Beware of variety misinformation

I have to confess to feeling rather guilty as I look at the current state of marketing companies and their bull variety claims as I believe that I was maybe the first to to identify the marketing edge that supurious new varieties could offer me as a marketing executive of a new company in 1988. As I managed to get many orders from leading retailers for many years based on promises of what was to come from my marvellous variety of trials in the belief that the buyers would never be there long enouguh to see the results of my three trials ( that started each year). It clearly is as I recognised then a major advantage to offer a variety programme that should/could lead to that buy/marketer having an advantage. Therefore it can be very dangerous for growers, plant propagators and the industry as a whole if they hype is actually believed by those that may be forced to invest in the dream.

How do we define "best variety"?
Ia it the best variety in grower terms, cost production vs. yield vs. timing and saleability? Is it determined by the ownder of the variety trials (variety owners in most cases) it's new ( so it must be good?) it's easy to grow 9No one can say it isn't) it has a great yield (figures can say it does) it has a marvellous shelf life (no one know's it hasn't). Or do retailers determine it based on what they want? Full availability, cheaper than everyone else, longer shelf life, and yes a better flavour as well. Or is it determined by the technologists? Who want strawberries to be grown without the use of pesticides, fungicides, and fertiliseres, to only be grown in areas beneficial to the environment (but the ground won't need to be sterilised) and harvested under a regime where cheap labour are not required and the fruit trickels into the punnet without being touched by human hands. Or, is it the consumer? Weo simply wants (we believe) to have strawberries that they consdier will never taste as good as they used to buy, cheaper than a bus fare to the post office (which is probably shut down by now) and available every day of the year they wish to buy them.

We would all like to own the next Elsanta, Everest or Camarosa; the varieties that despite their shortcomings have become industry standards because of their own merits. As second best we would like to control some of the niche varieties that can be grown as a bespoke product for customers who want to and are able to make a point of difference in what they sell. However, there are a fair number of unfulfilled promises by grower's groups purporting to have the "next best thing" just around the corner.

These promises are a means to keep a customer interested in an otherwise average supply, by this means the promise of a new variety is buying the sale for a much larger volume of an industry standard product. And who is paying to make this sale - the grower. The costs of buying a new variety have some quite obvious costs to cover breeding programs, trials, registation and royalties.There are some much less obvious costs wheregrowers are often asked to foot the bill. If I am growing ten hectares of Everest and cropping 25 tonnes per hectare I have 250 tons of fruit that I know I can sell propfitably. If a grower takes on 10 hectares of "princess" (the next best thing) and this yields 20 tonnes per hectare, you would need a minimum 20% increase in net fruit return to deliver the same net value to the field as Everest.

I have a variety in Portugal that I promised to make work for a cutomer here in the UK, the costs of buying the variety were clear. The most unexpected costs have been the difference in having a predictable yield of an industry standard variety and a lower yield of variety the customer deems superior. Fortunately the French can not get enouch of it, less concerned about its tendency to bruise, it is a berry that eats well but does not bounce too well.

Two years ago 98% of our strawberry volume was in 4 varieties, in 2004 we have to uose 9 varieties to cover our twelve months and strive to deliver a better product. Lessons to be learnt here from the French who once had an export market when all their supply was Elsanta. Now they have a list of varieties as long as your arm and little export potential. If we split our volume too much by too many varieties we lose the impact of volume within UK production. This is particularly true when those "next best thing" varieties have added to the list of varieties but failed to deliver volume sales.

To sum up, I welcome research into new varieties and the development of growing systems to improve the criteria I mentioned earlier on. But I would urge growers to be cautious when deciding to believe the claims being made now and in the future.

Autumn 2003