Today’s post starts off with a riddle:
What’s “juicy and sweet with hints of fall spices,” "a satisfying crunch,” and a name that sounds like a segment of “Dancing with the Stars?”
If you guessed SweeTango, the newest apple cultivar created by the University of Minnesota, you are correct!
SweeTango: Is it worth the trouble?
Since its Labor Day weekend debut, SweeTango has caused a buzz among apple eaters and growers. But it’s not just the taste that has people talking.
This apple comes with controversy because of the way the U of M has licensed it.
With previous releases, like the Honeycrisp, any orchard that could afford the licensing fee could buy the rights to grow and sell it. But over the years, this has led to quality control issues that were out of the U’s control.
So the U has granted exclusive licensing to Minnesota’s largest apple orchard, Pepin Heights, which will enforce strict limits on the number of trees sold, as well as the location of the orchards they're sold to.
Representatives from Pepin Heights and the U say by limiting the release of SweeTango, they can control the quality of their precious commodity.
But Minnesota's smaller apple growers, who are limited to 1,000 trees and can only sell their fruit at roadside stands or farmers’ markets, are complaining that this unprecedented licensing arrangement excludes them from sharing the wealth.
Considering that the U is a public, land-grant university, do the apple growers have a point? Can the U exert this much control over a product developed with tax-payer support?
At the same time, can you blame the U for being cautious not to repeat the mistakes made with the distribution of Honeycrisp, which became a victim of its own success?
What do you think? Should the U be less restrictive about who gets to grow and sell SweeTango? Or are they right to keep its distribution under tighter control?
And, finally, is all the fuss worth it? Have you tasted SweeTango yet? Is it as good as they say?
Post a comment and let us know.
Comments
Keeping this new cultivar in the hands of just a few large orchards is a disappointment to small farmers like us. We'd love to add a few trees, and have been looking into getting them from a licensed grower, but its almost impossible.
The University is developing new cultivars for the good of the people of MN, correct? Might they not benefit most by being allowed to own one? Or to have these tasty apples readily available to their local small farms and orchards?
I haven't tasted SweeTango yet although shortly after it was released, I went to the farmer's market to look for some. At the Ames stand, I was told that Fireside was selling them but that I'd have to ask - they weren't being displayed. It was all very 'secret-agent' . . .
I'm all for quality control - I've had my fair share of subpar, supposed HoneyCrisps but at the same time (and on the surface), this does seem like a so-sweet deal for Pepin! How long does this licensing agreement last; is it meant to ease the intro of SweeTango until quality standards are established? And do the decisions as to whom and where the apple trees go rest solely on Pepin or did the U help establish criteria? What are the criteria for other orchards to get the trees?
For now, I have yet to taste SweeTango - even when I found them, they were a wee bit too pricey for now . . . (and no samples allowed!)
That's a tough one. On one hand it seems ridiculous that a publicly funded university can limit the availability of a product tax dollars helped create. On the other hand, if quality is improved the trade off may be worth it.
Maybe, instead of offering the license exclusively to one vendor, they could instead offer it to anyone who wants it under a different name. Then as quality within the SweetTango name get's established, that license could be sold to more and more orchards until the line that isn't quality assured is pushed out.
I think the U probably does have the right to control distribution, but something tells me this has a lot more to do with a marketing ploy than quality control.
I'd really like to try a SweeTango but since I buy many things, including my apples, from the farmers market I guess I'll just have to wait. In the meantime I'll continue enjoying the Honey Crisps.
You know, I tried the SweeTango during the 10 minutes it was in Lunds.
The apple is beautiful, amazingly crisp, juicy as all get out, and the flavor is... um... sweet. Just sweet. I didn't notice any of those spices.
So it's like a date with an 18-year-old. The apple gets a lot of attention with its beauty and firmness, and the sweetness is an initial attention-getter. But ultimately, we don't have much to talk about. There's just no depth of flavor.
SweeTango is no marketing PLOY, unless you think all marketing is a ploy (it's not). I'd call it more of an advertising success. A lot of people are very excited about a new apple that nobody really needs and is not better than the apples we already have. But everyone still wants to try it. It's like Cabbage Patch Kids: the panache of scarcity will eventually give way to the banality of oversupply.
That was essentially the point I was trying to make, perhaps "ploy" wasn't the correct term. The shortage creates an illusion of demand and both the U and Pepin Heights will benefit when they release it in full in another year or so because of said "demand". Nice way to generate little publicity for another name added to the already long list of apples.
I love apples but at this point it better make pie for me if its going to be worth hunting all over the state to find. There's plenty of awesome alternatives that are readily available for a whole lot less work.
Thanks so much for all of your feedback. Here are a few other things I'd like to mention about the SweeTango:
The SweeTango is a hybrid of the Zestar and the HoneyCrisp. This gives it a couple of big selling ponits: first, it's crisp and sweet like the HoneyCrisp (I've heard, I haven't tasted it); second, it comes way early in the season, like the Zestar. I've also heard that the skin of a SweeTango is tough. Can anyone confirm?
My understanding of the U of M deal is that the U is trying to maintain an ongoing revenue source - not just controlling quality. This year, their patent on the HoneyCrisp expires, meaning that they will no longer collect a bounty on every HoneyCrisp tree that gets planted. By partnering with Pepin Heights exclusively, the U has created a revenue stream that will not expire.
I guess I'm curious - there's a lot of marketing buzz about this apple and a reference to having sampled it at Lunds. Anywhere else where these "mysterious" apples are known to be available to try or purchase?
It sounds very sneaky of the U to be citing maintaining quality as a reason to monopolize the market for an apple, especially one that apparently is not the messiah apple (as Lee's comment points out). Even ignoring the fact that public money is lining the pockets of the largest apple orchard in Minnesota (because we know that agribusiness already takes in a good amount of public money), this SweeTango business sounds like it came out of meetings in smoke-filled rooms. I have not heard about how the U got "taken advantage" of over the honeycrisp - could someone fill me in?
I am very skeptical at this point at the mist surrounding this wonder fruit. Maybe once you pull down the curtain, there is just a small, frail apple who was controlling an empire of witches and yellow brick roads under the name SweeTango.
On todays dwarfing rootstocks, 1000 trees is less than 2 acres. The University wants a share of the apple sales, not just the tree sales. Imagine if the Sweetango is as successful as Honeycrisp. The few farmers on Pepin Heights A-list expand dramatically. Those growers who have a record of selling apples to a Pepin Heights competitor will be out of the loop. Any chance of competition in the apple packing business? The University should never have entered any agreement that picks winners and losers in agriculture, for short term gain, by creating a monopoly. This arrangement puts all growers nationally who have not PURCHASED the license to grow Sweetango in the position of opposing the success of a variety.
Does the research dept at U of M exist to profit the University? Or does this land grant University exist to benfit the citizens who have built it and support it?
Shouldn't the market dictate what products are inferior? Isn't it the consumers choice to purchase the products they wish? If the consumers taxes paid to create this product, why should one private company control the rights to distribution? With the $8,000,000 the U of M made off of Honeycrisps, could they not have set up a proper licensing agency of their own rather than an outside private firm?
If this were a matter of a federal governmental agency with a sole private benefactor the press would be busy.
Hello all...
I own Pepin Heights. My reaction as I read these posts ranges from alarm to amusement. Maybe I can straighten out a few misconceptions with real facts.
Every commercial apple grower in Minnesota can grow and sell this great new apple be they large or small. There are, give or take, about 110 orchards in the state and 87 have already planted trees. There are some limitations on this variety, and there is an agreement to sign, but it is just not that difficult. Interested growers should contact us directly.
Looking forward, most great new apple varieties from breeding programs all over the world will be "managed" instead of "open" release as was common in the past. Some growers find this change upsetting. There are several reasons for this industry wide change, but mostly it is because breeding programs need more money to continue operating.
The University selected Pepin Heights to manage this variety in a competitive process. As we submitted our proposal and negotiated the arrangement we had no idea who our competition was. They might have been local, national, or international. Minnesotans should be happy the "U" selected a local company.
Many Land Grant Universities license their intellectual property to help offset costs. Products from pharmaceuticals to soybeans, and yes, even apple varieties are patented "inventions". As our legislatures have cut funding they have asked our Universities to be more business-like, and that is what they are doing.
Minnesota grows some really great apples, but we have a very small apple industry. We're 28th nationally in production, accounting for only .2% of national production.
Pepin Heights does grow more apples than anybody else in Minnesota, but we are only medium size by Midwestern standards and quite small by West Coast standards. That said, we are nationally and internationally recognized for for our ability to identify and commercialize new varieties.
All the SweeTango media kerfuffle is not a marketing ploy to create demand for a product that doesn't exist. There are about 60,000 two and three year old trees in the ground in Minnesota alone (half of these in the hands of independent licensed growers). Be patient, SweeTangos are coming and I promise you, well worth the wait...
DC
Hmmm ... I saw SweeTangos at the Suburban Ave. (St. Paul) Byerly's last week, so I picked up a few.
I sampled them later that day with some friends. How good this highly-anticipated apple was going to be! Or not. Maybe it was the hype that accompanies the SweeTango -- or maybe I just picked up a few duds. But I have to say it was not a strikingly beautiful apple; several of those on display had a kind of netting on the skin that took away from the fairy-tale skin of the perfect apple. Beyond that, they were juicy but the taste was just ... sweet, and, as another poster pointed out, somewhat shallow.
I'll try them again if I see them just to give them a fair shake. But I'd sooner stick with Honeycrisps or Zestars or even some other lesser-known varieties.
Thanks all, for contributing to this lively discussion. I appreciate your varying points of view and the way the discussion is being carried out on the site. Once again, I'm reminded of the great local food community we've got and why this site is so rewarding and fun.
Thanks especially to Dennis of Pepin Heights, for being willing to take part in the discussion and address the community's thoughts and concerns head on. It's this conversation - coupled with some real transparency and a view towards practical realities - that will get us to the point where we understand enough to make good decisions about what we eat and who we support.
I, too, am pleased that Mr. Courtier has joined this discussion and I am happy to hear his side of things, but I am disappointed that his input wasn't included in the original article.
There doesn't seem to be as much controversy as advertised when you consider all sides. I would rather see details and solid facts over hype.
Thanks Gail, I get it. But the way this apple is being introduced is interesting (to me, at least!), and many people are concerned about how such development will continue to happen - in terms of both funding and distribution - in the future.
I can understand the need to control quality to avoid bad customer experiences.
For years we heard about Honeycrisp here in Southern California but every one I got from the store (and they weren't cheap) was green and sour. It wasn't until I picked one from our own tree (yes, they grow well in our blazing hot days and warm nights)that I finally tasted the "honey" part.
20 years of patent protection to recoup what could be 20 years of variety development sounds like a gamble to me, and I'm glad I have a day job other than agriculture.
we bought some and paid $30.00 for 12 apples. we like them and will buy them again if the price comes down, with all the apples out there we can't afford to pay this much for the amount of apples we get each year. what is wrong with being able to plant one or two trees for your own use. we have planted two honey crisp last year and will keep buying until they produce. but that is just one kind, we get several different kinds each year and planted those that cost so much. I'm on the fence with the u and the orchard, glad that trees are planted and so the price should come down some but like honey crisp we will not buy that much.
I have the contract between the U and Pepin. Got it through the freedom of information act. Pepin paid 100K up front for the rights and owes the university 4.5% of wholesale sales from all licensees (Pepin plus outside of MN coop members). MN growers can buy it but have to purchase the trees and pay a $3/tree/year royalty. Thus, if you buy the maximum 1,000 trees and have them 25 years, you would only pay $75,000 for those trees. Considering a Honeycrips tree costs about $15 wholesale, Pepin has made it pretty hard to compete and Minnesota just guaranteed there won't be any new apple orchards planted in the state. Plus, Pepin sets the quality standards so you are at their mercy. Another thing I have heard is that Pepin is requiring grocery stores to sign a sole source apple agreement if they want Sweetango, they have to buy all their apples from Pepin. Dennis, if you are still on this site, tell everyone about these sole source agreements! Of course, every consumer has the ultimate say, and if you do not like what the U did, just don't buy the Sweetango apple from anyone. That will be my choice in my house.
I was up in the motherland with Grandma when I saw these Sweetangos at Woods Orchard. We sampled them, I bought a bag & I wish I bought a bushel. Or two. EXCELLENT with caramel sauce, as they are zingy & firm enoip into the stiffest caramel. They don't turn brown very fast, either. I feel they are an improvement on momma Honeycrisp, which I find a bit on the bland side. But not as hard or tart as another fave of mine, Granny Smiths.
Once again, just the facts please.
The contract says "up to" $3 per tree. Anybody who has actually contacted us knows we intend to charge $2 per tree, and only after the 4th leaf when the trees are bearing fruit to offset the cost. The trees have not reached that age, so none of the Licensed Minnesota Growers have paid a penny yet for the use of the variety or the trademark.
The $2 per tree actually is about the same amount per box, and is a lower percentage of revenue, than those of us who are members of the Co-op will be paying. We chose to share this cost on a per tree basis instead of a percentage of revenue basis to simplify the accounting. Presumably the 80+% of Minnesota's commercial apple growers who have signed the license and planted trees did the math first and decided it is a worthwhile business proposition.
I believe there has never been a new U of M apple variety that was so quickly planted, and by so many growers. I'm not going to apologize for the fact that with this whole program we are trying to raise more money for the U of M's breeding program. That is one of the goals.
The "sole source agreement" thing is just completely untrue. We have no such agreements and never have. The truth is we have to earn our customers' business everyday with great quality, good service, and a fair price.
DC
this apple is the best apple ever made. I have tasted them all and this apple has it all. Crisp, sweet, juicy and just plain delicious.
this apple is the best apple ever made. I have tasted them all and this apple has it all. Crisp, sweet, juicy and just plain delicious.
I live in Arkansas and am just an ordinary consumer, but when a very nice lady at our graocery store gave me and my kids a sample of the new Sweetango apple, we immediately wanted one for the yard. The kids thought it was the best apple they'd ever eaten and we're disappointed that we can't grow one yet. We'll probably end up with a Honeycrisp.
It is hard to not to notice that no one really seems to want to address the fact that the taxpayers that support the U and are already paying the freight on this don't have any sort of a chance to own one or two of these trees for personal use. Does anyone have a projected date that this may be a possibility?
I just ate my first SweetTango apple. I had heard a lot about it, most recently the coverage of the lawsuit on MPR. Byerly's on County Road C in Roseville has them right now today... at least for the next few minutes. It is a GREAT apple. The first bite was crisp, like a Honeycrisp, yet tart... but then it tasted sweet afterwards. I can truly tell that it is a Honeycrisp/Zestar mix. I really, really like this apple.
We just planted a Honeycrisp, Zestar, Haralson and Haralred in our yard... I am going to contact the Pepin people and see if I can get a tree... I'll sign the royalty agreement.
The U of M has also developed prescription drugs through research and I think they have every right to control where the name goes until they are able to ensure the brand out in the field is what they thought it would be.
The SweetTangos at Byerly's were $1.99/pound and Honeycrisps (which I also bought) were 2.99/pound. If you want to try this apple, go get them!
I bought the SweeTango apples the last two weeks at Target Superstore. I tasted the first one at work when I took it for lunch---it was SO good! Like one person wrote, at first it tastes tart, but then SO sweet! I gave sample tastes to some co-workers and they agreed how delicious it was. I'm annointing it my new favorite apple!
I just tried one today and it was a very tasty apple. Crisp and firm, skin just right and a nice sweet taste. I got it at Hyvee in Omaha but they were really expensive, almost $5 a pound here. I won't be getting many more at that price.
Well, I found SweeTangos at WinCo in Bakersfield, CA, today for $2.95/lb. I bought three out of curiosity. The one I had was very crisp, juicy, and spicy. I'll go back for more. I was very surprised to find them at a small, employee-owned west coast chain grocery.
HOW CAN I BUY THESE TREES
All the stores have them here now and the price is similar to the Honeycrisp, around $3 a pound.
I'm eating a SweeTango apple right now! I went to the computer because I wanted to find out where they come from.
To answer Lee's question, the skin is not tough at all. This just might be the juiciest apple I've ever had.
I will be looking for the SweeTango in markets in the future and plan to rotate it with Galas and Macouns, my current favorite apples.
I'm just a random consumer, so take my comments with that in mind.
when will a person be able to buy these trees
I LIVE IN TENNESSEE WILL THEY PRODUCE IN EAST TN.
I don't know what all the hype is about. I just bought a bag of them at the HY-Vee in Mankato. We were all excited to try them but were big time disappointed for 2 reasons. They are not as crisp as a honeycrisp and they really didn't have as much flavor as HC. They were very juicy though. They would be good for squeezing.
Post new comment