North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Lucky Pittman <lucky.pittman@murraystate.edu>]

I received the following from Kirk Pomper earlier this week.
The Word format chart didn't convert well to whatever text format my
email program uses, but hopefully you make the transition - if not, email
me or Dr. Pomper directly, and I'm sure he'll be glad for you to receive
it as a Word attachment.


> Hello!
>  
> I have attached a summary of the pawpaw tasting event that was held at
> the 2008 Pawpaw Workshop that was sponsored by The Kentucky State
> University Land Grant Program, the Ohio Pawpaw Growers Association, and
> the PawPaw Foundation. Please feel free to contact me if you have any
> questions.
> Thanks!
>  
> Kirk
>  
> *****************************************************************************
> Kirk W. Pomper, Ph.D.
> KSU Principal Investigator of Horticulture
> Curator-USDA-National Clonal Germplasm Repository for Pawpaw
> Adjunct Associate Professor of Horticulture-University of Kentucky
> 129 Atwood Research Facility
> Kentucky State University
> Frankfort, KY 40601
>  
> Phone: 502-597-5942
> Fax: 502-597-6381
> EmailL
> kirk.pomper@kysu.edu
> Learn about our pawpaw and blackberry work 
> at our website at:
>
> http://www.pawpaw.kysu.edu
> *****************************************************************************
> >

Results of the Pawpaw Variety Taste Test at the 2008 Pawpaw Workshop
 
By Kirk W. Pomper
Principal Investigator of Horticulture-Kentucky State University

The Kentucky State University Land Grant Program, the Ohio Pawpaw Growers
Association, and the PawPaw Foundation held a Pawpaw Workshop on
Saturday, September 6, 2008 at the Kentucky State University Research and
Demonstration Farm in Frankfort, Kentucky. Eighty-seven people attended
the workshop to share information about the production and uses of
pawpaw. There were poster and oral presentations concerning progress in
pawpaw variety trials, management of orchards, storing and handling
fruit, the nutritional value of the fruit, marketing pawpaw, and tours of
the KSU orchards. 
A pawpaw variety taste test was also held at the Pawpaw Workshop. Ripe
fruit (soft) were hand harvested in the KSU orchards two days before the
tasting event and were kept at room temperature to fully ripen the fruit
prior to the taste test. This was a blind test; the participants did not
know which pawpaw variety they tasted. An evaluation sheet was handed out
to the participants and slices of the pawpaw varieties (which were only
labeled with a number and not the variety) were available in small cups
on a table. Sixteen pawpaw selections were included in the tasting. Eight
selections were offered in the morning and eight more in the afternoon.
Participants were not required to taste all the selections; therefore,
some people may have only tasted a subset of the selections. The
selections 10-35 and 3-21 are advanced selections from the PawPaw
Foundation breeding effort and G9-108 and Jeremy’s Gold are KSU
selections. The results were tabulated at the end of the tasting
event.  Here are the results:

Flavor
Selection
1
Awful
2
Poor
3
Fair
4 Good
5 Excellent
Average
rating
Melon aftertaste
Bitter aftertaste

Allegheny

0
0
4
19
23
4.41
9
2

G9-108

0
0
6
12
22
4.40
10
2

10-35

0
0
4
19
19
4.36
10
3

Shenandoah

0
0
7
16
16
4.23
12
7

NC-1

0
2
5
16
15
4.16
9
4

Potomac

0
0
6
22
12
4.15
10
5

Taytwo

1
1
4
24
13
4.09
9
12

Susquehanna

0
1
13
13
16
4.02
10
8

Wabash

1
0
11
19
14
4.00
10
6

Sunflower

0
2
10
16
13
3.98
7
8

Overleese

0
2
15
15
11
3.81
15
5

Wilson

0
4
11
18
8
3.73
7
9

Jeremy’s Gold

0
6
13
19
6
3.57
7
16

3-21

1
4
13
21
4
3.53
2
13

PA Golden

2
4
18
11
7
3.40
8
12

Mitchell

1
16
12
12
3
3.00
3
15

The number of people giving a rating for a pawpaw selection from awful to
excellent (1 to 5) is listed in each column. The tasting results must be
viewed with caution. The tasting was not held under controlled conditions
(not everyone tasted every selection, color of the pulp was not adjusted
for the taster so that it was not a factor with red or other color of
light, many cultivars were provided, and the tasting was conducted
without asking participants to cleanse the palate between samples) and it
is likely that there was some variation in ripeness of the samples for
each selection provided. However, there are some interesting trends in
the tasting data giving us a snapshot in time of what people tend to like
in pawpaw cultivars.

Attachment: Results of the Pawpaw Variety Taste Test at the 2008 Pawpaw Workshop.doc
Description: MS-Word document