That New Year Blog Post...

With constant news of war, famine, flooding, greed, corruption, abuse and scandal being drip-fed to us all day every day the need for gardening has never been so great.

Happy New Year.

Book Review: The RHS Encyclopaedia Of Conifers

It's easy to imagine some raised eyebrows when the RHS considered publishing an encyclopaedia of conifers; conifers have been out of fashion in the UK since the 1980s, so it would stand that any book about them, let alone a two volume set, wouldn't have the potential to be a best seller. Thankfully the RHS, along with Kingsblue Publishing, saw the importance of giving this unloved but diverse group its due, and the result is spectacular.

The RHS Encyclopaedia Of Conifers is a two volume set, 1506 pages in total, covering all 615 currently recognised conifer species and describing an impressive 8,000 cultivars. The set is lavishly illustrated with over 5,000 pictures, many of which were taken specifically for this encyclopaedia. Given the widely held view that conifers are “all the same” you could be forgiven for expecting page after page of nearly identical pictures or nearly identical plants, but you would be wrong; the pictures have been chosen and arranged in such a way that each page shows the diversity of cultivars, and even where the cultivars of a species can be fairly similar (as with some species of Abies, Picea and Pinus) the pictures may highlight a different characteristic such as needle shape or cone. This is hard to explain, so let me give you an example: within Abies koreana ('Korean Fir') there are a group named for the silvering of their needles, but rather than show photographs of each cultivar with its silver needles the publisher has chosen to focus on the habit of the illustrated cultivars while showing in a few spectacular images what the effect of the colouring is. This certainly cuts down on repetition in the pictures, as does the careful choice of cultivars illustrated at all. Some of the full page pictures used to punctuate these books are breathtaking!

Just one image of so many

The descriptions are concise but not without charm; each described cultivar is briefly covered, explaining habit, colouring (where necessary), origins and distinguishing features, but [crucially] also giving an expected height and spread in 10 years. Conifer growth rates can vary wildly according to climate, and my dwarf conifers grow much more quickly here in mild Cornwall than they do in drier and colder areas, but an idea of the height and spread is still very useful. So far I've not come across any ultimate heights and spreads in the cultivars, but such details are given in the descriptions of the individual species. Many of the ultimate heights given in horticultural books are nothing more than educated guesswork so the growth after 10 years is of more use to a gardener than a guessed figure, especially given that many dwarf conifers (take for example the tiny cultivars of Abies koreana) originate from much faster and larger growing trees, while some other cultivars (such as Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Little Spire') can grow considerably larger than expected! The species are covered in more depth than the cultivars, but descriptions stay away from being overly botanical. Species are described concisely, but also some interesting information is given about their habitats and preferences, their use as timber crops, and in some cases their relevance to local culture.

The RHS Encyclopaedia Of Conifers has been a labour of love for its authors, Aris Auders and Derek Spicer. I don't know much about Mr Auders, except that he was considered a leading expert on conifers and sadly passed away before this encyclopaedia was published. I have had the pleasure of meeting Derek Spicer on several occasions (he owns a conifer wholesale nursery, Kilworth Conifers, here in the UK), and I can personally vouch for his love of conifers; his enthusiasm for them, despite their fall from fashion, comes across in conversation. Derek has introduced several cultivars into cultivation, including the awesome Podocarpus 'Kilworth Cream', a beautifully variegated shrubby Podocarpus with a nice bushy habit (I would strongly recommend gardeners get to grips with Podocarpus, many are useful shrubs for colour and shape).

There can be no doubt that this work will remain unbeaten for many years to come. The sheer scale of the work, as well as the care taken to produce an encyclopaedia of such immense quality, makes this the definitive work for anyone who needs a broad understanding of conifer species and cultivars. My only criticism of this work is that it would be nice to have some pictures of the really rare and obscure genera that appear, if only for the sake of completion. Even a good picture of a pressed specimen in a botanical collection would be interesting, but at least by giving obscure taxa such as Retrophyllum a decent write-up anyone interested in learning more can go online for more information. This is a very minor fault with an otherwise perfect encyclopaedia.

Sadly I don't think the publication of the RHS Encyclopaedia Of Conifers has made, or will ever make, a difference to how ordinary gardeners perceive conifers. To change perception will need a radical overhaul of how gardeners value plants, and while herbaceous plants and growing food remain dominant trends the poor conifer is shunned. It's a shame really; to shun conifers is to ignore an enormous family of plants purely based on their methods of reproduction. Nonetheless this is where we are for now, and conifers will remain the interest of a minority of more experienced gardeners. For those gardeners, the RHS Encyclopaedia Of Conifers is a must-have book, and in addition to being a reference source it will also bring hours of pleasure just flicking through the pages. Will there be a second edition? Probably not.

Your nursery needs YOU!

This is an appeal on behalf of your local plant nursery...

A combination of recent bad weather and unforeseeable economic pressures have left small nurseries suddenly rather quiet. The stock is there, the bare rooted plant season is well under way, and the mild (if wet) weather recently has extended the autumn planting weather well into December. Despite so many reasons to buy plants, nurseries across the UK (and I've heard also around Europe) are missing trade.

There are many reasons for this; often wet and windy weather puts people off doing any gardening, stories of terrorism and war in the news generally lead to slower sales generally (presumably fear of what is to come makes people think twice about spending?), and the run-up to Christmas tends to favour shops rather than nurseries.

So why should we care? Businesses always have peaks and troughs in their incomes, so this is just another trough? I think there is a big concern because this has been a difficult year, with unpredictable weather and concern about how Government cutbacks will affect us all meaning that we reconsider our spending, and to end on a low note does not bode well for smaller businesses. January is nearly always a quiet month, and if February is cold then often this can add extra strain onto a small business's finances. If November and December remain this quiet then many (most?) small nurseries will face at least a third of the financial year unable to meet their costs. This could very easily be the end for some.

So yes, why should we care? Your local nursery is where you often find the better advice, the more interesting plants and the better prices and value for money. These are the places that focus of producing and selling plants, and are a very important part of our enjoyment of gardening. Would you really want to rely on your local garden centre for all of your plants, or have to send off to a nursery somewhere else in the UK or Europe every time you want to grow something different? I enjoy trips to my local garden centre for sundries etc., but my local nursery is where I find the better and more interesting range of plants!

What can be done?

1. Don't delay your planned purchases. Yes, family might put pressure on you to go here, there and everywhere in the run-up to Christmas, but try to make some time to visit your nursery.
2. Send plants as gifts! If you know a friend or family member well then you could choose a plant as a Christmas present. Do they have a tree in mind? What about a perennial for their border? Have they been coveting something in your garden?
3. If you can't give them a plant, or you're not sure what they might like, why not send vouchers? There is a downside to this; the National Garden Gift Vouchers can be redeemed in hundreds of garden centres and nurseries across the UK, so you might have to stipulate that you would appreciate the recipient spending their voucher(s) in an independent nursery. Also the nursery has to pay to redeem the vouchers...
4. Does your friend or family member have a good nursery locally to them? Why not contact the nursery and see if they would allow a credit note? You pay them X amount and then tell the recipient that they have an amount to spend at that nursery... Although a little more complicated, and not all nurseries will be able to do this, it would at least mean all of the money goes to that nursery.
5. Be sure to raise the profile of your local nursery with gardening friends! It's the easiest thing to do... you get talking about gardening and just mention that your local nursery has the new season's fruit or bare rooted plants in stock. You might fancy a trip out yourself so you could make a day out of it with your friend(s)! My local nursery, Endsleigh Gardens Nursery in Devon, has new stocks of fruit, trees, roses and bare rooted hedging in stock now, and your local nursery is likely to be the same. Now is a great time to buy roses so they establish well in spring, and most come with pictures on their labels so you don't have to shop entirely by the description.

Although the nursery trade has been tough for several years it would seem that this autumn and winter is proving particularly tough for small independents. If they go, just imagine the world of homogenised garden centres, all selling the same plants at the same prices, that would be left. What gets planted in your garden will be decided by people in boardrooms, and over time gardens will all become clones of each other. All that's needed to stop this is a conscious decision to support independent nurseries, and not leave them fighting for their existence this winter.

Best of all your efforts are rewarded with plants!

Ever decreasing circles

As popular gardening becomes more and more limited in its outlook it's rare to come across anyone daring to go against the flow. Gardening is directed by its fashions, with knowledge and practice of horticultural disciplines giving way to image-rich celebrities, heavily filtered 'vintage' Instagram nostalgia and pithy comments about vegetables and bees. Gardening is no longer about people making their own choices; gardeners are pushed and pulled by marketing campaigns and media stories into thinking that the only way to garden is to buy this product or that, and that anything that doesn't make out that it single-handedly saves the world is of no value.

It's a wonder that some plants manage to hold on against this relentless current. Modern gardening culture teaches us that ponds are dangerous to kids who are certain to drown in them (except for wildlife ponds of course, which must be surrounded by long grass and strictly wild plants but are otherwise OK), that native plants are always better for wildlife than non-native (even though there's increasing evidence that this isn't true), and that any plant that grows quickly is a thug that will destroy your whole garden.

You just don't see Euphorbia 'Fens Ruby' any more

With this blogger/media/retail constriction the diversity of our gardens is sure to suffer. Similarly our ability to express ourselves as anything other than lovers of dreamy 'naturalistic' Oudolf-inspired borders, rolling wildlife meadows or organic food factories is being eroded. Although it's not openly said, it's not really 'allowed' to be different any more. Those who pioneered or found their horticultural home in formerly popular trends like the hardy exotics movement or the whole 'prairie/grasses' thing risk being labelled unfairly as being unfashionable, despite the fact that these gardeners have continued to develop their style even though their own discipline is no longer de rigueur.

For the hardcore enthusiasts being fashionable isn't important, the issue really comes when new gardeners are pushed into particular styles of gardening because they aren't allowed by the garden influencers to be different. Open any of the glossy garden magazines and you will see the same formula time and time again; big [expensive] house with a garden filled with drifts of fashionable perennials, a few from a shortlist of popular/commonly found shrubs, and decorative pieces from their pet sculptor. It's not that these gardens aren't nice, they just become rather repetitive. Editors would argue that they are simply giving people what they want, while in truth they're helping to strangle the ingenuity and individuality out of horticulture. Whole areas of horticulture are sidelined not because they are unpopular per se, but because they never see the light of day. The result? Gardeners are being denied inspiration to make their own way in the world because they aren't being exposed to new and different ideas.

How often do you see carnivorous plants in garden magazines?

As coincidence has it while I was writing this post Anne Wareham published a blog post written by Noel Kingsbury about le Jardin de Berchigranges in France. This quote from Noel illustrates exactly what I'm getting at: “The trouble with most garden-making is that most people care too much about what others think, as they try to impress, or to emulate, or to, and ohmygod I hate this, make an English garden. Why do people in France, in Germany or the USA endlessly try to make English ****** gardens? I’m sick of them. They all end up the same – as a pastel pastiche, while their owners obliviously live the cliché, almost wallowing in their inability to do anything actually creative.”

As a nation of gardeners it seems few gardeners actually relish doing any gardening. 'Gardening' has become something of a dirty word; while so many gardeners enjoy gardens it seems that the whole act of gardening has become something to avoid. There are exceptions, notably with those who grow their own food, but on the whole gardening has gone through a period of labour saving gadgets and techniques and has now ended up as 'labour avoidance'. You can, for a price, buy a robot lawnmower that will mow your lawn for you, and the plants available to most gardeners have been chosen for performance with as little maintenance as it's possible to get away with. No wonder then that formerly common skills like pruning are becoming rare! The modern world makes more demands on us than at any time in the past, yet we're only able to be so busy because we don't spend our time on 'chores' like gardening; ironic then that so many people claim that gardening is restful, relaxing and spiritual rewarding...

Conifers are about as unfashionable as you can get...!

I will fight for anyone's right to enjoy their gardening style, regardless of whether or not I'm 'into it'. Whatever you do, from growing wildflowers or fruit, topiary and carefully tended lawns, lush jungles or herbaceous borders, you should be proud of what you do in your garden. If you go against the flow then credit to you for keeping the less fashionable horticultural disciplines alive. Whether you're into bonsai trees, show Chrysanthemums, carnivorous plants, conifers, alpines, giant vegetables, Fuchsias, ornamental aquatics or anything else that never seems to make it into the public eye, you can at least enjoy what you do. I do, however, share your frustration that the things you love are never shared with the wider gardening community.

You can read the full review of le Jardin de Berchigranges here: http://thinkingardens.co.uk/reviews/berchigranges-garden-reviewed-by-noel-kingsbury/

Saving Horticulture

As certainly as spring follows winter, the question of how to recruit more (preferably young) people into horticulture is certain to appear in horticultural discussions. Horticulture is widely believed to be facing a 'people crisis', and there seems to be no clear idea about what we should do about it. No wonder then that some choose to ignore the issue until it goes away....

When you see fresh-faced horticulture students leaving college to make their way in the industry it's hard to imagine there could be a problem; yes, there aren't as many courses on offer as there used to be, and are there any solely horticultural colleges left in the UK? Nonetheless there are people leaving school, or changing professions, and heading into horticulture. So what's the problem? It would seem that people are retiring as quickly as new recruits are being trained... but is that entirely true, and is it the whole story?

I think it's actually more accurate to say that horticulture is facing a skills shortage more than strictly speaking a shortage of people. You don't have to go far to find businesses finding it hard to recruit people with the necessary skills to do a job; yes, there are plenty of people around with general horticultural qualifications, but there are also enough jobs around needing people with particular expertise. Skills are learned by doing, and so it stands that someone fresh out of horticultural college won't have as many skills as someone who has been working in horticulture for years. The obvious thing is to offer training 'on the job', but with so many skilled practitioners leaving the industry there simply isn't the time to train the next generation. This is where we have a problem.

See the subtle change there? In the space of a paragraph I've gone from referring to people retiring to 'leaving the industry'.

As much as we need to recruit new people into the industry, we also need to retain skilled horticultural experts. There is a subtle shift as skilled horts get tempted away by better conditions/pay in other industries, or get pushed by the somewhat troubled state of the industry, and this expertise is not being replaced. Decades worth of knowledge and expertise can be lost with each person leaving horticulture; what do we do?

To coax skilled people to stay in this industry horticulture has to clean up its act. We need to act on some poisonous cultures that exist in some (many?) nurseries, garden centres, gardens and other horticultural businesses. We need to stamp out sexism; in horticulture there is gender equality in that both men and women can freely encounter sexism. Sexism is making men do all the 'grunt work' because women automatically deserve the nicer jobs (whatever these may be), or telling a woman that she can't use machinery because that's 'man's work'. Sexism is paying competent women less than incompetent men. Sexism is implying that either men or women are naturally more competent at horticulture than their gender opposites; it's not true, and it's a culture that must be stamped out in the places where it's allowed to be the norm. Sadly also homophobia can be engrained in a company's workforce; other industries have cleaned up their act significantly, and horticulture needs to follow suit.

Conditions also need to be addressed. There is a degree of 'rough and tumble' in horticulture, but there are businesses that go too far by exposing staff to pesticides (I once worked for a company where teams of staff worked in the greenhouses while a pesticide team in full PPE sprayed the plants they were working on!), not providing Personal Protective Equipment or otherwise taking measures to protect safety and well-being, or working staff into the ground (which usually leaves businesses with high attrition rates as those that can leave do!). Yes, we all get cold in winter, and we get really hot in summer, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

Pay is a perennial favourite for those looking for reasons why people leave or don't join the industry. It is possible to earn enough money to live in this industry (I live alone and get by). If you're single and live alone you are unlikely to be able to afford expensive holidays and luxury items, but if they aren't important to you then you can get by comfortably. If there's someone else to share the bills then that's brilliant, but even then don't expect to be booking a fortnight's cruise on a horticultural wage. Through 15 years in horticultural retail I was aware that administration staff were often on better wages than the horticultural staff (but then the horticultural staff often earn more than casual staff); people are paid in line with the expectations of their industry, but horticulture is usually fairly low. The temptation to jump into another, better paid, industry does occur from time to time in most horticultural workers!

There is also a question of image. Horticulture is its own worst enemy here! It allows itself to be seen as unskilled, the kind of work that anyone could do if they weren't contributing to society in a more important way. Amateur gardeners who join horticulture so they can earn as they pursue their hobby often get a rude awakening; horticulture is often bloody hard work! My frustration is that I think horticulture focusses too much on a 'nice' and 'relaxed' image. For anyone who wants to succeed in life, and anyone who actually relishes a challenge, the sheer 'nicety' of the image is off-putting. Where are the challenges? Where is the career progression? Can you succeed if you're competent, or will the good jobs just go to people who are 'nice'? The number of times people have said to me “oh you're a nurseryman (or more recently, gardener), that must be so relaxing/calming/spiritually uplifting”! Excuse me? EXCUSE ME?! Potting hundreds of plants as fast as you can isn't relaxing, and neither is mowing a lawn in the rain! Horticulture is challenging, and those who succeed are the ones who enjoy a mighty fine challenge. There is a therapeutic side to horticulture, as can be seen by the various projects for people with disabilities or learning difficulties, but believe me when I say that while I have found professional horticulture to be interesting, enlightening, challenging and fun, I've never found it to be therapeutic; I would say that if you're enjoying professional horticulture as therapy then you might need to get a shift on and work faster before someone notices you're not breaking a sweat!

The new generation bring their own challenges. Sad to say that my limited experience with horticultural apprentices has been at best mixed. All bright people, but lacking any personal discipline and desire to succeed. Of course there will be diamonds in the future workforce, but there does seem to be a problem with young people not wanting to work for their money, coming in with interesting ideas that they are somehow above menial tasks, and often a profound difficulty in paying attention to the extent needed in horticulture. I wish this had only been my experience, but sadly I hear the same thing time and time again from others in the trade. Too many young people in horticulture expect to be entertained constantly, and this causes friction when they find out that about 90% of horticulture is about repetition (say, weeding each pot in a batch) or recurring cycles (such as potting each year). As I say, some people in this new generation will be absolute diamonds and will go far in this industry; many of today's recruits will probably drift away from the industry in the not-too-distant future. It's sad, but I'm afraid I think it's what will happen.

So what do we do? My suggestions are outlined here:

• Shake up the industry as it is, removing less desirable elements that may linger in some businesses.
• Work towards making horticulture a more appealing industry; work to increase wages for skilled and committed employees, and offer career progression rather than allowing the 'next in line' culture that's been around for decades to continue.
• Show horticulture to be what it really is, a challenging and rewarding industry that's perfect for people with a wide range of skills and interests. To succeed in horticulture isn't about being 'nice', it's about working hard to build your skills and experience, and the rewards for that are worth having.

So there we have it; in a nutshell these are, I think, some fairly key issues affecting the industry. There are others, and some may disagree with my prioritising of these issues in particular, but I am increasingly of the opinion that it is absolutely vital to keep existing skills in horticulture. Once the attrition rate of skilled labour has been addressed the industry will be in a much stronger position to recruit and then retain skilled people in the future.

Stuck in a rut

Once every three months a copy of The Alpine Gardener drops through my door. This is the quarterly publication of the Alpine Garden Society, a society of gardeners who are particularly interested in alpine plants, woodlanders (things like Trilliums etc.) and an interesting selection of other bits and pieces that come under the group's remit. This is most definitely a more specialised gardening society, with no interest in fruits and vegetables, trees and shrubs, or designer gardens. The society hosts dozens of shows across the UK (to which everyone is welcome). At shows there are benches full of the many interesting plants on which the society is focussed, ranging from fairly common through to extremely rare, as well as plants for sale, cakes, books, seeds... you get the picture.

The other society I'm a member of it the RHS, the Royal Horticultural Society (if you're outside the UK). The RHS is a much broader spectrum organisation, with interests in every area of horticulture. The RHS performs trials on different genera and gives best performers an Award of Garden Merit (AGM), holds big flower shows, spends bucketloads of money teaching young children to grow food, has four RHS gardens, publishes a monthly magazine....

A few months ago I began to realise that I've become a little bored with the RHS. I've been a member for over 10 years, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm just not RHS material any more. Yes, I do get to visit the garden at Rosemoor free of charge (but how many times can you visit before you get too familiar with even such a lovely garden?), but the magazine feels bland and uninspiring and I haven't been to an RHS show in years. When the magazine drops through the door I open it, flop out all the advertising stuff and flick through in case there's an article that interests me. I read Roy Lancaster's articles, and sometimes something unusual like Matthew Pottage's fantastic attempt at getting gardeners to suppress their horticultural racism and look with fresh eyes at conifers, but on the whole I'm done with the magazine and pass it on to my friend after about 30 minutes of reading. It's not that the pictures aren't good, or that the magazine is in any way badly written, it's just so terribly familiar and, I've come to believe, basic.

This isn't a post about being a horticultural smartarse; this is a post about learning. Gardening is a learning process. Simple. You buy your seeds, sow them, grow the seedlings on, plant them out, enjoy them, and you learn from your successes and failures. You also learn new things from TV and radio, from magazines and from other gardeners. Gardening is a process of constant learning, and even the most experienced gardeners are still learning lots of new things. This is where I've become increasingly at odds with it all; I'm starting to feel that horticulture is stagnating. I know that the garden year is a cycle, and that this cycle repeats itself each year, but there is a wealth of knowledge out there that is untouched by the horticultural mainstream.

Nobody seems to want to break out of the mainstream. Every year Monty Don sows his sweet peas in the same way and at pretty much the same time, and magazine regurgitate the same tips and advice, only with slightly different wording and a few new articles dropped in to persuade people not to just reread last year's edition (good tip though!). There's a formula and those who generate media content are happy to follow it, tweaking it as they go. What happens though when you, as a gardener, want to break away from the mainstream and build on your knowledge, when you don't want to be an amateur gardener any more?

There are specialist plant societies around for various parts of horticulture, and even the RHS has The Plantsman magazine for those who want more depth on the plants themselves (although you pay £29 on top of your RHS membership or pay £37 if you're not a member), and there are groups like the RHS Rhododendron, Camellia and Magnolia group you can join (again for an additional fee, and I can't work out if it's £20 a year to be member and an additional £25 if you want to receive bulletins... and I presume that the society is completely separate from the RHS membership). What we are decidedly lacking is a broad spectrum gardening organisation for gardeners who have outgrown the usual mainstream content, something that goes into more detail for those who already have the basics covered.

As I say, this isn't about about being a smartarse know-it-all gardener... this is about progress. At the moment there's a yawning gap between the basic end of gardening and the specialised end, and bridging that gap is, I believe, key to helping gardeners gain more skills and knowledge. There is a thirst for knowledge in horticulture, and trapping gardeners in a perpetual state of amateur isn't helping anyone anywhere, not least the gardeners themselves.

So what do we do? Is it time the RHS launched an RHS+ membership (maybe sending the quarterly editions of The Plantsman out instead of The Garden), or do we need a new broad spectrum garden society for those with enquiring minds?

What do you think?

Heritage Apples

Lovely sweet apple!

I was brought up on heritage; National Trust properties, steam rallies, museums, old buildings... since I was very young I have respected old things and I've long held the belief that it's generally a 'good thing' for us to preserve all that is good about our heritage. In the last few years I've come to reassess my beliefs; is a 30 year old car a classic or a rustbucket? Is a big old cottage in the country really all that good if it's damp and the roof's falling off?! Do we really need 'Sounds Of The '60s' on Radio 2 every Saturday morning?!

It's good to challenge your ideas. Occasionally weighing up your arguments keeps you fresh and makes sure that you're wholly convinced by what you're arguing for. Sadly though there are plenty of people around who won't question whether it's time to let go of certain things. The National Trust takes on more and more property to preserve for future generations, while across the UK villages try to raise vast amounts of money to stop underused churches from falling down!

Heritage fruit is an area that seems immune from criticism. Through the incredible work of a few hardcore apple enthusiasts many old varieties have been saved from extinction and are now being grown in collections around the UK. Time was when most areas had their own local varieties, but the traditional apple areas in the South West were particularly rich. Over the years many of these varieties have disappeared due to lack of propagation, old age, housing on old orchards/gardens, lack of interest... what's missing from this list? Some trees will have been rubbish!

How can an apple tree not be good? Some old varieties are less than reliable, fruiting every two seasons rather than every year, only netting half a crop before we've even got to the fruits. Fruits can be insipid, bland and pithy, and can quite often be very small. Trees are often more prone to scab and canker, and some varieties can need an absolutely perfect season to get anything meaningful from them. Modern varieties have been bred to provide more reliable fruiting (each year!), to provide consistent size and flavour. Maybe they don't have the character of the old apples, but they more than make up for it with performance and disease resistance!

I say 'modern varieties' because actually some of the apples popular today aren't exactly new; 'Bramley's Seedling' is a popular cooker from 1856! Why has 'Bramley's Seedling' remained so popular? Because it fruits well/reliably and is pretty disease resistant. While modern tastes tend to lean towards dessert apples, 'Bramley's Seedling' has stood the test of time simply because it's reliable and needs no improvement. Will modern varieties still be popular in more than 100 years?

Apple 'Pendragon'

The quality of the fruit is pretty well the whole point of growing any apple variety. While texture tends to be down to the variety, taste can vary wildly from season to season, as well as from location to location (assuming the same variety). Trees grown on vigorous rootstocks but on poor soils tend to have better flavour, while those grown on small rootstocks in good soil can be a bit lacking. Without doubt the freshness of the apple has an enormous effect on the flavour, and this is where I have issue with those who blindly believe that heritage apples are inherently better than modern varieties.

Let's take for example, two lovely shiny apples. One is a commercial variety from a supermarket, while the other one is a heritage variety straight from the tree. In a blind taste test you would probably end up choosing the heritage variety. Why? Because it's fresher! Once any apple is picked it starts to lose its flavour. A supermarket apple will have been picked days or even over a week earlier, all the time its sugars breaking down, while the one fresh from the tree will be full of sugars and flavour. The supermarket fruit will have to be in exceptional condition to be anywhere near as sweet and juicy as the fresh fruit (and this applies to everything- try raspberries from your own canes as opposed to supermarket pre-frozen ones). Now let's turn this scenario around, and take a fresh modern apple from its tree and compare it with a heritage apple that's been stored... I doubt anyone would want to go for the heritage one- freshness is key! I remember, when I still worked for my former employer, a customer coming up to me to complain about his apple tree (a 'Fiesta' if memory serves); he'd bought this thing and by the time he and his family had eaten their fill of apples, used them in apple sauces and pies, juiced some and frozen some, he was sick to death of them!

Labelled 'Spartan' but isn't!

Popular heritage apples tend to be the more reliable varieties with fruits that store well; most people couldn't eat the entire crop of an apple tree when it ripens! Fruits that store well are those with more solid flesh and more stable sugars, but these are a minority in the heritage varieties; many stopped being grown simply because they didn't store well, and were in sharp decline way before more modern varieties came onto the market.

I'm not saying that these heritage varieties don't have a place in modern gardening. With names like 'Pig's Nose', 'Cornish Gilliflower' and 'Catshead' who wouldn't be sucked in by their interesting and romantic names? All I would say with heritage apple varieties is that you should grow them because you want to grow heritage apple varieties; if you just want a nice big crop of apples each year then go for something more modern. If you have a large space and want to have an orchard filled with old varieties then go right ahead, and I hope you enjoy the fruits of your endeavour.

If you want to know more about apples and their varieties you might enjoy this website: http://www.orangepippin.com/