Developments in Raspberry Production, Cultivar Releases, and Intellectual Property Rights: A Comparative Study of British Columbia and Washington State

Abstract

The Pacific Northwest (PNW) raspberry industry has undergone substantial structural changes over the last two decades driven by shifts in production and trade and strengthened intellectual property rights to protect cultivars. Since the mid-1980's, Washington raspberry production has increased substantively while British Columbia (BC) production has exhibited a downward decline. Plant breeding in the PNW has been affected by the increased globalization of the raspberry trade and the increased emphasis on plant patents and plant breeder's rights to protect cultivars. The increased emphasis on intellectual property rights to protect cultivars is likely to affect the accessibility of germplasm and the transaction costs of procuring planting material from European breeding programs. Raspberry research in BC has concentrated its efforts in developing improved cultivars with little research on the effects of management practices on fruit yields. The development of improved cultivars in the PNW has relied on conventional or classical breeding approaches. With reduced public support for raspberry breeding research in the PNW, breeding programs rely more heavily on support from industry associations. Future prosperity of the PNW raspberry industry would require developing competitive cultivars and promoting intellectual property protection to stimulate market development and the world-wide dissemination of improved cultivars.

KEYWORDS:

• Rubus idaeus
• raspberry varieties
• raspberry cultivars
• marketing
• prices

INTRODUCTION

The world market for raspberries has increased substantially over the last few years driven by the vast number of desirable compounds (Beekwilder et al., 2005) that are present in raspberries coupled with the wide variety of methods and product forms available to food manufacturers for incorporating red raspberries into products such as ice creams, yogurts and other dairy-based products. Canada and the United States account respectively for 3% and 13% of the share of world raspberry production (Sinha, 2007) with British Columbia (BC) and Washington (WA) accounting for about 60% and 90% of the value of Canada and U.S. processed raspberry production, respectively. Red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L) is an important berry produced in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) with a domestic market value of roughly US $11.9 million for British Columbia (Statistics Canada, 2008) and US $27.9 million for Washington in 2007 (USDA, 2008a). Advances in new cultivar development (Kempler and Daubeny, 1999) and Individual Quick Frozen Technology (IQF) in the early 1990's have expanded processed red raspberry opportunities for high value markets such as yogurt, ice cream, jams, and jellies.

The BC and Washington raspberry industries have benefited from research and development (R&D) investments undertaken by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Washington State University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the development of new raspberry cultivars and improved pest and disease management practices. Advances in raspberry plant breeding over the years have focused on expanding the germplasm base by applying genetic techniques such as molecular markers to combine traits and develop improved cultivars that are resistant to diseases and pests with good health attributes (Sjulin, 2003; Science Blog, 2007). Globalization of raspberry trade and strengthened intellectual property rights have increased private sector participation in breeding programs and affected the release and commercialization of improved cultivars. Unlike raspberry breeding programs in California that are privately funded and oriented to the fresh fruit market, the breeding efforts in British Columbia and Washington are devoted to the processed market with characteristics such as fruit quality, disease and pest resistance, consistent yield, and mechanical harvesting as breeding targets (Knight et al., 2005).

This paper describes the changing production and trade structure of the BC and Washington raspberry industries and identifies how increasing globalization of raspberry trade and strengthened intellectual property rights have affected cultivar releases, research funding, and the protection and commercialization of cultivars.

RASPBERRY PRODUCTION AND YIELD PATTERNS: BC AND WASHINGTON STATE

Raspberry production in the PNW is concentrated along the coastal regions of Washington and British Columbia (BC) with some recent plantings in eastern Washington. The raspberry industry faces several production and competitive challenges, including the need to develop improved management practices, availability of labor during critical harvest and pruning months, producing quality fruit that improves public health and food safety, having access to pesticides that are safe for the environment, and new high yielding cultivars that are resistant to root rot and raspberry busy dwarf virus (RBDV) (Hayre, 2006). The BC raspberry industry has undergone substantial changes over the last two decades including BC farmers purchasing raspberry fields in Whatcom County, Washington, to make more effective use of their land resources (Richardson, 1998). In Washington the industry is now concentrated in Whatcom County with production in Whatcom County accounting for 89% of Washington's production in 2007 (Washington Red Raspberry Commission, 2008). Whatcom County borders BC and is a desirable place to grow raspberries because of land costs, soils, and coastal environment.

Since 1987, BC's raspberry production has declined while Washington's has increased reaching 34,000 metric tonnes (t) in 2001 (Fig. 1). Census data for Washington indicated 454 growers farming 3,820 ha in 1997 while in 2002 there were only 425 growers farming 4,065 ha (USDA, 2007a). The combination of fewer raspberry growers and larger farm sizes in Washington has allowed for the more efficient utilization of the harvesting machinery equipment (Greer, 1995). The introduction of mechanical harvesters in the PNW has eased the labor shortage problem but has lowered fruit yield and added more dockage (Lamonte and O'Rourke, ND).

FIGURE 1 BC and Washington rasberry production.

Unlike California, where red raspberries are sold mostly in the fresh market, the majority of product produced in BC and Washington is sold for processing. Between 1980 and 2006, BC raspberry production increased by 1.64% compared to 357% for Washington (Table 1). British Columbia's raspberry production went from 8,100 t in 1980 and peaked at 20,515 t in 1987 and has declined continuously since the late 1980s. Lower BC production was attributed to a decrease in harvested area which amounted to 31% between 1988 and 2006. The lack of robust growth for BC's raspberry production over the years may be attributed partly to urbanization pressures that have limited the availability of good quality raspberry land at competitive market prices. Washington's raspberry production went from 5,715 t in 1980 and climbed to 26,127 t in 2006. Washington's expanded production is attributed primarily to increased harvested area, which climbed by over 200% between 1980 and 2006. Production per ha in Washington increased by 33% in the same time period from 5.03 t/ha in 1980 to 6.72 t/ha in 2006. In BC the yield per ha decreased by 38% from 9.45 t/ha in 1988 to 5.84 t/ha in 2006. Washington's yields were higher than BC's and averaged 8 t/ha compared to 7 t/ha for BC over the past eighteen years (Fig. 2). Yield variations in both jurisdictions may be partly explained by a combination of factors including weather conditions, management practices, cultivar mixes, and the move to mechanical harvesters. In Washington, the vast majority of raspberries are mechanically harvested while in BC about 60% of the berries are mechanically harvested (BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, 2008). Yields in BC have the potential to increase with the introduction of improved cultivars, adoption of better management practices, and improved machine efficiency. The relatively higher yields noted in Washington may be a reflection of technology adoption including more effective chemicals to control pests and diseases and improved management practices such as pruning and training (Strik and Cahn, 1999).

TABLE 1 Red Raspberry Harvested Area and Production for British Columbia and Washington State

Washington State				British Columbia
Year	Area(hectares)	Production(Mt)	Farm value(US$'000)	Area(hectares)	Production(Mt)	Farm value(US$'000)
1980	1134	5715	4700	^a	8100	6246
1981	1215	6464	7410	^a	8199	10708
1982	1255	8015	11892	^a	11630	17461
1983	1215	7893	7482	^a	14003	11873
1984	1215	7416	8047	^a	13646	14756
1985	1296	7620	9433	^a	13434	15233
1986	1336	6287	10509	^a	11290	19283
1987	1457	10451	12109	^a	20515	20075
1988	1619	11431	13482	2038	19264	21338
1989	1943	15241	18840	2160	19595	21029
1990	2186	12737	10532	2231	12334	7596
1991	2146	14665	16449	2108	11312	12448
1992	2146	18752	22005	2076	13403	15242
1993	2105	19341	28126	2014	13764	20187
1994	2308	21201	39423	2016	16589	24515
1995	2389	23818	35182	1888	15879	22856
1996	2551	18575	30459	2061	10864	17048
1997	3441	26989	28020	2045	14422	11718
1998	3644	27352	22664	2085	12937	8328
1999	3846	31457	48291	2065	13448	16736
2000	3846	32319	25888	2057	14187	8773
2001	3846	34042	37784	2065	11904	10980
2002	3846	33612	36985	2024	13508	14130
2003	3725	30482	36554	1923	12766	16345
2004	3644	26944	45960	1923	11072	19481
2005	3846	31888	39275	1923	12156	17427
2006	3887	26127	20530	1409	8233	10342
Notes: ^aData unavailable.
Sources: (1) Statistics Canada.2006 (February). Fruit and Vegetable Production. Catologue No. 22-003-XIB.
(2) BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Various Years. Annual BC Horticultural Statistics. Available Online: [Http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/stats/berries/49-96.htm]. Accessed 12 September 2008.
(3) US Department of Agriculture. 2008b. National Agriculture Statistics Service. Historic Data: Red Raspberry 1942–2007. Available Online: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Historic_Data/berries/rdrasbry.pdf Accessed 12 September 2008.

FIGURE 2 BC and Washington rasberry yield.

Some of the recently released cultivars in the PNW over the 2001–2007 period included “Chemainus,” “Cascade Delight,” “Cascade Bounty,” “Cascade Dawn,” “Cowichan,” and “Saanich”. The most prevalent cultivars in order of importance in BC are “Meeker,” “Chemainus,” “Cowichan,” and “Malahat” while in Washington they are “Meeker,” “Caroline,” “Tulameen,” and “Coho” (Table 2). While “Caroline” is generally grown for the WA fresh market, the large increase in recent plant sales is attributed to production in Eastern Washington where the cultivar is machine harvested primarily for the processed juice market. “Meeker,” introduced in 1967, accounts for over 50% of the raspberry plant sales market in BC but is losing market share to newer cultivars such as “Chemainus” and “Saanich.”

TABLE 2 British Columbia and Washington State Raspberry Plant ^c Sales Data by Cultivar, 2001–2008

British Columbia										Washington State								Total
Cultivar	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Total	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Number of plants										Number of plants
Meeker	873,410	588,950	750,350	1,103,000	1,217,400	933,300	420,200	451,800	6,338,410	662,872	799,950	1,406,250	2,052,695	2,598,969	2,138,674	1,342,535	1,291,515	12,293,460
Willamette	59,675	36,375	9,250	–	–	–	–	–	105,300	26,400	9,475	14,085	13,975	6,700	40,625	58,100	89,625	258,985
Chemainus	–	–	26,820	99,225	122,100	177,050	223,750	133,750	782,695	–	–	45,500	94,000	60,525	78,850	39,900	87,205	405,980
Saanich	–	–	–	–	–	30,000	3,550	92,500	126,050	–	–	–	–	–	9,500	193,425	170,900	373,825
Cowichan	–	30,850	98,700	353,550	146,300	10,750	1,250	1,600	643,000	–	6,000	3,850	87,550	25,200	1,500	6,850	800	131,750
Cascade Bounty	–	–	–	–	–	133,200	57,250	4,500	194,950	–	–	–	–	40,200	129,600	83,200	59,830	312,830
Cascade Nectar	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	10,495	–	13,950	–	–	24,445
Coho	400	400	31,700	11,225	34,650	2,000	600	–	80,975	30,850	29,675	46,830	162,795	102,175	71,950	4,200	5,600	454,075
Malahat ^a	75,560	68,860	90,600	75,775	61,975	48,550	64,350	45,500	531,170	23,900	8,825	19,245	20,150	10,375	19,600	9,050	24,355	135,500
Tulameen ^a	11,700	14,700	8,875	34,775	33,285	16,575	39,780	10,550	170,240	51,298	47,437	61,440	111,120	85,090	90,975	183,083	159,765	790,208
Qualicum ^a	27,875	25,775	4,950	139,500	8,500	–	7,900	19,950	234,450	3,575	8,125	10,250	14,375	1,150	–	–	1,500	38,975
Cascade Dawn ^a	–	–	–	–	4,350	20,700	1,350	12,500	38,900	–	–	–	–	1,900	2,325	6,250	17,400	27,875
Cascade Delight ^a	–	15,400	38,585	18,125	15,250	11,475	34,900	16,600	150,335	–	22,550	25,615	37,100	74,200	28,600	53,040	39,110	280,215
Chilliwack ^a	1,325	1,325	–	–	–	–	–	–	2,650	1,463	8,000	–	–	–	–	–	–	9,463
Chilcotin ^a	2,500	2,500	7,750	–	–	–	–	–	12,750	125	125	15,050	–	–	–	–	–	15,300
Esquimalt ^a	–	–	5,391	13,050	–	–	–	–	18,441	–	–	–	1,350	–	–	–	–	1,350
Encore ^a	–	–	–	–	–	6,000	–	10	6,010	–	–	–	2,300	–	–	10	65	2,375
Nova ^a	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	10	10	–	–	–	–	–	9,010	30	95	9,135
Moutere ^a	–	–	–	–	–	7,085	325	–	7,410	–	–	–	–	–	20	100	195	315
Autumn Bliss ^b	4,000	4,000	–	–	250	–	2,100	400	10,750	78,225	82,525	2,500	24,550	63,375	19,300	7,500	2,400	280,375
Autumn Britten ^b	–	6,500	200	5,000	2,500	2,775	11,725	4,100	32,800	30	–	5,750	22,775	4,670	6,915	8,720	9,425	58,285
Caroline ^b	7,800	4,600	600	2,500	700	5,605	4,550	200	26,555	9,147	22,490	31,955	199,185	290,190	433,180	34,040	225,840	1,246,027
Heritage ^b	835	450	625	700	8,850	900	5,700	32,500	50,560	7,600	1,040	6,617	16,800	11,460	37,060	6,775	5,655	93,007
Summit ^b	300	–	6,000	1,000	–	–	–	–	7,300	10,625	13,585	15,785	25,175	24,375	–	–	–	89,545
Amity ^b	1,500	1,500	–	–	–	–	–	–	3,000	2,200	2,200	–	–	–	–	–	–	4,400
Golden Summit ^b	–	400	5,000	12,325	600	–	–	–	18,325	2,375	5,950	5,450	5,550	1,875	–	–	–	21,200
Dinkum ^b	50	–	5,100	2,075	1,250	–	2,000	5,500	15,975	–	–	4,050	32,765	9,960	–	5,750	2,400	54,925
Anne ^b	–	–	–	–	4,500	–	1,500	2,700	8,700	–	–	–	–	5,315	11,710	11,695	10,265	38,985
Others	3,482	3,300	650	255	869	6,715	5,080	4,595	24,946	10,473	22,016	24,952	80,055	57,997	3,960	4,208	2434	206,095
Total	1,070,412	805,885	1,091,146	1,872,080	1,663,329	1,412,680	887,860	839,265	9,642,657	921,158	1,089,968	1,745,174	3,014,760	3,475,701	3,147,304	2,058,461	2,206,379	17,658,905
Notes: ^aRaspberry cultivars for the fresh market.
^bFall fruiting raspberry cultivars. For the period 2004–2006 most of the Caroline plants were planted for the processed market.
^cTotal plant sales included sales from Cedar Valley Nursery, Northwest Plant Co, Norcal Nursery, Nourse Farms, Sakuma Bros and Spooner Farms. Sales of root material were converted to plants assuming a conversion rate of 10 plants/pound of roots.
Source: Moore, P. P. (2007).

Changes in raspberry production are influenced by weather conditions and prices. Raspberry prices adjusted for inflation have been higher for fresh than processed raspberry (Fig. 3). The high value markets for processing are the IQF markets while block frozen, puree, and juice markets fetch lower prices. BC fresh market prices were US $1.13/kg in 1980 and increased to US $3.91 in 2006, while Washington's were US $1.53/kg in 1980 and increased to US $4.23/kg in 2006. British Columbia fresh prices are generally three times higher than processed fruit prices, while Washington's fresh fruit prices are four times higher than processed fruit prices. Higher premium prices for fresh fruit reflect better quality fruit and the strength of the fresh fruit market. Price differences between fresh and processed markets are also related to differences in competition. Frozen raspberries can be stored and shipped throughout the world while fresh product is perishable and therefore more difficult to ship long distances. Imports from Chile, Serbia, and elsewhere compete with processed fruit produced in the Northern Hemisphere. In general, raspberry prices for fresh and processed fruit tend to be lower in British Columbia than they are in Washington. This may be partly attributed to British Columbia's dependence on fresh raspberry imports and size differences of the BC and Washington market.

FIGURE 3 BC and Washington State fresh market and process rasberry grower prices.

GLOBALIZATION OF RASPBERRY TRADE

Red raspberry trade in the Americas is not only restricted to Canada and the United States, but includes countries in the Southern Hemisphere such as Chile. The latter's exports of fresh raspberries are usually considered complementary to Canada and U.S. production. Several trends have been identified as affecting the structure of plant breeding ranging from increasing globalization of agricultural trade to strengthened intellectual property rights (Morris et al., 2006). The changing trade patterns of exports and imports can alter the competitive advantage of a country and consequently affect how plant breeding programs are funded and carried out by public and private institutions (Gepts and Hancock, 2006).

Canada is a net importer of raspberries with fresh and frozen raspberry ¹ imports from the world in 2006 totaling US $65 million and US $18 million, respectively (Industry Canada, 2008). British Columbia's processed raspberry exports and fresh raspberry imports with the United States have expanded significantly over the last two decades (Table 3). The value of BC raspberry processed exports went from US $198,000 in 1988 to US $7 million in 2006, while fresh imports increased from US $121, 000 in 1988 to US $5 million in 2006. According to the USDA (2006), much of BC's fresh raspberry shipments to the United States are used by the processing sector with small quantities going to the fresh market. BC's fresh volume exports to Washington declined from 7, 849 t in 1988 to 679 t in 2006 (Fig. 4). Lower BC fresh raspberry exports to the United States may have resulted from the relatively high value of the Canadian dollar. The downward trend in BC fresh shipments to Washington since 1995 has moved together with rapid increases in imports from Chile and Mexico by the United States (USDA, 2006). The changing trade patterns in British Columbia's raspberry trade are a reflection of the growing dependence on fresh raspberry imports from nondomestic sources and expanded domestic production devoted to the processed market.

TABLE 3 British Columbia Fresh and Process Raspberry Trade with the United States, 1988–2006

Exports			Imports
Year	Raspberry(fresh)	Raspberry(process) ^1	Raspberry(fresh) ^2	Raspberry(process) ^3
	$US'000	$US'000	$US'000	$US'000
1988	14630.48	197.96	121.16	65.95
1989	6191.63	248.72	399.98	36.74
1990	5122.53	1159.51	248.12	74.07
1991	6039.15	579.73	323.45	64.29
1992	7370.08	782.85	300.30	76.38
1993	9259.63	943.11	509.22	165.83
1994	13648.98	1025.24	931.83	142.50
1995	11512.76	2999.01	2169.16	271.60
1996	9037.86	1852.83	1526.40	439.37
1997	5840.84	1671.54	1113.95	225.62
1998	3228.20	5645.98	1477.13	750.72
1999	7098.46	5635.06	3379.01	1359.56
2000	3461.89	4643.26	1035.34	978.10
2001	5082.57	4588.09	1486.70	1490.62
2002	3080.87	6975.50	2332.74	1316.28
2003	4035.34	8539.33	2268.32	2438.94
2004	6210.10	6201.57	2963.06	2116.69
2005	6343.11	8702.54	4014.91	2464.35
2006	2686.99	7232.69	5384.45	2357.96
Notes: ^1process raspberry exports include also mulberries, etc uncook, steam or boil in water sweetened or not, frozen.
^2fresh raspberry imports include also loganberries, nes, blackberries and mulberries, fresh.
^3process raspberry imports include raspberries, frozen, nes, uncooked/steamed/boiled in water, sweetened/not.
Source: Statistics Canada (2007b).

FIGURE 4 BC fresh and process rasberry trade with Washington.

Frozen raspberry consumption per capita continues to be the third most popular berry in Canada after strawberries and blueberries (Statistics Canada, 2007a). Frozen raspberry consumption in Canada increased from 0.44 kg in 1992 to 0.50 kg in 1995 but decreased to 0.25 kg in 1998 and then increased to 0.40 kg in 2006. For the United States, frozen raspberry consumption per capita went from 0.08 kg in 1992 to 0.13 kg in 2006 (USDA, 2007b). The renewed consumption of raspberries in Canada may be associated with research findings showing raspberries like several other fruits such as strawberries, provide a source of potentially healthy compounds (e.g., antioxidants) that are essential for a balanced diet (Beekwilder et al., 2005). However, with globalization of the horticulture industry and consumer demand for year-round supply, raspberry imports, especially for fresh product, have become increasingly important to the domestic industry of British Columbia.

RASPBERRY BREEDING DEVELOPMENTS

Raspberry breeding in the Pacific Northwest has recently emphasized machine harvestablility and resistance to raspberry root rot and RBDV. Unlike the Washington breeding program which started in 1929 and primarily utilized R. ideaus and R. strigosus, the BC raspberry breeding program started in 1959 and initially relied on three species (R. idaeus, R. strigosus, R. occidentalis) (Daubeny, 2006; 2002).

Raspberry breeding research priorities have shifted over the years. In the early 1990s, the research emphasis in British Columbia focused on strengthening genetic diversity and expanding the germplasm base by using parent material, procured from the Scottish and United Kingdom breeding programs (Daubeny and Anderson, 1993). Germplasm research in the Pacific Northwest has ranged from evaluation of a single species to attempts to cross it with cultivated germplasm or with multiple backcross generations to develop cultivars that embody new traits and fruit quality characteristics (Finn et al., 2002). The conventional approach of using collections from around the world to widen the germplasm base and introduce specific traits is very time consuming and is now being strengthened by advanced techniques such as molecular markers and genetic maps employed in breeding programs in the eastern United States (Lewers and Weber, 2005). Applying genetic mapping and molecular marker technologies to raspberry breeding has improved our understanding of the relationship between the raspberry plant and their wild relatives, the characterization of germplasm, and the introgression of superior traits such as fruit size, firmness, disease resistance, and winter hardiness (Sargent et al., 2007; Stafne et al., 2005; Weber, 2003; Graham and Smith, 2002).

Raspberry breeding efforts in British Columbia and Washington have developed a range of fresh market and processing cultivars that have been adopted not only in Canada, but in Washington and different parts of the world such as Chile, Australia, and Europe (Kempler and Daubeny, 1999; Daubeny, 1997). A total of 16 cultivars have been released from the BC program and 11 cultivars from the WA program. Since their inception they have provided a vast array of fruit quality attributes to growers, nurseries, marketers, and consumers (Table 4).

TABLE 4 Red Raspberry Cultivars Released and Plant Patents Granted by Breeding Programs in Canada and the United States, 1953–2007

Country	Province/State	Cultivars released	Patents granted	Red raspberry cultivar descriptions
Canada	BC	16	–	Chemainus, Chilliwack, Comox, Cowichan, Esquimalt, Kitsilano, Malahat, Qualicum, Tulameen, Algonquin, Chilcotin, Haida, Matsqui, Nootka, Saanich, Skeena,
	Manitoba	5	–	Double Delight, Red River, Souris, Boyne, Killarney
	Ontario	6	2	OAC Regal, OAC Regency, Comet, Festival, Lowden Purple ^a , Lowden ^a ,
	Quebec	2	1	Perron's Red, Per Hub ^a
	Nova Scotia	3	–	Nova, K81-6, Avon
United States	California	32	32	AnnaMaria ^a , Driscoll Cardinal ^a , Driscoll Carmelina ^a , Driscoll Dulcita ^a , Driscoll Francesca ^a , Driscoll Maravilla ^a , Gloria ^a , Godiva ^a , Hollins ^a , Holyoke ^a , Isabel ^a , Joe Mello ^a , Driscoll ^a
				Madonna ^a , Wilhelm ^a , PS-1764 ^a , PS-1703 ^a , PS-1070 ^a , PS-1049 ^a , PSI-1014 ^a , PSI-737 ^a , PSI 168 ^a , PSI 114 ^a , PSI 127 ^a , Graton Gold ^a , Tola ^a , Lawrence ^a , PSI-744 ^a , PSI 79 ^a , PSI-R86.745 ^a , Bababerry ^a , Sweetbriar ^a
	Minnesota	6	1	Nordic, Redwing, Forever Amber ^a , Itasca, Polaris, Earlibest
	New Jersey/Wisconsin	21	6	Allegany, Cherokee, Haut, Lake Geneva, Pocahontas, Reveille, Scepter, Sentinel, Sentry
	Maryland/Virginia			Alice, Anne ^a , Caroline ^a , Claudia, Deborah, Emily ^a , Esta, Georgia, Jaclyn ^a , Josephine ^a , Citadel, Lauren ^a
	New York	12	5	Brandywine, Huron, Jewel, Heritage, Hilton, Newburgh, Taylor
				Encore ^a , Prelude ^a , Ruby ^a (cv ‘Watson’), Titan (N.Y.883) ^a , Royalty ^a ,
	Oregon	7	–	Amity, Chinook, Coho, Lewis, Summit, Canby, Fairview,
	Washington	9	3	Puyallup, Goldenwest, Sumner, Meeker, Centennial, Cascade Delight ^a , Cascade Nectar, Cascade Bounty ^a , Cascade Dawn ^a ,
Notes: ^adenotes plant patents issued since 1976 by the US Plant Patent Office [http://patft1.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm].
Sources: (1) The Brooks and Olmo Register of Fruit & Nut Varieties.
(2) Raspberries.us [Http://www.raspberries.us/varieties.htm] Accessed 19 February 2007.

Some of the BC cultivars released in the late 1960s and early 1970s included “Matsqui” and “Haida.” The former, released in 1969, had early ripening and good freezing qualities and some tolerance to Botrytis fruit rot and the North American aphid vector of the raspberry mosaic virus complex (The Brooks and Olmo Register of Fruit and Nut Varieties, 1997). “Haida,” a fresh market cultivar released in 1973, has shown resistance to RBDV and has found acceptance in the upper midwestern part of the United States, because of its winter hardiness and superior fruit quality attributes (Daubeny and Anderson, 1993).

Three BC cultivars introduced in the late 1970s included “Chilcotin,” “Skeena,” and “Nootka.” “Chilcotin,” a fresh market cultivar, has distinctive characteristics including resistance to the common strain of the RBDV and midseason ripening associated with a longer harvest season. While “Skeena” is winter hardy, its full potential has been constrained by its susceptibility to crown gall, root rot, and RBDV. “Nootka” is winter hardy, RBDV resistant, and adapted to machine harvesting, but has not found widespread acceptance by growers because of its low yield that is similar to “Willamette” (Brooks and Olmo Register of Fruit and Nut Varieties, 1997).

Of the cultivars introduced in the late 1980s, “Chilliwack” is noted for its winter hardiness, large fruit size, excellent fresh eating qualities, high soluble solid content, and some resistance to common diseases such as root rot and the common strain of the North American aphid vector of the raspberry mosaic virus complex. Yields of “Chilliwack” are moderate and it is very susceptible to crown gall making it difficult to produce disease-free plants in the nursery. Though “Comox” produces a very large fruit size it has not found wide acceptance because of its susceptibility to root rot (Daubeny and Anderson, 1993). “Tulameen,” released in the late 1980s, has found wide acceptance because of its superior characteristics of high yields, excellent flavor, upright habit, large fruit size, resistance to diseases, and multiple usage (fresh, process). “Tulameen” has become the leading fresh market red raspberry cultivar in the world because of its superb appearance and flavor. It is now also grown for “out-of-season” production where “long canes” are cold-stored at low temperatures to meet chilling requirements and then subsequently planted in greenhouses and high tunnels in Europe and North Africa (Daubeny and Kempler, 2003). “Tulameen” has demonstrated superior greenhouse production characteristics for year-round production in jurisdictions such as New York State (Weber, 2006).

The advent of newer fresh market cultivars such as “Tulameen” with larger fruit size and better flavor have resulted in fewer plantings of cultivars that are small fruited or marginal in flavor. This has contributed to the elimination of cultivars such as “Haida,” “Chilcotin,” and “Algonquin.” The latter released in 1990 has found wider acceptance in eastern Canada, Denmark, and New Zealand than the Pacific Northwest, because of its medium size fruit, non-darkening red color, and winter hardiness.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, raspberry cultivars developed by the BC breeding program began to be propagated under royalty agreements (The Brooks and Olmo Register of Fruit and Nut Varieties, 1997). “Qualicum,” and “Malahat” were released in 1995 and 1996, respectively. The large fruit size of “Qualicum,” in combination with high soluble solids, resistance to post-harvest fruit rot, and multiple usage (fresh, process), allowed it to be widely grown in the Pacific Northwest. However, the vigorous vegetative growth of “Qualicum” makes it difficult to machine-harvest. Furthermore, it is also quite susceptible to root rot. “Malahat” has high yield, upright habit, large fruit size, easy harvestability, good shelf life, adaptability to machine-harvest, and an early ripening period, which make it the main cultivar grown for the early fresh market. Apart from its resistance to the common strain of the North American aphid vector of the raspberry mosaic virus complex, it is susceptible to most diseases such as Phytophthora root rot (Kempler and Daubeny, 2000).

British Columbia raspberry cultivars released in the early 2000s included “Chemainus,” “Cowichan,” “Esquimalt,” and “Saanich.” “Chemainus” has captured a relatively large share of the BC nursery plant sales market over the years. “‘Chemainus,’” introduced in 2003, produces higher yields and larger fruit than “Meeker,” machine harvests well, and produces high quality fruit suitable for IQF. It is slower to show symptoms of the RBDV and is more resistant to raspberry root rot than “Meeker” (Kempler et al., 2006). “Esquimalt” is a late ripening cultivar suitable for the fresh market with large and firm fruit. “Saanich” has a medium size fruit amenable to machine harvesting and IQF processing and appears to be gaining some recognition in Washington as evidenced by recent nursery plant sales in Washington.

In contrast to British Columbia, fewer cultivars have been released in Washington (Table 4). The Washington State University breeding program started in 1929 in response to growers' problems with the lack of winter hardiness of the most widely grown cultivar at that time, “Cuthbert.” In 1938, the program released “Washington” and “Tahoma.” “Washington” was a standard cultivar for frozen raspberry fruit quality while “Tahoma” was winter hardy and root rot tolerant, but relatively small fruited. There were a couple of cultivars released in the early 1950s. “Puyallup” was released in 1953 and had better color and similar fruit size to “Willamette”. Similarly, “Goldenwest” was released in 1953 as a yellow fruit cultivar with flavor very similar to “Washington,” and both had the same parents. “Sumner” was released in 1956 as a cultivar adapted to heavier soils, with tolerance to root rot, while “Meeker” was released in 1967 and 40 years later is still the most widely planted cultivar in both Washington and British Columbia. Although “Meeker” was high yielding, the plant was very vigorous, with long fruiting laterals making it very difficult to machine harvest with the harvesters used in the 1970s and 1980s. The harvesters were subsequently modified to accommodate the larger plant permitting “Meeker” to be planted more widely. In the late 1980s and 1990s “Willamette” suffered more winter damage than “Meeker” and the combination of better winter hardiness and higher yields contributed to the popularity of “Meeker.”

In 1989, “Centennial” was released as a fresh market cultivar with some tolerance to root rot but was not reliably winter hardy. “Tulameen,” “Chilliwack,” and “Comox” were all released at about this time and they were better adapted to fresh market use. “Cascade Delight” and “Cascade Nectar” were released in 2003. The former is a large, firm-fruited fresh market cultivar with good levels of root rot tolerance and a fruiting season similar to “Tulameen.” “Cascade Nectar” is very productive with excellent flavor and was released as a niche cultivar for use by a California winery in the production of a liqueur. “Cascade Dawn” and “Cascade Bounty” were released in 2005. “Cascade Dawn” is an early season, large-fruited fresh market cultivar with excellent fruit flavor and some tolerance to root rot. However, the fruit does not release easily from the receptacle until the fruit is relatively ripe. As a result it is not well adapted to machine harvesting and is recommended only for the local fresh market. By contrast, “Cascade Bounty” is an extremely productive, medium size berry that is adapted to machine harvesting and extremely root rot tolerant with the potential to be produced on marginal sites. Although it machine harvests well, the fruit does not have sufficient cohesion for IQF use, but is satisfactory for bulk, puree, and juice requirements.

RASPBERRY RESEARCH FUNDING

The release and commercialization of raspberry cultivars over the last two decades in British Columbia and Washington have undergone substantial changes driven by lower public R&D support and strengthened intellectual property rights (Knight et al., 2005). The decline of support for publicly funded breeding programs in the Pacific Northwest has resulted in a greater reliance for funding on producer agencies such as the Washington Red Raspberry Commission. In 2007, the Washington Red Raspberry Commission funded a total of 16 projects worth US $119,284 with the bulk of funds devoted to research activities including developing irrigation systems, genetics and plant breeding, and pest and disease management (Bierlink, 2008). Washington Red Raspberry Commission funded programs rely on levy funding provided by growers to support industry research priorities. Over the period 1995–2009 the PNW industry contributions, both in kind and cash, to AAFC in British Columbia totalled US $500,000, which was matched by the AAFC- MII program with US $496,000. The majority of these funds were dedicated for the propagation and testing of selections for RBDV, root rot (Phytophthora rubi), machine harvestability, and the promotion of the release of potential new cultivars to propagators for advance testing in growers' fields (Kempler, 2008).

Publicly funded raspberry research in Washington studying plant genetics, product quality, and integrated pest management (IPM) has declined since 2001 (Table 5) Investments in research and development (R&D) by USDA and State Agriculture Experiment Stations went from $577,000 in 1998 and climbed to $747,000 in 2001 and declined to $358,000 by 2006. Most of the R&D investment in Washington was devoted to IPM activities with smaller amounts devoted to techniques to improve plant product quality.

TABLE 5 Raspberry Research and Development by US Department of Agriculture, State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and Other Institutions

Washington State	1998		2001		2003		2006
	Total funds ^1 ('$000)	Scientistyears	Total funds('$000)	Scientistyears	Total funds('$000)	Scientistyears	Total funds('$000)	Scientistyears
102 Soil, water, and nutrient relationships	–	–	116	–	0	–	0	–
201 Plant genome, genetics, mechanisms	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
202 Plant genetic resources	38	0.1	36	0.1	43	0.1	17	0.1
203 Plant biological efficiency	40	0.1	25	–	–	–	65	0.2
204 Plant product quality and utlity	192	0.4	158	0.3	130	0.3	16	0.1
205 Plant management systems	–	–	30	–	10	–	36	0.2
212 Pathogens and nematodes affect on plants	43	0.1	122	0.1	43	0.1	32	0.1
215 Biological control of pests	5	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
216 Integrated pest management	259	0.4	260	0.6	208	0.5	160	0.6
502 New and Improved food products	–	–	–	–	–	–	32	0.1
Total	577	1.1	747	1.1	434	1	358	1.4
Notes: ^1Total funds include USDA appropriations, CSREES administration, other US Department of Agriculture, other federal departments, State appropriations, and other Non-federal department.
Source: Moore A. 2007. USDA, CSREES. Special Tabulation request.

The horticulture industry in North America has relied primarily on publicly funded research and has failed to capitalize on the intellectual property (IP) benefits available from the products of research (Dixon, 1999). Driscoll's ² and Well-Pict ³ have successful private raspberry breeding programs which develop cultivars for their own fresh market growers in California, Mexico, and elsewhere. A similar model might be applied to the relatively small PNW processing raspberry industry, but this has not taken place yet. Similarly, the relatively small size of the horticulture industry in British Columbia and Washington has made it difficult for major biotechnology companies to invest in horticulture research since the commercial value is not as attractive as field crops grown on larger acreages (Rausser and Ameden, 2004). This is particularly applicable to the up-front investment required to develop and protect enabling technologies, identify useful genes, and address the regulatory and consumer issues associated with transgenic horticultural crops (Wright, 2008). Furthermore, raspberry processors indicate that their customers do not wish to buy genetically modified fruit (Mowat, personal communication). Biotechnology activities in the horticulture industry have tended to be more public good oriented and focused on the environmental impacts of horticulture production, food safety, product quality, and new product development (Robitaille, 1999).

PROTECTION OF RASPBERRY CULTIVARS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

In Canada, the Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) Act was enacted in 1990 to protect both asexual and sexual propagated plants while the United States adopted the U.S. Plant Patent Act of 1930 to protect asexual propagated plants such as raspberries (Staub et al., 1996). Intellectual property right protection under PBR was made a requirement for many countries around the world joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) and accepting the provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Morris et al., 2006). Canada's PBR Act requires the cultivar to be uniform, distinctive, and stable. PBR applies protection only in countries where protection has been sought and granted with no legal control regarding how the cultivar was used outside of Canada (Lesser, 2007).

The United States has a wider range of measures than Canada to protect plants. Apart from the Plant Patent Act of 1930, the United States introduced the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) in 1970 that covered all sexually propagated plant cultivars and by 1985 had extended utility patent protection to all planting material including cultivars, pure lines, and hybrids (Lesser and Mutschler, 2004). While plant patents in the United States are employed to protect a raspberry cultivar, the technology employed to develop the new cultivar can be protected by a utility patent (Wright, 2008). Consequently, utility patents can be employed by plant breeders to protect a raspberry cultivar with a new trait or an enabling technology such as a plant promoter.

Trademarks can be an alternative measure of plant protection to plant patents since they can be applied to any breeding process or germplasm that provides a nursery with a competitive advantage (Staub et al., 1996). Trademarks are used more frequently in the apple industry than in the raspberry industry as a branding tool to differentiate the product and prevent others from using the trademarked name. The raspberry “Watson,” developed by the Cornell University breeding program and trademarked as “Ruby,” has not been successful as a revenue generating source or as a means to stimulate greater consumer loyalty among New York raspberry consumers (Weber, 2007). Unlike apples, raspberry is not sold at the retail level by cultivar name and therefore it is difficult for the consumer to differentiate one raspberry cultivar from another. In general, raspberry cultivars tend to be licensed on a nonexclusive basis to nurseries that are granted the right to propagate the plants and sell the propagated material to growers based on a royalty fee for the number of plants purchased. Nevertheless, the Cornell University experience has shown that while it can be a financial success for the raspberry breeding program to license a cultivar (e.g., “Watson”) exclusively, it can be a political failure if nurseries and producers are not happy with the license fees and royalty arrangements (Cahoon, 2007).

Table 6 shows that there are fewer raspberry PBR applications in Canada than for strawberry, cherry, or apple. Plant breeders filed a total of 17 raspberry PBR applications compared to 70 for strawberry, 30 for cherry, and 85 for apple. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada filed PBR applications for 4 raspberry cultivars while Washington filed for one cultivar, “Cascade Bounty.” It is evident from Table 6 that the bulk of PBR application filings for raspberry and cherry cultivars were by public institutions while over 50% of strawberry filings were by non-domestic institutions. Despite the enactment of the PBR Act in 1990, seeking protection for fruit cultivars is a relatively recent phenomenon in Canada and this is reflected in the fewer number of filings for raspberry and blueberry.

TABLE 6 Plant Breeders' Rights Applications and Grants by Selected Fruit and Institution in Canada

Country	Institution	Fruit	No of applications	No of grants	Applications/rights ^1
Canada	Agriculture Canada	Strawberry	16	15	2
	Guelph/McGill University	Strawberry	6	3	2
	Orchard/nursery/company	Strawberry	1	1	–
USA	Driscoll Associates, Inc	Strawberry	10	5	2
	California/Miinnesota Univ./USDA	Strawberry	20	15	5
	Orchard/nursery/company	Strawberry	5	1	4
UK	Orchard/nursery/company	Strawberry	1	–	–
Europe excl. UK	Orchard/nursery/company	Strawberry	11	2	5
Canada	Agriculture Canada	Raspberry	3	–	–
UK	Scottish Crop Research Instit.	Raspberry	2	–	1
	Hort. Research International	Raspberry	1	–	–
	Others	Raspberry	1	–	–
New Zealand	Hort & Food Research Instit.	Raspberry	4	–	1
USA	Driscoll Strawberry Assoc. Inc.	Raspberry	4	–	–
	Washington State University	Raspberry	1	–	–
Switzerland	Promo Fruit Ltd	Raspberry	1	–	–
Canada	Le Jardin Fruitier	Blackberry	1	–	1
USA	Driscoll Strawberry Assoc. Inc.	Blackberry	3
USA	Michigan State University	Blueberry	3	3	–
Canada	Agriculture Canada	Cherry	17	14	–
	Saskatchewan/Guelph Univ.	Cherry	7	2	–
	Orchard/nursery/company	Cherry	1	–	–
Europe excl. UK	Orchard/nursery/company	Cherry	5	–	–
Canada	Agriculture Canada	Pear	4	3	–
	Orchard/nursery/company	Pear	1		1
UK	Orchard/nursery/company	Pear	1	1	–
Germany/NZ/Korea	Orchard/nursery/public	Pear	5	–	–
Canada	Agriculture Canada	Peach	2	2	–
	Guelph University	Peach	6	1	–
New Zealand	Hort & Food Research Instit.	Peach	2	–	–
Canada	Agriculture Canada	Apple	35	9	4
	Guelph University	Apple	5	3	2
	Nursery/orchard/company	Apple	5	2	–
New Zealand	Hort & Food Research Instit.	Apple	6	4	–
	Nursery/orchard/company	Apple	5	4	1
Australia	Dept. of Primary Industry	Apple	2	–	2
USA	Minesota University	Apple	3	1	–
	Nursery/orchard/company	Apple	9	4	3
UK	Nursery/orchard/company	Apple	7	–	7
Europe excl. UK	Nursery/orchard/company	Apple	8	1	1
Notes: ^1Includes applications/rights abandoned, withdrawn, surrendered, annulled, revoked, and rejected.
Source: Marshall. S. 2007. Canadian food inspection agency. Plant breeders' rights office.

In the United States, the protection of raspberry cultivars by plant patents has been undertaken for quite some time by public and private breeders. Washington cultivars such as “Cascade Delight,” “Cascade Dawn,” and “Cascade Bounty” have received U.S. plant patents. Most of the California raspberry cultivars designated for the fresh market are protected by plant patents (Table 4) and were developed by private companies employing propriety technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last two decades, the bulk of PNW processed raspberry production expansion has taken place in Washington driven mainly by harvested-area expansion. While BC raspberry production has declined since the late 1980s, attributed partly to limited land resources, the industry has concentrated on the processed market with export shipments destined mainly to the United States. Producing and competing in the lower quality end of the raspberry market has been exacerbated by relatively lower BC yields and increased global fresh raspberry imports. Plant Breeders' Rights are the most common forms of intellectual property rights protection in Canada with fewer raspberry PBR applications compared to strawberry and cherry. Plant patents are more frequently used by breeders than Canadian breeders in the United States to protect raspberry cultivars. Future prosperity of the PNW raspberry industry will require developing competitive cultivars for the high-end fresh markets and encouraging more public-private partnerships, plant patenting and licensing of raspberry cultivars to protect germplasm and increase the commercialization of new cultivars. While filing PBR applications, plant patents, and trademarks are time consuming and risky, they will continue to provide incentives for the development of innovative technologies by plant breeders. One of the consequences of increasing patenting activity will be the increased transaction costs and reduced exchange of germplasm material between publicly funded and private programs. Nevertheless, plant breeders will need to develop novel cluster relationships between nurseries growers and retailers so that proprietary plant cultivars are more targeted to the PNW climatic conditions and responsive to industry needs. Public sector programs will continue to play an important role in raspberry development, especially through pre-breeding activities to identify promising genetic resources and field-testing of new cultivars.

Notes

This article is not subject to US copyright.

¹ Includes also blackberries, mulberries, loganberries, and currants.

² Driscoll Strawberry Associates is the largest grower and shipper of berries in North and South America. They develop varieties, produce plants, grow, ship, and market throughout the Americas and are expanding into Europe.

³ Well–Pict is one of the largest berry growers and shippers in California. They grow, package, ship, and market strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries. They are also involved in breeding new strawberry and raspberry varieties.