At my site I think the wasps start them and the ants exploit the openings, but I could be wrong. This year the wasps have been all over my fruit and I see them working on figs and find chewed wounds before the ants move in- which they shortly do. I also had the same types of wounds on pears- some without ants yet.
1 Like
Makes sense the wasps do that to my grapes Alan so that would not be a surprise on pears.
The dimples I discard because they accumulate stone cells, at least in Kieffer, which are stony enough as it is
It’s the small black holes that I wonder about the cause, but they always mean rot before the fruit is ripened off the tree
1 Like
I set wasp traps for yellow jackets which are common culprit for doing that down here. But they were not bad at all this year. What did create a bunch of holes are these new invasive flying roaches we have in Georgia now. They are not the same as the palmetto bugs we have always had or the German cockroaches that can be such a pest inside houses in the deep south. These are little half inch long light brown roaches that fly, and they bight holes into the muscadines and the pears. They especially seem to like the pears on my Tennessee pear tree. they did not touch Southern Bartlett at all and only started attacking the Golden Boy after Tennessee no longer had pears. They went after the muscadines most of all. SB does not really get that sweet until after a week in the frig, so I’m thinking they are favoring Tennessee because it’s so sweat. This reminds me. I want to see if I can find some gowned volcanic rock this week to apply to my pear trees for trace elements. God bless.
Marcus
My soil is pretty acidic. Clark would you recommend adding lime at all?
Marcus,
My opinion for what it’s worth is I would not apply lime without trying to correct it in another way. No doubt you likely know as much about it as I do. It’s logical to add lime since it’s PH is higher but the problem is it’s never just calcium rather 50% calcium and most of the remainder is magnesium. Here is a summary of the problem Dolomite Lime: More Harm Than Good | Organica: Garden Supply & Hydroponics. Humus has a CEC several times that of the clay soil I have Cation-exchange capacity - Wikipedia. “Clay and humus have electrostatic surface charges that attract and hold ions”. This breaks it down a step further http://nutrients.ifas.ufl.edu/\nutrient_pages\BSFpages\CatExchange.htm. The idea is I lower my PH via organic materials such as aged cow manure and aged wood chips aka humus Humus - Wikipedia in most situations to release soil nutrients for my pears to use. Anions go where water carries them which is good and bad but more about that in a minute. “CEC soils have fewer negative charges, cations will move more quickly through low CEC (sandy-based) soils than they will through high CEC (loamy and silt/clay-based) soils.” This sentence is quoted from this link http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/anions_and_cations_in_plants_oh_my_but_why_do_we_care . Now with that said my soil is High CEC and yours I’m assuming is low CEC. My soil has many nutrients locked up by the clay. In my case Boron is mobile in the soil which means my soil problems start making a lot of since. In the south you get a lot of rain and have a low ph soil. In the same article look at this sentence “Over application of most (+) charged elements on a low CEC soil can move that element through the system since there are not enough (-) charges on the soil particle surface to bind to the cation.” What that means is in my opinion you need to increase humus in your soil rather than calcium. The humus will then hold on to more nutrients http://organicsoiltechnology.com/cation-exchange-capacity-of-humus.html. From the link “The 5 most important cations in soils are calcium (Ca++ ), magnesium (Mg++), potassium (K+), sodium (Na+) and aluminium (Al+++).” The reason my soil is good even though the nutrients are locked up by clay is they can become usable. “The higher the CEC value, the more effective it can be for improving plant growth, vigor and health. All very small particles, not just humus and clay, carry electrical charges. The part of the nutrient that carries the electrical charge are called ions. Ions with a positive charge are called cations and ions carrying a negatively charged are called anions.” “The element having the highest CEC would be humus.” “Some important positively charged nutrients include, Ca++, Mg++ and K+. You may note that a very important nutrient, Nitrate NO3-, is not listed. This is because it carries a negative charge. Humus has not only negatively charged ions ready for retaining positively charged minerals, some have positively charged ions as well which can hold on to negatively charged minerals such as our precious nitrates and nitrites.”"The surface areas of a plant root hairs contain their own electrical charges. Any time a plant’s root hair penetrates the substrate, it may exchange its own cations for those mounted on humus or clay debris and then absorb the cation nutrient for intake as nourishment. Plant roots use a hydrogen cation (H+) for the exchange. They eject one hydrogen cation for every cation nutrient adsorbed. This keeps a charge balance. This is the way plant life eats. " I apologize for the long winded answer. So another words apply wood chips made from small banches, leaves and things like that to your trees instead of lime in my opinion http://compostguide.com/using-leaves-for-composting/. Leaves are very high in trace minerals. Oaks leaves particularly are high in calcium. Here is another great article on leaves http://www.the-compost-gardener.com/composting-leaves.html. I like to put wood chips on the top around my trees and let the earth worms do the rest. Lime when added to your soil has a calcium to magnesium ratio of 2:1 but in your soil it’s supposed to be 7:1 Dolomite Lime: More Harm Than Good | Organica: Garden Supply & Hydroponics. It would correct one imbalance but create another. When it comes to soil science think of nutrients like magnets a - and a + are attracted to each other. By adding the humus we create a situation where the plants can thrive. Many trees are starving for nutrients because of lack of organic matter in the soil but all around them there is food they can’t get to. By the way here are some great pictures of harrow pears Pear Photo Gallery.
1 Like
I added them this year so I figured it would take a few years to bear. The HS pear is trademarked so the name cannot be reused by nurseries without paying fees . I noticed the patent was filed Oct 12, 1995. Patents in my understanding run 20 years so we should see the pear available in the grocery stores more I hope as commercial orchardist start to grow it. Likely it will be like cripps pink that cannot be called pink lady. This is what the patent information said on this website https://www.google.com/patents/USPP9863.
"Harrow Sweet` pear
US PP9863 P
ABSTRACT
A new and distinct cultivar of pear, which has been given the designation Harrow Sweet, bears a high quality late-season pear for the fresh market.
IMAGES(1)
Patent Drawing
CLAIMS(1)
What is claimed is:
- A new and distinct pear tree substantially as shown and described herein.
DESCRIPTION
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to a pear cultivar and more specifically to a pear cultivar bearing a high-quality, late-season pear for the fresh market.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Harrow Sweet is a fresh market pear which is distinguished in characteristics from the varieties similar to it, Bartlett, Harrow Delight and Harvest Queen. It is described by Hunter, D. M. et al, HortScience, vol. 27 (12):1331-1334, Dec. 1992, French Patent Breeders Rights No. D6277, issued November, 1991 and Swiss Plant Breeders Rights No. 94.51.805, issued 1994.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The new and distinct pear cultivar which has been given the designation of Harrow Street produces a high quality late-season pear for the fresh market.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 is a photographic illustration of the whole fruit of Harrow Street pear.
FIG. 2 is a photographic illustration of the sliced fruit of Harrow Sweet pear.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
Harrow Street originated from a cross of Bartlett×Purdue 80-51 made in 1965 by R. E. C. Layne. It was selected and asexually propagated by budding by H. A. Quamme, at Agriculture Canada Research Branch, Research Station, Harrow, Ont. N0R 1G0, Canada, and has been observed to remain true to the description set forth herein.
The tree is medium-sized, upright to spreading, and consistently very productive, even following exposure to winter minima of -28° C. There has been no evidence of biennial bearing. The bark of dormant shoots is reddish brown (R.H.S., 166-B) and shoot diameter is similar to that of Bartlett. The leaves are elliptic with acuminate tips. Leaf serrations are small but distinct. The flowers are white with pink to red anthers.
Harrow Sweet matured September 18 at Harrow, 23 days after Bartlett (Table 1). Preharvest fruit drop is not a problem. The medium to large fruit are slightly smaller than Bartlett on unthinned trees (Table 1). Fruit weight is improved by fruit thinning, since it is comparable to Bosc (Table 2). Fruit are pyriform in shape, with a shallow medium basin and an open calyx (FIG. 2). Fruit shape has been rated 5.2 using International Board for Plant Genetic Resources descriptors (Thibault et al., 1983); individual fruits have received ratings of 3.2, 3.4, 5.4 and 7.2. Following ripening at 20° C., the skin has an attractive, yellow ground color (color code 11A; Royal Horticultural Soc., 1966) with visible lenticels and a red blush where fully exposed to the sun. There may also be some russetting. The appearance of ripened fruit of Harrow Street has been rated slightly lower than Bartlett and Harrow Delight and equal to Harvest Queen (Table 1). However, in blind sensory evaluations using untrained or semitrained panelists, Harrow Sweet scored better in general appearance than Aurora, Bartlett, and Comice and equal to Conference (Table 3). The flesh is cream-white, very sweet, and juicy, with excellent flavor. Trained panelists have rated the flavor as good as that of Bartlett, but worse than Harrow Delight and Harvest Queen (Table 1). Using the Just Right scale (Robertson et al., 1990) the flavor was rated as slightly intense, texture was slightly soft, and the sweet source balance was considered just right (Table 3). The overall flavor rating of Harrow Sweet was similar to that of traditional high-quality cultivars (Table 3); it can be gritty around the core and the skin can be tough, but these do not detract from its overall quality. Thefruit has been kept in cold storage (2° C.) at Harrow for about 10 weeks; longer-term storage (3 to 4 months) is possible at 0.5° C. (Masseron et al., 1991; Masseron and Trillot, 1991). If kept too long in storage, there can be some wilting at the stem end of the fruit.
TABLE 1______________________________________Fresh fruit performance of Harrow Sweet pear incomparison to Bartlett, Harrow Delight, and Harvest Queenat Harrow, Ont. CultivarCharacter- Harrow Harvest Harrowistic Bartlett Delight Queen Sweet______________________________________Years 17 18 19 16evaluatedHarvestdatesAvg. 26 Aug. 11 Aug. 18 Aug. 18 Sept.Earliest 16 Aug. 5 Aug. 6 Aug. 30 Aug.Latest 9 Sept. 16 Aug. 31 Aug. 8 Oct.Size (mm)zLength 82 ± 1y 80 ± 1 73 ± 1 84 ± 2Diam 64 ± 1 59 ± 1 58 ± 1 62 ± 1RatingsAppearancex 8.0 ± 0.1 7.9 ± 0.2 7.4 ± 0.2 7.4 ± 0.2Flavorx 8.0 ± 0.2 8.2 ± 0.1 8.2 ± 0.1 7.8 ± 0.2Texturex 7.8 ± 0.1 7.9 ± 0.2 8.5 ± 0.2 6.8 ± 0.1Gritw 3.8 ± 0.1 3.9 ± 0.1 4.5 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.1Juicinessv 3.9 ± 0.1 4.4 ± 0.1 4.2 ± 0.1 4.3 ± 0.1Core sizeu 3.1 ± 0.1 3.1 ± 0.1 2.4 ± 0.1 3.8 ± 0.2Weighted 79.6 ± 1.1 80.7 ± 1.2 80.6 ± 1.3 75.2 ± 1.7scoret______________________________________ z Fruit produced from unthinned trees. A random sample of two to three fruit per year was measured. y Mean ± SE. x Appearance, flavor, and texture ratings are on a 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent) scale, as determined by trained panelists. w Grit is on a 1 (undesirable, i.e., large and/or many grit cells) t 5 (desirable, i.e., very small and/or few or no grit cells) scale. v Juiciness is on a 1 (dry) to 5 (very juicy) scale. u Core size is on a 1 (small) to 5 (large) scale. t Weighted score = (3 × appearance) ± (5 × flavor) + (2 × texture).
TABLE 2______________________________________Mean fruit weight of Anjou, Bosc, andHarrow Sweet pear grown at Summerland, B.C.zCultivar 1989 1990 1991______________________________________ g/fruitAnjou 211 ± 9 ay 158 ± 10 b 147 ± 9 bBosc 180 ± 15 ab 202 ± 19 a 181 ± 2 aHarrow Sweet 148 ± 16 b 137 ± 6 b 190 ± 6 a______________________________________ z Data were collected from five singletree replicates planted in Spring 1987. In 1991, fruit were handthinned to 15 to 20 cm apart following June drop. No handthinning was conducted in 1989 or 1990. y Mean ± SE. Mean separation within columns by WallerDuncan k ratio test, P = 0.05, k = 100.
TABLE 3______________________________________Perception of pear fruit quality by untrainedzand semitrainedy panelists at Summerland, B.C. General Sour/ Overall appear- Sweet flavorCultivar ancex Flavorw Texturew balancew ratingx______________________________________Aurora 2.4 ± -0.1 ± -0.7 ± 0.0 ± 1.9 ± 0.3bv 0.3a 0.3c 0.2ab 0.4bBartlett 2.6 ± -0.6 ± -0.8 ± -0.8 ± 3.0 ± 0.2b 0.5a 0.3c 0.2b 0.3aComice 3.3 ± -0.3 ± 0.1 ± 0.0 ± 3.2 ± 0.4a 0.4a 0.3ab 0.3ab 0.4aConfer- 1.6 ± -0.6 ± 0.6 ± 0.3 ± 2.9 ±ence 0.2c 0.3a 0.2a 0.2a 0.3aHarrow 1.3 ± 0.4 ± -0.3 ± 0.0 ± 2.4 ±Sweet 0.2c 0.2a 0.3bc 0.3ab 0.4ab______________________________________ z Judges were not familiar with rating scales or procedures used. Nine judges were used to determine general appearance, flavor, texture, and sour/sweet balance. y Judges were familiar with rating scale used. Twelve judges were used to determine overall flavor, and tasting was done in individual booths. x Scale for general appearance and overall flavor rating is a fivepoint hedonic scale where 1 = like very much and 5 = dislike very much. w Just Right scale was used for flavor (-2 = much too bland and 2 = much too intense), texture (-2 = much too soft and 2 = much too hard) and sour/sweet balance (-2 = much too sour and 2 = much too sweet). A rating of 0.1 is considered Just Right (Robertson et al., 1990). v Mean ± SE. Mean separation within columns by WallerDuncan k ratio test, p = 0.05, k - 100.
When ripened fruit are processed as halves or puree, Harrow Sweet does not rate as highly as Bartlett and generally is rated equal to or lower than Harrow Delight and Harvest Queen. While acceptability of processed fruit products is good, the quality is probably not sufficiently high for Harrow Sweet to have potential as a processed pear in the present market.
Harrow Sweet has excellent resistance to fire blight. Using natural fire blight infection scores (van der Zwet et al., 1970), resistance of Harrow Sweet is between that of Harvest Queen and Harrow Delight, while the response to artificial inoculation is similar to that of Harrow Delight. Fire-blight resistance of Harrow Sweet is much greater than that of Bartlett, Bosc, or Anjou. Based on field observations, Harrow Sweet appears to be less susceptible to pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyricola Foerster) than other cultivars, especially Harrow Delight.
Harrow Sweet is reciprocally pollen-compatible with Bartlett. It will also pollinate Harrow Delight and, to a lesser extent, Harvest Queen. Harrow Sweet blooms slightly ahead of Bartlett; at Harrow, first bloom is 1 day before Bartlett, whle information from France indicates bloom is 2 to 4 days earlier than Bartlett (Masseron et al., 1991).
In Ontario, Harrow Sweet has been compatible with P. communis rootstocks, such as Bartlett seedling and Old Home×Farmingdale (OHF) clones 69 and 87. Harrow Sweet is also compatible for direct grafting onto quince (Cydonia clones BA29 and EMC) and OHF clone 333 (Brokmal; Masseron et al., 1991).
Because of its resistance to fire blight, Harrow Sweet has performed better than Bartlett in a replicated trial planted at Harrow in 1984 (Table 4). Fire blight has resulted in the loss of 50% of the Bartlett trees, and surviving trees of Bartlett are also affected by fire blight. Harrow Sweet is more precocious than Bartlett, producing fruit from lateral buds on first-year wood and on spurs, thus coming into production in the 2nd or 3rdyear after planting. In Summerland, Harrow Street produced significantly higher yields in the 2nd and 3rd years after planting than Anjou or Bosc. By the 5th year after planting, annual and cumulative yields of Harrow Sweet were higher, but not significantly so, than those of Bosc and Anjou (Table 4). Harrow Sweet appears to be adapted to regions where Bartlett and Bosc have been successfully grown and can be considered a replacement for Bosc in areas where fire blight has presented serious problems.
TABLE 4______________________________________Annual and cumulative yields of Harrow Sweetpear and standard cultivars grown at Harrow, Ont.,z andSummerland, B.C.yHarrow Summerland(kg/tree) (kg/tree) Harrow HarrowYear Bartlettx Sweet Anjou Bosc Sweet______________________________________1986 0.0 bw 2.0 ± 0.0 av1987 0.2 ± 5.7 ± 0.0 b 1.5 a1988 3.8 ± 4.6 ± 0.0 b 0.1 ± 2.5 ± 1.4 a 1.0 a 0.1 b 0.3 a1989 5.6 ± 13.3 ± 1.2 ± 3.2 ± 7.7 ± 1.4 b 2.2 a 0.3 b 0.8 b 1.4 a1990 0.4 ± 17.5 ± 2.4 ± 4.5 ± 8.1 ± 0.1 b 3.5 a 0.7 a 1.2 a 2.7 a1991 4.3 ± 8.8 ± 9.4 ± 16.5 ± 16.4 ± 0.3 a 1.8 a 1.4 a 4.6 a 4.9 aCumulative 14.3 ± 51.9 ± 12.9 ± 24.3 ± 34.7 ±yield to 2.4 b 9.2 a 2.0 a 5.7 a 9.0 a1991TCSAu 42.9 ± 68.1 ± 18.3 ± 16.6 ± 17.2 ±(cm2) 6.8 b 13.8 a 1.7 a 2.8 a 3.6 aYield 0.35 ± 0.80 ± 0.70 ± 1.41 ± 1.92 ±efficiencyt 0.11 b 0.15 a 0.08 b 0.18 a 0.20 a______________________________________ z Data collected from four singletree replicates planted in 1984, first cropped in 1986. y Data collected from five singletree replicates planted in 1987, first cropped in 1988. x For Bartlett, n = 2. Two of four trees were lost to fire blight; surviving two trees are also affected. w Mean separation within locations and years by WallerDuncan k ratio test, P = 0.05, k = 100. v Mean ± SE. u TCSA = trunk crosssectional area (cm2) measured in Fall 1991 at Harrow and in Spring 1991 at Summerland. t Yield efficiency = cumulative yield to 1991/cm2 TCSA.
NON-PATENT CITATIONS
Reference
1 “Harrow Sweet” Pear, Hunter, David M. et al, HortScience 27(12):1331-1334, 1992.
2 * European Union plant protection certificate No. 93 51 956, Harrow Sweet, Nov. 23, 1994.
3 European Union plant protection certificate No. 93-51-956, Harrow Sweet, Nov. 23, 1994.
4 * French plant protection certificate No. 6227, Harrow Sweet, Dec. 30, 1991.
5 * Harrow Sweet Pear, Hunter, David M. et al, HortScience 27(12):1331 1334, 1992.
6 * Netherlands plant protection certificate No. 13270, Harrow Sweet, Sep. 7, 1993.
7 * Swiss plant protection certificate No. 94.51.805, Harrow Sweet, Dec. 15, 1994.
- Cited by examiner
CLASSIFICATIONS
U.S. Classification PLT/176
International Classification A01H5/00
Cooperative Classification A01H5/00
European Classification A01H5/00
LEGAL EVENTS
Date Code Event Description
Jan 2, 1996 AS Assignment
Owner name: AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA, CANADA
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:HUNTER, DAVID M.;KAPPEL, FRANK;LAYNE, RICHARD E.C.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:008245/0949;SIGNING DATES FROM 19951020 TO 19951023
Google Home - Sitemap - USPTO Bulk Downloads - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - About Google Patents - Send Feedback
Data provided by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services
"
So… I just wanna say…
For me, the Harvest Queen pears that ripened at the local orchard in August were the best-tasting fruit I ate so far this year. Not just the best-tasting pears; they were the best-tasting FRUIT of the year so far. They were incredible, even better than Magness this year. I don’t understand why Harvest Queen isn’t grown more widely. They are like Bartlett, but BETTER than Bartlett in terms of flavor. Texture is perfect. Super sweet, super tangy. Has that true pear flavor in spades. Dripping wet JUICY pears! And fireblight resistant. And cold hardy to Ontario. It is an exquisite piece of fruit.
7 Likes
OMG, thing of beauty. Just gorgeous gorgeous pears, Matt!!
Clark,
What rootstockgs your HS are on?
Mine is on OHxF 97. I did not know much about pear rootstocks then. Had I known, I would have ordered 87 instead.
Matt,
Those looked really nice. Wish there was such a variety for sale around here. The only Harrow pear I found at a farm was a Harrow Delight. It was smaller and not as tasty as HS.
Don’t remember what they are on either 333 or 97
My Asian pears are on 333 , I believe. Took 3 years to fruit. HS on 97 fruit the next season after planting.
2 Likes
What are the chilling requirement on those. Has anyone tried them in the SEUSA?
I have not need to worry about them. From what I have seen, Korean Giant probably needs 400-500 chill hours like several other A pears.
Harrow pears probably needs about 800.
1 Like
We will see what HS and HD do next year. They look great but I probably won’t let them fruit for several years. Your going to love Duchess! They fruit quickly and the size is huge.
Harvest Queen is (Barseck x Bartlett) x Bartlett.
So, I would imagine its chill requirements are similar to that of Bartlett.
My question about chilling requirement was concerning Harvest Queen. Those are lovely pears.
Marcus
Just answered your question. Beat you to the punch. See above.