A Mouthful of Diversity: Knowledge of Cider Apple Cultivars in the United Kingdom and Northwest United States DAVID REEDY*,2,3, WILL C. MCCLATCHEY2, CLIFFORD SMITH2, Y. HAN LAU2, 2 AND K. W. BRIDGES 2

Department of Botany, University of Hawai`i, Honolulu, HI, USA 3190 Maile Way, 101, Honolulu, HI 96822-2279, USA *Corresponding author; e-mail: [email protected] 3

A Mouthful of Diversity: Knowledge of Cider Apple Cultivars in the United Kingdom and Northwest United States. There is a general assumption in the study of folk taxonomy that those people who have been interacting with a given crop the longest have the most knowledge about the crop’s names. We treated this as an hypothesis which can be tested with knowledge of cider apples. This use of apples extends back many generations in some places, while in other regions people are just learning to make cider. The experimental design is to assess quantitatively the cider apple diversity being used compared to the knowledge of this diversity by cider makers. The test involves two populations of cider makers: those who come from a long-standing tradition of cider making and those who recently learned to make cider. Research was conducted in parts of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Washington State, U.S.A. Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to elicit cider apple variety names. Traditional knowledge associated with cider production was also collected. Eightytwo cider apple variety names were obtained. In addition, it is estimated that between 111 and 328 varieties were recognized but could not be named. There was a significant difference between the cider apple cultivars that cider makers could name and those that they could discern. On average, cider makers could name eight varieties, but discern 16 varieties of cider apples largely on the basis of appearance, taste, and smell. There was no significant difference in the knowledge of cider apple variety names between long-standing cider makers and those that recently learned to make cider. As with cider apples, we would expect that farmers of other culturally-significant crops would not always know named diversity if there are other cues to let them track varietal difference, such as appearance, taste, or smell. Key Words:

Apples, cider, crop diversity, smell, taste.

Introduction Folk taxonomy and classification of plants (Berlin 1992) includes a number of widelyobserved cultural generalizations. Among these is that over time and increasing complexity of interactions, increasing numbers of subgeneric taxa will be recognized, and, in the case of agricultural societies, developed. These subgeneric taxa are usually recognized based on physical characteristics and are assigned names in order to Received 27 June 2008; accepted 30 December 2008; published online 30 January 2009.

enable discussion of them and to pass on information about them. Martin (2003) noted that varietal knowledge may be based upon a wide range of sensory properties. Ethnobotanists are often concerned that there is a loss of knowledge about plants and how to use plants (Alcorn 1989; Grenier 1998; Berkes 1999; Shanley and Rosa 2004; Brosi et al. 2007). As cultures shift from agrarian lifestyles and technologies, we would expect concurrent loss of agrarian vocabularies (as indicators of knowledge that is being lost). This may be particularly important in industrialized countries, where people are easily able to abandon traditional practices and terminologies (or simply not learn them) in

Economic Botany, 63(1), 2009, pp. 2–15. © 2009, by The New York Botanical Garden Press, Bronx, NY 10458-5126 U.S.A.

2009]

REEDY ET AL.: KNOWLEDGE OF CIDER APPLE CULTIVARS

favor of other practices and terminologies because the choice is not only easy but accepted as normal. Despite recent recognition of intensive ethnobotanical knowledge by farmers, wildcrafters, and food processors living in industrialized countries (Estabrook 2007; Nguyen 2007; Price and Kindscher 2007; Rivera et al. 2007; Vogl-Lukasser et al. 2007), there has been little effort to examine the nature of the classification systems used by these individuals. However, efforts in redeveloping countries have recognized the clear roles that chemosensory properties play in perception and development of indigenous ethnobiological categories of knowledge (Sheppard 2002; Gollin 2004). Cider is an alcoholic drink made from fermented apples (Malus pumila Mill.), commonly using varieties specifically selected and known as cider apples. The origins of cider are unclear and lost to history. Apples are thought to have been selected from wild ancestors growing within the Tian Shan spread between Kazakhstan and China (Vavilov 1997). Vavilov (1987) favored the eastern mountains near Alma-Ata as the origin of domesticated apples, providing descriptions of both dessert and cider apples in his travel logs. Recent DNA work indicates that the domesticated apple has its origins in Central Asia, spread between what is now Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan (Harris et al 2002). The earliest written account of “cider” is found in the ~5000 B.P. account of the Epic of Gilgamesh (Sandars 1960), where it appears to refer to any fermented fruits. The

3

Assyrian version of the Epic story uses the word Sidre as the name for the daughter of the Sun God who prepares fermented beverages to tempt Gilgamesh into forgetting his epic quest. Cider as fermented fruit (including apples) juice was no doubt widespread in Central and southern Asia. Cider fermentation, specifically involving apples, spread with the migration of human groups and technologies across Europe. Cider, as other fermented drinks, provides a clean beverage when water is in short supply or contaminated (Juniper and Mabberley 2006). Much more recently, during the European colonial period, both cider apples and the technology of fermenting them were taken throughout the world. Today, cider maintains important cultural roles in a handful of areas around the globe. The prominence of cider as a beverage is expanding due to a current wave of cultural renaissance interest in ancient European traditions, with cider as a central figure in some (see Fig. 1). This cider renaissance is part of a long-standing cyclical waxing and waning of cider culture in Britain. As early as 1763, cider makers were ceasing production in response to a cider tax levied in England (Mac 2003). The 19th century brought a renewed interest in cider, noted by several Pomona published during that time (Knight 1811; Hogg and Bull 1885, 1886). During our field research, several older informants spoke of the time between World War I and World War II as the period of the largest decline

Fig. 1. James Owen and a fellow cider maker demonstrate cider production at a cider-making festival in Herefordshire as part of the Apple Day festivities.

4

ECONOMIC BOTANY

in cider culture. One informant spoke of rural farm workers having been stationed in London and Paris during these wars, and how their experiences impacted cider’s future. Direct contact with urban lifestyles and ready availability of tea and wine, he felt, diminished cider’s popularity. Other informants attributed this decline more to the reduction in farm labor and the impact of increased transportation into rural areas, rather than rural residents being introduced to urban living. Increased transportation distributed imported goods such as tea and wine more widely. The loss of cider orchard hectarage has been significant and reflects the decline in cider’s popularity. In 1894, the county of Somerset, England, alone was recorded as having 9,712 ha (Legg 1984). This is more than the 2007 hectarage for all the cider orchard land in England and Wales, at just 6,271 ha combined (DEFRA 2007). The total hectarage of cider orchards was 7,010 in England and Wales in 2001. However, this decrease in orchard land area is a bit misleading. While there has been a decrease in highly-diverse orchards for personal consumption, improvements in fruit production per tree have increased greatly over the years, thus decreasing the amount of land needed to produce the same volume of cider apple juice (Williams 1988). Through development of a large-scale cider industry, the standard orchard started to be reshaped into the modern bush orchards, with orchardists planting over 200,000 bush trees between 1923 and 1947 (Mac 2003). There are many reasons to name an apple variety. We compiled a list of named cider apple varieties using the current published lists from Brogdale National Fruit Collection (2008) and the Tidnor Wood Trust (2008), as well as the Directory of Apple Cultivars (Crawford 2001), The Apple and Pear as Vintage Fruits* (Hogg and Bull 1886), The Bulmer’s Pomona* (Williams et al. 1987), Knight’s Pomona* (Knight 1811), The New Book of Apples (Morgan and Richards 2002), Cider Apples and Their Characters—The Long Ashton Annual Reports* (Williams 1961–1964), The Herefordshire Pomona* (Hogg and Bull 1885), and The U.K. Apple and Pear Research Council Order (1989). Other sources, such as Old Southern Apples (Calhoun 1995) were left out of this study as they do not cover the study areas. (Items cited with an asterisk (*) indicate long out-of-print sources and were seen via the Vintage Fruits CD collection from the Marcher Apple Network (Wheeler 2007).

[VOL 63

In reviewing the list of 728 named cider varieties generated by this search, 152 had mention of color in the name, and 368 recorded a person or place name. More useful data is also encoded in these names: 44 used a term regarding taste of the apple, and another 18 recorded some aspect of seasonality. The names of varietals can aid in identification of cultivars, determine ripening times, as well as indicate potential use for the fruit. We have observed a growing trend of interest in cider in the United States, New Zealand, Canada, and Great Britain. Therefore we set out to elucidate relationships between cider makers and their knowledge of cider fruit. We begin here with some basic questions about traditional knowledge of varieties being grown and used. We have also begun to explore questions about the phylogenetic patterns of apple cultivar and knowledge distributions that shed light on ancient and modern human migrations, but we will present that discussion elsewhere.

HYPOTHESES We began our work expecting that cider makers who have learned from a long lineage and have been growing apples for a long time would report more apple variety names and, in turn, be using more apple diversity. Conversely, cider makers who have only recently learned the process and/or planted orchards would know and use less apple diversity.

Study Area Preliminary fieldwork was conducted in the spring of 2007 in the U.K. and U.S.A. Formal fieldwork was conducted in fall of 2007 in Washington State, U.S.A. (King, Skagit, and Chelan counties), England (Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall, Shropshire, and Worcestershire counties), Wales (Morgannwg, Sir Ddinbych, Ceredigion, and Powys counties), and Northern Ireland (County Armagh). (Also during this time, field sites were unsuccessfully scouted in the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man.) These field sites were chosen because they include cider makers who have a long history of cider making and cider consumption in the regions (French 1982), and therefore some of the cider makers and apple growers come from long-established traditional lineages. These regions were also selected because the cider makers within them are involved in a

2009]

REEDY ET AL.: KNOWLEDGE OF CIDER APPLE CULTIVARS

much larger cultural renaissance surrounding the apple, with cider being a focal point (Browning 1998).

Methods Informants were identified through Internet searches of cider-making societies and clubs. These searches generated lists which were narrowed down to focus on small-scale cider makers: those actively making cider, from apple selection to bottling, yet not generating their sole income in that way. A letter was sent to 165 cider makers, detailing our research hypotheses and aims. Each cider maker was invited to respond if interested in speaking with us about their knowledge of apple varieties. Those who responded were considered to be primary informants. Secondary contact was made via telephone after arrival in country. Additional informants were identified by asking primary informants for references, creating a chain or snowball sample selection (Bernard 2002). Informed consent was first established with the letters we mailed. Our research aims and expected outcomes were discussed in person followed by a request for verbal consent that was tape-recorded.

5

Semistructured interviews (see Appendix 1) were conducted with cider makers at their cider houses or at cider festivals, and cider apple orchardists at their orchards. Since many cider makers grew apples and made cider, they were interviewed in both the place they made cider and the place they grew apples. At each cider house and orchard visited, weather permitting, photographs were taken of cider production equipment and implements, cider houses, cider making, orchards, and cider apple varieties being used at the time of interview. For each variety observed, six apples were arranged on a tray with top, bottom, front side, back side, cross-section, and lateral-section views, as utilized by the U.K. Brogdale National Fruit Collection (Fig. 2). Apples were photographed for identification. Video documentation of processes and interviews was employed occasionally for future classroom use with informed consent. Georeferencing was conducted during each interview. GPS data was collected at each site, marking the location of the cider house, and a GPS tracker continually logged data points to later identify locations of all interviews and photographs.

Fig. 2. Apple Identification Photograph, showing four sides and a cross section and lateral section of the apple, with name provided by informant. Color correction card shown in lower right corner.

6

ECONOMIC BOTANY

Structured interviews were used in the form of a simple open-ended questionnaire (Appendix 1) and follow-up discussions that often ended up with ad-hoc participant observation in cider production. Informants were asked about their knowledge of apple varieties and uses. To gather this data, informants were asked to identify the cider apple varieties they grew, those they used, those they sold, and to free-list all known cider apple varieties. During the course of the interview, informants who had their own orchards were also asked about the history of their orchard: who planted the trees and when. At the conclusion of each interview, at least one container of cider was obtained from each cider maker. These were gathered for future analysis and for use as a voucher specimen. Specimens are deposited at the University of Hawaii, Department of Botany Herbarium (HAW). Cider makers were interviewed during cidermaking season, which was important for identification of apples, but which also meant that they were quite busy. At several field sites there was not enough time to conduct proper identification exercises. As orchards or cider houses were visited to discuss the number of varieties, the first author was constantly told that there were “loads of different varieties,” or that there was “a ton of diversity out there,” rather than being given a

[VOL 63

total number. In these cases, estimates of diversity were compiled from the interviews based on photographic data collected and responses to questions from informants who identified apple varieties as being different within their orchards but did not always assign names to them. In each case, conservative and liberal estimates are assigned based on the ranges of information provided in the interview.

Results CIDER MAKERS During data mining, as well as during the interview process, three distinct groupings of informants resolved. Informants were therefore sorted into three groups based on the two parameters that were clustering them: years of cider-making experience and method of knowledge acquisition (Fig. 3). The first (Group 1) are those cider makers who learned from their fathers and grandfathers before them. They have a continual lineage connecting them to their cider-making forebearers, and they learned as children or young adults how to make cider. The second (Group 2) have been making cider for more than 10 years, but did not learn from their fathers or grandfathers, rather someone outside of their own family. The third (Group 3), have been making cider for 10 years of less. These groups were distinct largely on these bases.

Fig. 3. Average number of named and discerned cider apple varieties, and conservative and liberal estimates, by region and by experience group.

2009]

REEDY ET AL.: KNOWLEDGE OF CIDER APPLE CULTIVARS

APPLE VARIETIES Table 1 summarizes the overall results for apple diversity reported. Examples of apple variety names are reported in Table 2. Informants either provided an estimated range of the number of varieties being used (by themselves) for cider production, or an estimate was made by the researchers based upon the responses to the questions and observations of field diversity. These are reported as conservative and liberal estimates of total diversity as summarized in Fig. 3. Figure 4 shows the cumulative specific naming by informants of the 82 varieties of cider apples documented during this research, in chronological order of our 33 interviews. Figure 5 shows the cumulative naming and range of discernment (liberal and conservative) of cider cultivars chronologically in England in Wales. Both figures show a rapid increase, with each approaching a maximum as informants largely began to repeat varieties previously documented. There is a significant difference between the number of cider apple varieties that informants could identify by name and those which they could discern by other identification methods. On average, informants could name 8 varieties and discern a total of 16 varieties (Fig. 3). Group 1 can discern almost three times as many varieties as they can name alone (Fig. 3). In all groups, there is a significant difference between the number they can name and the number they can discern. When looking at the number Group 1 can discern, it is significantly different from the numbers for Group 2.

Discussion APPLE VARIETY NAMES While the primary result of this research is the set of names provided for cider apple cultivars,

7

the information is not as simple and clear as it would seem. The areas of study, although having common and long-shared cultural histories, are culturally varied and include much very local and regional agricultural specificity. Informants are proud of their traditions, apples, and cider, and this came through in the discussion of names. Names maintain importance for many reasons. By examining lists of apple variety names in samples such as Table 2, or much more extensive catalogs such the Directory of Apple Cultivars (Crawford 2001), many categories appear obvious. Some are fanciful names, e.g., Cider Lady’s Finger or Slack-ma-Girdle. Others record place names, e.g., Fair Maid of Taunton or Hagloe Crab. Some preserve knowledge of an apple’s characteristics, e.g., Ashton Bitter or Brown Snout. A few varietal names give clues about the seasonality of that cultivar, e.g., Burrow Hill Early or Wooten Late. Others preserve the name of the person who originated the cultivar, e.g., Ball’s Bittersweet. Cultivar names may be variable and this makes the process of sorting data from a project such as this (without using genetic analysis) very difficult. For example, two of the informants listed an apple they referred to as “Brown’s,” while eight listed a variety called “Brown’s Apple” (see Table 2). It is likely that all ten people were referring to the same apple, though the data is presented here as it was given during the interviews with each listed as distinct varieties. A typical, non-genetic analysis solution to this problem is to ask informants to assign names to a reference set of plants so that names can be cross-linked very clearly to common plants. This was not done in this project. Dabinett and Yarlington Mill were the two most commonly-named cider apples in our study. Dabinett occurred in all regions of our field work. Yarlington Mill was currently not being grown by

Table 1. SUMMARY OF CIDER APPLE VARIETY NAMES AND VARIETIES RECOGNIZED BY INFORMANTS OF DIFFERENT REGIONS WHO WERE SURVEYED IN THE U.S. AND U.K. Region

Number of Informants

Number of Apple Varieties Named

Number of Apple Varieties Recognized

Washington State England Wales Northern Ireland

5 23 4 1

21 64 20 3

21 85–321 59–79 3

The number of apple varieties includes only the number for which specific names could be assigned. The number of apple varieties recognized includes varieties named and varieties recognized by taste, smell, etc., but not assigned a specific name.

8

ECONOMIC BOTANY

Table 2. EXAMPLES

[VOL 63

OF APPLE VARIETY NAMES REPORTED WITHIN THE STUDY SITES.

History Variety Named

Total

G1

Ashton Bitter Ashton Brown Jersey Avrolles Ball’s Bitter Ball’s Bittersweet Ball’s Seedling Blakney Red Blenheim Box Kernel Bramley Breakwell’s Seedling Brown Snout Brown Thorn Brown’s Brown’s Apple Broxwood Foxwhelp Bulmer’s Norman Cap of Liberty Cherry Pearmain Chisel Jersey Cissy Cox Cox’s Orange Pippin Crab Seedling Crimson Blenheim Dabinett Devon Red Doris Oxley Ellis Bitter Foxwhelp Frederick Fréquin Rouge Golden Russet Goring Gravenstein Hagloe Crab Hang Down Harry Masters Jersey Herefordshire Redstreak Karen Red Katy King of the Pippins Kingston Black Knotted Kernel Liberty Major Manchurian Crab Médaille d’Or Michelin Monmouth Green Morgan Sweet

2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 10 1 10 1 2 7 1 12 2 1 6 1 3 1 1 1 22 1 1 5 8 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 9 1 1 1 1 15 2 1 3 2 2 12 1 2

2

1 1

2 2

G2

1 1 1 1

2 1 2

1

1

3

1

1 1 2

2 1

G3

WA

1

2 1 1

1

2

Region

1 1 5 1 1 1 2

6 8 1 2 5 1 8 2 4 1 1 1

15

2 5 1 2 2

5

2 2

EI

1

1

1

2 1

1 3 1

5

2

1 1 13 1 1 5 5

3

1

1 1

2 2 1

2

2

2 2 1 1

1 6

2

1 2 1

1 4 1

2

1

2

2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 8 1 4 1 2 5 1 9

WL

1 6

1

1

EN

3 1

9

3

1

1

2 2 7 1 1

2

2 1 7 1 1 1 1 10 2

2

3

2

2 7 1

2 1 1

1

(Continued)

2009]

REEDY ET AL.: KNOWLEDGE OF CIDER APPLE CULTIVARS

9

?TABLE 2. (CONTINUED). History Variety Named

Total

Muscadet de Bernay Muscadet de Dieppe Muscadet de Lens Néhou Pen Caled Perthyre Pig Aderyn Pig’s Nose Porter’s Perfection Pig Yr Wydd Raglan Redstreak Redstreak Reinette O’bry Roscanne Cooker Russet Pippin Slack Ma Girdle Somerset Redstreak Stoke Red Strawberry Norman Sweet Coppin Tardive Forestière Tom Pippin Tom Putt Tremlett’s Bitter Vilberie White Beech White Close Pippin White Jersey White Norman Wootin Late Worcester Pearmain Yarlington Mill

2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 5 2 4 1 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 16

G1

G2

Region G3

WA

2 4 1 1 1 1 1

2 4 1

1 3 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

1

1 1

1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 4

2

2

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 2

5

1 9

EI

1 1 1

2 1 2

WL

1

1 1 1

EN

3

1 1 1 2 3 5 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 11

1

1

2

Cider-making history: G1 (Group 1) = Multigenerational knowledge (occurred only in Britain); G2 (Group 2) = More than ten years but less than a lifetime (occurred only in Britain); G3 (Group 3) = Less than ten years of experience (occurred in all regions). Region where data was collected: WA = Washington, EN = England, WL = Wales, EI = Ireland

our one informant in Northern Ireland, though it was being cultivated in our other three regions. Dabinett and Yarlington Mill were most often described as bittersweet and astringent by informants. Several informants reported planting these varieties because they had a desirable flavor, a high juice content, and high annual fruit output. Both of these varieties originated in Somerset, England (Crawford 2001). Forty different cultivars were named only once during our field work. This accounts for nearly half of the total named diversity documented during this research. Three Welsh varieties, Pen Caled, Pig Aderyn, and Pig Yr Wydd, were

reported by cider makers in Wales. These informants spoke of intentionally growing rare Welsh varieties to perpetuate these cultivars and make sure they did not die out. Similar stories were related by informants in England growing local English cultivars such as Karen Red, White Beech, and Worcester Pearmain.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CIDER MAKER KNOWLEDGE LINEAGE AND KNOWN APPLE DIVERSITY The fundamental hypothesis explored was that cider makers and apple growers from long

10

Fig. 4.

ECONOMIC BOTANY

[VOL 63

Cumulative varieties of cider apples named by informants, in chronological order of interviews.

lineages would have more knowledge (as measured by apple variety names) than would those who were from newer traditions. We initially expected that this would be a comparison between cider makers in the United Kingdom (older tradition) and Washington State (newer tradition), but it turned out that it was not that simple. Not only were there both new and older traditions in both parts of the world, but there was also a third category that emerged which was a division of the new into two subgroups relative to style of production.

At the end of the day, the primary data gathered on apple variety names did not support the hypothesis. However, as will be explained below, the secondary data on probable apple varieties actually recognized but not named would, if measured, support the hypothesis. One of the differences between the older (Group 1) and newer (Groups 2 and 3) informants was their sources of information about names. The latter groups tended to look toward books as authoritative sources of information, while only one informant from Group 1

Fig. 5. Cumulative varieties of cider apples named and recognized, including both liberal and conservative estimates of discernment. Figure reflects interviews chronologically in England and Wales. Estimates of discernment were not necessary in other study areas.

2009]

REEDY ET AL.: KNOWLEDGE OF CIDER APPLE CULTIVARS

11

Fig. 6. A cider maker in Southwest England hoses down cider apples, directing them into a drain that will float them into the cider house for processing. Here fruits from several different varieties will come together for production.

referenced a book as a source of names of apple varieties. Newer growers and cider makers were often harvesting from younger orchards, even ones that they had planted and, therefore, very clearly knew what was within the fields. Others were buying fruit from orchardists who provided names for their fruit. This contrasted with many of the older practitioners, who were using older orchards (some over 200 years old) and processing fruit using taste (see discussion below) rather than recommended variety blends listed in books. We usually think that the oldest person in a given community has the most knowledge. Those who come from older traditions or have been practicing a craft the longest know more about it than someone just starting out. Our data shows that those with the most experience and come from older traditions, on average, knew less about what we set out to document (varietal names), yet knew significantly more about data we were not equipped to measure (sensory properties and ecological knowledge).

USING TASTE RATHER THAN NAMES FOR KEEPING TRACK OF DIVERSITY While we began this research naively expecting that informants would be keeping track of apple varieties using quantitative characteristics that we could document with cameras, such as color, size, or shape, or with a calendar, such as date of flowering, ripening, etc., we were ill prepared for

the larger category of chemical data that is being used. A cider maker in the Welsh Marches was asked what varieties he was using. He pointed to the pile (tump) in his barn and said “Those ones.” Upon examination of the large pile of green, yellow, and red fruit, he managed to name a half dozen of the varieties. He was then asked how he goes about choosing apples to be blended in. He picked up a green medium-sized apple and took a bite. Immediately his face revealed the bitterness of the fruit. What came next was in no way surprising. He spit the flesh out, as many interviewees had done, and said, “That’s how you can tell an apple. The farther you spit it out, the better the cider it will make.” The wisdom in this anecdote isn’t in any correlation between the expectorated distance and the quality of the cider made. It’s the idea that a cider maker with experience does not need to know the names of varieties, as if he were following a recipe book. The art and skill of the cider maker is in the craft of blending the apples into a highly complex and palatable beverage. Quantifying this idea is easier than it first appears. Consider a cider maker who grows 12 varieties of cider apples, buys an additional 10 to 15 more varieties, and can only name 10 and identify 6 more by taste. Yet this same craftsman, who produces 2,500 gallons of cider and makes part of his living from the sale of it, clearly does not need to know the names of all varieties used.

12

ECONOMIC BOTANY

The art of cider making is in the blending. This is a statement repeated by cider makers and cider enthusiasts alike. The cider maker must know what each apple tastes like, what it will taste like when it ferments, and what it will taste like when blended in with other apples. Tannins, acidity, natural yeasts, and sugars are the primary variables in a cider apple. The results of these variables needs to be understood before a proper blending can occur. This blend most often occurs after fermentation and aging is complete. However, due to collection methods, many cider makers and orchardists begin an informal blending process at the moment of harvest (see Fig. 6).

CIDER PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE VARIETY NAMES AND DIVERSITY

OF

As informants were asked about their use of varieties to produce cider, the question of using single or multiple varieties in cider production inevitably emerged. This turned out to be a contentious issue. There was generally a bias among those cider makers interviewed against those who produce single variety ciders. (However, there were informants with the alternative bias as well.) Older cider makers insisted that single varieties cannot make good cider. They stated that only new cider makers would make singe varietals. The reason, they felt, was the lack of understanding about what cider is and should taste like. These older respondents felt that a single variety could not contain the complexity and proper balance of tannins and flavor to make a good cider. Those who made single varietals had different feelings on the matter. Their opinion was that there were a few varieties that could contain enough complexity to produce a good cider on their own, e.g., Kingston Black or Hagloe Crab. Another reason for making single varietals is due to economics. Many cider makers are trying to compete with the wine market in order to survive. Producing a single varietal allows them to register the cider in a different market. However, the most interesting responses regarding production of single varietals were from those cider makers who were making single varietals from extremely rare varieties. Making a cider from a rare variety such as the Box Kernel creates an interesting market for the producer. With one product, he is able to create a cider that the consumer can get nowhere else, and at the same time is able to raise awareness about a rare variety.

LOSS

[VOL 63 OF

APPLE VARIETY NAMES

The first half of the 20th century saw a huge decrease in the amount of farm labor, which led to a decreased demand for cider (Williams-Davies 1984). Farm laborers were often partially paid in cider, drinking as much as two gallons per person each day (Copas 2001). Also during this time, large-scale cider producers began signing contracts with cider orchards to purchase their cider fruit. By the 1970s, these large producers realized the future needs of the cider industry and pushed the idea of bush orchards as a way to maximize fruit output per orchard (Mac 2003). Orchards are often many generations old. Some of the orchards visited during this study date back to the 1700s. These older orchards maintain a high level of diversity, though names of varieties have often been forgotten. Newer orchards are sometimes planted with a high level of diversity, and the names for varieties are recorded and/or known or at least readily available to the orchardist. However, informants reported less diversity in modern bush orchards than in their older standard orchards when present. Several informants told the first author that this system of contracts between cider producers and bush orchards is directly responsible for the decline in apple diversity and loss of knowledge of names. These contracts are agreements to buy a specified tonnage of cider fruit each year. The remainder of the fruit, if any, is used by orchardists to make their own cider. Orchardists deliver their fruit to the local production facility, where it is mixed with the fruit from other orchards before processing. The informants felt that with these high-production methods of making cider, varieties themselves are mostly meaningless. Just knowing that an apple falls into the category of cider apple becomes the only taxonomically relevant issue. When market demand is the same for six tons of Dabinett cider apples as it is for six tons of a mixture of rare cider varieties, why would the orchardist feel the need to maintain that diversity or that level of taxonomic knowledge?

Conclusions As ethnobotanists we have assumed that the classifications of industrialized people are similar to those used by people in nonindustrialized nations. However, because many plants are traded

2009]

REEDY ET AL.: KNOWLEDGE OF CIDER APPLE CULTIVARS

and used as commodities in industrialized nations, there is a breakdown of traditional classification systems. Plant products of many sorts, but particularly those that can be stored, such as grains and other seed crops, are likely received by consumers in industrialized nations with less distinction than they are in nonindustrialized nations. This is probably because the relationship chain between producer and consumer is longer and involves greater volumes of production with less commercial advantage for distinguishing varieties. In addition, consumers in industrialized societies, who are removed from the actual production of plant diversity, may develop patterns of recognized diversity that are useful for the scale with which they interact with plants. Two examples may clarify this notion. For thousands of years, people have fermented beverages and, in some cases, have distilled or otherwise concentrated them into stronger forms. However, there is good reason to believe that in most cases, in any one community, the products that people produced and consumed were of limited variation. So, for example, a community might have vineyards that grow a particular variety of grape and are used to produce a particular type of wine. Although the community may produce several types of wine, there will not be a great deal of diversity available within that local subsistence community. Likewise, a more recent community might grow barley and use some of it to produce distilled spirits that are stored in oak barrels and seasoned into whiskey. The diversity of whiskey produced within any one subsistence community would not be expected to be very high. These traditional farmer/producers would be expected to keep track of their grape and grain varieties, but would have less incentive or opportunity to develop classification systems for keeping track of wine or whiskey varieties because they have less exposure to them. Conversely, in industrialized societies consumers have little exposure to the commodity crops of grapes and grains that form the basis of their beverages, yet they have developed highlyrefined classifications for wines and whiskeys. These classifications are not based upon the traditional characteristics of the plants or the fruits/grains, but upon the scents/flavors and other properties of the products that they can realistically sample (most cannot realistically sample the grapes and grains in order to know about the base plant materials).

13

As the classification of the consumer shifts away from interactions with plants to interactions with plant products, savvy farmer/producers will adapt their own classification in order to follow. We think that this is what has happened with cider in the United Kingdom. In the past, there was local production and use of cider, and there was a strong local connection between fruit and product. Classification systems probably resembled those used by other farmers in nonindustrialized nations. As cider became more popular and people began to drink cider from beyond their own production area, and commercial production and sale developed, classifications developed based on aspects of the products rather than the fruit. These are continuing to develop and expand as cider apple trees and production technologies have spread to many other nations around the globe, including the area in the state of Washington where we interviewed grower/producers. The Washington farmers logically began by focusing on obtaining trees that would be good producers of cider apples, and because of this they are certain of the varieties that they have. They planted new orchards in order to develop a new regional industry. As their tradition develops, we expect that they too will follow the example of the United Kingdom farmers, de-emphasizing the named varieties in favor of sensory variety classifications that relate to production characteristics. The relationship between cider maker and cider fruit is varied. Seemingly, the older the cider maker, the better his knowledge of cider apples, though not necessarily by name. Much of this knowledge comes from a time when cider was not a market commodity, being locally made for personal consumption. We started this project thinking someone who is currently working on the same farm in which they were born would know every tree on the farm. They do, just not in the manner we had envisioned. Cider makers who have a sense of rootedness to their land often know intricate details about trees in their orchards. They may know the rate at which they bloom, which trees do better in which conditions, or what the sugar levels of fruit will be on a given year. With all this knowledge, why would names have significance? Similar findings would most likely be found using these methods in a documentation of other culturally-significant and historical crops such as taro (Colocasia esculenta), kava (Piper methysticum),

14

ECONOMIC BOTANY

rice (Oryza spp.), maize (Zea mays), and sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). With effort, the relationship between culturally significant crops and the knowledge cultural practitioners have surrounding these crops could be more thoroughly explored. Future research should include using photos of apples and asking informants to identify varieties in order to determine naming synonymy, backed up with molecular data. Another method would be using a common orchard collection and inviting informants to examine the trees with fruit and assign names to them. Both of these options have their own setbacks but could help to overcome some of the problems of the work presented herein.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank all of the cider makers who participated in this project. Without your help this research would not have been possible. Thanks to the Herefordshire Cider Museum, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, UK), Jennet and John Thomas, Niele, and Kalin Raible.

Literature Cited Alcorn, J. B. 1989. Process as Resource: The Traditional Agricultural Ideology of Bora and Huastec Resource Management and Its Implications for Research. Advances in Economic Botany 7:63–77. Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Bernard, H. R. 2002. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 3rd ed. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California. Brogdale National Fruit Collection. 2008. www. brog dale.org. Brosi, B. J., M. J. Balick, R. Wolkow, R. Lee, M. Kostka, W. Raynor, R. Gallen, A. Raynor, P. Raynor, and D. L. Ling. 2007. Cultural Erosion and Biodiversity: Canoe-Making Knowledge in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Conservation Biology 21(3):875–879.

[VOL 63

Browning, F. 1998. Apples: The Story of the Fruit of Temptation. North Point Press, New York. Calhoun, C. L., Jr. 1995. Old Southern Apples. McDonald and Woodward Publishing, Blacksburg, Virginia. Copas, L. 2001. A Somerset Pomona: The Cider Apples of Somerset. The Dovecote Press, Dorset, England. Crawford, M. 2001. The Directory of Apple Cultivars. Agroforestry Research Trust, Devon, England. DEFRA. 2007. Orchard Fruit Survey. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, York, England. Estabrook, G. F. 2007. Living Grass Irrigation Ditches in Traditional Portuguese Agriculture: Autecology in the Study of Ethnobotany. Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5:319–330. French, R. K. 1982. The History and Virtues of Cyder. Robert Hale, Ltd., London. Gollin, L. X. 2004. Subtle and Profound Sensory Attributes of Medicinal Plants among the Kenyah Leppo’Ke of East Kalimantan, Borneo. Journal of Ethnobiology 24:173–201. Grenier, L. 1998. Working with Indigenous Knowledge: A Guide for Researchers. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Cairo, Dakar, Johannesburg, Montevideo, Nairobi, New Delhi, Singapore. Harris, S. A., J. P. Robinson, and B. E. Juniper. 2002. Genetic Clues to the Origin of the Apple. TRENDS in Genetics 18 (8):426–430. Hogg, R. and H. Bull. 1885. The Herefordshire Pomona. Jakeman and Carver, Herefordshire, England. ———. 1886. The Apple & Pear as Vintage Fruits. Jakeman and Carver, Herefordshire, England. Juniper, B. E. and D. J. Mabberley. 2006. The Story of the Apple. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon. Knight, T. 1811. Pomona Herefordiensis. Agricultural Society of Herefordshire, London. Legg, P. 1984. Cidermaking in Somerset. Showerings Limited, Somerset, England. Mac, F. 2003. Cider in the Three Counties. Logaston Press, Herefordshire, England. Martin, G. 2003. Editorial from People and Plants. www.peopleandplants.org. Morgan, J. and A. Richards. 2002. The New Book of Apples: The Definitive Guide to Over 2,000 Varieties. Ebury Press, London.

2009]

REEDY ET AL.: KNOWLEDGE OF CIDER APPLE CULTIVARS

Nguyen, M. L. T. 2007. Community Dynamics and Functional Stability: A Recipe for Cultural Adaptation and Continuity. Economic Botany 61:337–346. Price, D. M. and K. Kindscher. 2007. One Hundred Years of Echinacea angustifolia Harvest in the Smoky Hills of Kansas, USA. Economic Botany 61:86–95. Rivera, D., C. Obón, C. Inocencio, M. Heinrich, A. Verde, J. Fajardo, and J. A. Palazón. 2007. Gathered Food Plants in the Mountains of Castilla–La Mancha (Spain): Ethnobotany and Multivariate Analysis. Economic Botany 61:269–289. Sandars, N. K. 1960. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Penguin Books, London. Shanley, P. and N. A. Rosa. 2004. Eroding Knowledge: An Ethnobotanical Inventory in Eastern Amazonia’s Logging Frontier. Economic Botany 58:135–160. Sheppard, G. H., Jr. 2002. Nature’s Madison Avenue: Sensory Cues as Mnemonic Devices in the Transmission of Medicinal Plant Knowledge among the Matiskenka and Yora of Peru. Pages 326–335 in J. R. Stepp, F. S. Wyndham, and R. K. Zarger, eds., Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity. University of Georgia, Athens. Tidnor Wood Trust. 2008. www.tidnorwood.org.uk. Vavilov, N. I. 1987. Origin and Geography of Cultivated Plants (translated by Doris Löve). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. ———. 1997. Five Continents (translated by Doris Löve). IPGRI, Rome, VIR, St. Petersburg. Vogl-Lukasser, B., C. R. Vogl, and H. Reiner. 2007. The Turnip (Brassica rapa L. subsp. rapa) in Eastern Tyrol (Lienz District; Austria). Ethnobotany Research and Applications 5:305–317.

15

Wheeler, R. 2007. Vintage Fruit CD. Illustrations, color plates, sections, and descriptions of cider apples and perry pears from the classic works of reference. Marcher Apple Network, Shropshire, England. Williams, R. 1961–1964. Cider Apples and Their Characters—The Long Ashton Annual Reports. Long Ashton Research Station, Somerset, England. ———. 1988. Cider and Juice Apples: Growing and Processing. The University of Bristol Publishing Unit, Bristol, England. ———, C. Todhunter, and R. Shackell. 1987. The Bulmer’s Pomona. Fourth Estate, London. Williams-Davies, J. 1984. Cider Making in Wales. National Museum of Wales.

Appendix 1 Survey questions used in the study of cider apple varieties. Questions were consistently asked of each informant in the order listed below in both the U.S. and U.K. after receiving informed consent and establishing that the informant was a cider producer or cider apple grower. Some questions were omitted for some informants. 1. What apple varieties are being used in your cider production? 2. What varieties are you using? 3. What varieties are you growing? 4. How long has the cider house been in production? 5. What is the style of cider making being employed? 6. Are you experimenting with unusual products? 7. May we use samples of your cider in our taste test experiments in Hawai`i? 8. May we take photographs of the products and facility?