Table 2.The distribution in 1996 of apple varieties in Tasmania (Australian Bureau of
Statistics).

Tree numbers
___________________
(x 1,000)%

Production
______________________
(metric tons)%

Variety

Red Delicious and Delicious
Golden Delicious
Democrat
Fuji
Jonagold
Red Gala
Pink Lady
Others

719
167
74
186
90
76
54
284

43.6
10.1
4.5
11.3
5.5
4.5
3.3
17.2

24,948
8,801
4,218
3,619
421
595
389
9,407

47.6
16.8
8.1
6.9
0.8
1.1
0.8
17.9

Total

1,650

52,398

Table 3.Red color evaluation in year 6 of Fuji selections at the Grove Research Station,
Tasmania.

Color pattern %
______________________________
stripesemi-stripeblush

Color
areaz

Color
intensityy

Selection

Rootstock

Aki-Fu 1
Aki-Fu 1
Aki-Fu 7
Aki-Fu 7
Naga-Fu 1
Naga-Fu 1
Naga-Fu 2
Naga-Fu 2

Seedling
MM.106
Seedling
MM.106
Seedling
MM.106
Seedling
MM.106

73.6
50.9
0.0
3.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0

23.7
24.1
34.3
37.6
42.4
33.8
17.9
20.3

2.8
25.0
65.7
59.1
56.8
66.2
82.1
79.7

2.7
3.1
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.7
3.8

168
163
158
160
162
162
163
162

LSD (P=0.05)

17.3

17.6

20.8

0.4

2.9

z1=20%, 5=100% color area.
yColor reflectance measured by Minolta 200B chrome meter.

Table 4.Yield through year 6 for Fuji strains (Grove Research Station, Tasmania).

Annual yield (kg/tree)
_________________________________________
Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Total

Yield
efficiency
(kg/cm2

Selection
TCA)

Rootstock

Aki-Fu 1
Aki-Fu 1
Aki-Fu 7
Aki-Fu 7
Naga-Fu 1
Naga-Fu 1
Naga-Fu 2
Naga-Fu 2
LSD (P=0.05)

Seedling
MM.106
Seedling
MM.106
Seedling
MM.106
Seedling
MM.106

0.53
1.70
0.20
1.47
0.28
1.11
0.28
1.60
0.62

9.2
15.2
7.3
17.8
8.4
11.4
7.5
9.1
4.4

56.4
50.2
35.1
54.6
48.4
35.6
41.8
34.5
4.1

9.7
18.5
22.7
26.8
12.5
21.2
14.2
13.8
10.2

44.9
34.7
45.3
42.3
42.1
29.5
42.0
31.6
9.7

120.7
120.3
110.6
142.9
111.7
98.8
105.8
90.6
18.4

1.47
1.93
0.98
2.05
1.10
1.57
1.14
1.69
0.22

Table 5.Rootstock comparisons with Fuji Naga-Fu 1 at the Grove Research Station, Tasmania.

Cumulative yield 1989-91 (mean value of 20 trees)
______________________________________________

Tree size
(cm2TCA)

Yield/tree
(kg)

Yield efficiency
(kg/cm2TCA)

Rootstock
N. Spy
M.26
MM.106
M.1

No. fruit/tree
156
178
67
171

19.3
10.9
8.8
20.2

25.8
20.9
10.2
25.6

1.3
1.9
1.2
1.3

Table 6.Rootstock comparisons with Fuji Naga-Fu 1 at Grove Research Station, Tasmania.

Yield/tree (kg)
____________________________________________
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Rootstock

No.

Wt (kg)

No.

Wt (kg)

No.

Wt (kg)

N. Spy
M.26
MM.106
M.1

78
57
29
77

11.9
7.1
3.7
10.3

24
7
15
7

3.8
1.1
2.4
1.2

54
114
23
87

10.1
12.7
4.7
14.1

Table 7.Rootstock performance with Fuji Naga-Fu 2, 1990-1996 (data of Paul James,
Lenswood Research Center, South Australia).

Rootstock
_____________________________________________________
M.9MarkO.3M.26MM.106MM.111

Cumulative yield (kg/tree)

30.6

39.7

4.2

36.2

56.1

39.1

Trunk cross-sectional area
at year 6 (cm2)

25.5

29.9

7.0

39.1

79.3

52.9

Tree canopy volume (m3)

3.9

3.7

0.7

5.2

11.7

8.3

Cumulative yield efficiency
(kg/cm2TCA)

1.20

1.33

0.60

0.93

0.71

0.74

Mean fruit weight 1996 (g)

258

251

194

253

245

200

No. of trees surviving
at year 6 (trees planted=12)

12

10

6

11

12

11

Table 8.The effect of three pruning levels on the incidence of russet in Fuji Naga-Fu 2, Grove
Research Station, Tasmania.

% export fruit
(categories 1 and 2)z

% acceptable fruit
(categories 1 to 3)

Pruning treatment

Commercial level—underpruned
Grove Central Axis
Hard pruned central axis
LSD (P=0.05)

55.5 a
68.4 b
69.6 b
9.5

84.5 a
91.5 b
91.1 b
5.4

zRusset categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have a percent russet of 0, 2, 5, 10, 15 and 20, respectively;
category 3 equates with current industry standard for exporting fruit into Taiwan.