I did a bit of research and apparently the fruit is actually a gall caused by a scale insect?

C. pomiformis seeds are tiny, round, soft, and have a short lifespan.

Shade tolerant. Dioecious. Fertilized by insects. Cannot be grafted or air layered, but comes true from seed.

Available for only a short period of time; get 'em before they fly out the door!

Loquats are famous for not coming true from seed.  Some people luck into great seedling cultivars, others get trees that produce poor quality fruit or none at all.  It's the luck of the draw.

You could always top graft.

Have seeds from Sierra Leone...first attempts saw trees die..starting over.  Oscar, Nullzie and a few others maybe further along.

That's a shame    What killed them?

Yes, it does mean poisonous. But only the latex found in the tree and unripe fruit. Even so much that it is used to make arrow poison and as an insecticide.

For what it's worth, the scientific name of the common garden tomato means "Nightshade Wolf-Peach" 

There's often a story buried in the scientific names. In the case of tomatoes, lots of Europeans were scared to consume them after they were introduced because of the clear resemblance to the poisonous black nightshade. In Germany and some other areas in Europe, there were also folk stories that connected the consumption of nightshades (and as a consequence, tomatoes) to lycanthropy.  This slowed its acceptance in European cuisine. While introduced to Europe by the Spanish, it was the Italians that led to increasing acceptance of it as a food staple; in Italy there had been a long tradition of consuming Atropa belladonna as an "oral cosmetic" (to make the skin pale, pupils dilate, and reduce the appetite), so this probably increased the ease of accepting tomatoes into the diet.

A bit off topic, but while we're on the topic of "scientific names of edible species that cast aspersions on their edibility..." 

Rather than go into fertilizer schedules for each of those plants....

Your bulk will be a balanced fertilizer (e.g. 10-10-10 or whatnot) with micronutrients

Above and beyond balanced fertilizer some plants may want additional nutrients.  Potassium seems to be most common, followed by nitrogen, followed by either phosphorus or calcium.

Because potassium is so important, good fertilizers to have on hand are potassium sulfate (just potassium) and potassium nitrate (potassium and nitrogen).  Potassium chloride is also in wide use (it's cheap), but obviously you should avoid it like the plague around salt-sensitive plants (that said, some plants like chlorine!)

For nitrogen, beware that ammonium-heavy fertilizers can cause ammonium toxicity when overapplied, as ammonium competes with cations and can acidify soil.  It's best if you can add other nutrients you need at the same time - for example, potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate, etc.  But ammonium nitrate is always an option.  The upside to ammonium is it doesn't denitrify or leach as readily as nitrate (which it converts to over time... relatively short periods of time in warm, wet weather), although it can be lost to volatilization in very acidic soils.  Urea is another nitrogen form (very N-dense), which converts to ammonium, which then converts to nitrate; it's however poorly available in calciferous/dry soils, and is also acidifying.

Whenever you add calcium, or to a lesser extent potassium, you should add magnesium (generally magnesium sulfate, aka epsom salt).  With calcium, it's a ratio of 3 Ca to 1 Mg; with K it'd be less.  Some calcium fertilizers (often used to raise pH, aka liming) have magnesium included already at a 3:1 ratio, which is convenient.  Calcium carbonate / aglime / dolomite are slow sources of calcium that take time to dissolve into the soil, and raise the pH.  Calcium nitrate and calcium ammonium nitrate are soluble and quickly penetrates through the soil; the former has a mildly basic effect, and the latter has a mildly acidic effect.

If you need to lower pH, sulfur is most commonly used.  Note that this takes a long time.  You can do it faster with acids like dilute sulfuric and phosphoric acid if you're careful.

There are a number of options for phosphorus - single superphosphate (SSP), triple superphosphate (TSP), monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and diamonnium phosphate (DAP), for example.  With the ammonium-based fertilizers, they add nitrogen, but again note the caution above about ammonium toxicity, particularly with DAP.  The superphosphates add calcium rather than nitrogen.  Phosphorus is sort of a weird nutrient in that it gets chemically bound into the soil if insufficient, but leaches if in excess, so it's hard to have phosphate toxicity; however, excess phosphorus leaching into waterways is a big environmental problem for agriculture.  One plant that phosphorus is often used heavily with is mangosteen, as it's believed that the plant's poor ability to uptake phosphorus may be linked to its slow growth and low productivity (P levels in mangosteen leaves are much lower than in most plants).

As far as micros go, you can get micro mixes, but you can also get individual micronutrients.  The two most common that seem to be in short supply are iron and boron.  Iron deficiency shows as a distinct interveinal chlorosis on young leaves (veins green, everything else very light in colour). Boron deficiency shows up as plants "growing weird" (calcium deficiency can also cause "weird growth", but not as weird, and in different ways).  Boron can be supplied as boric acid, and it only takes tiny amounts (excess can cause boron toxicity, which causes leaf burning).  Iron can be supplied as iron(II) sulfate (only for acid soils), iron(III) sulfate (acid to neutral soils), or chelates (any pH, although some can handle more basic soil than others). Chelates are much more expensive than sulfates, of course.

I sent an inquiry.  They have US and Canadian distributors, but no European distributors, and seem to tightly control who may distribute the plants.  If I can't get ahold of a proper cultivar, I may have to buy a bucket of fruit the next time I'm in the states (for the pits), then cull based on quality at maturity.  Hey, I have over 8 hectares, there's no shortage of space for experimentation   

They won't require much in the way of heat hours.

Define "much".    Average July high in Reykjavík is 14,2°C/57,6°F, and my land is about 100m elevation (~0,6°C/~1°F cooler).  A typical "hottest day of the year" in Reykjavík is in the lower 20s °C/70-75°F, and occasionally not even that. The all-time record high is 25,7°C/78,3°F.  Our winters are quite mild for our latitude (our average January low is the same as Las Vegas! -2,4°C/27,7°F, but our summers are extremely mild.  That said, it's been warming in the arctic faster than the rest of the world; our last decade has averaged about 1°C warmer than the long-running average.

I'm not sure where you were in northern Alberta, but just random guessing at Fort McMurray, I see that July highs there are an average 23,7°C, record 38,9°C, with average highs from May through September higher than our July high.  But of course the winters are vastly colder, with an average January mean of -17,4°C. Continental climate vs. maritime    We're also windier, particularly in the winter, when we average averaging at least one storm of hurricane strength per year and gales perhaps twice a week on average, with gusts occasionally reaching up to Cat. 5 hurricane strength in a bad year (although summers are relatively calm, at least by our standards)

At least our soils are good, once you fertilize them (most are depleted and eroded due to overgrazing... but with proper nutrients, volcanic soils are excellent due to superb drainage and cation exchange capacity).  My land mainly needs phosphorus, which is something I'm working to remedy; I had two samples tested, one from a grassy (but thin) area and one from where almost no grass would grow; normal is 20-50ppm, while the grassy area measured in at 15 and the barren area at 4(!).  But on places where I've had the neighbor dump horse manure, everything becomes lush and green around the pile as the nutrients leach out.

I have several jabos, Sabara and Hybrid are fruiting year round. The Red Hybrid is a very prolific producer at an early age.
I was able to get fruits every month up until winter.

I would have to say Sabara increases production every year as it ages.
The Hybrid seems to have a consistent amount once it starts producing, haven't seen any major increase in harvest.

Long term I'd have to say they're both equal in accordance to the size and age of the tree.
Due to the fact that the sabara's harvest increases to catch up with the hybrid production.
My zone gets really cold, below 30's so I'm sure if it's in a warmer climate it'll produce better.

Thanks, that's great information. 

Only places that produce these fruits commercially are going to have these kinds of figures you seek.

Hence the request for simply comparative estimates.  I know that nobody here is actually going to be measuring tonnes per hectare. 

Also you should note that a jaboticaba in Brazil, it's native habitat and soil and ideal fertilization, is going to produce far more than a plant grown in a greenhouse in Iceland

Indeed - hence the reason I'm not trying to collect figures for "greenhouse production in Iceland"    Nor would it matter.  I'm purely looking for general productivity figures that can be compared vs. each other - relative figures, not absolutes.  But of course, there has to be a baseline for relative figures (since there's so much randomness involved) - hence, I use "optimum conditions" as the baseline, so we don't get, say, someone trying to grow cherimoya in Florida balancing their meagre results off against their atemoyas 

I am not sure why you want these figures?

I'm building an exotic plants database storing hundreds of attributes of thousands of plants.  Aka, can be used for general queries, looking up cultivation details, all sorts of things - everything from the temperature and humidity a plant prefers, what kind of soil, what kind of soil moisture, how well it performs in differing lighting conditions, whether it has thorns, whether it coppices, whether it's dioecious, what pollinates it, flowering times and triggers, time to fruit maturity, floral scent, leaf scent, medical utility (both traditional and researched), interesting stories, rarity.... just hundreds of different factors that can be looked up at will. Beyond that, having the database lets me create formulae to evaluate different plants vs. each other over a huge range of different factors - including things like how hard seeds are to acquire, how difficult plants are to cultivate, appearance (flowers, fruit, plant form, etc), scent, and countless other factors.  Relative (not absolute) productivities are obviously a very important factor in this.

So for example, with Annonas, with the current formulas (which I can readily change the ratings at will), cherimoya comes out on top, with a food rating (taking into account quality, productivity, etc) of 48,7, appearance rating of 7,9, "other properties" rating of 9,5, and penalties/bonuses score of 2,02, for a net score of 49,5 (the final score isn't simply a sum, it tries for a balance of all factors).  Something like annona spraguei comes in with a food rating of 12,4, appearance rating of 14,1, other rating of 7,8, penalties/bonuses of 3,6, and a net score of 16,3.  So if I were to uprate the importance of appearance or rarity, for example, A. spraguei would earn a higher score, while if I uprated, say, penalties for difficulties of acquisition or cultivation or the like, its rating would fall.

Now it would be simple enough just to, say, look at Annonas and say, "A, B, and C are the best annonas".  But of course, the world is not just  annonas; there's hundreds upon hundreds of interesting genuses, and more to the point, you can't just put any plant in any location.  Each location needs to be constrained by temperature / humidity requirements, available light, and available space (particularly height), and may (or may not) impose root space or soil constraints. And certain types of plants - say, medicinal plants, or attractive plants, or rare plants, or aquatic plants, or whatnot - may be desirable in certain locations. With a database, I can group out plants by specific properties, and then select the best ones from each.  Of course, it only serves to create a shortlist; nothing can beat a human for making final selections!

So the short of "why do you want these figures".... the significance of measurements of a fruit (taste, texture, flesh to weight ratio, appearance, etc) is proportional to how much of it is actually produced. E.g. without productivity figures, it'd treat some mass-produced high-yield fruit the same as some uncultivated jungle fruit that's lucky to produce a couple fruits once every few years. Clearly you can see how that's a non-starter!  So while there's absolutely no realistic way to assess "actually achievable" production figures, having comparative figures (using the baseline of "relative yields in optimum conditions") gives some way to help compare species with each other.  And actually, for a surprising number of species, even ones you might think would be too esoteric, they can be gotten or calculated!  But here in the case of Plinias and Myrciarias, I only could dig up results for two species, and they weren't good for helping narrow things down.

Also you should know that when they say mature jaboticabas, they can be taking about plants that are 50-100 years old. Sabara is very slow growing plant

Indeed!  I have growth tables that estimate size by years, and when production starts (on the presumption of increases over time as plants mature), and the longer these times are, the more it hurts that plant's score. This is weighed off against the area that the plant takes up - aka, if a plant takes a decade to first yield something, but during that time it only grows a meter or two, it may still be justifiable. But if a plant takes only four years, but becomes a monster during that time, it may well not be.  At the same time, there are some plants we'll want to become large early on, even if the plan is to replace them later.

Building estimated growth tables also helps show where it might be more optimal to import more mature plants rather than starting from seed.

It's all, of course, just approximation.

Sabara is precocious? That is a streeeeetch. Sabara are among the slowest growing (for me). Sabara does fruit well (nearly) year 'round (given you have 7-10 years to wait). The red hybrid (Mryciaria Cauliflora x Aureana) Produces fast (under 3 years in some cases), and produces flowers most of the year (given the proper conditions.) I have many others but no fruit as of yet. I have found up to this point, that my red jab's are the most sensitive seedlings to get "up to speed"/and/or get to a size that they will grow without stress.. They die back constantly when very young. Good luck to you. Chris

Do you think a red produces as much as a Sabara, relative to the amount of area it takes up, over the course of a year in optimal conditions? 

And yeah, this was actually the first time I've ever seen anyone call Sabara precocious    That said, there do appear to exist even slower jabos than Sabara!

I think you just caught a mistake i made when i posted this 4 years ago. Yes the San Lorenzo matisia is what Jim is now calling M. soegengii.

Okay, thanks for the correction!  There's not many people who have ever sampled this fruit   

In Brazil, I see yields greatest with Jabuticaba Sabará, given that they have about 4 crops a year and are very productive and precocious.  I found agreement with this in the literature as well: https://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/jaboticaba.html
and http://www.jabuticabeira.com.br/ though I can't find a quantitative yield per hectare.

Thanks - what other Jabuticaba species is this in comparison to?

I've only got one, and it's indoors in a humidity tent, so it may not be the best analogy to your situation.  But I've been impressed enough that I plan to order a lot more. 

A caution that I've seen, however, is that you shouldn't put plants that require constantly moist soil in air pots (at least not small ones), because they do dry out the soil faster (mine is a guanabana).  But in terms of plant health, it seems to just love it.  Even the soil stays loose and airy.  And they're not very expensive.

I definitely recommend doing a trial run with some 

Wow... things like this make me glad that I only grow in pots.  That must have been a ton of work! 

Looks great though, I hope it pays off!