Articles
Fruit crops genetics and breeding: technical, legislative and legal aspects
Article number
1413_1
Pages
1 – 12
Language
English
Abstract
There are different models for pursuing fruit breeding. 1) The ‘private’ model, where agricultural entrepreneurs, and often also nurserymen, conduct breeding.
This approach is common in Europe, particularly in France, Italy and Spain, and in the USA (e.g.
Zaiger Genetics), as well as in other fruit-growing countries such as Australia, Israel and New Zealand. 2) The ‘public’ model, where universities and public institutions lead the breeding effort.
In the USA the support for breeding by many public institutions (USDA, universities) has been reduced and the public sector is more engaged with basic or fundamental research objectives.
However, there are some exceptions worth noting, such as the RosBREED project funded by the USDA, which involves many public institutions dedicated to the development of diagnostic tools for disease resistance and quality improvement in Rosaceae for the benefit of all potential stakeholders.
In Italy the Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA) is an example of a public institution that is directly involved in fruit breeding, but with close collaboration with the industry (citrus and stone fruits, in particular). 3) The ‘mixed’ public-private model is another approach to fruit breeding such as the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) in France.
INRAE focuses on the initial phases of the breeding process (maintenance of germplasm collections, choice of parents, crossbreeding, sometimes the first level of selection on seedlings), and the final phase of selection is carried out by other stakeholders, such as nurseries and growers, commercial exploitation purposes.
As the fruit growing industry has developed, there has been a growing need for verification of the actual value of new cultivars.
It has become clear that the mere attribute of ‘novelty’ is not sufficient to guarantee satisfactory agronomic, quality and economic results along the breeding and nursery supply chain, up to the final user, the grower.
To address this issue, several solutions have been made available over time by growers’ associations, research institutions and public bodies.
Protecting a plant variety involves more than simply filing an application for variety protection, regardless of the model.
It requires a series of actions and interventions that need to be implemented to ensure that the breeder or rights holder has control over the distribution of the variety and is remunerated for their investments in developing the variety.
Protecting intellectual property in the field is a complex and challenging issue, as unauthorized multiplication and dissemination can threaten both the continuity of research and the competitiveness of the fruit growing industry as a whole.
Plant piracy is a disincentive for research, and unfortunately some breeding companies have been forced to close their business due to lack of return on their investment in breeding.
This approach is common in Europe, particularly in France, Italy and Spain, and in the USA (e.g.
Zaiger Genetics), as well as in other fruit-growing countries such as Australia, Israel and New Zealand. 2) The ‘public’ model, where universities and public institutions lead the breeding effort.
In the USA the support for breeding by many public institutions (USDA, universities) has been reduced and the public sector is more engaged with basic or fundamental research objectives.
However, there are some exceptions worth noting, such as the RosBREED project funded by the USDA, which involves many public institutions dedicated to the development of diagnostic tools for disease resistance and quality improvement in Rosaceae for the benefit of all potential stakeholders.
In Italy the Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA) is an example of a public institution that is directly involved in fruit breeding, but with close collaboration with the industry (citrus and stone fruits, in particular). 3) The ‘mixed’ public-private model is another approach to fruit breeding such as the National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) in France.
INRAE focuses on the initial phases of the breeding process (maintenance of germplasm collections, choice of parents, crossbreeding, sometimes the first level of selection on seedlings), and the final phase of selection is carried out by other stakeholders, such as nurseries and growers, commercial exploitation purposes.
As the fruit growing industry has developed, there has been a growing need for verification of the actual value of new cultivars.
It has become clear that the mere attribute of ‘novelty’ is not sufficient to guarantee satisfactory agronomic, quality and economic results along the breeding and nursery supply chain, up to the final user, the grower.
To address this issue, several solutions have been made available over time by growers’ associations, research institutions and public bodies.
Protecting a plant variety involves more than simply filing an application for variety protection, regardless of the model.
It requires a series of actions and interventions that need to be implemented to ensure that the breeder or rights holder has control over the distribution of the variety and is remunerated for their investments in developing the variety.
Protecting intellectual property in the field is a complex and challenging issue, as unauthorized multiplication and dissemination can threaten both the continuity of research and the competitiveness of the fruit growing industry as a whole.
Plant piracy is a disincentive for research, and unfortunately some breeding companies have been forced to close their business due to lack of return on their investment in breeding.
Authors
D. Bassi, V. Acquafredda, S. Barbieri, L. Catalano, K. Gasic
Keywords
fruit breeding frameworks, cultivar evaluation, intellectual property rights
Online Articles (28)