Despite the current strong demand for apples, most consumers have very little choice in the varieties of apples they buy and eat compared to previous generations. And those growers who are trying to preserve ancient varieties face an uphill struggle, as Bernice Hurst found out.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Anyone glancing at the produce section of most supermarkets could be forgiven for believing that Apple growers are flourishing: there is plenty of supply, plenty of demand and plenty of choice.
What there isn’t, of course, is anything other than the standardised size, shape and flavour that buyers have decreed consumers prefer. Regardless of the country of origin – and there are many represented, wherever the customer looks – the apples now available in supermarkets represent a mere fraction of the varieties enjoyed by previous generations.
Amongst small groups of consumers, there is an awareness of the situation. In France, cuttings for those varieties no longer widely available are frequently exchanged amongst local residents at autumn fairs. They are alternatively referred to as légumes oubliés, forgotten vegetables, or légumes perdus, lost vegetables. In the United States, the term heirloom is apparently used more frequently.
Varieties in decline
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataSwiss-based plant pathologist Roger Corbaz won a Slow Food biodiversity award a few years ago for his work in the conservation orchard at Arbonne above Lake Geneva. His estimate is that 230 varieties of eating apple in French-speaking Switzerland in the 1920s have now been reduced to between 60 and 80.
Only a few small-scale growers remain in the UK, choosing between their orchards and commercial pressures. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has decided that orchards are not “farmland” and therefore not eligible for the government’s single payment scheme (SPS) unless they get rid of their trees, according to growers and the media.
DEFRA supports a national fruit collection at Brogdale Horticultural Trust in Kent, giving them a means of defending the accusation that they are allowing ancient varieties to die out. Its collection of trees “conserves the genetic diversity in cultivated temperate fruit genera”, providing propagation material for re-introduction into commerce, according to the Trust’s website.
Common Ground, concerned about the disappearance of trees and their fruit, has set itself the job of actively promoting orchards and rare varieties. Its efforts include annual Apple Days and assorted publications offering advice about traditional orchards and planning systems.
Environmental value
DEFRA’s decree that orchards be classified as woodland, not farmland, means that growers have until January 2005 to grub up their trees if they want their single farm payment, say those on the non-receiving end of the stick. Otherwise their orchards will be worth less, overnight, than any dormant fields surrounding them. Something else can be planted to replace the trees, even more apples, but the same trees cannot be left in situ.
This is not entirely true, says DEFRA spokesman, Kavan McClair. Much of what people believe is down to misunderstanding and getting the wrong end of that stick. In spite of the Q&A buried somewhere on the department’s website, he maintains that attempts to communicate the facts have been misrepresented in the press. Apparently traditional orchards have never qualified for CAP (the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy) subsidies, which is why they are now ineligible for the single payment scheme. Grubbing up trees will make no difference as the amount to be paid is based on historical usage.
What DEFRA does do, says McClair, is distribute funds to traditional orchards through the Countrywide Stewardship Scheme, which will continue unchanged. If orchards are used for grazing, as many are, then the government wants to protect them, recognising and appreciating their environmental value.
A British decision?
Objections to government policy have apparently been raised by English Nature, Common Ground and Friends of the Earth. Describing the loss of orchards as “an environmental catastrophe”, the unique nature of orchards was stressed along with the importance of their preservation. In spite of Brogdale’s efforts, Common Ground spokesperson Sue Clifford told John Vidal of The Guardian that the loss to the gene pool will be irrevocable.
Julian Temperley, grower and cider maker, believes Britain is out of step with the rest of the EU on this issue. “In France,” he says, “new orchards are just being planted. There is no way that would happen if growers believed that they would have to grub up their trees in order to access their share of the payment.” DEFRA’s McClair disputes this, insisting it is not a British decision but an EU one that will apply to all members of the community.
Gill Franklin of Cross Lanes Farm in Berkshire agrees with Temperley. The proudly independent grower of 60 different apple varieties, she relies on a combination of farm gate, farmers’ market and mail order sales for survival. “I have a splendid public who buy the fruit,” she sighs. “They go out of their way to find old varieties and meeting them to answer questions and taste as we go is invaluable. My orchard will be worth considerably less than the field next to it come January; I looked at pulling up the trees but love them too much to do it.”
Lack of communication
Although John Vidal’s Guardian article in March held out some hope, that has now been lost by growers. Julian Temperley says that the government hasn’t budged one inch from its original position and the cut-off point of January 2005 remains. The only slight glimmer of optimism, for some, would be a limit of 50 trees per acre rather than 50 per hectare. If this description is agreed, it will be “curtains” for many growers but not all, he says. Neither Temperley nor Franklin has anything positive to say about the government, insisting that it does not act in good faith and has never given support to growers. Nor do they believe assertions that other EU countries will follow in British footsteps when it comes to implementing the rules. McClair’s views on communication are well founded: there seems to be little between the department and the growers.
Although a combination of legislation, commercial reality and CAP reforms has helped reduce the number of orchards, consumer demand for apples continues apace. McDonald’s was praised recently by the US Apple Association for introducing apples to its menu. The fastfood chain has apparently sold 118 million apple products in the first half of 2004 and is forecast to sell a total of 35 million pounds annually.
The mere fact that people eat so many apples should discourage further decimation of varieties.
