Blog

In a world where it seems everyone works with and to standards it is not always a popular subject to suggest there should be standardisation of an industry. In the EU farmers not only work to standards but have to conform to EU Common Agricultural policy rules in order to be paid subsidies. These rules ensure conformity to environmental regulation, soil management, fertiliser use, document management, welfare rules, cropping – the list goes on and on. For business to business transactions there are product specifications which each company requires in order to buy the materials they need. There are voluntary standards set by trade associations. There are national trading standards and EU regulations set to protect consumers from poor product and practice. In fact, with the possible exception of very small businesses, probably all transactions within the EU are governed by some form of standard.

The objective of all these standards is to allow some comfort that one party in a transaction is responsible and trustworthy so that another party can deal with them with minimal risk.

Outside the EU there are more standards. China is a vast country and, like Europe, they have set standards for farming, processing, manufacturing, so that product conforms to being fit for purpose. Russia has similar standards, most of which are governed under the GOST system when it comes to food products. The issue with all these is that standards are of no use unless they are monitored or enforced.

There are good standard systems that are self regulated but they have still to be credible to the overall objective of generating responsible trustworthy trading.

Trading in itself has a purpose. It serves to supply a market and the market regulates trading in as much as it will reject poor quality by not purchasing it. It is therefore the end user or consumer who is the ultimate judge of whether products or services are of good – quality.

Standards might have a direct business to business value, but they are also a valuable tool in indicating to the consumer that a producer is making every effort to provide the consumer with great quality not just once but every time.

So the third workshop at Euroworks focused on standards. It was very clear that with all the standards that people were already working with it would be difficult to try to find a set of standards that everyone could conform to. There is an added problem in that sea buckthorn is a global industry with different perspectives. The International Sea Buckthorn Association is working on this subject as there is a need for the market to understand what is good quality sea buckthorn in all its ranges of product. Finding common ground between markets will not be easy. Standards must not conflict or add to regulation, but add value to product and give consumers confidence to buy.

It is my consideration that standards must conform to a number of simple concepts to be useful.
They must be understandable – principally by the consumer so that they build trust in the industry. The principle characteristics that differentiate sea buckthorn from other fruit needs to be highlighted so that it is clear that a sea buckthorn product can deliver what a consumer expects of it.
They must be targeted so that they pinpoint aspects that can deliver benefits to consumers and therefore will add value to end products.
They must be credible – with regular monitoring and reporting in a manner that the market and consumers can see is transparent and accessible that generates confidence in the process and all participants in the supply chain.
They must be achievable as there is no point in setting standards that only some sections of a supply chain can resource and deliver. If delivery of quality only comes from the processing part of the supply chain it follows that growers will not gain from the potential of standards delivering added value. Quality needs to achieve value from consumers and that value must be transmitted right down the supply chain so each part receives some reward that enables them to invest in securing and improving their delivery of that quality.
It follows that to be achievable standards must be affordable. If standards are set too high then smaller companies may not be able to comply. Small companies often provide innovation and need to have the opportunity to grow and support the whole supply chain. Make standards unaffordable and the process becomes selective. The sea buckthorn industry takes its raw material supply from growers, many of which are small. It is a natural product, not a manufactured product, standards should therefore reflect the whole supply chain process. If any part of the supply chain cannot conform to the standards set for it then supply will become unreliable – and markets are unforgiving.
Finally I believe standards need to be simple so that they create a message that is memorable to all.

A simple, clear, authoritative message that is believable and defines the difference between sea buckthorn and other product should be the objective for setting standards.
Those standards should reflect not just on products but also the commitment of the whole service chain that delivers them to the end user.

These are my thoughts on what standards should be.

Our discussions at Euroworks were constructive but time will tell as to what will develop in trying to deliver quality as a process thought the sea buckthorn industry.

The principle outcome of going to Finland Euroworks was to come away with knowing that demand has now out-striped supply. This is a good issue because it finally shows market movement, although there are some other issues which are impacting on growers. One of my concerns has been that we are growing a crop that the market does not recognise. This is clearly too much a UK perspective. It does provide encouragement to continue to expand planting but there are a number of issues to consider taking this action.

The first workshop at Herrankukkaro concentrated on the sea buckthorn fly. A pest well recognised in Siberia and the Altai region that has a capacity to destroy a significant percentage of a crop by laying eggs in fruit and then feeding off the contents. This has been found in Germany for the first time last year, and a grower from Finland brought a jar of suspect fruit from his farm – so it is spreading. Or maybe it is not spreading but has always been present.
Sea buckthorn is seen as a pioneer plant from Ice Age history. It seems that it is possible that the sea buckthorn fly could have adapted to other host plants as sea buckthorn became rarer. Then as sea buckthorn plantations of commercial varieties expand it has re-found its old host plant. Sea buckthorn fly was recognised in Germany in the 1970s. It would be interesting to circulate to UK foragers whether they have recognised the shrivelled cases of fruit on wild standings.
We were told that a sea buckthorn fly can travel up to 10km, but the point was made that for the fly to make its way from Siberia would take many,many years.

Clearly this is going to be an issue for farmers of sea buckthorn where ever they are, but all crops have pests. The problem comes when it seems that the majority of growers in Europe are organic. The Russians have been trialling sprays and organic systems but these are costly although the potential yield loss balances these costs. One of the principle interventions it would seem could be breasking the life cycle between caterpillar and pupae. Placing a plastic sheet under plants is one concept, but this is very labour intensive. Fleece has been tried in Germany and this sounds like an option that I would try.
The first issue though is to put out orange/yellow sticky traps to identify the flies presence. Traps sunk in the ground below plants can also catch pupae. The fly is small with black and white striped wings and a dot at their end. Numbers can be in the thousands so this can be seen as a threat to 20%+ of the crop.
This yield loss could well be the difference between profit and loss.
One post presentation given at the conference was on economics indicating that there was a loss from a yield of 6500kg/hectare. This is of course dependent upon the major factor of labour costs.

Harvesting is still the important factor to crack. The concept of total cut – when a mechanical harvester cuts the whole bush to 80cm/1m is still the viable mechanical system. It only works with selected varieties and has the disadvantage that the plants can only be harvested every third year. If land prices are high then one has to question the system. It is said that minimum area for viability is 50 hectares to justify capital cost. Placing all these issues together makes me push the option away as impractical. It did occur to me at the conference however that as farmer’s we are happy to spend £250,000 on an arable combine harvester but this is justified by area harvested. If the demand for sea buckthorn is currently outstripping supply then one of these mechanical harvesters could be justified as a co-operatively owned machine for a number of farmers. One might question whether the demand/supply situation is specific to this year, or whether it reflects a market hardening.
I think that the reported investment being made in Mongolia shows a significant amount of supply that will become available within 5-10 years, which in its will provoke a market development. This could be taken as a catalyst to drive the European market, as long as quality creates product differentiation between European and Asian product. This differentiation is key to develop and maintain a price return that reflects European costs.

The presentations on cultivation showed the value in irrigation through dry times. This does not mean full drip lines but the ability to have water to hand when summer weather becomes extreme. This can reduce yield significantly and a mention was made that one hectare of plants could be hand watered in a day. This sounds labour intensive but it is an operation that is exceptional rather than routine.

We also had explained a system of training plants from year one for vertical splitting. This forms the plant so that half the plant is harvested at a time. Branches are cut manually and taken to a cold store for freezing in order to knock the berries off once frozen. The freezing system is the favoured one, but I have a concern that one should look for low energy options if possible. Sea buckthorn is a long term investment and within that time frame markets will probably become more sensitive to environmental impacts of businesses operations. Sustainability is the current focus and within that comes the controlled use of resources ( water and energy ) so harvesting needs to find a control over its resource use.

One real shock presentation was on the Drosophila Suzuki. This fruit fly arrived in 2008 and has swept across southern Europe attacking all native and commercial fruit on its way. That includes soft fruit, vines, I fact anything with a soft skin it can penetrate. This is causing considerable damage. Interestingly though no one could answer whether it attacked sea buckthorn and it is possible that it is attracted more to black and red fruits so maybe we might escape from this new pest from which there is no current protection.
Small plantations are netting. This seems a practical solution which could provide protection on a number of fronts. Sea buckthorn fly, drosophila, aphid and birds. But if mechanical harvesting on a large scale is going to be the way forward then netting becomes impractical/ expensive.

Birds, in the form of starlings and crows were a topic of discussion. Kites could be used. Bangers are on option, although neighbourly relations can be difficult. Shooting requires persistence but with large flocks of small birds this is difficult and in some cases not legal. I am going to try scare crows and possibly an electronic multi-sound system – if cost allows.

In the long term we need to have new varieties that suit the needs of grower and market. Sweet varieties are clearly attractive as for products they will require less use of sugar to balance taste. Sweetness may well attract the sea buckthorn fly. Size of berry and the ability to remove it from the plant are both issues for ease of harvesting. For small plantations a large berry is easier to pick as long as it has a stalk that allows access to the berry rather than it being tightly packed into a cluster. Nutrients are still an issue. No one is pointing a finger at particular advantage for nutrient groups, although a new product was presented – Flavo C, which combines vitamin C and a flavonoid combination in a pill form. Nutrients are something that we can influence with harvesting times but it seems to me that there as many individual nutrients that decrease with ripeness as there are those that increase. So as a grower it is still probably better to focus on picking to optimum ripeness.
Varieties are always an issue. I have planted German; Finnish; Latvian; Altai from Siberia. Latvian are doing very well, but have a thorn issue. German similarly have been successful, but some varieties I favour over others for taste. Finnish I think are more suited to their own climate. It was suggested that I try some Swedish varieties, and possibly Russian as opposed to Altai. In the back of my mind I have the concept that yield must be reliable and large enough to be profitable. Altai plants are reported to provide 10-20kg per plant, so that is what drove my initial interest. The issue that some hardly go dormant at all in my mild climate may turn out to be a problem, which is why it has been suggested that Russian varieties might be more suitable.
The problem is that my farm will become more like a garden and less like a farm, but selection of the best varieties is key to viability. With this in mind I am inviting a Swedish sea buckthorn organic agronomist over in February to have a good look at my plants and make some sense out of the decision making process.

I am going to conclude this section on Euroworks and write another blog on the topic of standards which was the focus of the third workshop.
The first two workshops – on pest/diseases & cultivation techniques resulted in the formation of focus groups to investigate these matters further once the conference was over. With the market demanding more fruit it is key that growers network together and meet the challenges of improving yield. Successful agronomy is an essential to attracting more growers to plant sea buckthorn. Without more growers it will be difficult to meet growing market needs.

Sea buckthorn is a plant that gives us natural goodness. Finland as a country matches that definition. It is sad that often when we travel it is time pressured. Fly in; visit a location; dip a toe in the water of experience and before any of that allows real appreciation its time to fly home again. So going to Finland for a two day conference is unlikely to allow any seepage of understanding the inner character of people and country. But again sea buckthorn has bought me to a culture and a people who are warm, welcoming, live and work within an environment that they value and appreciate. I can only comment upon what I saw, but farming blends into the vastness of nature. Roads are smaller. House are embedded into their surroundings. Towns are green. The conference site was coastal, but the opportunity to travel by train from Turku to Helsinki provided a top deck view of a double deck carriage to the view the inland landscape. Forest blending with small well managed fields; interspersed with a scattering of houses – but the difference between our rural landscape and that of Finland is our’s has become 100% managed, the Finns are blended into theirs’. Whether the woodland is planted or not, or whether the climate dictates land management, the impact is one of man within a landscape – not a landscape managed by man.

Before I mention the conference I have to tell of my last day in Turku.

The day one travels is always tentative. Not enough time to do anything, but too much time to do nothing.

So I wandered from the Cumulus Hotel down to the river, with an intention of crossing by one bridge – a stroll along the river and back across two bridges down to the hotel. On the other side was the Waino Aaltosen Museum. It opened at ten o’clock and I had an hour so it was a good choice. As a museum its content could be archaeological judging by sculpture outside, but I could not have been more wrong.
I am not a great lover of modern art – although my family has two artists in it. My first ten minutes I gazed at giant leaves, and mouldings of what was seemingly half sections of birch trees. The next exhibit was entitled The Sea was empty. I had better explain that this was made from folded old clothes. I smiled because the title revealed some of the character of the artist. The next exhibit – a huge floor to ceiling artwork made from 20m, or so lengths of paper constructing a visual shape of half a hull of a ship. The lighting through and round it created some interesting effects. This might sound a ramble but the next two galleries I was not prepared for. Each piece of work was made from old clothes. Each piece had a title that was so poignant that it gave me an intense and heartfelt understanding of how you can take a simple visual subject and inject raw emotion into the viewer. A sofa – simple in itself, with part of one side worn down providing the impression of where a person might have sat. A simple second hand sofa – but then entitled “too far from home”. An instant impression of the loss of a loved one, or just missing someone – both emotions that touch parents when children leave home, or family’s are temporarily split. Another image of a beautiful child’s dress, hanging and gently floating providing an instant carefree vision of innocence and happiness. Combine the image with a title of “Don’t leave me” and that innocence becomes fragile either as a child reaches out for a parent in a simple sense, or an adult sees the reality of life becoming a burden. These pieces went on and on, each with their own personality, and option to take or leave an interpretation of a deeper reflection of how we all live our lives.
As I wandered away from the Museum – having been there for an hour and a half, it made be wonder whether living in the natural environment that I saw as characterising Finland – whether it also provided a different perspective of appreciating life. The artist – Karina Kaikkonen, gave me a different view of Finland. A Finland of deeper thinking, of a thinking culture.
The introductory presentation at the conference – and the final workshop exposed a common tie between all people interested in sea buckthorn. All believe in what they are doing. A deep belief that this plant with its complex nutrient profile; the appreciation of its capacity to provide health benefit; its long history of use; its global distribution and wide species/sub specie variation – all these provide something very special. But taming the plant, bringing the goodness to a wider market comes with real challenges. Challenges that gradually over recent decades have started to peel away and solutions become more possible. Challenges come at a cost, but the belief that cost will be worthwhile is true, which is why each year growers, processors, manufacturers, researchers, academics, come to different locations to explore where we have reached and how to surmount each problem.

This year, the meeting at Herrankukkaro on the west coast of Finland has been no exception. These events bring together people who may well be commercial rivals. Together they bring real experience that growing sea buckthorn is not easy. Processing to the right quality requires investment. Supply and demand of fruit, product and market need to be understood. Different countries all have different viewpoints. Research continues, revealing more need for more research. But underlying this year were some far reaching concepts.

I feel this blog is long enough – so tomorrow I’ll pull together what I believe was a very special Euroworks. One that will have started some progressive discussions to drive the sea buckthorn industry forward.

I just had to add this comment.

Next week the European Sea buckthorn industry has its bi-annual conference, Euroworks 2014 in Finland. Delegates include a mix of growers; processors and manufacturers; researchers and members that represent the International Sea buckthorn Association. This is a very focused conference covering three topics.

The control of the threat posed by the sea buckthorn fly which can devastate a sea buckthorn plantation. The fly is more prevalent in Asia that Europe, but it is a growing problem. Then we have an overview of cultivation technology and its challenges. As important as the fly, improving crop agronomy and technology increases the size and quality of the crop. Controlling the costs of production is important as the sea buckthorn industry grows. Delivering value to the consumer is key, but the consumer sees value as value for money and improving harvesting methodology particularly would be a significant step forward.
The final session is on standards. Does the sea buckthorn industry need to develop quality standards? This is my area of concern. Standards can work in two ways. They can be a blunt instrument that just defines what nutritional quality products have. This would focus growers to provide a set quality of fruit; processors to nurture those nutrients through manufacturing; and provide consumers with the idea of the benefits that come with sea buckthorn. It creates a common standard. But it also reduces choice. If everyone produces to the same standard, the product becomes the same. Sea buckthorn is a plant of six species, 12 sub-species; its growing environment changes its nutrient concentration and taste; there are growing numbers of commercial varieties that deliver to local tastes and needs; then for the grower there is the issue of annual weather over which you have no control. With climate change this is becoming even more of a factor. So put all these together and there is huge diversity in the character of what sea buckthorn is.
Standards are good as they give buyers’ of product a confidence that the product they are buying is what they want. But setting standards for natural products is not so easy.
So it proves to be an interesting week.

As an late 50s (age) UK resident I am at a time in life when health is becoming more precious. Every Monday I look to the week ahead and almost all weeks will demand a significant amount of physical work, so good health is an essential to my sea buckthorn project.

I also live in the Clacton area where we have just had a by-election through the defection of our local MP to another party. Politics always raises a lot of discussion about the National Health Service (NHS)question. It is one of the foundation stones of UK life delivering medical help for free at the point of entry for UK citizens. But one cannot help notice that throughout the year there are continuous news stories that it is looking at a £30 billion shortfall in its budget. The population of the UK, as with many other European countries, is aging. We all look to a quality of life. The aspirations of beating cancer have grown and with it the cost of drugs and surgery. It is a cocktail of trouble which no politician seems to want to confront with anything radical.

One of the principle reasons for growing sea buckthorn is its complex nutritional profile. A mix of vitamins; fatty acids and polyphenols which come together in synergy to provide a potential for a mix of health benefits to the consumer.
We are told that legally a food cannot be a medicine and the European Food Safety Agency assesses many attempts to show that benefits can be gained from naturally derived chemicals.
We are also told that to lead a healthy life one should eat a balanced diet as well as take enough, regular excercise.
The international advice of eating five portions of fruit or vegetables is widely known but we still have a population where diet has negative not positive impacts.
The NHS faces a tsumani of diet related diseases whether cardio-vasular; diabetes or obesity. The last of these comes with an alarming statement that 28% of children between 5 and 15 are obese in the UK. The impact on the NHS budget of these diseases is supposed to contribute to between 40 and 50% of the total.
How irrational would it be to say that the government should take the diet of the nation more seriously. Prevention is better than cure. Would this not reduce the budget deficit and allow the budget to funnel into critical disease management?

Of course is it the place of government to intervene in such a fundamental concept as how we eat? It is really back to the place of personal responsibility. But that needs belief in the idea that you are what you eat. It also needs the food industry to look at food quality when they process foods, not just be led by government to reduce fat/salt and sugar. Good natural foods have the power to provide good health. It is not a magic bullet. There are other issues like excercise; how you live; stress etc, but eating is a core factor.

I have just been reading the Code of Conduct of the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative. Under item 1.2 it states that members will promote and communicate their committment ( membership/explicit endorsement of the scheme) through their own company and to their value chain stakeholders. This is the issue – do you lead or follow. If an idea is a good idea and it does you good then passing on the word is what makes it powerful.
The power of the internet is to communicate rapidly and it does an excellent job when news goes viral. But we live in a fast moving world and news is quickly forgotten.

The concept of eating well is not for today, it is for a lifetime and the concept delivers the two things that we look for as we get older – better health and a quality of life.

2006 – seabuckthorn concept introduction; 2008 – first UK seabuckthorn seminar; 2009 – Siberia, and first seabuckthorn planted at Devereux farm; 2010 – import first Siberian varieties; 2011 – first Siberian trials established; 2012- more plants arrive, German plants at Devereux have a few berries; 2013 – disease issues, more German berries – first product trials; 2014 – first few Siberian berries.

So 2015 will provide enough Siberian berries for product trials. The variables of growing a new crop in a new environment together with the uncertainties of climate mean that there are no guarantees on quantity or quality at this stage. The nature of my project also means that there are ten Siberian varieties on site. It means ten potentially different taste sensations; ten different picking experiences; ten different crop ripening options.

Experience with German varieties for us indicates preference for single varieties based on taste. I always have, and still do believe that taste is the most important factor for creating food/drink product. So 2015 will see the ability to rate the Siberian varieties on taste first. The understanding of best flavour will then need to be carried forward with the practical issue of blending varieties in order to bulk up volume without compromising taste. Sounds simple, but taste is a subjective quality and subject to the variables of annual growing conditions.

Of course then, it is probable that most seabuckthorn products will be a combination of ingredients – which in themselves will create a combined taste. Some of the varieties that are here are described as sweet, but that will be influenced again by growing conditions and sunshine. Natural sweetness I am hoping for in order to reduce the need for additional sugar in these days of government guidance to reduce salt/fat/sugar in products.

Our family efforts to create wonderful seabuckthorn products on the kitchen table then have to pass the test of being able to be scaled up into a consistent quality product. At this stage our concepts will pass out of our hands and to the product designer we first met up with as a family back in February 2010. Back then we had plans to create a product with imported seabuckthorn and then run the farm project as a secondary plan. As time has gone on it has become clear that our USP is in own, home grown, UK sourced seabuckthorn. So here we are – four years later and in reality it could be another two years before we have an own label product to sell.

I do believe that some of the Siberian varieties will produce a premium fresh berry that is larger and sweeter than the norm. Harvest 2015 will produce a small quality of these but they will be our gold dust. Seabuckthorn is not just another fruit. It is a new taste sensation on the market. It has a strong nutritional benefit to offer. As a UK product it will be a very unique offering.

Alongside all this come the plans for developing some processing facilities on farm. This always was the concept for developing a seabuckthorn crop. Selling berries alone in quantity runs the same risk as we have with wheat and all other farmed commodity crops – pricing that relates to global markets with no relation to the particular growing systems and costs that are relevant within the UK.

This year will also see some new plants arriving at the farm that will be able to be used in combination with seabuckthorn. I also want to build up our German plant numbers. I have finally sent off the registration fee to certify as organic and with that will come concentration on the development of a soil health management system that is compatible with the seabuckthorn varieties that are at Devereux farm.

The British Seabuckthorn project at Devereux farm will always have an element of research and development within it, but its R&D will look to become viable and sustainable from the 2016 crop – with a surplus to maintain the agronomy development but also to drive progressive product development.

This week has been focused on clearing all the plants in readiness for applying compost. On the basis of staying within organic concepts this has not meant the simple solution of using more Roundup, but using a mulch mower to clear all weed growth. The main two orchard areas of 4500 plants have taken two and a half days to clear. Again it has given an opportunity to remove the moth caterpillers which are particularly bad in the area this year.

The highlight in the week was a visit by a nearby fruit farmer with very preliminary discussion on a partnership in product creation next year. This is particularly exciting because this farm is also relatively new to fruit, growing new varieties that are being readily accepted into premium markets. Partnership has become a means of delivery when resources are limited. This is particularly important at the moment as our sea defences are under imminent threat of failing. Farmland is not considered by government agencies to have sufficient value to attract capital spending. As we also live in a highly designated conservation area ( National Nature reserve; SPA;SAC;SSSI and Ramsar site) any works to protect our shoreline have to comply with EU Habitats directive and national guidelines. Achieving improved defences requires innovative ideas and bringing together all parties that may benefit to contribute time/expertise/funds. Developing a sea buckthorn business I see as a similar concept. Developing markets can be a £million high risk campaign. Doing it in partnership has to generate resources and reduce risk.

So I come back to that topic of standards. All products are created through supply chains of business of all sizes. All to some extent are reliant on each other, but large companies are focused on minimising their risk of failure and maximising their opportunity to bring in profit. So it stands to reason that smaller companies (SMEs) will be at a disadvantage. Competition drives finding ways to maximise reward and this can be the driver that makes small business grow.

So SMEs are at a disadvantage, but that is often countered by the desire to succeed with a passion that may not be found in a larger organisation. Where there is a will there is a way. The issue is always being aware of maintaining a stable core business so that there are enough resources to solve problems that come out of the blue.

The advantage of sea buckthorn is that it has many product opportunities. Opportunities that can be developed dependent upon the resources that one might have to create them. Whether a simple food or drink; a cosmetic or nutraceutical each requires levels of processing to achieve a consistent product to take to market. Consistent means that one has to specify production standards and that has the advantage that the buyer of those products knows what they are getting. There is no guarantee however that in a competitive market it will gain a premium.Growing sea buckthorn is labour intensive and with critical issues still focused around harvesting. I would say that gaining a premium is essential to provide growers with a reasonable return. In reality supply chains rarely pass premiums down the line to growers – so it is up to growers to shorten the supply line so that they have more control over their income.

One of the issues that makes hand picking difficult is the size of berry. This year I have been picking Habego, Askola and Hergo. Habego has been averaging around 55-62gm per 100 berries; Askola has been high yielding but a smaller berry at 42-56gm/100 berries which when bunched tightly on a branch is difficult to pick when ripe without bursting berries.
When I compare these with the theoretical berry size of Siberian varieties I am hoping that life will get easier. Elizaveta – which of course is the variety that I have had issues with is declared as having a 100 berry weight of 100; Inya 85;Augustina 120; Altaiskaya 85; Chuiskaya 89. Some of my habego plants have had larger berries this year and these have been less tightly packed together and so easier to pull off.
Lisavenko also issue figures for the amount of effort it takes to pull a berry off. So variety klaudia appears good at 110-130gm ( although berry size 75). The classic Chuiskaya pull off at 114-137g – again relatively easy. Two newer varieties that i also have on farm – Jessel has a large berry at up to 110, but requires 160-170g to pull off, Etna – a 90g/100 berry size has a similar pull weight. So next year will be interesting to compare these larger berries with ease of and rate of picking.

One final point – I mentioned that the caterpillers have been bad this year. Having cleared the whole site of infestations by Friday, I returned on Saturday afternoon and again found another 7. Today ( Monday) I have only found one so hopefully they are starting to give up, but the damage they do is fast and comprehensive, so it certainly a management issue to look out for next year.

This week the mower came out again which gives that opportunity to go up every row of plants and take in how each individual looks.
Comparing with this time last year I am happy we have made real progress.
Last year was blighted by disease with plants with desiccated branches, diseased leaves and sorry looking plants.
This year is exactly the reverse with young plants established with strong new shoots; maturing plants are healthy; the plants that I cut down 50% last year to control the disease have come back; those that were cut down 75% have not been so lucky. The variety Elizaveta still looks sad with curled leaves but they are at least green and there are no signs of disease. Most Elizaveta has new shoots so my aim for next year is to reverse this end of season leaf curl.
I still believe that this is due to Elizaveta having more reliance upon shallow roots which are struggling to find moisture in my dry clay soil.

As I have been mowing I have probably found 20 plants with large web cocoons of catepillars. These have already striped any leaves in the immediate area of the cocoon. So wearing gloves I have pulled these cocoons off and rubbed all the affected branches to kill any remaining catepillars. This presents a fourth season in the year for catepillar infection. The nature of these are that they can and will strip a whole plant. My experience is that the plant will recover but it is a probelm that requires continual vigilance.