The Great Debate

Mention the phrase "managed variety" to any apple grower, and there's little doubt you will receive a highly emotional reply. The question is whether that reply will be positive or negative in tone. For some, managed varieties represent an opportunity to revitalize an industry and generate rare consumer excitement over a nutritious product. For others, the term also represents an opportunity, but one that is just out of their reach, and one that puts their long-term business sustainability into question.

The pages that follow represent both sides of this controversy, from the perspective of apple growers, breeders, researchers, marketers, and even consumers. With some of the myths and misconceptions that currently surround the topic, education is critical, and we will try to address some of those issues.

However, even if all the facts were made clear, there would still be much discussion over the future outlook for apple cultivars, and the growers who produce them. One thing is certain: Your long-term direction as an apple grower could be defined, one way or another, by whether or not you are producing some of these new varieties.

Location Matters

One of the most contentious points in the managed variety debate is how to best make them successful. Whether it's a variety released in specific states, or whether growers in different sections of the country are selected for a particular program, the goal is to bring in ideal growers from ideal regions. But does this guarantee success, or does it hurt it?

"Think of how the apple industry growth in the U.S. would have been limited if the Red Delicious, discovered in Iowa, had been limited to Iowa, or the Golden Delicious to West Virginia?" asks Dick Meister, long-time editor of American Fruit Grower and now chairman emeritus of Meister Media Worldwide. "What is bred for Washington State may turn out to be better for some other state. Likewise, what is bred for New York may find its best climate in California."

He's not alone in his thinking. "Because of plant patent laws, the breeder needs to keep new selections as close to the chest as possible before the variety is rolled out," says Jim Bittner, a New York apple grower. "This means testing under different growing conditions is limited, and problems may not be discovered until growers have jumped in with both feet."

Rod Farrow, another New York grower, also sees problems with this approach. "Individual companies, cooperatives, and single state industries are locking up a high percentage of new releases," he says. "I don't believe this is healthy or sustainable for the managed variety groups or the industry as a whole."

The most important thing is to learn as much as you can about a given variety. Tom Auvil points to the success of Gala, Fuji, and other varieties that were "managed in the open and free market to assess their value and position in the grower's and/or packer's business. All had issues related to growing, packing, and handling that created 'learning experiences' for the growers and packers."

The Current Controversy

The debate over managed apple varieties has been simmering for years. As more varieties are introduced in this manner, typically with much fanfare and promotion, the growers who are "locked out" of growing and selling them begin to question what their role in the industry might be down the road.

Perhaps the boiling point came this past summer when a group of apple growers in Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the University of Minnesota, alleging that an exclusive licensing agreement between the university and Pepin Heights Orchard, which heads up the Next Big Thing co-op responsible for marketing SweeTango, is in violation of public policy. After a court-mandated mediation in February failed to produce a settlement, the case is headed back to the courts. Are the plaintiffs just bitter over the potential success of a variety they felt they were shut out of producing? Or is there more to the story?

Dennis Courtier of Pepin Heights is quick to point out that the co-op actively sought out the state's smaller, direct marketers as partners in SweeTango production. He also notes that one of the main plaintiffs in the case was an early bidder for the licensing rights to SweeTango, and when they lost out to Pepin Heights, they fought back. "Back when the plaintiff was bidding for the license, he had a different view of the impact on Minnesota apple growers when he characterized their participation as a 'politically correct' need he could 'accommodate,'" says Courtier.

The plaintiffs, under the umbrella of Minnesota Apple Growers for Fair Trade, are countering that they "are looking to level the playing field, preserve the mutually beneficial relationship with the University of Minnesota, and ensure that Minnesota consumers have access to locally grown apple varieties at fair and competitive prices."

Outside of Minnesota, things are also heating up. New releases from breeding programs at Washington State University and Cornell University in New York are targeted exclusively at growers within their respective states. Meanwhile, as other varieties emerge under the managed (or "club") moniker, growers who are not producing them are asking what will happen if these selections take off in the marketplace.

Making A Case For Direct Marketers

Evan Milburn, co-owner of Milburn Orchards in Elkton, MD (and American/Western Fruit Grower Apple Grower of the Year in 2008), has been outspoken in his skepticism over managed varieties. He gets especially concerned when his customers come up to him and ask about a variety such as SweeTango. "We cannot supply our customers' needs when they come in," he says. "We tell them it's a patented variety. People don't understand managed varieties, but they do understand patents."

Milburn points to Honeycrisp as the primary reason why variety managers may be missing a golden opportunity. "How do you think it got popular so fast? It started with customers going to retail markets. Even if they were not looking for Honeycrisp, once they got a sample and found out how great it was, they started going to the chain stores and asking about them," says Milburn. "Consumers learn about these varieties from small growers like ourselves. We can introduce a new variety faster than the chain stores can."

When he gets down to the heart of the matter, Milburn simply wants a chance. He understands the costs involved and says he would gladly pay an extremely high royalty and sign legally binding documents not to sell any on the wholesale market. "Every apple that has been introduced in the last 30 years, I've put in my test block, which is where we learn what to plant vs. what not to plant. But I can't do it with these managed varieties. I understand why they are doing it, but they are shooting themselves in the foot."

The issue of how involved breeding programs should be in producing managed varieties is just one part of the discussion. "The traditional model of breeding programs is no longer working," says Courtier. "These programs need a way to fund themselves, which means providing a cash stream to keep them viable." At the same time, Tom Auvil of the Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission (which has produced the WA2 and WA5 varieties for Washington's growers) says the goal of their program is focused specifically on research and development. "It is not our mission to usurp market management activities for commercial fruit."

The most important effect of this discussion is the confusion over what truly constitutes a "managed variety." The newest releases developed by Cornell's apple breeding program will be New York state exclusives, following the university's licensing agreement with a new industry group — New York State Apple Growers LLC (NYAG) — to grow and market the varieties developed by apple breeder Susan Brown. Yet Brown has fielded several questions from growers within the state who wonder whether they will be able to grow them.

The Myths & The Facts

It all boils down to variety access: who has it, who doesn't, and what that means for both sides. But before answering that question, it's important to first look at some of the misconceptions that currently exist when it comes to managed varieties.

Myth: Managed varieties all operate in the same manner.
Fact: Every one is different. "Growers tend to have a perception that they won't qualify to grow a managed variety because they don't live in the right place or are too small," says Pete Van Well of Van Well Nursery in Wenatchee, WA. "Each managed variety is different, so a grower needs to look at each one to determine his eligibility."

Myth: The goal of a management program is to limit quantity and, therefore, price.
Fact: While financial success is obviously important, it's by no means the only factor. "There are a lot of growers that assume we will control the quantity, and therefore the price," says Courtier. "Nothing could be more wrong. At the end of the day, the managed variety equation revolves around the 'courage of quality' conviction. You have to believe you can deliver a better and more consistent eating experience."

Myth: Managed varieties are a guaranteed money-maker.
Fact: There is no guarantee of success, and in fact many of those on both sides of the discussion note
that a majority of the new variety introductions on the horizon will be doomed to failure. "We don't have a long-term successful model to definitively claim this is going to be a good way to develop the most profit from new releases," argues Rod Farrow of Lamont Fruit Farm in Albion, NY. "The risk is concentrated in a small group of growers who need to be very cognizant of their potential exposure."

Myth: Managed varieties will be on a fast track to success.
Fact: Even if they are successful, it's likely to be a slow road. "The juvenile years to a new apple are harsh," says Roger Pepperl of Stemilt Growers, producer of Piñata, which is grown by Stemilt's family of ownership as well as its grower supply base. "The question is, how do we get past these years both financially and market wise so we don't turn off the consumer yet don't financially strap the orchard?"

Myth: The management of a variety will determine its success.
Fact: It will be a combination of management, growers, and (if applicable) breeding programs, says Jim Bittner of Singer Farms in Appleton, NY, who is also a member of NYAG LLC. "Breeders need more funds going back to their program. Growers need better returns for their apples. Marketers want a product that will separate themselves from the competition. All three groups have to benefit or the variety is not going to work."

To learn more about what some of your peers have to say about managed varieties, and to join the discussion, click here.

The current dispute over access to managed varieties has major implications for the future of apple introductions, consumption, and grower profitability.