. Leadership was provided by Jim Campbell, Industry Specialist with the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, and a steering committee

composed of the following individuals: Michael Bechtel, General Manager of Summerland Varieties Corporation; Tony Demelo, Owner of the Lual Orchards; Charlotte Leaming, Field Services at B.C.

Tree Fruits Cooperative; Glen Lucas, General Manager of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association and Don Westcott, Senior Director of Marketing and Planning for B.C. Tree Fruits Cooperative.

Many growers, packers, intermediate marketers, retailers and others provided information and industry observations that were very helpful in preparing this report.

Steering committee members reviewed and commented on an earlier draft of this report. However the analysis, findings and conclusions are those of the authors.

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of Study and Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................... 1

An Overview of British Columbia’s Peach, Nectarine, Apricot, Plum and Prune Sectors ...................................... 1

Industry Description ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Stone Fruit Handling ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

Stone Fruit Production Volume ............................................................................................................................... 2

Peach & Nectarine World Situation and Update ........................................................................................................ 3

U.S. Peach Production ................................................................................................................................................... 4

U.S. Peach Prices ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

U.S. Peach Consumption ............................................................................................................................................... 5

U.S. Peach Exports ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

U.S. Peach Imports ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

World Nectarine Update ............................................................................................................................................ 5

World Apricot Update ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

U.S. Apricot Prices ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

U.S. Apricot Exports ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

U.S. Apricot Imports ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Plum Update ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7

US Plum Prices ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

U.S. Exports ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8

U.S. Imports ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Prune Update ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8

U.S. Exports ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9

U.S. Imports .................................................................................................................................................................. 10

New Technologies and Trends ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Breeding Programs..................................................................................................................................................... 10

Pedestrian Orchard Systems .................................................................................................................................... 10

Ripening Programs ................................................................................................................................................ 11

Preconditioning Program with New Delivery System ..................................................................................... 12

Flavor Biodiversity-Genotypes-Flavor Code ................................................................................................... 12

Super Fruit ............................................................................................................................................................... 12

New Packaging ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

New Peach Categories to Be Exploited: Fresh Cut ......................................................................................... 13

Potential Cultivar Alternatives .................................................................................................................................. 13

Rootstock Selections .................................................................................................................................................... 15

NC-140 Rootstock Trials....................................................................................................................................... 16

Findings from Trade Interviews with Stone Fruit Marketers .................................................................................... 16

Pear Variety Trends among Major B.C. Competitors ............................................................................................... 17

Pear Production in Canada and British Columbia ................................................................................................ 24

Lessons Learned from Pear Variety Trend Analysis ................................................................................................. 25

Access to New Pear Varieties for B.C. Growers ....................................................................................................... 27

Structural Issues in the B.C. Pear Industry.................................................................................................................... 28

Growers ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28

Packers and Marketers.............................................................................................................................................. 28

Nurseries ....................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Breeding and Commercialization ............................................................................................................................ 29

Findings from Interviews with Retail Marketers of Pears......................................................................................... 29

Appendix A....................................................................................................................................................................... 30

References for Stone Fruits ............................................................................................................................................ 30

Appendix B ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Further Reference to Stone Fruit Cultivars and Rootstocks Recommended for Evaluation in B.C. ................... 32

Crimson Lady (Free) ............................................................................................................................................. 32

Zee Diamond (Patent issued October 29, 1996) ................................................................................... 33

Crown Princess (US PP07070, issued December 12, 1989—Expired) ........................................ 33

Candy Red (US PP13040, issued October 1, 2002)............................................................................ 33

Brittney Lane (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP10286, issued March 17, 1998) ..... 33

Earlirich (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP9002, issued December 6, 1994—Expired) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Crimson Princess (US PP17776, issued May 29, 2007) ...................................................................... 34

Rich Lady (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP7290—Expired) ............................................. 34

Fancy Lady (US PP07023, issued September 12, 1989) .................................................................. 34

Summer Zee (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP9529, issued April 30, 1996) ............ 35

Zee Lady (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP5832—Expired) .............................................. 35

Summer Lady (US PP05865, issued January 27, 1987—Expired) ............................................... 35

O’Henry (Free) ........................................................................................................................................................ 35

Rose Diamond (Free), Bradford, California, USDA, 1991 ................................................................ 36

Spring Bright (US PP07507, issued April 23, 1991—Expired) ...................................................... 36

Diamond Ray (US PP8948, issued October 18, 1994) ....................................................................... 36

Summer Fire (US PP7506, issued April 23, 1991—Expired) ........................................................... 36

Fantasia (Free) ........................................................................................................................................................ 37

Apache (Free) .......................................................................................................................................................... 37

Bolaroja and Primarosa (Free) ....................................................................................................................... 37

Lorna (Free) .............................................................................................................................................................. 38

Helena (Free) ........................................................................................................................................................... 38

Patterson (Free) ...................................................................................................................................................... 38

Black Splendor (Free) .......................................................................................................................................... 39

Blackamber (Free) ................................................................................................................................................. 39

Owen T (Free) ......................................................................................................................................................... 39

Catalina (Free) ....................................................................................................................................................... 39

Fortune (Free) .......................................................................................................................................................... 40

Friar (Free) ............................................................................................................................................................... 40

Rootstock Options .................................................................................................................................................. 40

Tables and Charts Table 1: Total Acreage, Average Production and Average Farm Gate Value .................................................................. 2

Table 2: Total Canadian Production by Commodity, 2011-2014 .......................................................................................... 3

Table 3: Total B.C. Production by Commodity, 2011-2014 ..................................................................................................... 3

Table 4: Top World Peach and Nectarine Producers ................................................................................................................ 4

Table 5: Total Cumulative Production Data of Owen T Plums Through Fifth Leaf ............................................................. 11

Table 6: Yield of Zee Fire NectarineWith Harveston June 1, 2010 .................................................................................... 11

Table 7: Peach Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Peach Season in B.C. ........................................ 14

Table 8: Nectarine Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Nectarine Season in B.C. .......................... 14

Table 9: Apricot Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Apricot Season in B.C. ................................... 15

Table 10: Plum and Pluot Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Plum & Pluot Season in B.C. ......... 15

Table 11: European Union: Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 ........................................ 18

Table 12: European Union: Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 ........................................ 19

Table 13: Table 13. Chile: Pear Exports, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 .............................................. 20

Table 14: Chile: Pear Exports, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 ................................................................. 21

Table 15: South Africa: Pear Area Planted, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 ........................................ 21

Table 16: South Africa: Pear Area Planted, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 ........................................ 22

Table 17: United States: Fresh Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 .................................. 23

Table 18: United States: Fresh Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 .................................. 24

Table 19: British Columbia: Imports of Fresh Pears, by Calendar Year, 2004-2014 ..................................................... 25

Table 20: Types of Pears Available to B.C. Producers .......................................................................................................... 27

1

Introduction This project is commissioned and funded by the Ministry of Agriculture in British Columbia (B.C.). This report assesses the variety development needs and opportunities of the B.C. stone fruits and pears. In this study, stone fruits are defined as peaches, nectarines, apricots, plums, and prunes. Sweet cherries are not included as they are reviewed in a companion report available from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture.

This report is a precursor to a forthcoming report that takes a strategic review of longer term variety development to address the needs of the B.C. stone fruit and pear industry.

The authors of this report are Globalwise Inc., an economic consulting company in Vancouver, Washington in association with Belrose, Inc., Pullman, Washington and Postharvest Quality Consultants LLC, a consulting firm in Woodland, California. Globalwise and Belrose conduct a broad spectrum of economic analysis in the food and agriculture industries. Postharvest Quality Consultants conducts horticultural research for many fruits.

Purpose of Study and Scope of Work The current phase of the project examines the major worldwide variety trends and conditions for stone fruits and pears. This examination is conducted with particular regard to the structure and conditions in the B.C. tree fruit industry and the prospect for B.C. growers to maintain or gain access to these varieties. The report also covers marketing information gathered from Canadian retailers who are key customers of B.C. stone fruits and pears.

An Overview of British Columbia’s Peach, Nectarine, Apricot, Plum and Prune Sectors

Industry Description The B.C. province is home to about 1,000 tree fruit growers. According to the most recent Statistics Canada estimate, the total acreage of tree fruits in B.C. in 2014 was, apples (8,709), apricots (138), sweet cherries (3,089), peaches (942), pears (430) and plums and prunes (341). This is shown in Table 1. Apples and sweet cherries were the dominant fruits. The total bearing area of stone fruits (not counting sweet cherries) was 1,619 acres that produced 9,168 tons of fruit worth about $9.6 million. Pears recorded 430 bearing acres with 4,901 tons of production and farm gate value of$3.2 million. The area of all tree fruits, except apples and sweet cherries, has declined modestly since 2010. See Appendix A for citations to the references pertaining to stone fruits.

Peaches, nectarines, apricots, plum and prunes are grown in the Okanagan, the Similkameen, and the Creston Valleys in B.C., and on a smaller scale, in the Fraser Valley, and on Vancouver Island. All orchards are operated by family-size farms. The majority of BC stone fruit is produced in two areas: 1) the Okanagan Valley from Salmon Arm south to Osoyoos, and 2) the Similkameen Valley east to

2

Creston. Within this area the greatest concentration of stone fruit farms is in the Southern Okanagan Valley because the area’s ideal climate for these fruits. Peaches, nectarines, apricots, plums and prunes need an abundance of sunshine and grow well on the sandy soils prevalent in the region (http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/treefrt/profile/ind_profile.htm). The domestic consumption in 2003 for fresh peaches was 0.66 kg/ person, 0.56 kg/person for nectarines and 0.94 kg/person for processed peaches (crop Profile for Peach in Canada, July 2006; http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/350989/publication.html ).

Stone Fruit Handling Stone fruits are all harvested by hand and experienced pickers are required. Fruit is harvested at a firm ripe stage to allow handling during packing and marketing. The vast majority of fruit is sold fresh and a very small portion is processed. Majority of the fruit is sold through independent packers, fruit truckers, direct sales, and fruit stands. A smaller portion is sold through industry packinghouses and sold to wholesalers via BC Tree Fruits Cooperative (BCTFC). Most of the stone fruit produced in B.C. is sold in Western Canada, with a small portion either exported or sold to eastern Canada.

Table 1. Total Acreage, Marketed Production, Farm Gate Value and Value per ton for Tree Fruit Grown in B.C., 2014

Tree Fruit Bearing Area

Marketed Production

Farm Gate Value ($) Value

(acres) (tons) ($1,000) $/ton) Apples 8,709 110,257 $47,566 $431 Apricots 138 703 $840 $1,195 Sweet Cherries 3,089 15,424 $45,696 $2,963

Nectarines 198 957 $1,265 $1,322 Peaches 942 5,805 $6,079 $1,047 Pears 430 4,901 $3,151 $643 Plums & Prunes 341 1,703 $1,445 $849

Totals 13,847 139,750 $106,042 $759 Source: Statistics Canada. Table 001-0009 – Area, production and farm gate value of fresh and processed fruits, by province, annual (accessed March 18, 2015).

Stone Fruit Production Volume During the last four years stone fruit production in Canada has shown a stable trend but notably peaches dropped sharply from 2013 to 2014 (Table 2). Canadian peach production decreased about 16.5% from 23,165 metric tons to 19,339 metric tons, same as nectarines from 2,959 down to 2,750 metric tons. In the same period, apricots production increased from 423 to 690, as well as prune/plum from 2,513 to 3,188 (Table 2). In contrast, B.C. stone fruit production has been increasing (Table 3). For example, peaches production increased from 4,057 metric tons to 5,260 metric tons, thus, 27.2% of the total Canadian peach metric tons are produced in B.C. Nectarine, apricots, and plum/prunes contributed to 31.2%, 92.5%, and 48.5%, respectively of the total Canadian production.

3

Table 2. Total Canadian Production by Commodity, 2011-2014 (metric tons)

Year Peaches Nectarines Apricots Plums/Prunes Total 2011 23,165 2,959 423 2,513 29,060 2012 20,489 2,224 528 2,033 25,274 2013 22,633 3,022 458 3,553 29,666 2014 19,339 2,750 690 3,188 25,967 Source: Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 001-009.

Table 3. Total B.C. Production by Commodity, 2011-2014 (metric tons)

Year Peaches Nectarines Apricots Plums/Prunes Total 2011 4,057 806 365 1,051 6,279 2012 5,248 791 521 1,016 7,576 2013 4,037 659 370 1,162 6,228 2014 5,266 868 638 1,545 8,317 Source: Government of Canada, Statistics Canada, CANSIM Table 001-009.

Peach & Nectarine World Situation and Update The two basic types of peaches are clingstone and freestone. With clingstone peaches, the flesh “clings” to the "stone" of the peach, making it difficult to separate, and thus more suitable for processing. In addition, this variety retains its flavor and soft texture during processing. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS, 2013), roughly 80 percent of processed peaches are canned and 16 percent are frozen. Processed peaches may also be dried, prepared as baby food and concentrated for fruit juice. The pit of freestone peaches "freely" separates from the flesh, making it ideal for fresh consumption. Freestone peaches are generally larger than clingstones with a firmer, less juicy texture. While most commonly eaten fresh, these peaches may also be frozen and dried.

The top producer of peaches is China, followed by the European Union (EU) and the United States (Table 4). According to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Chinese peach production increased in 2013, reaching approximately 12.0 million metric tons (MT), as did the EU's production. However the U.S. production dropped to 964,890 million MT. China and the EU produce more peaches destined for fresh domestic consumption than for processing. In countries where production is decreasing, the main problems are low consumer quality and consequent consumption problems, high production costs compared to other fruit crops, international competition, and over production. White flesh nectarines remain around 15 to 20% of the total peach production and canning clingstones are recently increasing.

4

Table 4. Top World Peach and Nectarine Producers (metric tons)

Country 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 China 10,170,038 10,828,348 11,012,747 11,459,477 11,954,085 Italy 1,691,788 1,590,660 1,636,753 1,331,621 1,401,795 Spain 1,234,886 1,286,456 1,336,362 1,171,300 1,329,800 USA 1,200,750 1,254,818 1,176,611 1,058,831 964,890 Africa 898,877 821,180 890,486 865,300 880,019 Greece 821,900 738,400 690,200 760,200 666,200 Turkey 547,219 534,903 545,902 575,730 637,543 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 496,130 496,130 476,446 500,000 514,986

Chile 388,000 357,000 319,919 325,000 369,786 Egypt 363,209 273,256 332,487 285,194 281,814 Argentina 300,000 318,000 284,970 290,000 291,804 France 332,050 311,002 301,770 275,309 233,752 India 231,365 244,000 243,074 250,000 250,000 Brazil 216,236 222,402 222,180 232,987 217,706 Mexico 198,085 227,421 167,285 162,866 161,268 Republic of Korea 198,317 138,580 185,078 172,599 193,243

Source: Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division (FAOSTAT).

U.S. Peach Production As of 2014, peaches are commercially produced in 23 states. The top four states in peach production are California, South Carolina, Georgia and New Jersey. California is a significant producer of both fresh and processed peaches, while the other states mainly produce fresh peaches (NASS 2015).

In 2014 California continued to be the dominant peach-producing state, accounting for nearly 73 percent of US peach production and supplying nearly 50 percent of the fresh peach crop and more than 95 percent of processed peaches (NASS 2014). The bearing acreage of peach trees has been declining since 1998. By 2014, the United States had 102,750 acres of peach trees in production. That year's peach crop dropped to 846,600 tons, down from 903,900 tons in 2013, and was valued at more than $616.5 million, up from $548 million in 2013. Of that quantity, 386,920 tons were sold as fresh produce and 444,070 tons were processed. Typically, the majority of processed peaches are canned (328,530 tons), while the rest are either frozen (94,450 tons) or dried (4,200 tons), (NASS 2015).

California clingstone peaches are available from mid-July to mid-September, while the California freestone varieties are harvested from April 20 through October 10. The Southern states of Georgia and South Carolina provide fresh market peaches from May through July, and the peach-producing Northern states harvest from July through September. In addition, development of early season varieties with low-chill hour growing requirements has led to establishment of new orchards in central and south Florida.

5

U.S. Peach Prices U.S. grower prices for all varieties of peaches averaged $742 per ton in 2014, up from $617 per ton in 2013. The average grower price for fresh peaches was $1,180 per ton in 2014, and the average grower price for processed peaches was $362 per ton. The average price per ton for canned peaches in 2014 was $369, and the average price for frozen peaches was $373. That same year, grower prices in California averaged $1,060 per ton for fresh freestone, while grower prices for processed clingstone averaged $369 per ton and for processed freestone averaged $355 per ton (NASS 2015). Prices are defined as net grower returns delivered to the packinghouse (or processor) and are generally net of packing and related charges by the packer or processor.

U.S. Peach Consumption Annual per person consumption of peaches (fresh and canned) in the United States peaked at 13 pounds in the early 1970s. By 2008 annual consumption had dropped to 8.8 pounds per person. Fresh peach consumption actually increased to 5.1 pounds per person that year, and canned consumption decreased from 7.0 pounds per person in the 1970s to 3.0 pounds per person in 2008 (ERS). In 2013 total U.S. peach consumption declined to 6.4 pounds, and was mainly comprised of fresh product consumption at 3.1 pounds and canned product consumption of 2.7 pounds per person.

U.S. Peach Exports The U.S. is a net exporter of peaches. In 2014, the country exported peaches valued at nearly $210.9 million. Of that amount, fresh peach exports accounted for nearly $178 million, a 7 percent increase from 2013, and processed peach exports accounted for more than $32.1 million, a 6 percent drop from the previous year (ERS). The top destination for U.S. peaches in 2014 was Canada, which purchased fresh peaches valued at nearly $80 million and processed peaches valued at nearly $7 million. That same year, Mexico purchased fresh peaches valued at more than $32.8 million and processed peaches valued at nearly $7 million (ERS).

U.S. Peach Imports The U. S. imported peaches valued at $171.5 million in 2014. The majority of the imports were processed peaches, which were valued at $125.8 million, a one percent decrease from 2013 (ERS). China was the main supplier, providing processed peaches valued at more than $87.7 million. During the off season (December to April), Chile was the other major supplier, providing fresh peaches valued at $50.9 million and processed peaches valued at $8.5 million (ERS).

World Nectarine Update Nectarines are seen as a close substitute for peaches. The differences between peaches and nectarines are the lack of fuzz on the nectarine skin; the tendency to be smaller and more aromatic than peaches; and a redder color on the fruit surface. U.S. nectarine production was valued at nearly $181.6 million in 2014, an increase of over 25 percent relative to 2012 (NASS 2015). One hundred percent of U.S. nectarine production is destined for the fresh sector. Fresh-market nectarines were valued at $870 per ton ($181.6 million), (NASS 2015). According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture, the number of U.S. nectarine farms totaled 1,275, a decrease of 43.8 percent from 2007. In 2014, 22,600 bearing acres were reported in the U.S., producing 208,800 tons of fruit (NASS 2015). Like most stone fruits, nectarines thrive in a Mediterranean climate of long, hot summers and cool, wet winters. Nectarines mature between mid-spring and the beginning of fall. Commercially, the fruit is harvested just as the skin changes from green to yellow before the fruit is too soft and subject to bruising and rapid decay. The U.S. fresh market production season is lasts from April 30 through October 15 (NASS 2015).

6

The market price for nectarines in 2014 was $870 per ton. The total value of utilized production was over $181 million in 2014 (NASS 2015). U.S. nectarine exports totaled 439,000 MT in 2014, at a value of over $349,000.

World Apricot Update Spanish explorers are credited with introducing the apricot to the New World, with the earliest plantings reported in Virginia. But the temperate eastern climate was not suitable for apricot production so this fruit did not flourish until seeds were planted at Spanish missions in California. Like most stone fruits, apricots thrive in a Mediterranean climate. Apricots mature primarily in early summer making them one of the earliest available summer fruits. Like nectarines, apricots are harvested when the skin changes from green to yellow before the fruit is too soft and subject to bruising and rapid decay. The U.S. fresh market production season is relatively short, lasting from mid-May through mid-August. However, processed apricots are typically available throughout the year.

Today, California produces over 85 percent of the apricots grown in the United States. The remaining production is mainly from Washington. Total U.S. apricot production was 64,128 tons in 2014, up from 61,035 tons the previous year. The crop was valued at nearly $52.5 million. The value of fresh apricots was over $34.5 million, while the value of processed apricots was nearly $18 million, both up from the previous year (NASS 2015). The largest producers of apricots in the world are Turkey and the Islamic Republic of Iran (ERS).

About 65 percent of U.S. apricot production is sold as fresh produce and commands a higher price per ton. The remaining 35 percent is destined for the processing sector, which includes canning, freezing, juice and dried products (NASS 2015). The price per ton for processed apricots is much lower than that for fresh apricots. In 2014, apricots intended for drying brought a lower price per ton ($381) than apricots for canning ($510) (NASS 2015). Total apricot consumption per person in the United States has fluctuated between 0.8 and 1.6 pounds from 1972 to 2009. Fresh-market consumption has remained relatively stable, but is very low at less than 0.2 pounds per person (ERS 2011). Consumption of fresh plums has continued to decline from 1.72 pounds in 1988 to 0.92 in 2008 and 0.57 in 2013. Increasing imports are supplying health-conscious consumers to a greater extent as domestic production decreases.

According to the Apricot Producers of California, the majority of California growers are small, family-owned businesses, with the farm acreage averaging between 50 to 60 acres. As the number of growers has decreased in recent years, production has become more concentrated. The number of U.S. apricot farms totaled 2,305, a 26.6 percent decrease from 2007 to 2012 (2012 Census of Agriculture). By 2014, apricot bearing acreage had declined to 10,840 acres. The yield has increased slightly, from 5.36 tons per acre in 2012 to 5.92 tons in 2014 (NASS 2015).

U.S. Apricot Prices The average price for apricots in 2014 was $819 per ton, up from $737 per ton in 2013. Average prices for fresh-market apricots are typically higher and more variable than those for processed apricots. In 2014, market prices for fresh apricots were $1,340 per ton and processed apricot prices were $498 per ton (NASS 2015). Prices for fresh apricots are the equivalent returns to growers for fruit delivered to the packinghouse door and prices for processed apricots are the equivalent returns for fruit delivered to the processing plant door.

7

U.S. Apricot Exports U.S. apricot exports in 2014 were valued at nearly $21.5 million. More than 67 percent, or $14.5 million, of the exports were fresh apricots, a two percent decrease from the previous year. About 22 percent, or $1.4 million, of the exports were dried apricots, roughly the same as in 2013. Ten percent, or $2.2 million, were prepared apricots, a three percent drop from 2013 (ERS). Canada continued to be the largest export market for fresh apricots in 2014, purchasing fresh apricots valued at nearly $10.5 million, followed by Mexico, which purchased fresh apricots valued at over $3 million. Japan was the largest importer of U.S. dried apricots, buying dried apricots valued at $0.8 million. Canada and Mexico were the largest markets for prepared apricots, (ERS).

U.S. Apricot Imports In 2014, apricots valued at nearly $66 million were imported. About $26.3 million of the imported apricots were dried apricots from Turkey, a 10 percent drop in value from 2012. Ten percent, or about $4.6 million, were prepared apricots from France, China, and Canada, a two percent decline from 2013. Less than two percent, or $1.7 million, of the imported apricots were fresh apricots from Chile and New Zealand, a 35 percent rise in value from the previous year (ERS).

Plum Update In the United States, nearly all of the commercially grown plums are hybrids of the Japanese plum introduced by a Berkeley nurseryman in the 1870s and subsequently hybridized by Luther Burbank in the late 1800s (California Tree Fruit Agreement). Today, California is the dominant producer of plums due to its mild winters, minimal rainfall during the growing season and low humidity, which is ideal for Japanese varieties. In 2014, the state produced 126,000 tons of plums from 18,000 acres of land. The total value of the crop was nearly $115.8 million (NASS 2015). Four other states also raise plums commercially: Idaho, Michigan, Oregon and Washington. Oregon is generally the largest producer, followed by Washington, Idaho and Michigan. Together, these states harvested 14,800 tons of plums and prunes in 2014 (NASS 2015).

Consumption of fresh plums in the United States has remained relatively constant since 1970, ranging from 0.9 pounds per person to 1.9 pounds per person, although hovering at under one pound (0.93) per person in 2008 (ERS). Fresh plums compete in the market with other popular summer fruits including cherries, peaches and oranges. In 2014, production of California plums increased to 126,000 tons, up 25 percent from 2013. The total number of acres devoted to plums in California continues to decrease, from a peak of 42,000 acres in 1997 to a low of 18,000 acres in 2014. The value of plum production has varied over the last two decades, due in part to the alternate bearing nature of plum trees. Total value of production peaked in 1990 at $134.4 million. In 2014, the total value of plum production in California was $115.8 million, a jump of 87 percent from the previous year (NASS 2015).

US Plum Prices In 2008, the grower price for California plums plunged to $356 per ton, dropping more than $300 per ton from the previous year. Since then, plum prices have increased, reaching $919 per ton in 2014. Plum prices peaked in 1995 at $950 per ton due to a poor harvest year. Price variability is mainly attributed to fluctuations in production.

8

U.S. Exports The United States is a net exporter of plums and prunes. Total export volume has fluctuated, peaking at 160 million pounds in 1997 and plummeting to 81 million pounds in 2004. In 2014, plum and prune exports totaled more than 231 million pounds, valued at $278.3 million (ERS).

Canada continued to be the largest export market for fresh plums and prunes in 2014, purchasing plums valued at more than $29 million. Exports to that country remained relatively stable. The other top importers included: Hong Kong ($10.6 million), Mexico ($10.3 million) and Taiwan ($4.8 million), (ERS).

U.S. Imports Fresh plum and prune exports exceeded imports by nearly $37.9 million in 2010. As it has since 2008, the total value of U.S. plum imports continued to drop, falling to $66.1 million. Chile provides nearly all of the imported plums, $30.5 million in 2014, which accounts for greater than 99 percent of the total (ERS). The majority of plum imports enter the United States between January 1 and May 31, the off season for U.S. plum production, (FAS).

Prune Update Prune trees were introduced to North America in 1856 when cuttings from France were planted in California (California Dried Plum Board, CDPB). In 1900, California prune orchards covered approximately 90,000 acres, and prune packing plants had spread throughout the state. Today, California produces more than 87 percent of U.S. prunes, or dried plums, and accounts for roughly 60 percent of world production (CDPB and Prune Bargaining Association, PBA). In 2014, prune-bearing acreage in the United States fell for the third year in a row, dropping to 50,500 acres. Some 109,800 tons of prune-variety plums were harvested and processed, up from 2013. The total value of production was more than $216.4 million, up 23 percent from the previous year (NASS 2015). The dried plum industry has experienced some variability in prices from year to year. The price for dried plums peaked at $1,500 per ton in 2004 and then again in 2008. In 2014, the average price for prunes dropped for the third year in a row, retreating to $850 per ton (NASS 2015). To moderate the effects of a heavy crop, smaller prunes than usual and possible economic loss, some California growers mechanically thin the fruit set by shaking the trees. They also adjust their equipment, leaving small prunes in the field during harvest.

The fresh fruit is mechanically harvested and dehydrated shortly after being harvested. Only specific varieties of plums can be dried and used without severe fermentation. ‘French prune’, a descendant of “La Petite d’Agen” variety, is the most prevalent variety. According to the CDPB, prune-making plums contain twice as much total sugar at harvest than other varieties of plums. This high sugar content permits plums to be dried without fermenting. In 2012, one ton of dried prunes were equivalent to 3.2 tons of fresh prune-variety plums (NASS 2013).

In 2001 the Food and Drug Administration agreed to officially re-identify prunes as dried plums after a request by the industry and the California Prune Board, which subsequently also changed its name to the California Dried Plum Board (CDPB). The name change was done in an attempt to overcome the negative perception of prunes being a laxative for the elderly. Prunes were heavily promoted in 1985 as a high-fiber fruit to capitalize on advertising efforts by cereal companies publicizing high-

9

fiber diets as a preventative against cancer. Today, marketing efforts by the CDPB still highlight the nutritional value of dried plums, noting that they are a large source of antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and minerals.

Prune production is overseen by a federal marketing order approved in 1949 by the prune producers. The Prune Marketing Committee was created to provide enforcement of the provisions of the order, which include minimum grade and size standards as well as reserve pools. A separate organization, the CDPB, was created through a state marketing order for dried plums in an attempt to increase worldwide demand. The dried plum industry chain is comprised of growers, processors and retailers. There are relatively few processors. The increased mechanization of the industry has led to a more concentrated processing sector responsible for the dehydration of dried plums in a processing facility rather than by the grower on the field. Over half of the growers in California belong to Sun Sweet Growers Inc., the U.S. industry’s largest and only producer-owned processing/marketing cooperative for dried plums. In addition, approximately 20 independent dried plum processors are in operation in California, a small number of which process the majority of dried plums marketed by independent growers. The PBA was voluntarily developed to represent these independent growers in securing a selling price with independent processors.

Several factors are indicated as significant influences on the demand for dried plums. Some studies have reported that dried plum consumption is higher in older people, but it is unclear whether this trend is likely to continue. It has been suggested that older generations preferred dried plums because fresh fruit was not available year round. This would imply that younger generations accustomed to year-round fruit production are likely to consume fewer dried plums as they enter into older age. An alternative theory is that preference for dried plums increases with age, which would mean higher consumption rates would continue in future generations. Increased health consciousness could increase consumption of dried plums as diets continue to include more fruits and vegetables. Also, improvements in technology for pitting have increased the percentage of pitted dried plums sold for consumption from less than two percent in 1961 to 86 percent by 2004. Marketing efforts have focused on increasing the use of dried plums in a variety of baking and cooking practices. Dried plums can be consumed as a healthful snack or can be used as a versatile cooking or baking ingredient. They provide potassium, copper, boron, iron, fibers, antioxidants, sorbitol and vitamins A and K. They can play an important role in promoting good digestive health. According to a study conducted by researchers from Oklahoma State University and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences, polyphenols present in dried plums help bone formation and reduce the risk of osteoporosis (Reuters). Dried plums also aid in glucose metabolism and cardiovascular health and are found to have anti-tumor characteristics.

U.S. Exports Over time, the dried plum industry has moved from the majority of the crop going into the domestic supply to an export-oriented industry, eventually making the United States the world’s largest exporter of dried plums. U.S. dried plums are currently exported to more than 70 countries (FAS). In 2014, U.S. exports of prunes totaled nearly 231 million pounds and were valued at $278.3 million. The leading export market for U.S. dried plums in 2014 was Germany, with shipments valued at $12.2 million, followed by Japan, with shipments valued at more than $9.6 million; Canada with shipments of more than $5.4 million; and Italy with shipments valued at nearly $4.7 million (ERS).

10

U.S. Imports U.S. dried plum imports have been negligible. However, imports sharply increased from 2013 to 2014, from 2.9 million to 14.8 million pounds. The United States purchases a majority of its imported prunes from Chile and Argentina (ERS).

New Technologies and Trends Americans eat approximately 6.4 pounds of peaches per capita per year. Even though these fruits are seasonal, this value is small in comparison to other fresh fruit consumption such as apples (approximately 45.4 pounds in 2013) and bananas (approximatley28.1 pounds). Current consumer preferences, hand labor costs, and global markets are forcing changes in the breeding, production, and delivery of fresh peaches and processed/minimally processed peach products.

Breeding Programs Over the last 20 years, the peach fruit quality concept has evolved from large size, bright red color fruit to a flavorful, healthy, ready and easy to eat, safe peach with high consumer acceptance. Breeding efforts using new genetic pools are being carried out to develop peaches that ripen uniformly in the canopy with diverse predominant visual appearance (red color), shape, flavor, texture attributes; and physiological traits at ripening that are also adapted to minimal processing. The peach genotype and phenotype express diversity, especially related to flesh softening, ethylene production, browning development, and wound responses. The fruit can be utilized for prolonging storage/shelf life and minimally processed products. For example, different melting level types (one, soft, firm, very-very firm), slow ripening (SR), and stony hard (SH) genotypes are interesting biological sources for the ready-to-eat produce concept.

Pedestrian Orchard Systems Economic pressures are forcing growers to reevaluate all farming practices, but labor costs dominate their consideration. Over the past few years, much has been learned about the relationship between tree height, production potential, and labor cost savings. Both dwarfing and standard rootstocks have been studied, but not in long term comparison as part of an overall system. Furthermore, while it has been demonstrated that orchard height can be significantly and successfully reduced, even while using vigorous rootstocks such as Nemaguard, researchers still do not know if a true pedestrian orchard, i.e. one in which no ladders are at all necessary, is economically feasible over the long-term. To better understand these issues, several trials are in progress to explore the relationships between tree form, orchard density and rootstock vigor with the overall goal to maintain tree height at about 7 to 8 feet in plums and peaches. Preliminary yield components measured after the third year of these two pedestrian orchards growing at differing densities and conformations planted at the Kearney Agricultural Center in California in March 2007 are in Tables 5 and 6.

11

Table 5. Total Cumulative Production Data of Owen T Plums Through Fifth Leaf

(boxes per acre at 28.5 lbs.)/box with 75 percent packout, fruit sizes are weighted averages over all years)

Variety/ type Short Trees (15 ft. Row Width) Tall Trees (18 ft. Row Width)

Tree Space Boxes

per Acre

Grams per Fruit

Fruit per Tree

Fruit per Acre

Boxes per

Acre

Grams per Fruit

Fruit per Tree

Fruit per Acre

4 feet 3,389 130 618 449,000 4,103 107 1,093 662,000 8 feet 2,449 132 877 319,000 2,878 122 1,349 408,000 12 feet 2,309 132 1,243 301,000 2,391 127 1,608 325,000 Source: Kearney Agricultural Center in California in March 2007

Table 6. Yield of Zee Fire Nectarine with Harvest on June 1, 2010

Rootstocks Pounds per Tree

Pounds per Acre Fruit per Tree Fruit per Acre Grams per Fruit

Nema-Tall Hex 25.1 5,698 126 28,600 90

Nema-Short Hex 29.8 6767 139 31,600 98

C9-Hex 27.0 6128 113 25,700 110 C9-Quad 19.4 8635 74 32,900 119 Source: Kearney Agricultural Center in California in March 2007

Research in California has shown the following key points about stone fruit production. First, labor cost can be reduced by an average of 20 to 30 percent depending on the labor operation in question. It is possible to design a short tree/orchard system that intercepts as much light as a standard tall system. When light interception is constant, short trees have as great a capacity to bear and size the crop as do tall trees. Vigor control is an issue, but it can be done through judicious care, development of proper tree form, and especially by avoiding excessive fertilization. Proper limb orientation and branch placement is also critical to success.

Ripening Programs California peaches are normally picked when ripening has been initiated (high mature stage, but still firm), thus producing sufficient ethylene to carry on ripening upon arrival to the warehouse. Therefore, stone fruits harvested at the high maturity stage do not need ethylene exposure to ripen properly. Fruit that reach 6 to 8 pounds are considered ‘ready to buy’ and fruit that reach 2 to 3 pounds flesh firmness are considered ripe, (‘ready to eat’). Therefore, ripening programs were developed during retail peach handling prior to sales.

12

Preconditioning Program with New Delivery System A preconditioned treatment to limit chilling injury or internal breakdown and protect flavor prior to shipment is being carried out successfully with consistent results under California conditions. This has replaced the retail ripening programs. Currently, there are several U.S. companies that are offering high quality delivery programs based on this preconditioning treatment at the production side. This system allows the potential of delivering to retail stores peaches that are ‘ready to buy’ or ‘ready to eat’ with low occurrence of internal breakdown symptoms, and high flavor and consumer acceptance. This new fruit delivery system is one more approach to limit internal breakdown and protect the fruit eating experience for consumers. Delivery of preconditioned fruit usually fit very well with established ripening protocol for retailers. Preconditioned fruit adequately tolerate chilling temperature exposure within the ‘killing temperature range’ during postharvest handling. Due to physical and chemical changes occurring to fruit during the preconditioning treatment, fruits are allowed to express higher eating quality. Fruit becomes tastier, more aromatic and juicier, resulting in greater consumer acceptance. A controlled preconditioning/pre-ripening treatment induces fruit softening to the ‘ready to buy’ stage (approximately 2 to 4 pounds for peaches). Under an efficient marketing program, preconditioned /pre-ripened fruit should have a consistently higher retail price and/or demand; however, an aggressive marketing and promotion program is required. Retailer and consumer education on the handling of preconditioned/pre-ripened fruit is important to increase the demand of this new high quality fruit delivery system.

Flavor Biodiversity-Genotypes-Flavor Code Breeding programs around the world have developed and released peach cultivars with different sensory attributes and postharvest characteristics. Our previous work in cooperation with the group in Lleida, Spain demonstrated that ripe cultivars can be consistently grouped according to their predominant sensory attributes such as sweetness, sourness, peach flavor and aroma (flavor code). Statistical analysis (external preference mapping) revealed three clusters that were associated with ethnicity and consumer preferences within each cluster. Sweetness was the main driver of liking for two consumer clusters; however, for the third cluster, the perception of fruit aromas (volatiles) described as grassy/green fruit and pit aromas (negative flavor attributes) were the main drivers of liking. In most cultivars, perception of sweetness correlated positively with overall liking and consumer acceptance. The diversity of flavor with constant supply during the season and an effective promotion is increasing sales for California fruit.

Super Fruit Fresh fruit’s human nutrition studies on health benefits have been gravitating from total antioxidants toward bio nutrients; and from evaluation in mice to human studies. Recently the plum and peach healthy antioxidant concept and the critical role of bio nutrients are being demonstrated through large consumer trials, animal cell and human panel groups. These positive results plus the fact that peaches and plums have high antioxidant and bio nutrients for the daily diet support previous fruit and food studies on the health benefits of eating peaches and plums. These results are the basis of current fruit promotional campaigns promoting increased consumption and improved sales.

New Packaging During the last decade, “ready to buy” peaches (6 to 10 pounds) have been transported and delivered to consumers as part of the “ready to eat” programs in different countries. In the U.S., some supermarket chains are requesting delivery of fruit even softer at the “ready to eat” stage (2 to 4 pounds). For this reason, potential changes in packaging have been proposed for different commodities including peaches; among them, a suspended tray named Hammock. The ‘suspended

13

tray’ package was designed to allow soft ripe fruit to be shipped and displayed at retail with minimal mechanical damage. Transport vibration damage is prevented because the fruit is held firmly in the steeply sloping walls of the deep suspended tray. This prevents relative motion between the fruit and container walls or neighboring fruit. At retail, the covered clamshell package prevents the consumer from damaging the fruit by squeezing or dropping it.

Commercial performance of the suspended tray pack was evaluated by shipping full pallet loads of white and yellow peaches at different ripening stages and packaging, using different boxes and trays including the Hammock tray. Fruit was transported from Reedley, California to a distribution center in Atlanta, Georgia (3 days) and then to Gainesville, Florida for retail display consumer evaluations. During this 3-day journey, fruit temperature was maintained well during transportation close to the original 0o C setting air delivery point. Detailed inspection, at the distribution center (Atlanta), revealed that bruising and weight loss levels were low in overly-soft fruit across all packaging systems. Consumer evaluations, in a normal rotation with properly stored fruit, revealed that packaging did not affect consumer visual and flavor perception. However, in a slow rotation with mishandled fruit, appearance was scored slightly higher for soft white flesh fruit packed in a hammock than in a standard tray. Flavor was not affected by any of the packaging treatments. In all packaging-cultivar combinations, flavor was better expressed in fruit within a 2 to 6 pounds firmness range. This pointed out the importance of ripening and the wide firmness acceptance of consumers for tasty yellow and white flesh peaches. Thus, it was not necessary to promote this expensive Hammock tray technology for peaches as there were no economic benefits to support investment or charge higher prices as it has been reported for pears.

New Peach Categories to Be Exploited: Fresh Cut New marketing opportunities become feasible because of the genetic biodiversity in peach fruit. This biodiversity includes stony hard, slow ripening, and slow softening characteristics in addition to the melting and non-melting flesh peaches or high demand near production areas. Historically, the fresh fruit industry had adhered to the belief that peaches are not conductive to being sold as fresh-cut produce because of their fast deterioration. However, the availability of new peach genotypes and research are revealing that new treatments and technical solutions protect fresh-cut fruit for 10 days or more.

Potential Cultivar Alternatives In this section, potential cultivars are recommended for testing in the main production areas of B.C. For more information, refer to Appendix B.

The cultivars are selected based on industry experience and evaluation of their performance in California and Chile conditions over many seasons. These cultivars are chosen in part because they are free of royalties. These cultivars can be obtained directly from nurseries in California, from growers, or from the USDA National Plant Germ Plasm System which provides germ plasm to support research and education objectives. Peach, nectarine, plum and apricot collections are located at Davis, California and available to the public. Further information can be found at this website: (http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=20-32-10-00).

One of the main B.C. barriers to expanded production is the competition with California peaches and the timing of the California fruit in relation to B.C. market entry. The same cultivars are harvested in B.C. at least five weeks later, than those from California. By the time B.C. fruit is available large volumes of California stone fruits are well established. The advantage of B.C. is that fruit is produced

14

near the market, so freshness and flavor should be emphasized in order to compete with California fruit.

Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 show the recommended newer cultivars available from California that should be considered for testing in B.C.

Table 7. Peach Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Peach Season in B.C.

Current B.C. Variety May June July

E. Redhaven Crimson Lady

Earli Rich Zee Lady

Redhaven Crown Princess

Crimson Princess Summer Lady

Glohaven Rich Lady- Improved O’Henry

Halehaven Fancy Lady Creshaven Summer Zee O’Henry

Source: Carlos Crisosto, horticultural consultant

Table 8. Nectarine Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Nectarine Season in B.C.

Current B.C. Variety May June July

Artic Glo Rose Diamond

Springbrite Diamond Ray

Independence Summer Fire Firebrite Fantasia Flavortop Red Gold Fantasia

Source: Carlos Crisosto, horticultural consultant

15

Table 9. Apricot Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Apricot Season in B.C.

Current BC Variety May June

Tomcot Apache Helena Goldstrike Bolaroja Patterson Goldbar Primarosa Perfection Lorna

Source: Carlos Crisosto, horticultural consultant

Table 10. Plum and Pluot Cultivars from California Proposed to Extend Current Plum & Pluot Season in B.C.

Current BC Variety June July

Blackamber Black Splendor Blackamber Early Italian Owen T Italian Catalina Red Heart Fortune Shiro Friar

Source: Carlos Crisosto, horticultural consultant

Rootstock Selections Rootstocks not only provide below ground protection from pests, but can also influence scion growth (http://ucanr.edu/sites/fruitreport/Rootstocks/). Dwarfing rootstocks reduce tree height by producing a less vigorous canopy. A reduced canopy can be beneficial because it enables hand harvesting and limits otherwise intensive pruning required for peach and nectarine varieties. Currently in California the most common rootstocks used for peach and nectarine are ‘Lovell’ and ‘Nemaguard’. Two new releases, ‘Controller 5’ and ‘Controller 9’, are promising dwarfing rootstocks reducing the tree height 50 percent and 90 percent, respectively, compared to Nemaguard. The rootstock used mostly in northern California is ‘Lovell’ because of its cold hardiness and tolerance of wet soils. In the San Joaquin Valley ‘Nemaguard’ is common because it is resistant to root-knot nematode. Peach budding compatibility is enhanced when scions are budded onto peach or peach x almond rootstock. Graft incompatibility has been observed for peach grafted onto almond, plum, apricot or other interspecific hybrid rootstock. The Fruit Report, a website developed by Scott Johnson, includes a comprehensive database of peach, nectarine, and plum rootstocks developed for use in California and links to scientific reports. The rootstock variety database is organized both by rootstock name and characteristic (such as waterlogging tolerance, vigor, nematode resistance etc.). More information about rootstocks is provided in Appendix B.

16

NC-140 Rootstock Trials The NC-140 refers to a group of scientists from over 30 locations within the U.S., Canada and Mexico who cooperate on rootstock trials for peaches, apples, cherries and pears. Each trial is replicated in at least five locations, and often at as many as 20 locations. Peach rootstock plantings were established in 1984, 1994, 2001, 2002 and 2009. California participated in all but the 1994 trial. An annual California report is published each year and final reports are published in scientific journals.

Findings from Trade Interviews with Stone Fruit Marketers Interviews with the retail groups focused on the Western Canada market region. In line with the consumption data reported above, the retailers report that stone fruit sales are flat or declining. Part of the reason that peach and nectarine sales are down in the last two years is the severe drought in California. Much higher prices for California stone fruit has dampened demand in Canada, especially for peaches and nectarines.

Like sweet cherries, which were discussed in a companion report, the large retailers do not specify the variety of their purchases of the stone fruits covered here. Retailers rarely place signage to indicate the varieties of stone fruits to consumers. The retailers do not think consumers – especially younger consumers—know about varieties or their differences. Retailers put their focus on fruit quality, availability and prices within the usual summer seasonal periods consumers expect to see these products in-store. This selling practice reinforces the seeming indifference to varieties at the consumer level, yet behind it all variety still matters.

Perhaps the most compelling finding of the market interviews is that retailers report the shorter shelf life of all of the stone fruits supplied by B.C. compared to imported fruit. From their operational perspective this is a negative because it means they have a shortened period to plan for B.C. fruit merchandizing and sometimes the B.C. season comes to an abrupt end. Retailers in Canada generally do not have their own programs to condition fruit before it is marketed. This can compound the problem for local fruit and lead to lower fruit quality and a lesser consumer experience when over-ripe fruit is marketed. At least one packer believes the fruit might not have a shorter shelf life if they could justify more costly storage methods to hold fruit before shipping to retailers.

One long term factor in declining stone fruit consumption is decreasing popularity of home preserving by canning. One reason consumers have strayed from fruit canning is the ready supply of reasonably priced canned products in stores. Other main reasons that consumers do not preserve these fruits are the lack of these three essentials: time, how-to knowledge and storage space in homes.

Roadside markets in B.C., farmers markets and even retailers in Kelowna and other population centers have an advantage over the large retailers in selling the B.C. stone fruits. These marketers have easy access to consumers who are either local residents or visitors/tourists that want to assure themselves they are getting the freshest, local fruit. They are buying fresh fruit mainly for immediate consumption but also preserving fruits principally by canning, freezing or drying. Direct marketing sales are also boosted by the consumer satisfaction derived from a trip to meet farmers while having enjoyable outings to the countryside.

Some roadside markets offer very welcoming farm experiences to “city folks” who are willing to pay full retail prices for fresh fruit and processed fruits such as jam and baked goods. Some of these

17

businesses also add farm tours and farm stays to generate added income. They also can emphasize quality with just-picked ripeness for best fruit flavor and other attributes highly desired by their customers. When well executed this business model generates reasonably high financial net returns that allow the businesses to expand their own orchards or purchase more fruit from their best local orchard suppliers. The profit of these successful businesses allows the owners to travel and research varieties in order to actively seek premium fruit for their customers. One successful local farm and roadside store owner said they doubled their tree fruit acreage to 30 acres over the last 10 years. Their expansion included all tree fruits, not just stone fruits and pears.

Pear Variety Trends among Major B.C. Competitors

Knowledge of pear variety trends among major competitors is valuable for strategic planning by the B.C. pear industry. It is vital to know which new or existing varieties are moving in or out of favor as consumers' tastes change, and to be able to assess which varieties not currently grown in B.C. might be suitable to B.C. production and marketing conditions.

The variety development situation in pears has been quite different from that in apples. In many countries, a substantial share of pear production continues to be devoted to pears for canning. The canning pear sector is dominated by a single variety, Bartlett (also known as "Williams" or "Williams Bon Chretien"). Traditionally, supermarket retailers have devoted limited shelf space to fresh pear selections. This tendency has worsened as per capita consumption of fresh pears has slipped in many countries. The long-term trend has been for the shelf space devoted to fresh pears to be dominated by a few mainstream varieties, and for reduced willingness to stock specialty pear varieties. This has also discouraged innovation in the fresh pear sector. As a result, in contrast to apples and sweet cherries, few new pear varieties have been commercialized in the last two decades.

The most common forms of innovation in the pear sector have been (a) new plantings of varieties that have been successful in other countries, such as Abate Fetel in Italy. (Since Europe has been an important target market for fresh pear exports, trends in Europe have strongly influenced choice of pear varieties in many other countries), (b) the introduction of red strains of established favorites, such as Red Bartletts or Red D'Anjou, and (c) the introduction of earlier strains of popular varieties, such as Corina, an early strain of Conference. In general, these red strains have had made limited inroads in the overall pear market. While new managed (or club) varieties are plentiful in apples, they are only beginning to attract interest in the pear sector.

One problem in analyzing pear variety trends across countries is that different countries provide different historical series on individual varieties. For example, in European countries, data are available for the total volume produced of each variety. In Chile, annual data are only available for the varieties exported fresh. In South Africa, annual data series are available for the area planted to major varieties. In Argentina, the leading world exporter of western pears, only rough estimates are available. In the following tables, the absolute data for each country, and the percentage contributed by each variety, are reported. These are believed to be reliable indicators of the major trends in varieties planted and produced in each country.

18

Table 11 shows the production of pears, by major variety, in the 19 of the 28 member countries of the European Union (EU-28) where pears are produced commercially. In general, there has been little trend in production over time. Much of the variation in total production from year to year has been due to weather factors. However, there has been a clear upward trend in production of the top three varieties, Conference, Abate Fetel and Rocha, and downward trend in all other fresh varieties, and of the Williams/Bartlett variety.

Table 11. European Union: Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013

(1,000 metric tons)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Conference 766 799 827 823 639 903 832 928 694 794 Abate Fetel 262 283 329 325 249 306 224 404 256 308 Rocha 180 120 172 136 168 197 171 209 115 196 Guyot 107 115 109 105 98 102 92 96 70 80 Coscia-Ercollini 96 111 104 110 107 106 98 80 77 74 Comice 129 105 135 126 82 116 97 107 58 71 Blanquilla 161 173 140 133 82 86 81 78 59 61 Kaiser 50 61 60 59 39 65 42 60 39 54 Passacrassana 37 35 29 25 21 19 15 17 17 15 Durondeau 10 7 9 7 6 8 6 7 5 5 Other Fresh 469 433 431 373 369 382 331 333 247 299 Bartlett/Williams 316 322 352 322 309 312 286 332 253 279 Total 2,581 2,565 2,697 2,545 2,168 2,603 2,276 2,652 1,888 2,236 Source: Prognosfruit, annual reports.

The impact of these trends is more apparent in Table 12, which shows the share of production accounted for by major varieties. The combined share of the top three fresh varieties has gone from 46.9 percent in 2004-05 to 58.1 percent in 2013-14. These three have gained at the expense of all other fresh pear varieties. The share for the Bartlett/Williams variety has remained remarkably stable at over 12 percent of total pear production.

19

Table 12. European Union: Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 (percent)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Conference 29.7 31.2 30.7 32.3 29.5 34.7 36.6 35.0 36.8 35.5 Abate Fetel 10.2 11.0 12.2 12.8 11.5 11.8 9.8 15.2 13.6 13.8 Rocha 7.0 4.7 6.4 5.3 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.9 6.1 8.8 Guyot 4.1 4.5 4.0 4.1 4.5 3.9 4.0 3.6 3.7 3.6 Coscia-Ercollini 3.7 4.3 3.9 4.3 4.9 4.1 4.3 3.0 4.1 3.3 Comice 5.0 4.1 5.0 5.0 3.8 4.5 4.3 4.0 3.1 3.2 Blanquilla 6.2 6.7 5.2 5.2 3.8 3.3 3.6 2.9 3.1 2.7 Kaiser 1.9 2.4 2.2 2.3 1.8 2.5 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.4 Passacrassana 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 Durondeau 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 Other Fresh 18.2 16.9 16.0 14.7 17.0 14.7 14.5 12.6 13.1 13.4 Bartlett/Williams 12.2 12.6 13.1 12.7 14.3 12.0 12.6 12.5 13.4 12.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Derived from Table 11.

The concentration in a few varieties was even more pronounced in individual countries. For example, in the 2013-14 season the Conference share of total pear production in Belgium was 89.5 percent, the Netherlands 82.7 percent, United Kingdom 84.0 percent, Poland 63.6 percent and Spain 43.3 percent. Production of the other two leading varieties was also highly concentrated geographically with almost all Abate Fetel production in the EU-28 concentrated in Italy, and Rocha production found only in Portugal. Guyot, only reported for France, accounted for over one quarter of French pear production. Production of Bartlett/Williams was heaviest in Italy, France and Spain, countries with traditional pear processing facilities.

While the share of other fresh pear varieties in the EU-28 has been declining, there have been increasing efforts by breeding programs in Europe to find new and improved pear varieties. In the last decade, pears have grown in importance relative to apples in both Belgium and the Netherlands, and that has prompted breeders there to introduce new pear varieties. For example, the Next Fruit Generation Company (NFG) in the Netherlands has introduced a Comice mutation, Sweet Sensation, a russetted pear, Gold Sensation, and a bicolored pear variety, Early Desire. The Carmen pear from Italy was derived from a Guyot Bella di Giugno cross. A new variety, called Lucy Sweet, bred by the University of Bologna in Italy is being commercialized by the Consorzio Italiano Vivaisti (CIV), best known for its commercialization of the Rubens apple. In France, Angelys, a pear bred by the French research organization, INRA, has been planted in several countries. A number of these newer pears are being commercialized within a club format. It is too early to determine what type of market niches these newer pear varieties will serve, or how successful they will become.

Despite its long reign as one of the world's largest producers and exporters of pears, data on pear varieties in Argentina remain spotty. The best available data, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service reports, suggest that the annual pear production of 800-900,000 metric tons is composed of 45 percent Bartlett/Williams, 30 percent Packham's Triumph, 10 percent D'Anjou, 6 percent Red Bartlett and two percent Abate Fetel. The remaining seven percent

20

includes Beurre Bosc, Beurre Gifford, Clapps Favourite and Red D'Anjou. About 70 percent of the Bartlett/Williams are used for processing, but about half of all Argentine pear production is exported fresh. In contrast to Chile (discussed next), the Argentine fruit industry has been stymied in innovating by macroeconomic conditions like national debt crises, runaway inflation and punitive taxes, and by escalating wages and worker unrest within the industry.

The overall pear situation in Chile contrasts sharply with that in the European Community. The long-term trend in pear production and exports has been steadily upwards (Table 13). Average exports in 2011-13 were about 40 percent higher than a decade earlier. Exports of the once dominant variety, Packham's Triumph, have declined steadily over time, as have those of D'Anjou and fresh Bartlett/Williams, while there have been strong upward trends in exports of Abate Fetel, Coscia-Ercolini, Forelle and Carmen. Abate Fetel overtook Packham's Triumph as the major pear variety in the 2011-12 season. This has clearly been driven by trends in the European market, since Europe continues to absorb more than half of all Chilean exports of fresh pears. In turn, the decline in exports of D'Anjou, Bosc and Bartlett/Williams may reflect the diminishing importance of the North American market to Chilean fresh pear exporters.

Table 13. Chile: Pear Exports, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 (1,000 boxes)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013p Packham's 4,177 3,634 3,752 4,008 4,249 3,251 3,607 3,006 3,076 2,312 Abate Fetel 732 971 989 1,821 1,815 2,042 2,631 3,066 3,628 2,658 Coscia-Ercollini 600 720 754 1,092 979 1,056 1,345 1,429 1,548 899 Bosc 715 875 686 950 709 574 880 667 731 638 D'Anjou 391 483 425 395 315 366 306 301 234 170 Comice 104 126 130 143 129 169 224 133 137 140 Forelle 31 57 115 212 293 543 782 965 1,332 1,089 Kaiser 9 11 3 9 10 0 3 3 0 0 Carmen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 149 138 Other Fresh 96 184 159 235 85 234 182 423 218 154 Bartlett/Williams 579 614 602 701 571 528 496 524 461 410 Total 7,434 7,675 7,615 9,566 9,155 8,763 10,456 10,539 11,514 8,608 Source: EXIMFRUIT Chile, annual editions. Table 14 shows how the shares of different varieties in Chile's fresh pear exports have changed over time. The most dramatic changes have been the decline of almost 30 percent in the share provided by Packham's Triumph, the increase of over 20 percent in Abate Fetel's share, and the increase of over 12 percent in the share of the newer blush variety, Forelle. The early-ripening pear, Carmen from Italy has shown impressive growth from a low base in the last three seasons.

21

Table 14. Chile: Pear Exports, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 (percent)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013p Packham's 56.2 47.3 49.3 41.9 46.4 37.1 34.5 28.5 26.7 26.9 Abate Fetel 9.8 12.7 13.0 19.0 19.8 23.3 25.2 29.1 31.5 30.9 Coscia-Ercollini 8.1 9.4 9.9 11.4 10.7 12.1 12.9 13.6 13.4 10.4 Bosc 9.6 11.4 9.0 9.9 7.7 6.6 8.4 6.3 6.3 7.4 D'Anjou 5.3 6.3 5.6 4.1 3.4 4.2 2.9 2.9 2.0 2.0 Comice 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.9 2.1 1.3 1.2 1.6 Forelle 0.4 0.7 1.5 2.2 3.2 6.2 7.5 9.2 11.6 12.7 Kaiser 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Carmen 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 1.6 Other Fresh 1.3 2.4 2.1 2.5 0.9 2.7 1.7 4.0 1.9 1.8 Bartlett/Williams 7.8 8.0 7.9 7.3 6.2 6.0 4.7 5.0 4.0 4.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Derived from Table 13.

Table 15. South Africa: Pear Area Planted, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 (hectares)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013p Packham's Triumph 3,398 3,329 3,301 3,258 3,278 3,294 3,249 3,325 3,590 3,842 Abate Fetel 260 315 384 444 493 540 589 710 722 740 Rosemarie 517 451 428 394 384 384 365 373 392 415 Bosc, Beurre 517 447 412 392 365 353 340 319 285 263 Bosc, Golden Russet 186 163 156 176 168 163 155 151 149 134 Cheeky n.a. 22 88 n.a. 6 22 88 146 202 232 Comice 372 314 294 276 268 245 236 213 181 162 Forelle 2,261 2,440 2,539 2,686 2,801 2,895 2,963 3,013 3,004 3,165 Flamingo 160 143 148 152 148 143 148 145 142 144 Other Fresh 763 533 403 374 355 336 304 282 259 250 Bartlett/Williams 3,696 3,625 3,394 3,249 3,159 3,060 2,895 2,884 2,774 2,687 Total 12,130 11,782 11,547 11,401 11,425 11,435 11,332 11,561 11,700 12,034 Source: Hortgro Tree Census, 2013

The total area planted to pears in South Africa has remained relatively stable in the last decade (Table 15). Packham's Triumph continues to have the most planted area, and has seen renewed interest from growers in recent years. South Africa has also had heavy plantings of blushed pears, including Forelle, Rosemarie and Flamingo. Area planted to Forelle rose by 40 percent between 2004 and 2013, but area planted to Rosemarie and Flamingo has fallen modestly. Bartlett/Williams remains the third most widely planted variety, but plantings have fallen by 27 percent over the decade as the pear processing industry has faced competitive pressure from Chinese pears. Based on the percentage of plantings less than 4 years old, production can be expected to expand in the next few years for Packham's Triumph and Abate Fetel, and to grow rapidly from a small base for

22

Cheeky. Cheeky is an early red blush pear that was bred by the Agricultural Research Council in South Africa. It is still at an early stage of commercialization.

Table 16. South Africa: Pear Area Planted, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 (percent)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013p

Packham's Triumph 28.0 28.3 28.6 28.6 28.7 28.8 28.7 28.8 30.7 31.9 Abate Fetel 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.1 Rosemarie 4.3 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 Bosc, Beurre 4.3 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.2 Bosc, Golden Russet 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 Cheeky n.a. 0.2 0.8 n.a. 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.3 1.7 1.9 Comice 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 Forelle 18.6 20.7 22.0 23.6 24.5 25.3 26.1 26.1 25.7 26.3 Flamingo 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 Other Fresh 6.3 4.5 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.1 Bartlett/Williams 30.5 30.8 29.4 28.5 27.6 26.8 25.5 24.9 23.7 22.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Derived from Table 15.

Table 16 shows trends similar to those shown in Table 15. The combined market share of the top three fresh pear varieties, Packham's Triumph, Forelle and Abate Fetel, rose from 48.8 percent in 2004 to 64.4 percent in 2013. The share of all other fresh varieties slipped during the same period. The only exception was the new variety, Cheeky, which still accounted for less than two percent of pear area. The share of the processed variety, Bartlett/Williams, declined for 8 out of 10 years, and fell overall by 8 percentage points. Market share gains for Forelle more than offset declines for the other blush pears, Rosemarie and Flamingo.

New Zealand is a relatively small producer of pears. In addition, pear area fell from 936 hectares in 2004 to 403 hectares in 2013. However, New Zealand has actively sought to discover new pear varieties that would help it compete better in long-distance markets. One, Taylor's Gold, a russeted sport of the Comice variety, aroused a lot of interest. It currently accounts for about 30 percent of New Zealand's exports. However, it is difficult to grow, and has found few adherents in other countries.

To further its goal of developing new fruit varieties, the New Zealand fruit industry set up a new organization, Prevar™ Limited, jointly owned by two New Zealand entities, Plant & Food Research (a research organization) and Pipfruit New Zealand (the industry body) and by Apple and Pear Australia Limited (APAL). New Zealand and Australian growers get priority access to any new releases. In addition, Prevar Limited has an affiliation with the Associated Independent Group of Nurseries (AIGN) that has members in 10 countries in Africa, Australia, Asia, North and South America and Western Europe that can test new Prevar varieties in major producing countries. These partners believe that to justify the expense of developing new cultivars, they must be capable of being supplied to markets for twelve months each year. This model had been pioneered by Enza Limited for the Jazz apple and by APAL for the Pink Lady apple.

23

While Prevar Limited has focused primarily on commercializing new apple varieties, it has also introduced a number of new pear varieties. These include Velvetine, a large pyriform shaped pear, and a number of interspecific pears, marketed under the Piqa® brand umbrella. These include PIQA®BOO, that matures one to two weeks before Comice, and PremP109, a Chinese Japanese pear cross that is exclusively licensed to AIGN, and is being marketed under the Reddy Robin™ trademark. It is being handled in Canada by the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre. Prevar believes that interspecific crosses between western and Asian pears can help extend the entire pear category. If that strategy is successful, such pears could become available to markets worldwide.

Australia was a major producer of pears for a long time. However, area and production declined as Australia's access to European markets dried up and as the large canning industry gradually eroded. However, the Australian fruit industry has become optimistic about reversing this trend because of the global success of its Pink Lady apples, and the expansion of market opportunities in Asia. The new Goldrush pear, a chance seedling from Western Australia, was introduced a decade ago. The Australian Pome Fruit Improvement Program has tested many new varieties of apples and pears for their suitability to Australian conditions. Also, as noted above, APAL is a major shareholder in the Prevar development program.

The pear industry in North America is concentrated in the three western states of Washington, Oregon and California. About 48 percent of production is in Bartlett/Williams pears. Of that volume almost 60 percent is canned at a price negotiated before harvest between grower and canner organizations. An increasing percentage of Bartlett/Williams pears now goes to the fresh market. All other pears are grown primarily for the fresh market. Even among these pears, the majority continue to be D'Anjou pears. There are no official statistics on pear varieties in the United States. However, the Northwest Pear Bureau prepares an estimate for each annual conference of Prognosfruit in Europe (Table 17).

Table 17. United States: Fresh Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013

(1,000 metric tons)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 D'Anjou 188 209 174 215 178 222 202 228 205 212 Bartlett/Williams 136 113 121 142 139 137 121 136 140 148 Bosc 69 58 69 56 67 69 61 82 65 70 Comice 4 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 Red D'Anjou 14 15 15 18 16 19 19 19 20 22 Seckel 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 Other Reds 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Other Varieties 6 2 12 11 11 11 9 12 5 4 Total 419 404 397 450 419 466 420 485 443 463 Source: Prognosfruit, annual reports.

Table 17 shows that U.S. production of fresh pears has been rising slowly, due largely to increasing yields on a gradually falling acreage. Much of the growth has been due to greater diversion of

24

Bartlett/Williams pears to the fresh market and increased production of red pears. There has been little or no growth in other minor varieties.

Table 18. United States: Fresh Pear Production, by Variety and Marketing Year, 2004-2013 (percent)

Variety 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 D'Anjou 44.9 51.7 43.8 47.8 42.5 47.6 48.1 47.0 46.3 45.8 Bartlett/Williams 32.5 28.0 30.5 31.6 33.2 29.4 28.8 28.0 31.6 32.0 Bosc 16.5 14.4 17.4 12.4 16.0 14.8 14.5 16.9 14.7 15.1 Comice 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 Red Anjou 3.3 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.8 4.1 4.5 3.9 4.5 4.8 Seckel 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 Other Reds 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 Other Varieties 1.4 0.5 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.1 2.5 1.1 0.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Derived from Table 17.

The concentration in leading varieties is even greater in the U.S. than in the EU-28. In the last decade, D'Anjou, Bartlett/Williams and Bosc have consistently provided over 90 percent of U.S. fresh pear production (Table 18). Their rank order has remained the same, with D'Anjou still the clear leader. The share of Red Anjou has crept upwards, but was still less than 5 percent of the total in 2013-14. Other minor varieties have made no headway in the last decade.

Pear Production in Canada and British Columbia Pear acreage and production in all of Canada has declined steeply in the last decade. Both bearing area and production in 2014-15 were estimated to be about half that of a decade earlier, with production of less than 7,000 metric tons on about 1,500 acres. Much of the decline was due to the closing of pear processing plants in Eastern Canada. However, since per capita fresh pear consumption is on a par with that in the United States, this means that Canada currently imports over 90 percent of its fresh pear needs. The United States is not as dominant a supplier of Canada's pear imports, as it is of apple imports. In recent years, all other countries have supplied over 40 percent of Canada's pear imports. Argentina has been the major Southern Hemisphere supplier of western pears, followed at a distance by South Africa, Australia and Chile. China has been the dominant supplier of Asian pears. Imports from China exceeded those from Argentina in three of four seasons between 2008-09 and 2011-12, but imports from China have since declined as domestic demand in that country has soared.

According to Statistics Canada CANSIM data, production of pears in B. C. has remained relatively stable in recent years. This means that B.C.'s share of Canadian pear production has averaged about 60 percent in the last five seasons, from 2010 to 2014. Total marketed production has averaged 5,153 tons in the last five seasons, from 2010 to 2014. The main varieties of pears produced in B.C.

25

are similar to those in the Pacific Northwest, with D'Anjou and Bartlett dominant, and Bosc a distant third.

Table 19. British Columbia: Imports of Fresh Pears, by Calendar Year, 2004-2014

(metric tons)

Source 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 United States 16,870 15,009 12,703 12,703 10,379 11,566 13,908 12,212 16,389 13,718 15,335 China 1,640 4,230 6,593 6,139 6,061 5,404 5,126 6,625 7,478 7,043 5,890 Australia 2,122 1,746 2,143 952 1,694 1,860 1,951 1,755 1,579 1,361 1,287 Argentina 72 242 305 290 398 247 185 277 277 885 972 Chile 197 150 123 282 59 75 116 177 130 126 173 South Korea 312 196 103 87 124 223 336 216 161 143 199 New Zealand 180 101 58 74 91 158 82 66 104 159 150 All Other 83 48 39 0 231 0 1 0 0 4 0 Total 21,476 21,722 22,067 20,527 18,806 19,533 21,705 21,328 26,117 23,439 24,005 Source: Canadian International Trade Database

Exports of fresh pears from B. C. in recent years have been minimal. In contrast, often one third of Canadian imports of fresh pears have entered through B.C. Not all of that product would have remained in the province. An unknown percentage may have been transshipped to Alberta or elsewhere. Table 19 shows the trend in imports of fresh pears into B.C. for the calendar years from 2004 to 2014. While the overall trend has been upwards in recent years, imports from the United States have been relatively flat. Virtually all of the imports from the United States have come from the West Coast states of Washington, Oregon and California, in that order. In 2014, about 70 percent came from Washington State, 26 percent from Oregon and four percent from California.

Most of the increase in B.C. pear imports in the decade has been due to China. Imports of Asian pears from China grew rapidly between 2004 and 2006, but have grown little since. South Korea has remained a minor supplier of Asian pears. The volume of fresh pears imported from the four off-season suppliers, Australia, Argentina, Chile and New Zealand, has been relatively stable, and their share of imports has averaged about 11 percent, a much lower share than that for all of Canada. This suggests that some Southern Hemisphere pears may enter East Coast ports in Canada and be shipped overland to B.C.

Lessons Learned from Pear Variety Trend Analysis A number of lessons can be gleaned from the previous survey of trends in pear varieties in major producing countries.

1. Unlike the apple category, limited space on retail shelves has led to concentration of pear production on a few, popular fresh pear varieties. The forces of inertia have been much stronger, and the drive for innovation much weaker, than in the apple category. Any new pear must match up to the characteristics of the reigning champion in any country, whether

26

Conference in western Europe, Abate Fetel in Italy, Rocha in Portugal, D'Anjou in the United States, or Packham's Triumph in the Southern Hemisphere.

2. Retailer and consumer preferences in major export markets like Western Europe and the United States have also stymied innovation among major exporters.

3. The major types of innovation in pear varieties that have taken place among exporting countries have involved expansion of production of varieties already established in export markets, or the introduction of red strains of existing popular varieties, such as Red Bartlett or Red D'Anjou. This expansion has generally occurred at the expense of traditional Southern Hemisphere favorites like Packham's Triumph. However, some red strains have not retained their color over time.

4. South Africa has been in the lead in commercializing blush pears, such as Forelle, Rosemarie, Flamingo, and the new Cheeky. However, other countries have yet to enjoy similar success with blush pears. A few Forelle pears are grown in B.C., indicating that there may be possibilities for limited introduction of new pear varieties on a trial basis in B.C.

5. Processing of pears remains a viable, but shrinking business in many producing countries and districts, although not in B.C. While processing continues to be dominated by a single variety, Bartlett/Williams, an increasing share of Bartlett/Williams are now being sold on fresh markets.

6. The pace of innovation in the pear sector is beginning to pick up as breeders recognize that they can use the same genetic knowledge and techniques that have been applied to apples in developing improved varieties of pears. Canada's pear breeding program is headquartered at the University of Guelph in Ontario. Elsewhere, there is considerable excitement about the potential for developing hybrid pears that combine the qualities of Asian and western pears, or those of different Asian pears. However, only a small number of new pear cultivars are ready for full-scale commercialization. These include the Piqa pears from the Prevar program in New Zealand, Cheeky from South Africa, Sweet Sensation from the Netherlands and the new Gem pear, just introduced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.

7. Despite the lack of innovation, there are a wide range of pear varieties potentially available to B.C. fruit producers (Table 20). Most of these pear varieties are resistant to fire blight and have attracted varying followings among selected retailers and consumers around the world. In many cases, their suitability for production in B.C., or for markets in B.C., has not been established. However, a number of B.C. growers reported having difficulty in getting access to these new varieties for various reasons.

8. Another form of innovation in the fresh pear industry has been the preconditioning of fruit so pears can be sold ready to eat off the produce shelf. However, such preconditioning only works if there are reliable sales and handling agreements between the marketer and the receiving retailer. Such secure sales agreements are not currently available to the B.C. pear industry.

27

Table 20. Types of Pears Available to B.C. Producers

Established Mainstream Varieties

Established Secondary Varieties

Color or Timing Variations New Varieties

Conference (W. Europe) Bosc (universal) Forelle (S Africa, Chile) Angelys (INRA, France) Abate Fetel (Italy, Chile) Comice Rosemarie (S Africa) Carmen (Italy, Chile) D'Anjou (U.S., Argentina) Coscia (W Europe, Chile) Flamingo (S Africa) Cheeky (S Africa) Bartlett/Williams (universal) Blanquilla (W Europe) Red Sensation Gem (U.S.) Packham's Triumph (S Hem) Red Bartlett Piqa®Boo (N Zealand) Red D'Anjou (U.S.) Reddy Robin™ (AIGN) Corina Sweet Sensation (Nethlnd) Velvetine (N Zealand)

Access to New Pear Varieties for B.C. Growers While many of the same organizations that have bred or commercialized new apple varieties have also been involved in developing new pear varieties, their emphasis on pears has tended to be more limited, and more recent, than on apples. The scale of apple markets has been so much larger, and the rewards for new varieties so much greater, than in the case of pears. However, work in pears has been facilitated because the same genetic techniques that have been used by breeders to speed up discovery of successful new apple cultivars are equally applicable to pears.

Most of the modern work on pear breeding and commercialization is being conducted by the organizations that have dominated similar work in apples. These breeders and sponsors of new apple varieties have been described as a "global meritocracy" because they believe that their new cultivars represent very valuable intellectual property, and that rights to that property will only be granted on merit. They have sought out the best growers and best marketers in the growing districts with the best growing conditions for their variety in both hemispheres. Their goal is to generate twelve-month supplies of a consistently high standard demanded by the multinational retail chains that dominate the food business. Most of the organizations now involved in pear breeding and commercialization follow the same principles. However, they are more constrained in pears because the areas available for optimal pear growing are much more limited than is the case for apple.

The leading generators of new pear varieties include organizations like Prevar (New Zealand), Apple and Pear Australia Limited (APAL), Conzorzio Italiano Vivaisti (CIV) (Italy) and the Next Fruit Generation (NFG) (the Netherlands). A number of international alliances of nurseries, such as the Associated Independent Group of Nurseries (AIGN) and the International Network of Nurseries (INN) work closely with the breeders and commercialization organizations to introduce the new pear varieties around the world.

In general, these organizations and alliances prefer to license production, packing and marketing rights to selected leading integrated grower-packer-marketers in major producing countries. They prefer alliances with firms that can control all aspects of planting, packing, storing and marketing, and that can afford hefty down payments and ongoing fees for exclusive rights to the new variety. Preferred partners include cooperative type organizations like VOG (Italy) Blue Whale (France) and Diamond Fruit (Oregon), and private companies like the DuToit Group (South Africa), Heartland Fruit

28

(New Zealand), and Stemilt Growers and CMI (Washington State). In turn, these major integrated firms compete against each other for the exclusive rights to the most promising new cultivars.

For B.C. growers to gain access to such new cultivars in the face of global competition, they would have to use current industry organizations, or create new organizations that could make the commitment to production, packing and marketing demanded by the variety sponsors. This would be a challenge under the existing structure of the B.C. pear industry.

Unlike apples, there are few alternative breeding programs that focus on new pear cultivars. One alternative for B.C. would be increased emphasis on pear cultivars in the breeding programs of Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (PARC) and in the commercialization programs of Summerland Varieties Corporation (SVC). However, that would require an injection of additional funding to these programs that are already stretched in sponsoring apple and sweet cherry varieties. Another alternative would be a closer working relationship with the pear breeding program at the University of Guelph in Ontario to develop new cultivars suitable to B.C. conditions.

Another form of innovation that is becoming more common in apples is the branding of superior strains of existing varieties. A leading example is the Kiku Fuji program managed by the Braun organization in Italy that now has licensees in many apple producing countries. Again, that would only be feasible for the pear industry in B.C. with a major commitment of funds and effort.

Structural Issues in the B.C. Pear Industry

Growers Pears tend to be a second or third option for B.C. growers whose primary interest is in producing apples or sweet cherries. Since the average size of orchard is small, this means that pears are usually of minor importance to the overall financial success of the orchard. Because of the intense competition from imported pears, there is little incentive for most growers to increase their production of pears, to experiment with new pear cultivars, or to increase their emphasis on pear production. In addition, since summer fruits can be marketed immediately after picking, they provide a quick boost to the grower's cash flow.

Packers and Marketers The leading packer and marketer of pears is the B.C. Tree Fruit Cooperative (BCTFC). However, BCFTC's primary focus is on marketing apples, and to a lesser extent, sweet cherries. In order to maintain strong relationships with its retail customers, BCTFC needs a reliable supply of pears of adequate volume and quality to satisfy retailer needs. This can be difficult to achieve with the limited total production of pears available. Limited volume also limits the funds for promotion.

BCFTC has the ability to store mainstream varieties of pears that they then target towards the January-February window before pears from Chile arrive on the market. Retailers can use B.C. pears to burnish their reputation among consumers for supplying local product. Specialty pears currently receive a premium price because volume is low. These are usually not run across a packing line, but are sold loose, so there is zero packing cost. This helps the return to the grower.

Growers with small volumes of pears will often direct market them through their own, or a neighbor's, roadside stand or through farmers' markets. However, these outlets are highly seasonal, and usually

29

close at the end of the summer holiday period. In addition, volume moved is small compared to movement through a typical supermarket outlet.

Nurseries Bylands is the major commercial nursery, but trees and rootstocks can also be obtained from major nurseries in Washington State, such as Van Well or C & O Nursery. We heard complaints about difficulty in getting access to the desired cultivars or rootstocks when needed. This was blamed partly on shortages of supplies and partly on phytosanitary and other restrictions on bringing plant materials into B.C. This appears to lead growers to plant less desirable rootstocks and cultivars in order to maintain orchard revenues. However, planting less desirable varieties or producing lower quality fruit simply transfers the problem to the marketing arena.

Breeding and Commercialization Neither PARC nor SVC is currently involved in breeding or commercialization of new pear cultivars. They already have heavy commitments in apples and sweet cherries. However, their expertise could be invaluable in evaluating pear cultivars developed by other breeding programs. There may be opportunities for partnership within Canada with the pear breeding program at the University of Guelph and the commercialization and testing program at the Vineland Research Centre, both in Ontario.

Findings from Interviews with Retail Marketers of Pears Interviews were focused on retail groups with stores in Western Canada. Supermarket retailers report that Canadian pear consumption is generally flat and are viewed as a fruit category without growth potential under current conditions. Sales are dominated by the Bartlett variety. Sales of Bartletts at retail range from about 70 percent of total fresh pear sales to as much as 90 percent, depending on the store chain. The two other varieties that account for most remaining sales are D’Anjou and Bosc, with D’Anjou the number two best seller. Red strains were not reported to be a significant component of Bartlett or D’Anjou sales. Minor sales of B.C. pears were reported for Harrow Crisp, Conference, Concord, Packham’s Triumph and Seckel varieties. None of these varieties appear to account for more than one or two percent of retail sales in the large chain stores. Packham’s Triumph, for example was reported by one retailer as an Australian imported fruit to fill a six week window in May and June before Bartletts are available.

With the domination of the Bartlett variety and the low volume available from B.C., retailers rely heavily on imports from the U.S. In the stores of most Western Canada supermarkets, consumers have access to Bartlett pears year round. The B.C Bartlett is generally only available from September to October. This short marketing window is due to the limited storage life of the B.C. Bartlett. Any ability to expand the storage life with improved cultivars would boost B.C. Bartletts and improve grower returns.

As described in the stone fruit section of this report, B.C. roadside markets, farmers markets and local retailers in the Okanagan region exploit their location and immediate customer base for advantage over the large retailers in selling B.C. fruits. Pear growers are also beneficiaries.

30

Appendix A

References for Stone Fruits

Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook, Economic Research Service (ERS), USDA.

Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook Spreadsheet Files, ERS, USDA.

Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS), Foreign Ag Service (FAS), USDA.

Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA. Trade Data Online, Industry Canada.

U.S. per capita food availability, ERS, USDA.

http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/fruits/peach-profile/

California Tree Fruit Agreement (CTFA).

Food Consumption (per capita) Data System, Economic Research Service (ERS), USDA.

Plums, Global Ag Trade System, FAS online, USDA.

California Dried Plum Board (CDPB).

Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook, Economic Research Service, USDA, 2012.

Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS), Foreign Ag Service (FAS), USDA, 2012

Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts, National Ag Statistics Service, USDA, 2012.

Stone Fruit: World Markets and Trade, FAS, USDA, 2012.

Boriss, H.; H., Brunke and M. Kreith, Agricultural Issues Center, University of California.

Apricot Producers of California.

Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System, ERS, USDA.

Stone Fruit: World Markets and Trade, FAS, USDA. http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/

http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Peaches. Online. Available at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/aboutind/products/plant/peaches.htm

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Apricots. Online. Available at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/aboutind/products/plant/apricots.htm

British Columbia 2003 (Year End) Farm Income Estimate Highlights. (January 2004). Online. Available at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/stats/finance/2003yearend.pdf.

31

A Plan to Establish a New Variety Development Council for Tree Fruit Growers. (2001). Online. Available at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/treefrt/product/newvar06-01.pdf.

Tree Fruit Industry Revitalization Strategy: Results of the Tree Fruit Industry Consultation Forum. Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. (October 27, 1995).

BC Fruit Growers Association website. Online. Available at: http://www.bcfga.com

Silicon Vineyard Grapevine. (January 2002). BC Tree Fruit Growers Association – “Growing with Care”. Online. Available at: http://www.ostec.ca/resourceviewer.php?source=grapevine&id=9.

Canadian Federation of Agriculture. The COFFS Program. Online. Available at: http://www.cfa-fca.ca/english/programs_and_projects/onfarm_food_safety.html.

Investment Agriculture Foundation. Online. Available at: http://www.iafbc.ca/index.htm

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Planning for Profit: Peaches. (2001). Online. Available at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/busmgmt/budgets/budget_pdf/tree_fruits/peaches_summer2 001.pdf.

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Plums. Online. Available at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/aboutind/products/plant/plums.htm

Okanagan Biotechnology Inc. Online. Available at: http://www.okanaganbiotechnology.com/corporate.html

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Profile of the BC Tree Fruit Industry. Online. Available at: w.agf.gov.bc.ca/treefrt/profile/ind_profile.htm.

32

Appendix B

Further Reference to Stone Fruit Cultivars and Rootstocks Recommended for Evaluation in B.C.

As stated in the main report, this project identifies cultivars and rootstocks that are potentially valuable for B.C. stone fruit growers and may be well suited to production in the province. Many of the cultivars are free of royalties, which Is an added incentive for gaining access by B.C. growers and thereby reducing the cost of replanting.

This appendix begins with descriptions of the recommended cultivars for peaches, nectarines, apricots and plums. Descriptions of rootstocks follow.

P e a c h e s

Crimson Lady (Free)

An excellent early season peach that has continued to be very popular in Australia over time. It has proven to be consistent. It is a tip bearer and should be pruned accordingly. Pruning the laterals short means a grower prunes off their crop. Proper pruning is a key to good consistent crops.

• Skin Color: 80%-90% Red • Chilling Hours: approximately 600 • Shape: Round • Bloom Date: With or Just After Rose Diamond • Size: Medium to Large • Texture: Firm, non-melting • Blossom Type: Showy. • Eating Quality: Excellent peach flavor. • Cropping: Medium to Heavy

http://www.bradfordfarms.com.au/crimson_lady.htm

33

Zee Diamond (Patent issued October 29, 1996)

Zee Diamond is a very firm, yellow-fleshed clingstone peach with a strongly acidic flavor. The Zee Diamond peach is characterized by large size and high skin color (90% to 95% bright red over yellow).

• Brief: Bright red, very firm, strongly acidic flavor.

• Estimated Chilling Requirement: 850-950 hours below 45°F

• Pollination: Self-fruitful • Harvest Season within fruit type: early • Harvest Dates: June 1 to June 15 (approximate

for Fresno, California area) • Fruit Size: Average diameter 2-5/8 to 3 inches • Developed by Zaiger Genetics. U.S. Plant

Patent No. 9673. http://davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/zee-diamond-yellow-peach

Crown Princess (US PP07070, issued December 12, 1989—Expired)

The present invention relates to a peach tree and more particularly to a new and distinct variety broadly characterized by a large size (3/8 inch [9.53 mm), vigorous, hardy, productive and regular bearing tree. The fruit matures under the ecological conditions described approximately the first week in June, with first picking on the first week on June. The fruit is uniformly large in size, good in flavor, attractively oblate in shape, clingstone in type, very firm in texture making excellent quality for keeping and shipping, and almost full red in skin color at harvest time. The variety was developed as a hybridized seedling from the selected seed parent, Red Diamond (U.S. Pat. No. P.P. 3,165) nectarine, and an unnamed peach seedling as the selected pollen parent.

Candy Red (US PP13040, issued October 1, 2002)

This variety broadly characterized by a medium size, vigorous, hardy, self-fertile, and medium productive tree. The fruit matures in the Fresno area approximately the second week in June. The fruit is uniformly large in size (2 ⅞inches), very good in flavor, globose in shape, clingstone in type, firm in texture, yellow in flesh color, and mostly red in skin color. The variety was developed as a first generation cross using ‘Crown Princess’ yellow flesh peach as the selected seed parent and an unnamed white flesh nectarine as the selected pollen parent.

Brittney Lane (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP10286, issued March 17, 1998)

A very heavy producer, Brittney Lane is a yellow-fleshed clingstone peach with a very good flavor that is strongly acidic. Brittney Lane features large size and high color (90% dark red over yellow). Pollination: Self-fruitful and it is matures June 5 to June 20 (approximate for Fresno, California area) with a fruit size: average diameter 2-5/8 to 3 inches. http://davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/brittney-lane-yellow-peach

34

Earlirich (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP9002, issued December 6, 1994—Expired)

Earlirich is a yellow-fleshed semi-freestone peach with a full (100%) dark red skin. The fruit is very firm and features an acidic flavor. Earlirich offers good size (2-5/8 inches to 3-1/4 inches) and good production with harvest dates on June 12 to June 27 (approximate for Fresno, California area). http://davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/earlirich-yellow-peach

Crimson Princess (US PP17776, issued May 29, 2007)

A new release that ripens in the Crown Princess time slot that is large, firm, full red in color, and has much better flavor. It is lower in chilling and blooms heavier than Crown Princess, so it is easier to set. http://www.bradfordgenetics.com/35P505.htm

Rich Lady (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP7290—Expired)

Rich with color and flavor, the Rich Lady peach is yellow-fleshed semi-freestone. Rich Lady is a very heavy producer of firm fruit with large size (2-5/8 to 3-1/4 inches), full color (100% dark red over yellow) and. Brief: Rich with color and flavor, large, firm, semi-freestone. This is a heavy producer around June 20 to July 5 (approximate for Fresno, California area). http://davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/rich-lady-yellow-peach

Fancy Lady (US PP07023, issued September 12, 1989)

Fancy Lady ripens June 17–27 (Fresno California). It is a mutation of Sparkle but with much better shape, has very nice red color and firmness, good size, looks like a promising replacement for Red Top. The fruit, medium to large in size, is a high quality, round freestone. Has an attractive red blush. The flesh is yellow, unusually firm, fine-textured. Good fresh eating, canning and freezing peach. http://www.burchellnursery.com/store/fruit-trees/fresh-market-peaches.html?p=2 http://mcmullinorchards.com/Peaches.php

35

Summer Zee (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP9529, issued April 30, 1996)

Summer Zee peach is yellow-fleshed freestone with an excellent tart flavor. Summer Zee produces very large, uniformly round fruit with high skin color (80% to 90% bright red over yellow). Harvest Dates: July 5 to July 20 (approximate for Fresno, California area) with a fruit size: average diameter 2-3/4 to 3-1/4 inches.

Zee Lady (Developed by Zaiger Genetics. US PP5832—Expired)

The Zee Lady is a delicious yellow-fleshed freestone peach with balanced flavor, very large size (2-7/8 to 3-1/4 inches) and good skin color (80% to 90% bright red over yellow), the Zee Lady peach offers excellent market qualities. The tree is a heavy producer. Harvest dates: July 15 to July 30 (approximate for Fresno, California area). http://davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/zee-lady-yellow-peach

Summer Lady (US PP05865, issued January 27, 1987—Expired)

Summer Lady is freestone that was released in 1987 out of California. A new and distinct variety of peach tree, denominated "Summer Lady", producing freestone fruit similar to that of the O'Henry peach tree but ripening one week to ten days earlier under the same cultural practices. The shape and coloration of the peach definitely makes it truly the lady of the summer. Maturity Date: Mid to End of July. http://www.fitzgeraldfruitfarms.com/#!summer-lady/cmdp

O’Henry (Free)

One of the most popular shipping peaches, O'Henry is large (2-1/2 to 3 inches), firm, yellow-fleshed freestone with excellent freezing and shipping qualities. The O'Henry peach yields a well-balanced flavor, good color (70% to 80% bright red over yellow), large size and heavy producer. Fruit are harvested first week on August for Fresno, California area. http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/ohenry-yellow-peach

36

N e c t a r i n e s

Rose Diamond (Free), Bradford, California, USDA, 1991

Early maturing tasty yellow fleshed freestone nectarine of small-medium size. A very heavy cropper, maturing around December 16-23 in the Fresno area. http://mcgrathnurseries.co.nz/fruit-trees/nectarine/nectarine-varieties/197-rose-diamond

Spring Bright (US PP07507, issued April 23, 1991—Expired)

Produce large size (2-3/4 inches), vigorous, hardy, productive and regular bearing tree. The fruit matures in late June (Fresno) with uniformly large in size, clingstone in type, fully dark red in skin color, slightly acidic but very sweet in flavor, and exceptionally firm in texture, resulting in excellent quality for keeping and shipping. Market: Fresh market, both local and long distance shipping. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/PP07507.html

Diamond Ray (US PP8948, issued October 18, 1994)

Diamond Ray nectarine is characterized by a large size, vigorous, hardy, productive and regular bearing tree. In California, the variety bears in the first week of July. The fruit is uniform in size, excellent in flavor, attractively globose in shape, clingstone in type, very firm in texture and full red in skin color. The variety was developed as a hybridized seedling from Red Diamond, as the selected seed parent and an unnamed seedling as the selected pollen parent. Resembles Summer Bright but ripens 12 days earlier and has less red streaking in the flesh. It is similar to Red Diamond but ripens 7 days later and is clingstone instead of freestone. http://www.clemson.edu/hort/peach/index.php?p=181&e=165

Summer Fire (US PP7506, issued April 23, 1991—Expired)

Summer Fire has established a name for large, dark, red fruit that has a long harvest season due to its ability to hang on the tree. Fruit ripens four days after Fantasia. http://www.bradfordgenetics.com/summer_fire.htm

37

Fantasia (Free)

Freestone yellow-fleshed nectarine, poor color, medium low size, yellow and sweet. Vigorous, productive tree; no longer planted commercially due to low color; popular home garden variety due to excellent flavor; scores high in taste tests. Harvest dates are approximately July 20 to August 5 (approximate for Fresno, California area) http://davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/fantasia-yellow-nectarine

A p r i c o t s

Apache (Free)

Apache apricot, developed by the Agricultural Research Service in California, features a mild flavor and pleasing aroma. Average in size with an attractive pinkish-orange skin covering the freestone orange flesh which is smooth and finely textured.

• Brief: Pinkish-orange skin. mild flavor, aromatic, freestone. Stores and ships well.

• Pollination: Requires a pollenizer such as Katy or Castlebrite.

• Harvest Dates: May 10 to May 25 (approximate for Fresno, California area)

http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/apache-apricot

Bolaroja and Primarosa (Free)

Bolaroja and Primarosa are two new high color, mid-season apricots developed by the Agricultural Research Service Prunus breeding program in California. With appropriate pollenizers both new apricots are very productive.

• Bolaroja acquire a strong pink blush over a light orange ground color

• Primarosa fruit are bicolored with strong red blush over a bright orange skin color.

• Beginning Harvest Date: Approximately May 20 to May 23 (approximate for California)

http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/apache-apricot

38

Lorna (Free)

The Lorna apricot is prized as a very large, early ripening variety. Harvest begins when the yellow fruit is moderately sweet. Although the tree can be weak, it is self-fruitful and a good producer.

• Brief: Very large, moderately sweet flavor, early-ripening. • Pollination: Self-fruitful • Harvest Season within fruit type: early midseason • Harvest Dates: May 25 to June 10 (approximate for Fresno,

CA area) http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/lorna-apricot

Helena (Free)

Ripens around June 20, slightly behind Katy, but ahead of Golden Sweet and Patterson. A USDA release apricot. The fruit is large and firm with a sweet flavor with moderate acidity. The skin color is yellow to orange with no blush apparent. It has been known to freckle in wet springs.

Patterson (Free)

Named after the apricot capital of the world - Patterson, California - this apricot is a standard cannery variety with firm, all-purpose fruit. Medium-sized and offering good flavor, Patterson is well suited for shipping, drying, or fresh use. The heavy-bearing tree is vigorous and reliably productive.

• Brief: Firm with good flavor, suited for canning, shipping, drying and fresh use. Heavy producer.

• Pollination: Self-fruitful • Harvest Dates: June 16 to July 1 (approximate for Fresno, CA

area) http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/patterson-apricot

39

P l u m s

Black Splendor (Free)

Exceptional color is the hallmark of the Black Splendor plum. With beet-red flesh and black skin, Black Splendor is unforgettable. The fruit is larger and earlier than the industry standard, Santa Rosa, and features a tart flavor. The moderately vigorous tree has a spreading growth habit.

• Pollination: Pollenizer required, extra-early bloom • Harvest Season within fruit type: early • Harvest Dates: June 5 to June 20 (approximate

for Fresno, CA area) http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/black-splendor-plum

Blackamber (Free)

Blackamber is a firm, dark purple-to-black plum resembling Friar. The tree grows rapidly and bears a heavy crop. Blackamber is a heavily planted variety because of its heavy crop yield. The harvest dates are around June 25 to July 10 (approximate for Fresno, California area). http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/blackamber-plum

Owen T (Free)

The Owen T plum has blue-black skin with purple highlights and sweet, light-yellow flesh. The tree shows average vigor, an upright growth habit, heavy crop and large size. Harvest dates around July 3 to July 18 (approximate for Fresno, California area). http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/owen-t-plum

Catalina (Free)

In fruit tastings at Dave Wilson Nursery, the Catalina plum scores exceptionally high. Tasters love the sweet, juicy flavor of this medium-sized black plum that stays firm when fully ripe. The Catalina tree has a spreading growth habit. Harvest Dates: July 3 to July 18 (approximate for Fresno, California area). http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/catalina-plum.

40

Fortune (Free)

Very popular in California, Fortune is a large, bright red plum that ripens evenly with an aromatic flavor. Fortune has uniform shape, aromatic flavor and very good storage potential. Bright red, large, ripens evenly, stores well. Harvest dates around July 15 to July 30 (approximate for Fresno, California area). http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/fortune-plum

Friar (Free)

The prolonged harvest window of the Friar plum makes it an attractive choice for the commercial grower. This large, round plum has dark purple-to-black skin, mild amber flesh and a very small stone. Fruit of medium-large size, round, dark purple to black skin, and mild amber flesh. Holds very well in storage when handled properly. Harvest dates are from July 25 to August 10 (for Fresno, California area).

http://www.davewilson.com/product-information-commercial/product/friar-plum

R o o t s t o c k O p t i o n s

Atlas™: Prunus persica (Nemaguard) x (Prunus dulcis x Prunus blierianna) is being tested in the 2009 NC-140 rootstock trial. So far it has performed well. Advantages include: extremely vigorous, nematode resistance similar to Nemaguard, productive, and increased fruit size. Disadvantages: may be intolerant of wet soil conditions, delays fruit maturity in some varieties.

Bailey: This rootstock is a naturalized peach selection from Iowa, circa 1836, that produces uniform seedlings with good vigor. It has good cold hardiness for a peach and is rated only slightly less cold-hardy than ‘Siberian C’. It has fair tolerance to root-lesion nematode and is a popular rootstock on sandy soils in more northern climates. It will usually produce a slightly smaller tree than ‘Lovell’, but is very productive. It is susceptible to root-knot nematodes, waterlogging, fungal root rots and PTSL in the southern USA.

Cadaman: It a cross from Prunus persica x Prunus davidiana. Similar to Nemaguard in NC-140 trials. In Europe, it is reported to start off very vigorous, then, slows down after 4 or 5 years. Widely used in Europe because of its tolerance to calcareous soils and it has looked promising in NC-140 trials.

41

Citation: Prunus salicina x Prunus persica (Red Beaut plum x peach). This rootstock has performed very well with plums and apricots. With peaches, its performance has been variable. Many trees look great, but others have died or shown other signs of incompatibility. About half the trees died in the 1984 NC-140 trial.

Guardian®: This rootstock traces its lineage back four generations to a ‘Nemaguard’ cross in 1954 and was released in 1993 jointly by USDA and Clemson University. ‘Guardian®’ has many traits similar to Nemaguard. The primary differences are that ‘Guardian ®’ has lower seed germination; slightly less root-knot nematode resistance, supports fewer M. xenoplax, and exhibits significantly higher tolerance to ring nematode, bacterial canker and PTSL. The latter trait has made it the most popular rootstock, especially for nematode-infested replant sites in the south-eastern USA, even though it is susceptible to Armillaria root rot.

Lovell and Halford: These are old drying and processing peach cultivars that were selected as seedlings from California orchards around 1882 and 1921, respectively. ‘Lovell’ has high seed germination of uniform seedlings that are compatible with all peach and nectarine cultivars. Scion vigor is slightly less than on ‘Nemaguard’. ‘Lovell’ does not sucker and is susceptible to root-knot and root-lesion nematodes, but has better tolerance to ring nematodes, bacterial canker and PTSL than ‘Nemaguard’. ‘Lovell’ is susceptible to waterlogging, crown gall, Phytophthora spp. and Armillaria spp. ‘Halford’ is similar to ‘Lovell’ in nursery and field characteristics and is even thought to be a ‘Lovell’ seedling. Since ‘Lovell’ is no longer used as a drying cultivar, seed can only be obtained from nursery seed orchards. Thus, ‘Halford’ has gradually supplanted ‘Lovell’ in the nursery trade. However, since ‘Halford’ is usually sold in bulk as cannery pits, questions about whether it is true to type occasionally arise.

Nemaguard: This rootstock was selected from seedlings from a seedlot received in 1949 by the USDA which was labelled P. davidiana and was eventually released as ‘FV 234-1’ in 1959. Thought to be a putative hybrid of P. persica × P. davidiana, field observations and molecular studies indicate that it is primarily P. persica. ‘Nemaguard’ seedlings are uniform and vigorous, compatible with peach and nectarine cultivars, and impart excellent scion vigor and productivity. It has good resistance to M. incognita, M. javanica and M. arenaria, but recent research has confirmed that a new root-knot species (M. fl oridensis) can reproduce in the roots of ‘Nemaguard’. ‘Nemaguard’ is fairly tolerant of crown gall, but is sensitive to P. vulnus, fungal root rots, Verticillium, iron chlorosis and root waterlogging and may reduce winter hardiness of scion cultivars in cold climates. ‘Nemaguard’ suckers extensively and is very sensitive to ring nematode (M. xenoplax) feeding, which leads to tree injury and death from bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae van Hall) and PTSL. Despite these limitations, ‘Nemaguard’ is one of the most widely planted stone fruit rootstocks in California and South America. For peach production, however, it performs best on fumigated ring nematode-infested soils, virgin peach sites, and soils that have root-knot nematode problems. Nemaguard has been the standard rootstock in California peach, plum and nectarine orchards for many years, recently, a variety of new rootstocks have become available from numerous breeding programs around the world.

Nemared: This is a red leaf selection released in 1983 by the USDA that has ‘Nemaguard’ in its lineage which is similar to ‘Nemaguard’ but produces seedlings with less lateral branches, thus, facilitating budding. Field characteristics of ‘Nemared’ are also similar to ‘Nemaguard’, except ‘Nemared’ produces a slightly more vigorous tree with equal or better root-knot resistance, but has increased susceptibility to bacterial canker.

42

UC Controller Series: The primary factor limiting the use of size-controlling rootstocks in California peach and nectarine production is the lack of suitable, commercially available size-controlling rootstocks with a wide range of compatibility with scion cultivars. Three rootstocks provided a range of size-controlling (compared to trees grown of the vigorous commercial standard, Nemaguard), and are compatible with a broad array of scion cultivars. Based on intensive evaluations, these rootstocks provided a range of size-controlling options between approximately 60- 80% of trees on Nemaguard. Controller 9 is interesting because trees on Controller 9 are only slightly reduced in size but require significantly less pruning than trees on the standard rootstock, Nemaguard. Controller 7 may be an optimal choice for many growers because it offers modest size-control and trees on it have had excellent production characteristics. Currently, there is also substantial interest in Controller 6 by growers who are seeking smaller trees. Controller 6 causes a substantial reduction in tree size without reducing fruit size.

Titan: This is a hybrid between Almond x Nemaguard peach hybrid seedling. It is extremely vigorous, may have root-knot nematode resistance, considered well anchored, tolerant of calcareous soil conditions. However, trees may be excessively vigorous on good soil, may delay maturity of fruit, more susceptible to crown rot than peach seedling rootstocks, and intolerant of wet soil conditions. It is not presently used by Dave Wilson Nursery.

Viking™: This rootstock is vigorous, enhances precocious tree, nematode resistance similar to Nemaguard, productive, increases fruit size, shows tolerance of wet soil conditions.

Siberian C: This was selected by the Agriculture Canada Research Station at Harrow, Ontario (Canada) in 1967. The seedlings are uniform with good cold hardiness. Cultivars grafted to this rootstock show medium or medium–low vigor and good precocity. Productivity and crop efficiency are satisfactory. ‘Siberian C’ has the additional advantage of inducing slightly earlier ripening time, as well as having a lower susceptibility to Leucostoma or Valsa canker (Leucostoma cincta (Sacc.) Hohn.), but it is not tolerant of root waterlogging, nematodes, bacterial canker or crown gall. ‘Siberian C’ tends to de-harden the scion cultivar before spring in moderate climates and therefore is mostly planted in colder regions

Marianna 26-24: Shallow root system, much more tolerant of wet soils than Lovell or Nemaguard. This rootstock is recommended for apricots, plums, and most almonds and it is resistant to oak-root fungus. There are comparatively few incidences of root-knot nematodes with mature trees.