Cherry producers in the United States require innovation through the development and commercialization of new cultivars. Both sweet (Prunus avium L.) and tart cherries (P. cerasus L.) are economically important in many regions of the United States. In 2010, the United States produced 190.4 million pounds of tart cherries and 312,720 t of sweet cherries (Knopf, 2011). In 2010, 96% of sweet cherries were sold fresh and were worth $685.0 million (NASS, 2013). Washington was the leading production state with 156,000 t followed by California (97,000 t), Oregon (38,150 t), Michigan (15,100 t), and Montana (2,470 t) (USDA, 2011). In 2010, 97% of tart cherries were processed and were worth $39.7 million (NASS, 2013). Michigan was the leading tart cherry-producing state (135.0 million pounds) followed by Utah (23.0 million pounds), Washington (15.4 million pounds), New York (7.8 million pounds), and Wisconsin (5.7 million pounds) (USDA, 2011). To meet growing domestic and international market demands, producers require development and commercialization of superior new cultivars.
New cherry cultivars with improved performance benefit producers directly. However, other members of the supply chain benefit from new cultivars with improved quality, availability, affordability, and health benefits. Cherry breeding programs face a significant challenge to develop cultivars incorporating the range of attributes preferred by the various components of the supply chain. All breeding programs require significant financial, human, and time resources to develop, evaluate, and commercialize new cultivars, but this is especially true for crops with long juvenility periods and extensive, complex field testing requirements such as cherries (Fuglie and Walker, 2001; Song et al., 2008). Cultivar development routinely takes more than 20 years from the initial cross to commercialization. Thus, any strategy that hastens this process and improves cherry breeding efficiency has high potential economic impact throughout the supply chain.
Genetic improvement in cherry has contributed significantly to improved product quality, management practices, and product uniformity (Hennessy et al., 2004; Lusk, 2007). Continued development of additional tools using genetic engineering technology can greatly improve breeding program efficiency, but application of this technology requires significant additional knowledge and resources. Therefore, focusing on priority traits is important (Alpuerto et al., 2009; Luby and Shaw, 2001). Supply chain members’ decisions are often influenced by needs, tradition, personal experiences, preferences, and beliefs that can lead to discrepancies among member groups. For producers, different biotic and abiotic stresses related to geographic location, pest pressure, storage and handling infrastructure, etc., complicate breeding program targets (Sy et al., 1997; Tano et al., 2003). Thus, cherry breeding programs could enhance efficiency of resource use and commercial impact by improved understanding of factors underlying preferences of supply chain members.
Unfortunately, few systematic studies identifying priority traits are available for the various components of the cherry supply chain to provide guidance to breeding programs in establishing target trait priorities. Breeders may rely on their personal experiences and producers’ feedback to prioritize plant and fruit traits, but this challenge is magnified when attempting to consider the possibly discrepant preferences of different members for the supply chain. The scant literature that exists typically does not focus on how the breeding program objectives were determined, but instead focuses on the objectives themselves. For instance, Stehr (2001) described a German cherry breeding program that focused on cracking resistance and tree health traits resulting from the high humidity of the region along with fruit size and firmness.
Producers’ preferences are greatly affected by their different end markets and horticultural practices (Sy et al., 1997). Because the majority of tart cherries are processed (NASS, 2013) and harvested by machine, fruit bruising reduces product quality and can heighten pit removal problems; thus, fruit firmness is an important quality trait. (Timm and Guyer, 1998). Most sweet cherries are sold fresh (NASS, 2013). Therefore, traits important to end consumers (such as size, color, soluble solid concentration, pH, sweet–sour balance, flavor, texture, and external firmness) are often targeted in sweet cherry breeding programs (Dever et al., 1996; Kappel et al., 1996). The needs of market intermediaries also differ significantly between tart and sweet cherry industries.
In addition to the end market’s impact, regional biotic and abiotic stresses impact producers’ value of traits (Tano et al., 2003). For cherries, a humid climate increases disease and pest pressure from brown rot (Monilinia) and cherry fruit flies (Tamm et al., 2002; Wearing et al., 2001). Consequently, as a result of different markets and regional stresses, identifying important cherry tree and fruit traits is challenging.
Currently in the United States, cherry breeders set goals based on industry feedback and regional perceived needs without the insight provided by a systematic study of supply chain members’ prioritization of traits. As part of a larger strategic socioeconomic analysis of trait values across cherry supply chain members, this study focused on sweet and tart cherry producers’ preferences for tree and fruit traits. This constitutes an important first step to fill a knowledge gap and improve the efficiency of breeding programs.
Alpuerto, V.E., Norton, G.W., Alwang, J. & Ismail, A.M. 2009 Economic impact analysis of marker-assisted breeding for tolerance to salinity and phosphorous deficiency in rice Rev. Agr. Econ. 31 779 792
Brown, S.K., Iezzoni, A.F. & Fogle, H.W. 1996 Cherries, p. 213–225. In: Janick, J. and J.N. Moore (eds.). Fruit breeding, tree and tropical fruits. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY
Census of Agriculture 2007 Fruits and nuts: 2007 and 2002. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/st99_2_032_032.pdf>
Davis, C.G. & Gillespie, J.M. 2004 What role does specialization play in farm size in the U.S. Hog Industry? Southern Agr. Econ. Assn. Annu. Mtg., Tulsa, OK
Fuglie, K.O. & Walker, T.S. 2001 Economic incentives and resource allocation in U.S. public and private plant breeding J. Agr. Appl. Econ. 33 459 473
Greene, W.H. & Hensher, D.A. 2008 Modeling ordered choices: A primer and recent developments. New York University, New York, NY
Hall, R.H., Collier, H.L., Thomas, M.L. & Hilgers, M.G. 2005 A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. Proc. 11th Amer. Conf. Info. Syst. p. 1–7
Hennessy, D.A., Miranowski, J.A. & Babcock, B.A. 2004 Genetic information in agricultural productivity and product development Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 86 73 87
Kappel, F., Fisher-Fleming, B. & Hogue, E. 1996 Fruit characteristics and sensory attributes of an ideal sweet cherry HortScience 31 443 446
Knopf, D. 2011 U.S. peach production down 2 percent from 2010 apricots down 9 percent from last year. Natl. Agr. Stat. Serv., USDA. 29 May 2012. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Current_News_Release/peaches.pdf>
Long, L.E., Whiting, M. & Nunez-Elisea, R. 2007 Sweet cherry cultivars for the fresh market. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication #604
McCarter, M.W. & Caza, A. 2009 Audience response systems as a data collection method in organizational research J. Mgt. Organ. 15 122 131
NASS 2013 National statistics for cherries. 9 Aug. 2013. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/result.php?7AAB523A-4D04-3B6A-A0C0-8F5F960F94D3§or=CROPS&group=FRUIT%20%26%20TREE%20NUTS&comm=CHERRIES>
Powe, B.D., Faulkenberry, R.C., Harmond, L. & Cooper, D.L. 2009 Evaluating the use of an audience response technology system to collect research data among African American elders Ageing Intl. 34 60 66
Song, G.Q., Lang, G.A., Sink, K.C. & Dolgov, S.V. 2008 Cherries, p. 161–188. In: Kole C. and T.C. Hall (eds.). A compendium of transgenic crop plants. Wiley- Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ
Stehr, R. 2001 Screening of sweet cherry cultivars in northern Germany. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 667: IV International Cherry Symposium
Sy, H.A., Faminow, M.D., Johnson, G.V. & Crow, G. 1997 Estimating the values of cattle characteristics using and ordered probit model Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 79 463 476
Tamm, L., Häseli, A., Fuchs, J.G., Weibel, F.P. & Wyss, E. 2002 Organic fruit production in humid climates of Europe: Bottlenecks and new approaches in disease and pest control. Proc. XXVI Intl. Hort. Congr.: Sust. of Hort. Syst. in the 21st Century 638:333–339
Tano, K., Kamuanga, M., Faminow, M.D. & Swallow, B. 2003 Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer’s preferences for cattle traits in West Africa Ecol. Econ. 45 393 407
Timm, E.J. & Guyer, D.E. 1998 Tart cherry firmness and quality changes during mechanical harvesting and handling Appl. Eng. in Agr. 14 153 158
USDA 2011 Tart cherry production up 40 percent. NASS, USDA. 29 May 2012. <http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CherProd/2010s/2011/CherProd-06-23-2011.pdf>
Wearing, C.H., Hansen, J.D., Whyte, C., Miller, C.E. & Brown, J. 2001 The potential for spread of codling moth (Lepidoptera tortricidae) via commercial sweet cherry fruit: A critical review and risk assessment Crop Prot. 20 465 488