REPORT
OF
COOPERATIVE HOP BREEDING PROJECT
1937
R. E. FORE, AGENT
DIVISICN OF DRUG AND RELATED PLANTS
BUREAU CF PLANT INDUSTRY
UNITED STATES DEPARTVENT CF AGRICULTURE
Report of
Cooperative fa Breeding Project
Division of Drug and Related Plants
Bureau of Plant Industry
United States Department of Agriculture
and
Oregon Agrioultural Experiment Station
Corvallis, Oregon
January 1, 1937
to
December 31, 1937
BY
R. E. Fore, Agent
Division of Drug and Related Plants
Bureau of Plant Industry
U.S. Department of Agriculture
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
GENERAL REVIEW OF YEAR'S WORE
1
WEATHER DATA
14
VARIETAL YIELDS
21
SEEDLING AND FOREIGN VARIETY DATA
26
MILDEW NOTES ON FOREIGN VARIETIES
31
GENERAL NOTES ON BETTER SEEDLINGS
38
SEEDLINGS INCREASED IN 1937
60
SEEDLINGS DISCARDED IN 1937
53
ABNORMAL PLANTS
58
ARTIFICIAL POLLINATICNS
60
SPECIAL POLLINATION STUDIES
64
HOP GROWERS' FIELD DAY
66
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
68
REPORT OF ANALYSIS OF SEEDLING HOPS GROWN AT CORVALLIS,
OREGON IN 1936
70
REPORT ON ANALYSES OF FOREIGN HOP VARIETIES GROWN AT
CORVALLIS, OREGON, 1936
83
REPORT ON THE RELATION OF STAGE CF MATURITY TO THE
FORMATION OF RESINS IN HOPS
89
LIST OF TABLES
No.
Corirallis, Oregon
18
1.
1937 Weather Data
2.
Summary of Variety Yields
3.
Varietal Yields
4.
Effect of Stripping and Suckering on Mildew and
Yield - 1937
25
5.
Seedlings Picked 1937 - Ranked According to Yield
27
6.
1937 Foreign Varieties Ranked According to Yield
29
7.
Mildew Notes on Foreign Varieties of Hops
32
8.
Notes on Better Female Seedlings
40
9.
1937 Data on Better Male Plants
43
10.
Female Plants for 1938 Pollination
47
11.
Maturity Notes on Early Plants
49
12.
Plants Increased in Fall of 1937
51
13.
Plants Discarded in 1937
54
1937
1937
M. Notes on Interesting Abnormal Plants - 1937
15.
Hop Seed Planted in the Greenhouse. Pall of 1937
22
23
59
62
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fa e
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8,
9,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Flower Stages.:
Stipa in bagging female flowers.for az-Wilda:crossing.
An unusual type of spike caused by downy mildew.
Stages of flower development.
A Late Cluster plant. .Picture taken day first stage of
maturity samples was picked, AuguSt 2, 1937.
Individual arms of plant 29.45 showing variation in sise
of burr on August 2, 1937.
Fuggles - Row on left stripped but not suokered. Row on
right stripped and suckered.
Row on left suckered but not'stripped. Raw on
Fuggles
right stripped and suckered.
Fuggles - Row on left not stripped or suckered, Row on
right stripped and suckered. Mildew infection was much
heavier early in the season on the row not stripped or
suckered, but the yield was approximately the same as the
check row on the right.
A Fuggles plant bagged for artificial pollination.
A bagged Fuggles plant - note that the majority of bags
are in the shade.
Type of cloth bag used in comparison with parchment bags.
This type of bag was not satisfactory.
.A badly spiked Late Cluster seedling male.
A hybrid seedling (L.C. x E.G.) with nearly all of side
arms spiked.
An Early Cluster plant not stripped or suckered. Note
the numerous basal spikes.
A hop yard near Hermiston, Oregon. Note the training
sled in background.
Group of growers inspecting the Experimental Yard. Note
the heavy growth of Bavaria= hops.
Group of growers inspecting the Experimental Yard. An
Early Cluster Green plant on left.
A training cart used in the Experimental hop yard.
Hop growers inspecting a good seedling plant.
An abnormal typo of mildew spike.
A terminal spike on t young plant. This plant was
killed by mildew later in the season.
The semi -vase system of stringing in a hop yard near
Santa Rosa, California.
The vase wystem of stringing in a hop yard near Santa
Rosa, California. Note the 4 strings per plant.
94
95, 96, 97
98
98
99
99
100
100
101
102
102
103
104
104
105
105
106
106
107
107
108
108
109
109
Introduction
The following report is submitted for the calendar year 1937,.
and is a summary of the year's investigations in hop breeding being
conducted cooperatively by the United States Department of Agriculture,
and the
Bureau of Plant Industry, Division of Drug and Related Plants
Station.
Farm Crops Department of the Oregon Agricultural Experiment
Downy mildew was quite prevalent during the 1937 season and
again emphasized the need for the development of resistant varieties.
The principal problem being considered at present is the development
of
of Mildew resistant varieties although these new varieties must,
yield and
course, be equal to or better than existing varieties in
quality.
Since this project was only started in 1931, sufficient
time has not elapsed to make possible the development of new varieties
to the point where they can be distributed.
is being made.
However, definite progress
In the fall of 1937, six of the better seedling plants
were increased for testing in larger plots.
GENT RAL REVIEW OF 'TEAR S
During the month of January several thousand hop seeds produced
by artificial crossing were planted in the greenhouse.
These seeds
had previously been given a cold treatment to break dormancy.
Experiments were started to determine the best type of containers for
storing the moist seed in during the period of cold storage.
Data
obtained later indicated that moist paper towels were best.
During January and February a series of hop growers conferences
were held in the principal hop growing localities in the state of Oregon.
2
These meetings were attended in company with Mr. G. R. learner and Mr.
Art King, Soils Specialist.
Mr. Price, AgricUltural Engineer, also
attended one meeting and gave a talk on hop drying.
The writer
of
presented informal discussions on hop breeding, culture and cost
production.
Mr. Hoerner talked on hop diseases and insect pests and
On January 19
Mr. King on hop soils and fertilizers.
meeting was held in Molallay Oregon.
en all-day
This meeting was attended by 4$
hop growers. A meeting held in Salem, Oregon. an January 23 was
attended by approximately 100 growers.
On February 1, a growers
conference was held in Grants Pass, Oregon, and about 30 growers were
in attendance.
These meetings created considerable interest in the
experimental work being conducted on hops and many growers expressed
their appreciation of the work being carried on in their behalf by
representatives of the United States Department of Agriculture and of
Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station.
On January 21 a trip was made to Salem to confer with offioials
Brewmaster of
of the Pacific Hop Growers Association and Mr. Steno,
the Salem Brewery.
On February 19 a meeting of the United Hop Growers of California
was attended at Santa Rosa, California, in company with Mr. Roemer.
by
Talks similar to those given at the Oregon meetings were presented
Mr. Weinland, County Agent of Sonoma County,
Mt. Hoerner and myself.
presided at this meeting.
Dr. Yarwood and Mr. Scott of the University
of California also gave talks.
About 65 growers from the different
hop growing areas of California were in attendance.
Opportunity was
afforded by this trip for conferences with several of the men in the
3
Botany, Plant Pathology, and Genetics Departmenis of the University of
California at Berkeley, California.
Hop roots were sent to the Director of Agriculture, Punjab,
India; Mr. T. Kemura, Darin, Manchuria; and Mr. Homer H. Lew, Tientsin,
China, during the month of February.
A few shoots were showing on early plants in the experimental
yards during the last part of February. A few seedlings in the nursery
were heaved out of the ground during the winter by freezing and
thawing.
No winter injury was noticed in old established hop yards.
During March all missing hills in the breeding yard were filled
in with seedlings from the nursery.
Cuttings were taken from plants
of foreign varieties and these were set in a block in one corner of
the breeding yard.
Foreign varieties had been scattered more or less
at random throughout the breeding: yard and were put in one block so
that more direct comparisons would be made.
The poles in the breeding
yard were straightened and realigned and all trellis wires were
tightened.
Approximately a week was spent during the month of March in
obtaining cost of production records from hop growers.
This work was
in cooperation with the Farm Management Department.
Hop
On March 26, a hop dealers meeting was held at Corvallis.
dealers were given an opportunity to see some of the experimental work
being conducted at Corvallis, particularly that connected with the
drying and chemical analysis experiments. A representative group of
dealers judged samples of hops from the various drying experiments and
their judgment of the physical qualities of the hops was checked with
the chemical analysis which had been determined by Mr. Bailie of the
Chemistry Deportment.
4
Dr. D. C. Smith, who formerly had charge of the hop breeding
project, was in Corvallis from March 26 to March 30 and several
conferences relative to the experimental work were held with him.
The Oregon State Legislature appropriated a small sum of money
for experimental work with hops.
Part of this money was used to
establish an experimental yard for cultural studies.
One portion of
this yard may be available for use as a nursery and for increase plots
in connection with the hop breeding work.
Due to excessive rains during the month of April, spring work
in the experimental hop yard was retarded.
On April 14 the Willamette
River reached the flood stage and nearly all of the experimental yard
was under water from April 14 to April 18.
rater stood on some of the
lower parts of the yard for nearly two weeks.
A few plants were washed
out by the high water but in general very little damage was done.
However, considerable vine growth had started before the flood and
the damp conditions seemed to favor the spread of downy mildew.
Infection of mildew was quite general in the yard before any of the
spring work could be started.
All
On May 3, the hop yard was plowed and hoeing was started.
vines were out back as the majority of the runners had been injured in
cultivation operations.
Another reason for cutting back all vines
was that it was nearly impossible to find runners free from downy
mildew in a great many of the plants.
If these infected shoots are
trained, very few of them will grow into normal plants as the formation
of spikes would stop growth.
Immediately after hoeing the yard was
strung, this work being completed on May 29.
5
Mildew notes were taken on all individual plants in the experimental
yard during the latter part of May and at two later dates.
The notes
taken during the latter part of May showed that twelve per cent of
the plants in the yard were entirely free from mildew.
However, later
in the summer, all seedlings in the yard showed some infection.
The
majority of those plants free from infection in May were on the higher
portions of the yard and had merely escaped infection.
Although no
seedlings were found to be entirely immune to mildew, quite a number
These resistant plants had a small amount of leaf
were resistant.
infection and few or no spikes.
were also infected.
All foreign varieties in the yard
A majority of the foreign varieties seemed to
be as susceptible to downy mildew as Late Clusters and some were even
more susceptible than Early Clusters.
From May 5th to 10th, Mr. A. F. Sievers, Senior Biochemist, of
the Division of Drug and Related Plants, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
was in Corvallis.
May 14 to 17 was spent on a field trip with a farm crops class
in eastern Oregon and the Yakima Valley of Washington.
On this trip
an opportunity was afforded to observe hop yards in the Hermiston,
Oregon, area and in the Yakima Valley.
Growers in these areas were in
general from two weeks to a month late with their spring work because
of wet weather.
In the Yakima Valley some yards were just being
strung while a few other yards were noted in which the vines had
nearly reached the wire.
During the month of June, weather favorable for the spread of
downy mildew occurred periodically.
Spread ofifildew was particularly
6
rapid during the latter part of the month following a series of hard
rains.
Some growers who practiced dusting and good cultural practices,
as well, were able to keep the disease fat* well under control.
Other yards that were not well cared for were practically a total loss.
A large number of Oregon sowers used copper lime dust to combat mildew
and while none were able to secure 100 per cent control, general
observations indicate that the material was of definite value when
properly applied.
During the month of June the plants in the experimental yard
were stripped and suckering and the vines were trained on the wires
twice.
In the variety block one row :each of Late Clusters, Early
Clusters and Fuggles was left without stripping and suckering to see
what the effect would be upon downy mildew infection.
Notes taken
on these plants indicated that stripping and suckering was of great
Those that were not
value in reducing the amount of mildew present.
stripped and suckered had two and three times as much mildew as those
that were stripped and suckered.
However, it was found later in the
season that stripping and suckering had little or noi.effect upon the
yield of hope obtained.
This might not be true in all seasons
but was found to be so during the summer of 1937.
On June 8 and June 15 trips were made to the Independence and
Salem hop growing areas in company with Mr. Roemer. A number of yards
were inspected and mildew specimens collected.
The foreign variety
plots on the Horst Ranch at Independence were visited and some notes
taken.
Satisfactory mildew notes could not be obtained on these plots
removed just
as all plants had been stripped and suckered and &pikes
before our visit.
in these plots.
However, mildew was found in all varieties growing
7
The period from June 17 to 19, inclusive, was spent in company
with Mr. Hoerner on a trip to southern Oregon hop growing areas near
Grants Pass.
Enroute, conferences were held with Mr. O. S. Fletcher,
County Agent of Lane County, and Mr. J. R. Parker, County Agent of
Douglas County, relative to the hops being grown on their respective
oounties.
Mr. O. K. Beals, County Agent of Josephine County, was
contacted in Grants Pass and accompanied us on an inspection trip to
some of the yards in that vicinity.
Cuttings were obtained of some
early maturing male plants that seemed to be somewhat resistant to
downy mildew.
Mildew was causing considerable damage in some southern
Oregon yards while in others that had been dusted and properly cared
for, little damage was noted.
The period from June 22 to 26, inclusive, was spent in company
with Mr. Roemer on a trip to the hop growing areas near Hermiston,
Oregon, and the Yakima and Puyallup Valleys in Washington.
Assistant
County Agent Pierson of Hermiston, Oregon, accompanied us on a tour d
the yards in that vicinity.
This is the only area in Oregon in which
downy mildew has not been found at the present time.
The cultural
practices and the type of trellis used in the Hermiston area areqpito
similar to those found in the Yakima Valley of Washington.
Mildew
specimens were collected in the Yakima Valley for the first time
although growers have reported having some infection during the
early part of the season for several years.
area we had been unable to locate it.
On previous trips to this
A severe wind storm shortly
before our visit caused considerable damage to many of the yards in
the Yakima area.
A visit was made to the Western Washington Experiment
8
Station at Puyallup.
Dr. Huber and Mr. Baur of the Western Washington
Experiment Station were interviewed and they accompanied us on a tour
of some of the yards in that vicinity.
Formerly, nearly all of the
hops in this area were of the Late Cluster variety.
Mildew has become
so general and so severe that all growers who are still in the business
have changed to the Fuggles variety.
Some mildew was found in the
Fuggles yards but the infection was so light that no commercial damage
was expected. A few plants were found in one yard showing some symptoms
of a virus disease.
A very striking fertilizer demonstration was
seen at the Feak Yard near Roy, Washington.
This yard is located on
a peat soil and the hops were showing an amazing response to potash.
Combinations of potash and phosphorus were also showing up very well.
During the month of July, all plants in the experimental yard
were stripped and suckered and training on the wire was completed.
Several thousand controlled pollinations were made, using plants of
the better foreign varieties and seedlings as well as the common
domestic varieties. A few cloth bags were tried in comparison with
the parchment bag ordinarily used.
Observations indicated that the
cloth bag was not as satisfactory as parchment. An experiment was
started to determine the proper stage for pollination. A largo number
of flowers were bagged on the same day and part of those were pollinated
each day, beginning with the first appearance of the stigma and
continuing until the flowers were very definitely beyond the pollination
stage.
Results obtained from this experiment were not very conclusive
as considerable difficulty with aphis was experienced during the latter
part of the pollinating season.
In some cases, aphis became so bed
9
under the bags that the flowers were entirely killed.
Next season it
will be necessary to work out a method for controlling aphis under the
pollination bags.
On July 19, the entire breeding yard was dusted
with a nicotine-lime sulfur dust.
A fair control of aphis was Obtained
in part of the yard, which was dusted quite early in the morning while
the air was very quiet.
In another portion of the yard dusted later
in the morning when there was a slight movement of air, the control
of aphis was very indifferent.
red spider,
This dust was not effective against the
Mildew notes taken during July indicated that all seedlings
However,
in the breeding yard were susceptible to mildew to some extent.
some plants seem to be quite resistant and showed only a very light
leaf infection.
Mildew infection was so severe that a considerable
number of the more susceptible plants were entirely killed by the
disease,
The period from July 21 to 30, inclusive, was spent on a trip
to the hop growing areas of California in company with Mr. Hoerner.
Opportunity was afforded for interviews with several county and state
officials as well as a number of growers in each of the hop growing
areas.
The new portable hop picking machine was inspected on the Horst
Ranch near Sacramento,
Some growers in the Sacramento area were
starting to harvest. A great many of the California yards had
considerable mildew early in the season but at the time of this visit
very little damage could be noticed.
Several good photos of the type
of trellis used, stringing and training methods and cultural practices
in the California yards were obtained.
On the return trip the hop
growing area near Grants Pass was visited and a number of hop growers
interviewed.
10
During the month of August detailed plant notes were taken on
all seedlings in the experimental yard.
Those showing either a high
degree of susceptibility to downy mildew or poor agronamio characters
were marked for discarding.
These poor plants were later dug out
and replaced by seedlings from the nursery,
The first samples of
Late Cluster hops for a stage of maturity test were harvested on
August 2.
Samples from the same plants were harvested at threeday
intervals throughout the remainder of the season.
On August 3, a few
of the very earliest seedlings and foreign varieties were picked.
Other seedlings and foreign varieties were picked as they ripened
during August and September.
From August 8 to 10, Mr. Frank Rabak of
Conferenees
the Division of Drug and Related Plants was in Corvallis.
were held with him relative to display material to be used at the
Brewers/ Convention in Milwaukee later in the fall.
On August 17, a hop growers field day was held at the experimantal
yard.
From ten to twelve A.M. the experimental spray plots were
inspected and Mr. G. R. Hoerner discussed control of downy mildew.
Control of hop insects was discussed by Mr. H. E. Morrison.
From twelve
to two P.M. a luncheon meeting was held at the Benton Hotel in Corvallis.
The writer presided at this meeting.
Short talks were given by
F. E. Price, D. E. Bullies D. D. Hill, and G. TIP. Kuhlman.
Each of these
men presented a brief discussion of the experimental work being
conducted by them on hops.
From two to four P.M. the experimental
hop yards were inspeoted and breeding and cultural experiments were
discussed.
11
The period from August 29 to September 4 was spent on a visit
to the British ColuMbia hop growing areas in company with Mr. Roemer.
A number of the Dominion officials were interviewed in Vancouver.
Mr. Walter Jones, Assistant Plant Pathologist, accompanied us on an
inspection tour of the hop yards in this area.
Arrangements were made
to secure cuttings from some of the British Columbia varieties for
use in the hop breeding work.
The Dominion Experimental Farm at
Saaniohton, Vancouver Island, was visited and several of the experiment
station workers interviewed.
During the latter part of August and first part of September,
the variety plots of hops were harvested.
Some of these bops were used
by the Agricultural Engineering Department in their drying experiments.
The better seedlings and all of the foreign varieties were picked,
dried, and samples saved for chemical analysis.
Some of the later
hops were quite moldy before they could be picked as there was quite
a heavy infestation of aphis and considerable damp weather during
the first part of September.
and dried.
All hand-pollinated seed was harvested
Small bales of foreign varieties and seedlings were
prepared for exhibit and were shipped to Milwaukee for the Master
Brewers' Convention.
During the month of October the old vines were taken off of the
experimental yard.
All hand-pollinated seed was threshed and placed
in cold storage to break it* dormancy so that germination would be
secured in the greenhouse.
over the experimental yard.
A cover crop of crimson clover was seeded
32
During the month of November all greenhouse benches were
cleaned and refilled with fresh soil, sand, and manure.
Hybrid
seed obtained during the summer of 1937 was taken from cold storage
and planted in the greenhouse benches.
These hybrids will be grown
in the greenhouse duing the winter and transferred to the nursery in
the aping of 1938.
Part of the breeding yard was replanted with
seedlings from the nursery to see what the effect of fall planting
would be.
if,these seedlings can be transferred in the fall, the
plants should get an earlier start in the spritng and therefore produee
a larger growth and greater yield of hops during the first season.
A good stand of the crimson clover, used as a cover crop, was obtained,
but the clover seemed to grow rather slowly'.
Noveiber 16 to 18 were spent in company with Mr. Hoerner on a
trip to Portland for the purpose of obtaining data from the office of
the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
Records on individual hop
yards in various sections of the state were secured from the files
in this office.
Fnroute, conferences were held with /*Shill County
officials regarding hop growing in that area.
On November 21 Dr. D. C. Smith, who formerly had charge of the
hop breeding work at Corvallis, called at the office.
Dr. Smith is now
with the Division of Forage Crops and Diseases and is located at
Pullman, Washington.
The majority of time during the month of DeceMber was spent in
oaring for seedlings growing in the greenhouse, and in calculating
data obtained during the 1957 season.
Plans were made for a series of
hop growers meetings to be held in
various hop growing localities
13
of Oregon; California and Washington during the month of January.
The weather was in general quite favorable for growth of the cover
crop planted in the experimental yard.
A fine stand of clover was
obtained but it seems rather doubtful if the clover will produce
sufficient growth by plowing time in the spring to furnish a very
large quantity of organic matter to turn under.
14
Weather Data
Table 1 gives the maximum and minimum temperature, the relative
humidity, and the precipitation in inches by daily periods for the
calendar year of 1937.
These data were obtained from the Soils
Department, of the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station.
These data
are given because of the close association of mildew infection and
humidity and rain fall.
Mildew started rather early in the spring
of 1937 and caused considerable damage during the months of April,
May and June.
During these months, there were frequent showers and
many periods of high humidity.
During the month of July there was
practically no rain and mildew became inactive.
was little if any spread of mildew after July.
In most areas, there
Several humid days
during September were favorable for the development of the type of
mold associated with aphis and honeydew.
Some of the late hops were
damaged considerably by Mold before they could be picked.
15
Table 1
Oregon
1937 Weather Data, Corvallis
Furnished by Soils Dept., Oregon State Agriculture Exp. Sta.
:
s
s
s
s
s
I
: Yrecip- s
February
s
$
: Precip- :
tra13,'
: itation :Relative
1
Temperature
s
:
itation
s
Teiiiiiiire
s
inchestHumidity
Minimumtin
:Maximum
sin
inches:Relative:
:Minimum
:Maximum
s
s
°F.
°F.
:Humidity:
Dates
s
:
°F.
°F.
Date:
s
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
40
35
37
44
39
35
26
30
35
35
38
35
41
45
46
42
44
44
40
38
35
40
38
40
45
41
36
42
37
34
32
27
21
22
33
33
16
11
10
22
24
22
14
21
38
37
30
35
32
26
17
20
31
31
35
30
32
32
32
28
23
20
--
36
1
41
--
72
2
..
73
100
3
4
6
----
57
42
36
30
42
40
45
40
6
40
40
.18
.18
90
30
7
8
9
50
50
100
80
91
10
11
le
13
48
--.64
.50
14
15
48
48
16
47
.81
.40
2.90
.03
.43
.44
.05
--.03
.24
.12
.42
1,22
.58
1.04
.37
WI Mb
2.90
Highest temp., Jan. 14, 450 F.
Lowest temp., Jan. 8, 10° F.
13.48 inches
Total Precipitation
100
100
100
30
35
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
95
89
55
100
.
.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
48
51
50
52
53
45
48
45
.45
52
56
58
55
51
50
54
50
32
34
34
34
33
32
32
34
.33
32
40
36
35
33
31
37
35
33
34
32
41
42
34
35
40
40
35
41
1.96
.39
2.11
2,03
.38
.09
.29
.31
1.54
.18
.25
.74
1.33
2.71
.74
.05
.08
.11
92
96
100
95
91
91
91
96
100
85
96
79
96
71
100
71
100
100
77
85
56
59
59
.15
.07
.02
.08
.31
Highest temp., Feb. 23, 680 F.
Lowest temp., Feb. 15, 31° F.
Total Precipitation - 15.00 inches
57
71
74
79
93
16
Table 1
TCon.7
s
:
:
Mareh
:
:
:
:
s
:
:
April
:PrecipTemperature
:
s
: Precip- :
Temperate
:
Minimum
:Maximum
sitation :Relative
itation
:Relative
:
:Maximum Minimums
°F.
:in inches:Humidity
°F.
°F. sin inches:Humidity :Dates
RP.
Date:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
52
58
61
62
59
56
68
8
65
9
61
61
65
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
67
61
157
65
59
54
49
47
49
55
54
49
54
52
58
60
46
45
36
36
42
35
1.13
.20
.12
.14
33
40
46
42
45
48
50
42
43
45
43
32
37
37
42
38
39
40
56
58
42
38
36
82
59
56
37
46
46
.77
.05
.02
.07
.02
.15
.02
.22
.27
.17
.11
.51
.24
.11
.22
.17
.20
Highest temp., Mar. 7, 68° F.
Lowest temp., Mar. 18, 32° P.
Total Precipitation . 4.91 inches
:
:
:
t
t
100
73
58
56
59
58
75
94
63
66
20
73
87
87
63
75
67
79
63
79
86
86
92
86
80
74
76
74
63
94
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
54
52
55
55
64
58
65
64
58
53
59
59
55
56
53
58
60
61
62
62
57
55
59
63
60
58
56
55
65
69
41
38
40
43
41
38
34
44
45
41
37
45
50
45
40
40
34
44
37
41
37
39
41
38
44
41
34
41
33
37
68
73
81
56
91
60
.63
.21
.79
.23
.12
44
.45
.40
.70
.41
1.10
3.02
2.28
1.08
94
90
67
41
100
.08
.08
97
93
86
63
34
51
53
69
.42
72
.04
65
44
53
74
.18
.28
.23
Highest temp., April 30, 69° F.
Lowest temp., April 29, 33° 7.
Total Precipitation - 12.46 inches
59
82
60
47
47
17
Table 1
7-571:7
June
May
,.7;;Ture
s Precip- s
s
s Precip- s
s
Temperature
Minimums itation sRelative
;Max
:Maximum Minimums itation :Relative s
or,
0.F. tin inchessHnmiditY
0F. sin inobessRumidity :Dates
Dates
°F.
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
28
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
76
82
72
69
64
78
75
88
61
56
62
79
72
69
74
70
68
64
65
70
68
64
77
75
60
67
76
71
83
76
84
40
44
48
45
40
41
47
47
50
46
49
48
.35
.34
.24
1.67
.21
53
50
50
.02
.06
46
42
41
42
87
76
75
50
7
8
69
66
64
66
68
79
77
72
65
61
62
62
62
64
71
61
66
72
81
85
91
94
88
75
.33
51
45
50
42
41
46
Highest temp., May 31, 840 F.
Lowest temp., May 1, 400 F.
322 inches
Total Precipitation
1
2
3
59
9
100
10
11
12
68
57
74
88
52
57
45
47
45
50
49
52
5
6
47
40
45
44
4
91
92
86
86
49
39
66
43
48
42
53
36
38
61
72
49
44
44
42
29
30
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
51
51
57
53
62
22
47
51
60
73
63
54
61
52
54
50
52
55
31
27
19
47
.09
.15
.24
.14
31
47
55
58
55
52
51
58
55
56
55
50
50
46
52
54
56
58
60
56
.04
.07
.19
.40
.74
.79
1.29
.58
.17
.49
.10
52
70
83
66
68
78
89
84
84
61
52
40
39
39
43
.10
Highest temp., June 28, 940 F.
Lowest temp., June 24, 460 F.
Total Precipitation - 5,56 inches
39
72
71
18
Table 1
Con.)
Au
s
t
s Precipe
Tempera
s
s
Temperature
$ Preeip- s
itation :Relative
Minimums
:Maximum
itation
:Relative:
a0-xlmsuelMiniweat
or.
0F. sin inches :Humidity
0F. :in inches:Humiditys Dates
Dates or.
1
2
3
73
80
5
6
7
8
9
86
70
73
79
87
85
81
10
84
11
12
82
80
79
78
82
91
67
77
81
82
82
86
4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
CO
C6
91
89
83
74
79
77
72
55
52
55
59
54
50
55
ST
51
54
54
54
55
59
54
56
56
56
55
55
49
55
55
57
59
60
55
53
56
53
48
48
44
59
61
41
41
30
43
38
56
53
54
48
54
50
45
73
61
41
41
30
46
43
52
Highest temp., July 16, 910 F.
Lowest temp., July 31, 48° F.
Total Precipitation - .07 inches
T - Trace of Preoipitation
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
52
25
26
27
49
48
28
29
47
30
31
44
43
.07
1
2
3
61
72
82
93
92
80
82
80
82
75
77
88
88
81
73
80
89
89
90
86
82
82
80
68
80
81
76
75
69
40
30
43
51
19
35
54
56
54
50
61
52
60
60
59
58
56
48
49
51
61
64
62
4
44
59
48
45
52
29
35
47
51
55
E2
51
50
57
50
51
.18
.06
50
51
48
78
44
48
66
70
50
50
Highest temp., Aug. 3, 93° 7.
Lowest temp., Aug. 1, 43° F.
Total Precipitation - .24 inches
Trace of Precipitation
35
44
38
50
54
60
53
47
55
50
39
49
55
74
83
19
Table 1
mazys
s
1
botOber
$
s
lostember
$
s
Preoip.
s
s
Temperature
:
Temperature s Preoip- s
:
:Relative
sMaximun
Minimums
itation
:Maximum Minimum4 itation 'Relative:
:Humidity
sin
inches
°F.
°F. sin inchessftmiditrs Data:
°F.
°F.
Dates
s
__.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
79
91
75
67
69
79
85
72
77
85
85
79
87
98
82
80
80
76
68
72
69
69
70
68
78
76
74
72
es
63
53
52
54
53
55
52
52
56
58
T
49
56
36
58
65
70
55
46
71
70
54
36
79
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
36
12
13
39
14
51
50
15
16
47
17
56
89
74
49
44
45
42
SO
36
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
58
55
55
55
49
55
57
56
.04
.42
40
43
44
31
38
59
55
53
48
42
47
.56
48
57
44
87
25
26
27
28
29
50
31
Highest temp., Sept. 14, 980 F.
Lowest temp., Sept. 23, 400 F.
1.02 inches
Total Precipitation
- Trace of Precipitation
63
67
65
65
66
70
74
76
77
78
76
79
79
61
66
67
65
63
66
74
79
79
75
70
70
72
89
72
57
56
57
53
46
50
48
43
39
41
47
41
49
44
48
50
51
51
54
55
39
37
49
45
47
47
57
46
46
58
54
52
48
42
.42
.26
82
72
78
44
54
41
40
42
47
59
52
47
.20
.01
.24
.63
7
.01
Al
7
.11
.19
.27
.24
Highest temp.* Oct. 12, 790F.
Lowest temp., Oct. 19, 370 F.
Total Precipitation - 2.59 inches
68
83
94
89
72
52
53
53
51
51
94
66
74
66
87
100
88
94
87
20
Table 1
rdai:)
s
s
December
s
s
s
Novemler
s
s
s Precips
Tempera%ure
s
s Precip- s
Temperature
*Maximum Minimums itation *Relative
*Maximum Minimums itation *Relatives
°F. sin inches :Humidity
°F.
°F. sin inchessHumidity: Dates
Dates
°F.
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
65
61
59
60
59
53
51
55
51
53
52
54
58
54
51
57
55
55
56
61
53
53
53
49
56
51
56
59
51
44
41
46
41
46
46
34
41
49
45
46
45
42
47
47
46
47
47
49
44
49
39
45
47
42
47
39
48
48
36
30
T
.15
T
.13
.57
1.32
.70
.43
.21
,26
.30
.10
.19
67
83
76
76
87
74
1
93
93
86
93
93
75
81
7
8
9
86
93
.18
88
82
.20
1.19
1.28
100
100
87
.01
93
1.29
.0e
87
100
93
80
87
87
86
.01
92
91
.46
.31
.33
.01
T
Highest temp., Now. 1, 65° F.
Lowest temp., Nov. 30, 30° F.
Total Precipitation - 9.71 inches
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
38
53
50
52
47
42
46
41
40
59
59
60
54
57
53
51
56
58
50
41
42
42
40
40
41
48
30
34
43
37
29
29
32
29
35
37
52
49
42
48
7
T
.37
.78
.93
.36
.02
.30
39
46
49
35
.46
.26
100
86
75
100
84
100
91
91
100
100
100
88
100
87
80
94
74
67
32
92
33
33
32
29
2.52
100
92
100
100
90
83
100
90
100
100
.82
.01
86
92
32
33
53
38
41
49
48
44
47
31
52
59
54
T
.37
.05
.56
.14
1.00
2.16
.26
Highestimwp., Dec. 12, 60° F.
Lowest temp., Dec. 5, 290 F.
11.17 inches
Total Precipitation
21
Varietal:Yields
Yields from the variety blocks of Late Clusters, Early Clusters,
Table 2 gives a
Red Vines, and Fuggles are given in Tables 2 and 3.
summary of the yields obtained from these varieties.
Fairly high
yields of dry hops were obtained from all varieties in spite of the
fact that mildew infection was quite heavy during the early part of
Early flusters ranked second only to Late Clusters in yield,
the season.
whichie surprising in view of the fact that Early Clusters are mush
more susceptible to mildew than either Red Vines or Fuggles.
Early
Clusters were heavily infected during the early part of the summer
but the mildew was checked by dry weather soon enough for the Early
Clusters to make considerable late growth and produce a good yield.
The yields of the individual rows in the variety block are
given in Table 3.
The yields of some rows were influenced slightly
Experiments on
by the treatment received by the individual rows.
suckering and stripping were conducted on these plots.
The treatment received by each row as well as the data obtained
are given in Table 4.
The amount of mildew was greater in all varieties
and rows when either or both the suckers and lower leaves and arms
were left on.
Therefore, it would appear that suckering and stripping
are quite beneficial, particularly early in the season, from a mildew
control viewpoint.
The differences in yield between the different
treatments were not great.
In nearly all cases
the difference in
yield between the treated row and the cheek is within the range of
experimental error.
Therefore, it is doubtfUl if the work of suckering
and stripping paid for itself during the 1937 season.
22
Table 2
S umiaty of Variety Yields - 1931
Variety
Dry Wt.
per Plot
Dry
Hops
Ave. Tie d
per Plant. Lbs.
*Yield per
Acre
Late Clusters
320.9
27
3.00
2,040.0
Early Clusters
397.2
30
2.92
1,985.6
42.3
28
2.65
1,802.0
291.8
29
1.74
1,183.2
Red Vines
Fuggles
*Yields per acre are given in pounds of dry hops
23
Table 3
Varietal Yields - 1937
Fuggles
No. of
Plants
per row
Lbs. of
Dry Hops
Per Rot
Ave. Yield
per plant
Lbs.
Yield per acre
per row
Lbs.
27
34
36
56
13
14
15
15
31.8
28.5
26.6
33.9
30.4
24.1
19.5
17.7
20.5
19.5
19.9
19.6
291.5#
2.27
1.89
26
14
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
1,543.4
1,285.2
1,292.0
1,545.6
1,475.6
1,169.6
1,020.0
924.8
1,074.4
945.2
904.4
890.8
Row
No.
7
8
9
16
17
18
25
1.90
2.42
2.17
1.72
1.50
1.36
1.58
1.59
1.33
1.31
Early Clusters
4o. 0
Row
110.
4
6
6
13
14
15
22
23
24
31
32
33
Plants
per row
12
13
12
13
13
10
11
9
10
13
9
11
s
Dry Hops
Per Row
Ave. Y e
per plant
Lbs.
37.8
58.7
30.2
39.6
39.1
28.6
32.9
33.3
28.2
34.8
22.3
31.7
3.16
2.98
2.62
3.06
3.01
2.86
2.99
3.70
2.80
2.68
2.48
2.88
397.21
e d per aore
per row
Lbs.
2,142.0
2,026.4
1,713.6
2,074.0
2,046.8
1,944.8
2,033.2
2,516.0
1,904.0
1,822.4
1,686.4
1,958.4
24
Table 3
7711.7r
Late Clusters
ilal.1110*
....101.001
Row
No.
1
2
3
10
11
12
19
20
21
No. of
Plants
per rows
11
12
13
11
13
14
11
10
12
Lbs. of
Dry Hope
Per Row
Ave. Yield
per plant
Lbs.
Yield per gore
per row
Lbs,
33.3
32.8
59.0
36.4
34.6
3.03
2.73
3.00
3.31
2.66
3.33
2.82
3.08
3.03
2,060.4
1,856.4
2,040.0
2,250.8
1,808.8
2,264.4
1,917.6
2,094.4
2,060.4
46.6
31.0
30.8
36.4
320.94
Red Vines
Row
No
14
15
No. of
Plants
er row
8
8
tbs. of
Dry Hops
Per Row
Ave. Yield
per plant
field per acre
per raw
Lbs,
Lba.
20.8
21.5
2.60
2.69
14768.0
14829.2
4244
25
Table 4
Effect of Stripping and Suckering on Mildew and Yield - 1937
Late Clusters
Treatment
Ave. no. spikes per plant
Basal
tipper plant
Ave. Leafy Yield per
Infection
Acre. Lbs.
Not suckered or stripped 16.50
leheek
.73
16.10
9.40
2.8
1.5
1,856.4
2,050.2
Suckered only
Cheek
6.20
14.15
10.33
1.9
1.5
1,808.8
2,257.6
Stripped only
Cheek
3.93
15.54
9.92
3.0
1.9
2,094.4
1,989.0
.34
.62
Early Clusters
Not Suckered or
stripped
Check
43060
.89
27.80
18.96
3.1
2.1
2,026.4
1,927.8
Suckered only
Cheat
7.14
2.13
16.88
13.24
2.3
2.4
2,046.8
2,009.4
Stripped only
Check
3.57
13.64
10.37
2.4
2.3
2,516.0
1,968.6
10.13
6.14
1.6
.04
1,285.2
1,417.8
.67
Fuggles
Not suckered or
stripped
Check
11.90
.64
Suckered only
Cheek
3..47
.04
6.67
4.60
.9
.2
1,475.6
1,407.6
Stripped only
Check
.87
.33
2.47
3.21
.3.
.2
924.8
1,047.2
1. Two cheek rows were left for each treated plot.
The data given
is an average of the two roars «
All cheek plots were suckered and stripped.
2. Individual plants were classified in groups from 0 to 4 for leaf
infection. 0 indicates no 'infection while 4 indicates very
heavy infection.
26
Seedling and Foreign Variety Data
A summery of the data taken on the 43 seedlings harvested in
1937 is given in Table 5.
Only those seedlings that appeared
promising in one or more characters were harvested. A few seedlings,
as, for example, 62 -31, were high yielding, seemed to be somewhat
mildew resistant, and had a high chemical analysis.
Other seedings
were harvested because they possessed one of these characters or were
early in maturity.
Although many of these seedlings may not be desirable
as new varieties, they may be valuable breeding stock.
Therefore
they were harvested so that all possible information could be obtained
from them.
Yields and other notes obtained from 35 foreign varieties are
given in Table 6.
None of these foreign varieties appear promising
for commercial production in the Pacific Coast states, but some have
desirable characteristics that make them valuable as breeding stock.
As many notes as possible were taken on these varieties to determine
just what their characteristics are.
Table 5
Seedlings Picked 1937 - Ranked According to Yield
Plant
Number
52-31
97-24
84-16
69-32
42-6
90-30
51-8
25-3
4-33
26-12
243
52-26
98-31
49-26
69-22
73-27
46-4
76-4
66-29
48-20
88-5
82 -26
51 -28
77-13
70-24
45-27
Variety
Name
F-S
X-S
LC-8
F-S
F-S
X-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
LC-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
x -S
X-S
F-S
X-S
LC-S
F-S
LC x F-S
X-S
X-S
X-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
Date
Picked
9/8
9/15
9/7
9/8
9/8
8/24
8/18
9/9
9/8
9/1
8/24
9/3
8/25
8/18
9/2
8/26
9/9
8/18
6/24
g/3
9/i
8/25
8/25
9/8
9/2
8/26
1/18
Odor of Cone
Strong, rather pleasant
Very strong, unpleasant
Strong, unpleasant
Very strong, unpleasant
Strong, rather pleasant
Medium, pleasant
Strong, rather pleasant
Very strong, unpleasant
1937 (1)
Mildew
Notes
1936 Data
Chemical Analysis
total %
total %
alpha resin
soft resin
Dry Wt.
in Lbs.
Dry
Hops
5.2
24
SL3
29
31
28
27
30
220
17.3
14.0
310
12.7
4.6
4.4
3.75
3.75
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.1
Strong, rather pleasant
3.0
Strong, unpleasant
2.9
Very strong, unpleasant
2.9
Strong* unpleasant
2.9
2.8
Very strong, unpleasant
Strong, pleasant
2.8
Rather strong, unpleasant 2.8
Strong, rather pleasant
2.7
Medium pleasant
2.7
Strong, pleasant
2.45
Strong, unpleasant
2.4
Very strong, pleasant
2.4
Medium unpleasant
2.4
Strong, unpleasant
2.35
Peculiar strong unpleasant 2.2
Strong, unpleasant
2.1
2.0
Strong, rather pleasant
2.0
Very weak
3.6
.32
.82
SL5
SL
26
31,
23
24
27
23
22
27
29
21
S4!3
S1L5
85L4
L3
S3L3
82L1
82L3
Trace L
sa
27
19
L
84L3
22
26
23
26
27
22
Plant was very mildew resistant but it shed its leaves very early
(1) Mildew notes show most severe attack on plant during season
(None)
2.9
2.4
15.6
(Trace)
11.2
1.8
SO-
27
24
24
10.8
17.2
17.6
L2
11.4
.45
85L4
SL
L2
S3L4
SLl
SL
S21,2
16.8
3.0
Yield per
acre - Lbh.
3,536
3,128
2,992
2,550
2,550
2,380
2,312
2,244
2,108
2,040
1,972
1,972
1,972
1,904
1,904
1,904
1,836
1,836
1,666
1,632
1,632
1,632
1,598
1,496
1,428
1,360
1,360
111
Table 5
rCon.r
1936 Da,.
1937 (1)
Plant
Number
Variety
Name
49-32
67-16
44-27
F-S
F-S
69 -31
F-S
LC-S
F-8
62-27
26-32
80.41
43.40
62-33
67-29
82-20
67-17
82-24
51 -22
77-10
100..7
Date
Picked
0
0
0
0
9/3
9/8
6/18
8,/3
Cal-S
F -S
9/15
F-S
6/424
X-8
RV-S
X-8
F-S
6/25
6/18
8/3
8/3
0
9/7
Odor of Cane
Dry Vt.
in Lbs.
Dry
Hops
Mild, pleasant
Rather strong, unpleasant
Strong, unpleasant
c
pleasant
P
Medium
Strong, unpleasant
Pleasant, strong
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.6
Pleasant, -mild
1.4
1.4
23
23
23
26
25
25
25
24
22
25
23
24
30
25
26
19
Strong, unpleasant, oily
Strong, pleasant
Strong, unpleasant
Strong, unpleasant
Pleasant, strong
Strong, unpleasant
Pleasant, strong
Strong, unpleasant
1.3
1.25
1.1
1.0
.8
.5
.4
(1) Mildew notes show most severe attack on plant during season.
Mildew
Notes
Chemical
total %
soft resin
total %
alpha resin
Ll
SL1
12.6
.62
L3
L2
0142
11.8
20.3
13.0
.62
2.3
19.3
3.7
.43
SL
L3
SL1
L2
S1.
81.1
81L3
SL
S2L1
Yield per
acre - Lbs.
1,292
1,224
1,224
1,156
1,156
1,020
1,020
952
962
884
850
748
680
544
340
77272
Table 6
1937 Foreign Varieties Ranked According to Yield
9
Dry
Vt.
1937
Mildew
Notes
3.2
2.95
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.85
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.45
23
650
1.45
29
Actual
Plant
Variety
Date
.Name.
Ficke
8/26
8/26
9/8
9/1
9/7
29..30
Bavarian
Landhopfer (Simon)
Early Green
Samling (Salmon)
Spalter (Rhomer)
Calif. Cluster
Bergunder (Simon)
Alma** (Urbann)
Spalt (Urbann)
Samling (Urbann)
Tige Blanche
Millers Resistant
Elassar
Golden Cluster
East Kent Golding
Kent Golding
Late Grape
1043 & 6
Auscher Rote
9/7
Semsta
8/18
Belgian Fuggles*
Strisfselspalter*
8/20
Golding
Nrsabor.
16-12
42-24
3-9
23-11
98-20
65-8
96-27
21-11
37-25
41-6
96-3
28-3
93-8
67-24
63-23
88-31
8/25
8/3
9/2
9/i
8/20
8/18
8/25
9/7
8/24
8/25
8/24
Odor of Cones
Strong, unpleasant
Medium, strong
Strong, rather pleasant
unpleasant
rather pleasant
unpleasant
Strong, unpleasant
Strong, rather pleasant
Rather strong, pleasant
Medium strong, pleasant
Strong, pleasant
Mild unpleasant
Very strong, unpleasant
Strong, pleasant
Mild unpleasant
Strong, Unpleasant
/unpleasant
Exceptionally strong
Dry Wt.
in Lbs.
26
26
25
29
25
27
31
25
26
24
26
22
28
25
20
23
Chemica-f-Ana lysis
tota,%
total %
soft resin
alpha resin
21.3**
15,6**
17.4
16.2**
15.5**
7.5**
4.4**
4.4
4.6**
4.2**
19.1
17.1**
4.1
3.2**
4.5**
5.4**
1.2
Compu e
(dry yield)
Lbs.
Per Acre
14.9**
18.5**
16.2**
3.9**
19.9**
5.0**
2,176
2,006
1,972
1,768
1,768
1,632
1,428
1,360
1,258
1,224
1,224
1,224
1,190
1,156
1,156
1,020
986
S4L4
14.1**
2.9**
986
S30
13.4**
.7**
884
S2L3
81L
S4L4
S2L2
810
82L3
33L3
s11,2
14.9 **
81L3
82L3
8L3
8L3
L2
Ll
32L1
16.6**
14.5
5.8**
.5**
96-'9
& 12
1.3
29
9/2
Very strong, unpleasant
Strong, somewhat
pleasant
Rather strong, pleasant
1.3
1.2
25
43
8/3
Medium unpleasant
1.1
30
26 -4
& 13
41-4,
10,11
& 13
95-28
610
884
816
SL2
L2
15.1
1.2
748
tv
to
Table 6
Con
3
Variety
Name
Plant
Number
94-17
Tettnanger (Frith)
& 19
Spalter
92-9
96.42 Spalter (Simon)
95-16 Verte (Jagger)
Brewers Favorite
18 -8
22-2, Belgian (Spelt)*
Date
Picked
8/26
8/ie
sits
8/ko
8/20
Odor of Cones
%
1937
Dry
Wt.
Mildew
Notes
3.1
16.8**
16.1
5.4**
1.2
.9
.8
23
25
8L1
L2
SL2
S1L1
81L4
S2L3
15.1
.95
.95
23
25
25
23
.5
.5
.5
26
25
26
311.1
13.4**
.7**
340
340
340
.4
25
23
28
25
82L3
13.4**
15.1**
15.1**
13.4**
.7**
1.2**
1.2**
272
204
136
136
Actual
Dry Wt.
in Lbs.
Strong, unpleasant
Strong, pleasant
Medium pleasant
Strong, unpleasant
pleasant
*
Strong, pleasant
Chemical Analysis_
total X
total %
al ha resin
soft resin
Computed
(dry yield)
Lbs.
Per Acre
1.0
1.0
680
680
646
646
612
544
3,5,
& 6
95-3
92-6
24-2,
Semsch
Spalter
Belgian Schotsinger
8/18
8/3
Semsch
Golding
Golding
Semsch
8/6
8/3
8/le
8/6
4,119
95-8
95-29
94-25
95-4
Mild, weak
Weak, rather unpleasant
Strong, somewhat
pleasant
Mild, weak
Medium unpleasant
Strong unpleasant
Very weak
.3
.2
.2
8113
83L3
811,2
SL1
831.2
.7**
First year plants
** Different plants of this variety pioked in 1937
(1) Mildew notes show most severe attack on plant during season
S Spike
*
L Leaf infection
ov
31
Mildew Notes on Foreign Varieties
Mildew notes taken on individual plants of all foreign
varieties on May 28, 1937, are given in Table 7.
It will be noted
that the amount of infection varied on the different plants of the
same variety.
This variation is likely due to at least two factors;
first, because of favorable location some plants escaped heavy infection,
and second, some of the foreign varieties are not pure genetically.
In these mixed varieties, some plants are genetically more resistant
than others.
Notes were therefore taken on individual plants to
determine which were most resistant, so that these could be used in
breeding work.
32
Table 7
Mildew Notes on Foreign Varieties of Hops
Notes Taken 3/28/37
Variety
1. Ellassar
Plant
1-1
10-34 8
93-4
93-6
93-6
93-7
93-8
93-9
93-10
94-4
94-6
94-6
94-7
94-11
94-12
94-13
11-32 8
11-33
11-34
Mildew s
Plant
Mildew
3. Spalter
2-2
91-3
91-7
91-8
91-9
92-6
92-9
92-12
92-13
S5L5
23L1
S1L
S5L4
S4L5
S2L
L3
.
L
S3L1
S4L2
84L3
85L5
siL2
L
None
LI
4. Neo-Nexioana
s21,3
2-6
3-6
83L3
L5
all parts
milS5L
dewe5 d some
5-4
6-6
9-3
18-3
S2L
S1L2
81L2
S5L4
S5L5
820
5. Late Grape
2. Early Green Hop
1-12
3-9
4-7
4-32
7-31
8-6
8-33
9-1
12-1
12-30
18-8
17-12
23-31
71-6 S
72-5
Variety
None
sl
S5L5
01,42
S4L2
S51,5
mildew very bad
82L3
85L4
mildew very bad
S5L5
S2L2
S L2
S2L3
2-30 8
3-30 8
28-30 8
29-30 8
88-6 S
89-19 S
89-24 S
89-33 8
29-2 8
all spikes
84L5
L5
None
Nom
SQL
L2
33
Table 7
76;27)
Variety
Mildew
Plant
6. East Kent
4-30 S
4-34 S
S
5-33 S
53-32 S
53-33 S
89-27
89-28
90-27
91-24
91-26
91-27
91-28
91-33
5 -31
:
Variety
Mildew
Plant
8. Bavarian - Con.
S31,5
17-5
17-6
341,3
s2L5
17-7
331,2
17-8
S31,2
mildew very bad
killed by mildew
17-9
S2L3
S20
17-10
S2L3
MOM
S1L3
18-4
None
9. Spilter (Simon)
9-34 S
None
95-20
None
95-21
None
95-22
None
95 -27
None
None
82
95-30
S 1L5
96 -31
7. Millar's Resistant
6-29
28-2
28-3
28-4
28 -5
28-7
28-8
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S2L3
L2
L3
S1L2
L2
L2
96-31
96-22
20-32 S
None
19-10
88-7
88-29
88-31
58-28
LO
S3L3
S L
82L
L2
83L4
10. Kent Golding
8
S
8
S
321,3
8. Bavarian
7-30 S
7-32 S
16-2
16-3
16-4
16-5
16-6
16-7
16-9
16-10
16-11
16-12
17-2
17-3
17-4
killed 11. Alsace (Urbann)
20-4
by mildew
21-5
S51,4
21-11
351,5
L4s3
21-12
sti
21-13
53-6
S4
53-7
S3L3
65-17 S
S3L3
65-18 8
S3L3
66-2 S
S3L3
S510
85111
mildew bad
8215
66-3
67-1
67-2
67-4
S
S
S
S
S1L3
L2
S3L3
S2L3
S3L3
811,2
840
S2L3
S
S2L2
L2
L2
34
Table 7
Con.
Variety
Mildew
Plant
12. East Kent Golding
20-13 8
25-31 8
33-32
34-8 8
41-17 S
63-23 8
63-30 S
68-31 8
69-12 S
75-23 8
81-13 8
81-26
81-31 8
81-32 8
31L1
-S 3L3
Li
82L3
None
None
sl
83L2
81L
L
L2
Plant
Mildew
14. Golden Cluster - Con.
821,3
66-23 $
Ll
66-25 S
66-275
8L
66-28 S
67-28 S
88-3
88-8
89-3
89-5
89-6
89-7
89-9
S L
None
Li
821.1
82L
811.
89.010
89-4 8
851.2
15. Landhopfer (Simon)
13. Samling (Salmon)
23-6
23-9
23-11
23-13
24-12
shly3
85L4
84L4
830
S3L4
S2L4
82L5
s2L3
2443
25-8
27-8
28-9
28-11
14. Golden Cluster
26-32
26-31
67-20
67-21
67-22
67-23
67-24
67-25
66-22
S 3L3
Variety
L3
83L5
8
S
8
8
S
8
8
S
S
4
82L3
S1142
.00
L2
S L2
L5
29-12
SO-11
31-13
32-8
33-13
35-10
35-12
36-9
36-10
36-12
36-13
39-17
42-5
42-8
42-9
42-15
42-21
42-24
42-25
42-28
42-32
83L3
SAL3
L3
830
s3L3
sPL4
S3L4
S4L4
s4y4
840
820
L4
s4y3
:g:
840
88:t:
35
Table 7
77272:)--
Variety
Plant
16. Spalt (Urbana)
37-16
37-24
37-25
37-29
37-30
37-31
38-3
38-6
38-21
61-19 S
61-20 S
17. Samling (Urbana)
40-8
40-25
40-32
41-6
41-24
Mildew :
Variety
310
19. Brewer's Gold
19-2
19.4
19-4
L3
19 -5
321,2
S2L5
19-6
19-7
19-8
S
L3
L4
L2
S2L3
18-6
18-7
18-8
18-9
18-10
18-11
18-12
48 -21
48-22
48-25
48-27
Mildew
84L3
84L3
85L5
st4
20. liumphrya
S1L2
S1L2
L4
S1L5
L2
810
L3
18.:Brewere Favorite
18..5
Plant
20-2
20-3
20-4
20-5
20-6
20-7
20-8
20-9
20-10
48-13
48-16
mildew bad
SL3
1
S4L5
S4L5
S5L5
S2L4
L2
LP
L2
mildew bad
21. Spalt
L2
S3L4
S1L4
slL2
sly3
22-2
22.3
22-4
S3L4
-S3L4
S L3
-L4
22-6
22-7
22-8
22-9
22-11
22-13
22 -5
s11,4
L3
L3
840
LS
S5L4
S 5L5
551,5
36.
Table 7
671E7Y.
Variety
Plant
Mildew :
22. Lublin
23-3
23-4
:;t:
23 -6
8.5144
23-8
23-10
S5L4
85L4
Variety
Plant
28. Fuggles (Belgium)
26-2
26-3
26-4
26-5
26-6
26-8
Mildew
L2
L5
iil
531,3
26 -9
23. Belgian #1
59-28
24. Striefselspalter Hopfen
41-1
41-2
41-4
41..7
41-9
41-10
41-11
41-12
41-13
25. Sohetzinger
24-2
24-4
24-5
24-6
2448
24-9
24-10
26. Belgian # 31
25-2
25-4
25-5
None
2643
L1
S L2
S L2
-S L3
S2L2
S L
S2L3
L 2
830
840
0
-01.0
S1L2
S2L3
540
840
S50
S3L4
27. Cal. Cluster
63-2
64-3
65-2
65-4
65-5
65-8
66-6
26-10
26-11
L3
S
L2
L2
None
511,2
04
Or II
Non6r
67-6
8
27-2
27-3
27-4
27-6
27-7
27-10
27-11
27-12
27-13
ai
32L4
L4
311,3
Sii
33L5
-34134
L2
29. Spalter Rohmer)
67-30 8
67-33 S
97-4
97-7 S
9 7-9 $
97-11 8
97-20 S
97.22 S
97-23 8
97-28 8
97-29 S
97-32 S
98-4
98-6
98-7
98-10
98-19
98-20
98-21
98-27
98-30
-None
S
None
82
S1L
None
S
--
Nona
S L
S
8213
821,1
82y
81
N2ne
S41.
L2
si
S2L1
37
Table 7
t
Variety
Mildew t
Plant
30. Fuggles (Belgian)
75-21 S
75-22 8
76-17 3
88-12 8
89-26 S
Variety
Plant
Mildew
94-24
94-25
24-26
95-28
95-29
96-30
82L
Ll
None
None
81L
S3L2
34. Golding
s2L1
L
None
None
None
31. Burgunder
85-1 S
96-4
96-5
96-6
96-7
96-8
96-9
96-11
96-13
96-15
96-17
96-20
96-21
96-22
96-23
96-25
96-26
96-27
96-29
S2L
84L3
S5L4
::t1
S2L3
S
83L3
S1
00
S
S
S
S
91 -26;8
82L2
S31,2
S2L4
S3L3
Li
S31,2
3 L1
s4L3
31
95-9
95-12
95-13
96-10
None
83
None
82L
36. Vert* (Jagger)
95-16
95-17
97-2
Ll
None
None
37. Tige Blanche (Jagger)
96-3
00
s41,4
S2L
S2L3
S31,2
None
None
None
sl
38. Ausoher Rote
104-3
104-4
104-5
104-6
39. MUblvertler grune
104-10
104-11
104-12
91-29 S
91-31 S
91-32 S
33. Tettnanger Frith
94-17
94-19
94-22
95-14
95-19
95-3
95-4
95-5
95-6
95-8
s2L1
32.M-45
91-17
91-18
91-20
91-22
35. Sefteh
L
None
82L2
sl
S
8
38
General Notes an Better Seedlings
During the season various plant notes were taken on the better
appearing seedlings to indicate the time of maturity, mildew resistance,
and general characteristics.
These notes were used as a basis for
selecting the female plants to be harvested, and for selecting both
males and females for breeding work.
These notes will be particularly
helpful in selecting plants for crossing in 1938.
The flower stage
at the time the notes were taken indicate to some extent the earliness
or lateness of the female plants.
over a considerable period.
Male plants ordinarily shed pollen
For breeding purposes as well as general
utility in commercial yards, it is desirable to have male plants shed
pollen over a long period of time.
Considerable variation was found
among the various male plants in this respect.
Some plants shed
pollen for only a few days while others shed pollen over a period of
6 to 6 weeks.
Summaries of the notes taken on the better seedlings
are given in Tables 8 and 9.
Notes on some of the female plants appearing to have particular
characteristics making them valuable as parent stock are given in
Table 10.
These plants will be used for crossing in 1938.
Some
were selected because of their mildew resistance, and some because
of high yield, and high quality.
These plants will be crossed with
types having other desirable characteristics in an attempt to
produce new varieties carrying all of the desirable characteristics
developed to a high degree.
Notes taken on some of the earlier maturing male and female
39
plants on June 24, 1937 are given in Table 11.
These notes were
taken to determine which of the early plants should be used for
breeding work.
Some crosses among early maturing types are being
made' as it would be desirable to have an improved early variety.
At present two early maturing varieties, Early Clusters and Fuggles,
are grown on the Pacific Coast.
The Early Clusters variety is high
in yield and quality but lacks mildew resistance.
The Fuggles variety
has considerable mildew resistance but is low in yield and produces
All early
hops with an aroma and flavor not desired by many brewers.
variety possessing high yield and quality as well as mildew resistance
would be received quite favorably by hop growers in general.
Table 8
Notes on Better Female Seedlings
Notes taken July 12, 13 and 14, 1937, except as noted below
Plant
No.
2-31
2-33
4.33
10-33
26-12
38-18
42 -6
43-20
44-27
45-27
45-15
46-4
48-20
48-33
49-28
49 -32
51 -8
51-22
Variety
Name
Year
Planted
Cal-S
OSC-S
X-S
F-S
F-S
LC x FS
X-S
F-S
F-S
1932
1932
1932
1932
1932
1933
1932
1932
1932
1936
1932
1932
1932
1935
1932
1932
F-S
F-S
1932
1932
F-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
LC-8
X-S
F -S
X-S
51-28
F-S
51-29
X -8
52-2
X-8
52-26
52-28 (49-28-R) F-S
F-S
52-31
1936
1935
1932
1932
1935
1932
Stage
of
Flowers
0
0-1
0
0 -1
0
3
0
3-4
0-1-2
0-1
0
0-1
0-1=i2
0-1-2
1-2-3
stage 5 to i in
hops
3
stage 5 to i in
hops
0
4-5
0
0-1
4-5
0
Mildew
Notes
Taken
5/28/37
Mildew
Notes
Taken
7/1/37
None
L3
S1L5
S3L4
S L2
S31,2
L1
None
S L
L1
S L
S L
S Ll
L2
L2
82L3
S Li
S2L3
L2
S2L3
L1
L1
Lg
L2
S51,4
S11.
Lg
L1
LA
81L3
S L1
S3L4
s1L3
L1
L2
s1L2
iN
WIL3
S L3
S L3
S1L
S L
General Notes
Fairly good plant, but not well branched
n
n
n
*
n
*
n
Quite good plant, but not too well branched
Good plant and well branched
Very good plant and well branched
Good plant. Long arms and well branched
very good plant, long arms and well branched
tt
"
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Very
St
"
M
M
ft
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
"
"
plant, few long arms and well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
plant, few long arms and well branched
plant, many long arms and well branched
good plant, many long arms and well branched
plant, many long arms and well branched
good plant, many long arms and well branched
Very good plant, many long arms and well branched
Fair plant, few long arms and not well branched
Good plant, few long arms and well branched
Fair plant, few long arms and not well branched
Good plant, few long arms and well branched
Very good plant, many long arms and very well branched
Fair plant, some long arms and well branched
Exceptionally good plant, great many long arms and
exceptionally well branched
Table 8
TO077)---
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
54-32 (2-33-a) F-S
54-33 (2-33-0 F-S
X-S
56-6
56-7
56-16
56-33
58-16
58-17
62-27
62-33
63-17
63-19
65-12
66-29
67-9
67-16
67-17
61-29
69-22
X-S
F-S
X-S
F-S
F-S
LC-8
X-S
F-S
LC-S
LC-S
F-S
LC-S
F-S
RX-S
F-S
X-S
Year
Planted
1935
1935
1936
1932
1933
1936
1932
1933
1932
1936
1933
1932
1932
1933
1932
1933
1936
1933
1935
Stage
of
Flowers
Mildew
Notes
Taken
5/28/37
Mildew
Notes
Taken
7/1/37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-1
0
0
S L
S L2
S L2
821,8
L2
84L3
S2L3
L2
L3
0
None
None
None
L2
s2L2
S L2
S3L3
S L2
L3
L3
L1
L3
L2
L2
Sly1
S L
None
None
None
S L
S Ll
S L3
S L2
L2
L2
L3
S1L3
S L3
Ll
S2L2
S Ll
General Notes
Good plant, some long arms and well branched
Good plant, some long arms and not well branched
Fair plant, many long arms and well branched
Fair plant, many long arms, well branched
Fair plant, few long arms, not well branched
Good plant, some long arms, not well branched
Fair plant, few long arms, not well branched
Good plant, many long arms, quite well branched
Good plant, many long arms, not well branched
Good plant, many long arms, well branched
Very good plant, some long arms, quite well branched
Fair plant, some long arms, quite well branched
Rather poor plant, some long arms, not well branched
Very good plant, many long arms, very well branched
Fair plant, some long arms, not well branched
Fairly good plant, my long arms and well branched
Fair
plant, few long arms, not well branched
S1L
Fair
plant, few long arms, not well branched
S Ll
Good
plant, many long arms and well branched
(Bare trace
of L)
(Res is11,.
69 -32
70-7
70-24
71-11
72-32
73-11
71,2?
F-S
X-S
F-S
F-S
X-S
X-S
X-S
1934
1936
1933
1932
1936
1933
1933
0
0
0
0
0
S
8) 3
s11,2
S Ll
S L3
821,2
SLR
Very
Good
Very
Fair
Good
Good
Very
good plant, many
plant, many long
good plant, many
plant, many long
plant, many long
plant, many.long
good plant, many
long arms, very well branched
arms and well branched
long arms, very well branched
arms, not well branched
arms and well branched
arms and well branched
long arms, very well branched
Table 8
7701:)
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
76-4
76-11
77-9
X -S
77-10
F-S
77-12
77-29
80-21
X -S
80-24
81-30
82-20
82-24
82-26
84-16
87-32
88-5
90-30
98-31
100-6
F-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
X-S
X-S
X-S
X-S
X-S
LC-S
LC-S
X-S
X-S
F-S
Elassar -S
Year
Planted
Stage
of
Flowers
Mildew
Notes
Taken
5/28/37
1932
3
1933
1932 stage 3 to 1 in.
hops
1932 stage 3 to 1 in.
hops
1935
0-1
1932
1932 stage 5 to 1 in.
hops
2-3
1935
0
1936
1936
0
1933 1/16 to 1 in. hops
1933
2-3
1933
0-1
1932
0
1932
1936
3
0-1
1933
0
1936
None
None
S
S2L1
None
S2L3
None
No
Sl
None
S
s41,3
None
None
s2L1
L1
Mildew
Notes
Taken
7/1/37
General Notes
Very good plant, many long arms, very well branched
Good plant, many long arms, quite well branched
Bare trace Fairly good plant, few long arms, not well branched
of L (Basis)
L
Fair plant, some long arms, not well branched
L
L
S1L1
L
L
s11,3
S1L
L2
L2
L2
S L3
S L3
S L
S L
L2
S L1
Fair plant, many
Fair plant, some
Very good plant,
branched
Good plant, many
Fair plant, some
Good plant, many
Good plant, many
Good plant, many
Good plant, many
Good plant, many
Very good plant,
Very good plant,
Very good plant,
Good plant, many
long arms quite well branched
long arms not well branched
many quite long arms, well
quite Tong arms, not well branched
long arms, not well branched
very long arms, very well branched
very long arms, very well branched
very long arms, very well branched
long arms, very well branched
long arms, very well branched
many long arms, very well branched
many long arms, very well branched
many long arms, very well branched
quite long arms, well branched
Table 9
1937 Data on Better Male Plants
1937
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
I-S
0-33
F.453-31
4-30 East-Kent - S
8-31
F-S
F-S
13-33
1937 Pollen
Shedding Period
1936 Pollen
Shedding Period
Mildew
6/25 to 7/28
7/17 to 00
S2L3
81L5
7/21 to 8/10
7/20 to Fr
S41,2
8/7 to 8/22
7/29 to 8/21
S2L3
6/15 to 7/12
83L3
82L3
15-31
17-30
F-S
LC-R
6/30 to 8/10
7/27 to 8/16
21 -32
LC-S
7/20 to 8/10
29-8
30-31
RV-S
LC-S
7/15 to 8/7
7/10 to 8/6
7/5 to 8/4
7/5 to 8/4
81L4
S8L8
31-6
34-33
F -S
F-S
7/14 to 8/6
7/15 to 8/7
7/12 to 7/28
6/27 to 7/30
52L2
L3
38-11
F-S
7/17 to 8/12
39-4
39-24
39-28
40-12
40-24
41-29
44-32
Cal-li
I-S
LC-S
LC-S
X-S
F-S
X-S
6/28
7/12
7/27
7/17
7/22
to
to
to
to
to
8/18
8/6
8/4
8/5
8/7
7/1 tp 8 8
7/28 to 8/14
7A8 to 8/12
83L3
a
7/20 to 8/6
General Plant Notes
Notes
S3L1
S2L2
L3
$81.2
83L3
S L2
;,8
Good
Good
Good
Very
Very
plant, quite many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
good plant, many long arms and quite well branched
good plant, very many long arms and very well
branched
Good plant, few long arms and not well branched
Exceptionally good plant, great many long arms and very
well branched
Very good plant, great many long arms and verywell
branched
Good plant, many long arms and quite well branched
Fairly good plant, quite many long arms and not well
branched
Good plant, many short arms and not well branched
Fairly good plant, quite many long arms and not well
branched
Very good plant* great many long arms and very well
branched
Good plant, many long arms and very well branched
Fair plant, many long arms and quite well branched
Good plant, many long arms and quite well branched
Fair plant, many long arms and well branched
Fair plant, many long arms and quite well branched
Good plant, few long arms and not well branched
to.
CA
Good plant, many long arms and quite well branched
Table 9
rSZT
Plant
No.
45-7
45-23
45-29
46-14
46.42
46.43
48-15
48-24
50-8
55-8
55-17
58-7
58-18
58-33
61-17
61-29
63-30
70-20
71-16
71-16
72 -24
72-31
73-8
74-20
Variety
Name
F-S
1937 Pollen
Shoddily Period
1937
Mildew
Shedding Period Notes
1936 Klan
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
8/8
8/6
8/4
s/t
8/8
8/6
8/8
8/16
8/6
S L3
L2
F-S
OSC-S
F-S
7/10
7/22
7/22
7/12
7/17
7/14
_7/10
7/17
7/22
F.8
x-s
F-S
F-S
7/14
7/10
7/24
7/14
to
to
to
to
6/6
5/1
8/11
8/2
Xi.S
7/28 to 03
S2L3
S2L3
84L3
S2L2
S L2
1 -S
1 -S
1 -S
10.4
F-S
X-S
East Kent
Golding-S
OSC-S
X-S
Li x F-S
x-s
Xm.S
x-s
I-S
7/19 to 8/5
6/30 to 8/8
7/22 to 8/5
7/15 to 8/4
7/16 to 8/5
7/18 to sX6
7/9 to 8
7/21 to 8/9
7/15 to 8/i
7/20 to 8/7
S11.
S3L3
S
5
L
10
S5L5
S5L5
S L4
7/1 to 8/0
7/6 to 7/27
6/18 to 8/9
s4
Sgq
S4L5
S Ll
s Ll
$40
s2
S
s
General Plant Notes
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Very
Very
Good
Good
Fair
Very
Good
Very
Very
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
plant, few short arms and poorly branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, few long arms and quite well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
good pant, many long arms and very well branched
good plant, very many long arms and very well
branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
plant, many long arms and not well branched
good plant, many long arms and very well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
good plant, many long arms and very well branched
good plant, many long arms and very well branched
Plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, may long arms and well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many short arms and not well branched
Fair plant, few long arms and quite well branched
Table 9
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
74-28
75-7
75-12
75-20
76-23
76-27
80-2
80-31
81-4
81-25
84-21
86-4
85-9
87-23
88-29
LC-S
Xr,S
X-S
I-S
RV-8
L..S
X-S
F-S
EC-8
Im4
LC-8
X-S
F-S
1937 Pollen
Shedding Period
1936 Pollen
Shedding Period
7/30 to 8/15
7/23 to 8/16
6/28 to yi
8/5 to 8 28
7/20 to 8/8
7/30 to 8/17
7/15 to 8/5
7/14 to 8/3
7/20 to 8/12
7/18 to 8/8
7/16 to 8/5
7/17 to 8/3
7/14 to 8/6
7/12 to 8/5
X-S
Kent Golding ? /23
-8
89-26
F-S
7/15
(New Zealand)
90-8
X-S
6/30
92 -16
X-S
7/21
93.44
F-S
7/15
95-26
F-R
7/12
98-15
X-S
7/14
98-26
X...8
7/14
99-4
F-S
7/19
99%427
F-S
7/15
99-32
F-S
7/19
LI
Li
S
S L2
S2
S L
S2L3
L2
S L3
S L2
L3
S L
to 8/8
to 8/7
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
8/8
8/8
8/3
8/6
8/5
8/5
8/10
8/10
8/4
1937
Mildew
Notes
S11.1
7/12 to 7/28
L2
6/25 to 7/28
82L3
S L
S3L2
S1
S1L3
L2
S2Lt
S3L
L2
General Plant Notes
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Very
Fair
Good
Fair
Very
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many short arms and not well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, many short arms and not well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
plant, many long arms and well branched
plant, many short arms and not well branched
good plant, many long arms and very well branched
plant, mny long arms and quite well branched
plant, many short arms and not well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
good plant, many long arms and very well branched
Good plant, many long arms and very well branched
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Very
plant, many short arms and not well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
plant, few long arms and well branched
plant, few long arms and quite well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branohed
plant, many long arms and well branched
plant, few long arms and not well branched
plant, many long arms and quite well branched
good plant, great many long arms and very well
branched
Table 9
Tat)
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
1937 Pollen
Shedding Period
EKG-S
7/14
103-28 EKG-S
7/20
104-4 Auscher Rote-R 7/20
107-21
F-R
7/10
102 -5
to
to
to
to
8/8
8/6
8/12
8/9
1937
1936 Allen
Mildew
Shedding Period Notes
S L2
84
83L3
6/21 to 8/2
Mildew notes show most severe attack during season.
General Plant Notes
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
plant,
plant,
plant,
plant,
few
few
few
few
long
long
long
long
arms
arms
arms
arms
and
and
and
and
not
not
not
not
well
well
well
well
branched
branched
branched
branched
Table 10
Female Plants for 1938 Pollination
Mildew Resistant Plants
Plant
No.
1936
1937
Variety
1937 Yield
Wt.
2.8#
69 -22
Mildew
Rests.
trace of
ChemioWinal
so
Large plant - many long arms and are well set with
cones, but cones are small - very good yielder
Fair size ylant - very early maturing (could have been
picked 8/8/37)- few long arms but cones not heavily
set - cones are light and fluffy, also plant is poor
yielder
Very large plant - many long arms are well set with
cones
cones are fair size - very good yielder
Large plant - many long arms and are well set with
cones - very good yielding plants but cones are small
Fair size plant - very early maturing (8/3/37) - only
few long arms but well set with cones - good size cones
but plant is poor yielder
L
trace of
77-9
L
76.4
2.7
L
L2
66 -29
F-S
2.4
7740
F-S
.5
General Plant
Notes
11.4
SL
High Yielding Plants
1937 Yield
(Dry Wt.)
1937
Mildew
Resin.
F.-8
5.2#
SL5
42 -6
F-S
3.75
8L5
51-8
F-S
3.4
Plant
No.
Variety
52-31
L5
1936
ChemiCaAnalysis
% soft
17.3
% alpha
3.8
General Plant Notes
Exceptionally large plant - exceptionally good
yielder - cones sommoduanWash color before
maturity - exceptionally large number of long arms
and well set with cones - cones are medium sized
Very large plant - very good yielder - many long arms
that arecpaite well set with cones, but cones have
somewhat pointed ends
Very large plant - good yielder - many long arms are
well set with cones and cones are medium sized
Table 10
7.6Mr
High Yielding Plants - eon.
1931
Chemi4=sAnal sie
1937 Yield
(Dry wt.)
1937
Mildew
Regis.
F -S
3.1
81L5
10.8
None
26-12
Le-6
3.0
651,4
17.2
2.9
49-28
F-S
2.8
S2L3
15.6
Trace
73-27
X-6
2.8
S L1
2.4
S5L4
Plant
No.
Variety
4-33
48-20
LC x F-S
so
alpha
General Plant Notes
Good size plant - many short arms but exceptionally
well set with cones but cones are light and fluffy
- plant is good yielder
Good sized plant - good yielder - many long arms well
set with cones and cones are large and compact
Large plant - good yielder - arms are short and few but arms present are well set with cones and oones
are very large
Good plant - good yielder - many long arms quite well
set with cones - cones are medium sized
Large plant - good yielder - many long arms but not
well set with cones - cones are large size
High Quality Plants
1936
1937
Plant
No.
Variety
62-27
LC-6
1937 Yield
(Dry wt.)
1.7
Mildew
Resin.
L2
Chemiarinalypis
% soft % alpha
20.3
2.3
General Plant Notes
Fairly small plant - very little vegetative growth few long arms and not well set with cones - but for
size of plant is a good yielder - cones are medium
size
49
Table 11
Maturity Notes on Early Plants
Notes taken 6/24/37
Females
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
Date
Plant
can be
bagged
3-29
X-S
EC-R
M.R.-8
F-R
RV-R
LC-R
LC-8
F-S
F-S
7/6
8/30
6/30
8/80
7/13
6/20
8/28
6/28
8/24
F-S
Cal-S
X-8
X-S
75 -30
X-S
92-6 Spilter-R
6/24
6/25
4 -29
6-29
7-29
12-29
29-1
34-2
42-6
49-32
52 -31
55-28
56-21
63-1
05
8/10
6/24
6/28
Other Plant Notes
Good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Fairly good plant - moat flowers are blooming
Good plant - has some long branches
Very good plant
Very good plant - has many long branches and has dark
oily leaves
Exceptionally good plant and has many branches
Fair plant. Has qUite large number of branches
Rather poor plant for pollination
inch long formed by 8/25
Fair plant. Hops
Fair plant. Has few but long arms
Pair plant. Some stigma are out (06)
Males
Plant
No.
Variety
Nate
Date
P81101
Shed
Other Plant Notes
0-83
1-34
15-31
30-31
89-4
41-29
45-7
45-30
48-15
55-17
61-29
X-S
X-S
F-S
LC-S
Cal-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
F-S
X-S
X-S
6/25
8/28
8/30
8/30
6/28
7/1
7/10
6/24
7/10
7/10
6/20
75-12
90-8
X-S
X-S
8/28
6/30
99-30
X-S
X-S
6/80
6/30
101 -17
Very good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Good plant
Fair plant
Good plant
Good plant
Very good plant. Many long arms and are well filled
with pollen sacs.
Good plant. Many large clusters of pollen sacs.
Very good plant. Many clusters of pollen sacs but on
short arms.
Fair plant. Leaves are very dark and oily.
Good plant. Many clusters of pollen sacs.
50
Seedlings Increased in 1957
Table 13 gives some notes taken on male and female plants that were
increased in the fall of 1937.
Cuttings from the male plants were set
around the border of the breeding yard.
These were increased so that
more pollen oould be obtained for crossing.
Cuttings from the female
plants were planted in increase plots so that mildew resistance, yield
and quality can be studied in larger plots.
These plants appear promising
and if they continue to do well in the larger plots, they will be
increased for distribution.
Table 12
Plants Increased in Fall of 1937
Females
Cuttings of these plants were set in increase plots at the west side of nursery beginning from
north end.
Row and
Plant
No.
7
0)
Variety
Name
1937
Mildew
Notes
Year
Planted
1937
Yield
(dryart4
42-6
F-S
S1,5
1932
3.75f
49-28
F-S
820
1932
2.8
51-8
F-S
L3
1932
3.4
52-31
F-S
S 1,4
1932
5.2
80-21
F-S
L
1932
1.5
82-26
F-S
L2
1933
2.35
General Plant Notes
Very large plant - good yielder - many long well
set arms
Large plant - good ielder - few short arms but
well set
Large plant - good yielder
many long arms well
set with cones
Exceptionally large plant - exceptionally good
yielder - high in ohm. analysis
Fairly good plant - fairly good yielder - mildew
infection L - medium cones
Good plant - good yielder - mildew is LX - plant
shedding leaves 8/5/37
Males
Cuttings of these plants were set on north and east end of breeding yard.
Row and
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
8-31
17-40
LC-R
21-32
38-41
39-4
48-24
50-8
LC-S
F-S
Cal4
OSC-8
F-S
Year
Planted
Date first
talon shed
1987
(1)
Date last
Mildew
pollen shed Notes
837
1932
1931
7/20/27
7/ty
24/18
1932
1932
1932
1932
1932
7/20
7/17
7/23
7/17
7/22
8/10
a/12
8/18
8/15
a/s
General Plant Notes
Very good plant
many long arms
82L3 Exceptionally good giant - very many
long arms
Very good plant
very many long arms
Very good plant- very many long arms
Very good plant - many long arms
;;Ig Very good plant - many long arms
S L4 Very good plant - very many long arms
Table 12
7rriur
Males - eon.
4
Row ant
Plant
No.
Variety
Name
58 -13
61-17
61.29
84-21
99-32
P41
Le -.8
F-S
Year
Planted
1932
1952
1935
1933
1932
Date first
pollen shed
7/14
7/19
7/15
7/16
7/19
Date last
pilen Shed
8/2
8/5
8/8
8/5
8/4
(1) Mildew notes show most severe attack during season
937
Mildew
Nets.
831,2
1,3
81L3
S L3
S L1
General Plant Notes
Very
Very
Very
Very
Very
good
good
good
good
good
plant
plant
plant
plant
plant
-
many long arms
many lapg arms
many long arms
many long arms
great many long arms
63
Seedlings Discarded in 1937
Table 13 gives a list of the seedling plants in the breeding
yard that were discarded in the fall of 1937 because of lack of
mildew resistance or poor agronomic characteristics.
This table is
included in the report so the' a permanent record of these discarded
plants can be kept.
The identification of these plants is given in
the 1937 field note book.
Table 13
Plants Discarded in 1937
2.1
7.1
4
24.3
5
30-1
5
11.1
10
19.1
2
a
7
11
6
6
4
4
9
12
6
10
6
$
6
12
13
30
13
30
12.16
32
53
7
9
11
12
13
31
11
12
13
32
83
6
7
9
12
13 -12
20-1
25 -1
S1.2
3
31
2
5
4
4
5
4
6
6
6
8
9
10
11
12
2
9
10
32
33
11
13
62
8-2
5
3.1
7
9
6
4
6
7
10
11
12
10
12
29
32
14-1
11
13
30
31
52
9-2
4
15.1
a
4.2
3
5
6
13
12
10.1
15
30
33
17-1
4
9
11
5
5
9
4
5
12
13
29
50
31
6
7
13
30
31
32
4
6
7
9
10
12
13
29
30
63
22 -1
8
18-1
8
9
2
9
10
11
12
3
4
7
9
SS
10
12
13
31
13
36
31
52
23-1
32 -2
3
4
26-7
21 -1
16 -5
S
9
so
7
9
10
11
12
13
52
31
8
10
11
12
6.1
5
6
9
11
12
15
11
so
31
5.1
7
8
2
27-2
5
8
11
32
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
28 -1
6
9
10
11
12
13
31
33
31
33.2
4
6
7
11
12
15
29.5
34-1
6
2
6
4
5
2
7
7
8
9
10
12
29
11
13
32
8
51
32
55
Table 13
ari."7-
35-1
3
5
6
7
8
9
13
33
39-12
13
15
22
25
29
40.. 1
2
3
36-2
3
4
5
6
9
10
37-2
3
4
8
11
12
1$
17
19
21
23
27
38-1
2
6
7
9
11
12
13
20
24
27
29
5
6
7
a
10
11
12
15
15
16
19
21
22
23
27
41-3
5
6
7
8
9
18
18
20
25
26
27
30
52
42. 3
33
4
5
6
39-5
8
9
32
6
7
8
10
12
13
42 -14
16
19
23
26
29
45 -2
3
4
43- 3
11
12
14
18
20
22
25
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
23
24
25
26
27
31
33
7
8
9
46-5
6
10
13
19
20
28
30
47-5
7
12
44- 1
15
16
17
6
18
9
12
48-1
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
30
33
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
18
18
23
25
26
31
49-4
5
7
10
11
13
14
15
16
19
21
22
24
25
27
30
33
50 -1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
20
22
28
33
51-1
2
52-2
3
4
5
7
8
10
11
13
14
19
22
25
53-2
5
5
6
7
11
12
13
15
16
19
21
23
24
28
64 -5
4
6
9
19
20
23
26
55-1
4
6
5
4
6
7
8
9
6
7
8
9
11
10
11
a15
16
18
20
24
15
a26
66
Table 13
7472.r
5647
68-7
30
8
33
9
10
56.1
2
a
11
12
62-1
10
18
20
24
13
16
20
21
22
25
26
30
63-4
15
18
59-1
64-9
10
19
3
4
6
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
574
2
6
8
10
11
14
18
21
15
20
30
31
32
68-1
71-'17
76-18
9
18
23
19
16
16
19
21
22
23
4
7
11
18
19
27
28
69-4
6
7
9
13
14
16
18
20
21
25
26
27
29
30
5
8
6
7
8
664
10
9
10
11
12
13
11
12
23
26
66-2
3
11
70-1
3
60 -3
12
13
20
5
27
28
30
31
32
58-1
2
3
4
5
6
61.4
32
33
8
11
67-1
14
18
27
2
28
30
31
33
15
18
18
19
21
22
25
27
73-3
6
33
33
78-1
3
6
6
7
9
9
19
20
22
26
28
30
74-2
10
11
8
4
5
9
9
12
18
19
21
22
23
25
In
10
17
21
75-3
4
31
33
3
18
19
20
25
28
33
3
5
11
7
8
9
11
15
21
77- 1
30
6
13
16
16
19
20
23
24
29
22
28
72-4
3
9
27
33
20
21
24
25
26
4
6
19
32
24
28
26
71 -2
76-3
3
12
13
14
3
14
15
13
17
18
19
20
25
26
79-2
3
9
10
18
80-7
9
11
12
16
1$
27
29
57
TOL, 13
864
914.
3.5
5
7
19
26
31
9
12
13
5
19
24
32
19
824
20
24
4
81..1
11
8
8
15
21
22
31
83-1
3
4
10
102.4
27
97 -5
12
15
19
21
*1
33
17
19
92 -1
94-1
2
24
27
26
5
15
U7 -2
17
18
4
7
8
10
11
12
20
21
25
9
10
12
14
19
3
5
8
14
103-2
20
27
29
17
24
29
4
5
32
934.
22
24
27
99-2
5
7
11
32
14
15
16
28
88-1
4
9
10
13
944
16
17
19
9
=2
23
$
84-4
10
13
19
20
22
9
18
29
32
3
6
8
9
10
14
19
23
25
32
35
9
19
29
33
15
20
23
100-1
4
24
25
27
5
20
21
19
24
26
27
95-1
28
28
30
31
19
11
89-1
11
13
16
17
30
31
32
33
14
20
2
15
18
29
18
$1
22
22
26
27
105-1
31
106-2
30
52
85-3
5
6
7
11
24
25
9
96-1
32
5
2
12
101-4
T
19
17
16
19
22
2$
904
24
27
29
104-1
15
2
107-1
14
16
17
19
21
2
58
Abnormal Plants
Notes on a few of the most unusual abnormal seedlings in the
breeding yard are given in Table 14. Many abnormal types appear in
seedlings each year and the majority of these are immediately discarded.
A few of the more unusual types are saved for genetic studies or because
they appear to have promise as ornamental types.
Plants such as 24-7
and 88-16 appear partieularly promising in this respect.
These plants
develop a dark red or purplish red color* are rigorous growing typos
and present a pleasing appearance.
59
Table 14
Notes on Interesting Abnormal Plants
kow and
Plant No.
24.7
56-8
6744
70-24
8024
86-16
86-27
91-5
Variety
Name
Cal-$
-
1957
Peculiarities
Nam normal cone but cone is red color, vine
purplish red
X.6
Mildew infection stimulated an excessive amount
of small short stems to be formed which appear
like clusters of grape
Golden Clust.6 Normal plant but cones are very hurt and irregular
Xse
Normal plant but cones are very small (* to
inch long) and a great number of cones on plant
Is8
Normal plant but cones are very scrubby and
irregular shaped
X.6
Normal. and a good plant but the cone is dark red
in color
X-8
Plant constantly attacked by mildew throughout
the season; thus it was small but an excessive
amount of small short stems were formed which
appeared like clusters of grapes
L.8
(Some as above (86-27) )
60
Artificial Pollination
An extensive controlled pollination program was continued for
the purpose of producing new varieties having the combined good
characteristics of existing types. A program of this kind has been
followed for several years and a large number of hybrids have been
grown.
Information obtained from a study of these hybrids indicates
that certain varieties are much more promising as parent stook than
.others.
Therefore the crosses made in 1937 were limited quite largely
to these more promising varieties and some of the seedlings from thou.
Some of the varieties showing, up well as parent stook so far are Early
Green, Bavarian, ruggles, Late Cluster and Red Tines. A few good
hybrids have also been obtained from crosses in which Early Cluster
was one of the parents but in general these hybrids have been quite
susceptible to downy mildew.
Several thousand clusters of female flowers were bagged before
the stigma appeared and were later crossed with the best males available.
Seed was set in only about 10 per cent of these bags and the number of
seed per bag was rather low even in this 10 per cent.
One of the
principal reasons for the poor set of seed in artificially pollinated
flowers was the heavy infestation of aphis under the bage.
Many
flowers were completely killed by aphis and Others were injured and
weakened to a considerable extent.
Some flowers turned under the
bags but the per tentage lost from this cause was much less than in 1936.
All bagged arms were clipped to the main shoot and bags were placed so
that they were shaded by leaves whenever possible.
This practice
61
eliminated a high percentage of the burning that has caused so mush
damage in previous years.
A few oloth bags made from heavy muslin were tried in the hope
that they would allow some circulation of air and hence prevent burning,
Observations indicated that these bags were no better if as good as the
pardhment bags now commonly used.
Further experiments with these
and other types of bags will be conducted during the summer of 1936.
The different hybrids planted in the greenhouse in the fall of
1937 are listed in Table 15.
Enough hybrid seed was produced during
the summer of 1937 to nearly fill all of the greenhouse space
available..
These hybrids are making a fine growth and will be moved
to the nursery in the spring of 1938.
62
Table 15
B22.Seed Planted in the Greenhouse Fall of 1937
Cross Number and 'Variety
Number
1$7
745(B04) x 55-25 (P-8)-$
5417
98-30 (Spilter (Rhamer) - R x 84-21
3-37
98-30 (Spalter (Rhomer) - R x 84-21
4-37
5-37
6-37
(check)
92-6 (Spalter - R)-6
70-16 (F -s) z 61.29 (z4)-6
check)
9-28 (F.4)-8
7 -37
(cheek)
6342 (P-S -6
99-19 (F-S x 107-21 (741)-6
Date
Bagged
Da
Pollinated
IVT770
6/27
7/10
7/11
7/23
34
29
7/10
7/23
100
7/17
74
211
Seed
(LC-3 )-8
(LC-0-5
8-37
9-37
10-37
x 107.21
Ifi-R)...6
99-11 (P-S x 107-21
P-R)-3
99-11 (P-S
1147 14-1 (RYA - S
(cheek)
12-57 5443 (F.'S x 210.32 (Lc -s) -8
1244 92-6 (Spatter - R) x 99-30 (L-S)-6
14037 45-15 (X.S) x 30-51 (LO4)-6
Salmani4) x 3841(74)4
1647 23.9 (Sambling Salmon-a) x 38-11(F4) -6
1747 74 (LOA) m 61-17 (F .S)-8
1347 96-11 (Spalter (Simon)41 x 84-21(LC-S)4
19457 1040 (144) x so.* Lc.3).2
2047 9-28 (F-R) x 61-29 iX4).4
21.57 7740 ()Ns) x 0.43 1:1-8)-5
2247 92.6 (Spalter-R) x 82-18 (X-6)-6
1547 234 (Sambling
6/as
7/7
7/8
7/7
7/6
7/6
7/6
6/16
7/7
6/26
7/7
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/6
7/20
7/3
6/28
6/26
7/s
11.41
(304)
x
107-21
(F-R)-S
23-57
24-37 98 -30 (Spalter (Rhomer).4 x 99-32 (x.$).s 7/10
7/7
25417 48-20 LC z P-S x 107 -21 (F4)41
7/7
2647 7046 P-8) x 30-31 (LO-S)-6
7/7
27-37 6344 Y-5) x 84-21 (LC-19-S
7/10
2647 94-13 llasear-0-8
6/20
x
82
-18
(7,p8).6
29.37 77 -10 F-8
30-37
31-37
32-57
33-37
34-27
35-37
105-4
106-6
Bisa
x 03 (X.4)-6
Fm* x 58-18 (8 V-8)-8
105045 14R x 61-29 (I41)-6
(cheek)
105-25 P-R -S
105-17 P.4 x 104- 15 (x -s).4
106-20 (P-R x 30-51 (LC -S)- -3
36-37 1054 (740-8
37-37
38.-51
39-37
40.47
(cheek)
105-17 7-R x 0-33 ( 7L-E3 S
105-17 P.R x 104-13 (X4)-6
102.42 FA x 84-21 (LC-6 )-$
105.42 14 x 84-21 (L06) -S
7/2
7/1
7/2
7/5
7/3
1
7/17
7/17
7/17
7/28
7/9
7/17
7/31
7/51
7/19
7/25
8/8
7/16
7/8
7/7
7/16
7/23
7/17
7/17
7/24
44
a
250
23
108
9
33
13
156
321
280
378
13
152
42
28
AWIF
7/8
7/9
7/21
7/19
136
16
1
124
OW
102
7/3
7/2
7/17
7/2
7/5
7/13
7/13
7/26
:771
29
15
85
15
49
/24
72
41
212
54
82
268
167
63
Table 15
(rrn
Key
Number
Cross Number and Variety
late
Bagged
Date
Pollinated
4147
105-$ 7.4 x 0-33
lCiy.0-8
Tik
.02
42-37
105-8 74 x.043 Z-8)-8
TA
43 -37
105-8
F41 } x 043 (x 4)-8
7/2
44-37
1054 11-41 x 90-13 4-04
7/2
7/3
7/12
7/12
7/12
7/20
7/16
4547 10547 (7-.1) x 38-11 (F-0-8
46-37
47-37
48-37
106-5 F-R
49 -ST
x 3041 (1,0-5)-5
106-6 F-R x 3041 (Lc -s) -s
105-4 FAL x 043 JE-S)-8
105-17 (NR)-8
obeet)
50-37
105-23 (FR)) x 61-29 (x -s) -s
0
7/42
1 5
7/2
77//8
7/3
7/9
No. of
Seed
36
67
114
8
14
11
os
211
9
64
Special Pollination Studies
During the summer of 1937, special pollination studies were
Started with the 04ects in view of determining more definitely the
exact stage at which the female hop flower should be pollinated, whether or
not fertile seed can develop without pollinitstion, and whether or not
hermaphroditic plants can be self-pollinated.
Artifieal pollinations
have been made for several years in the hop breeding yard at Corvallis
and these problems have received some attention but to dale no
conclusive data have been obtained,
On July 2 and 3, 22 female Fuggles pleats were begged, 10 bags
being placed on eaoh plant.
.At this time the flowers were all in the
bud stage and no stigma were showing.
Two begs on each plant were
left unpoilinated as ()hooks, giving 44 checks and 176 to be pollinated
is all.
On July 8, the first stigma began to appear and the first
pollinatione were made.
The flowers in 8 bags were pollinated each
day from, Jelly 8 to July 29 inclusive.
The data obtained were not conolusive as a large number of the
.flowers were killed by aphis.
The breeding yard was dusted with a
nicotine lime dust for aphis during the month of July but aphis under
Seed was obtained from the flowers of only
the bags were not killed.
21 of the pollinated bags.
to cause severe damage.
In these the aphis were not numerous enough
The 21 clusters of flowers setting seed were
pollinated at different dates between July 8 and July 26 but the
numbers of seed produced from pollination at eaeh date were so few that
no definite conclusions could be drawn regarding the beat stage at
which to pollinate the flowers.
Three of the clusters of flowers in
65
bags left unpollinated set seed.
This would indicate that it may be
possible for seed to be produced without pollination but it is possible
that the cotton at the mouth of the bags became loosened, allowing
wind blown pollen to enter.
Since so many of the flowers left as cheeks
were killed by aphis, it was impossible to tell whether or not seed
was actually set without fertilisation.
These studies are to be
continued during the summer of 1938 and as methods of controlling
aphis under the bags are being worked out, it is hoped that more
conclusive data can be obtained.
Six bags were placed on each of 5 plants having both male and
female flowers in an attempt to self-pollinate these hermaphroditic
plants.
obtained.
1938.
All bagged flowers were killed by aphis so no data were
This experiment will also be continued during the summer of
66
1.12 Growers' Field lakz
A hop growers' field day was held at Corvallis on August 17,
1927.
The Ptnposo of this meeting was to give the growers AU
opportunity to actually see the experimental work being conducted in
their behalf.
During the morning, the experirental spray plots were
inspected and the experiments being conducted were discussed by
Mr. Roomer and Mr. Morrison. A luncheon meeting, at which the writer
presided, was held at the Benton Hotel from 12 noon to 2 p.m.
A number of the members of the Oregon Experiment Station staff discussed
their particular research projects on hops briefly.
The experimental
hop yards were inspected in the afternoon and the various experiments
in progress were discussed by the writer. A program of this meeting
is included in this report.
67
HOP GROWERS' FIELD DAT
August 17, 1937
Corvallis, Oregon
Places
East FarmOregon Experiment Station one mile east of
Ven Buren Street bridge, opposite Russells/ Hatchery.
Times
10 A.M. to 4 P.M.
Program
10 A.M. to 12 Boon:
Inspection of experimental spray plots. Discussion on
Control of downy mildew and hop insects. G. R. Hoerner
and H. 2. Morrison.
12 Noon to 2 P.M.:
Luncheon at Benton Hotel.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Experimental work on drying hops. F. E. Price.
Chemical analysis of hops. D. E. Bullies
Hop grades and standards. D. D$ Hill.
Progress of hop wont study. O. W. Kuhlman.
2 P.M. to 2130 P.M.:
Inspection of new hop yard.
experiments. R. E. Fore.
Discussion of cultural
200 P.M. to 4 P.M.:
Inspection of brooding and foreign variety plots.
of breeding methods. R. E. Fore.
Discussion
68
Chemical Analysis,
Samples of the better seedling hops and of the foreign varieties
being grown in the experimental yard at Corvallis were analysed by
Mr. Frank Rabak, Associate Biochemist, Division of Drug & Related
Plants, Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S.D.A., Washington, D. C.
Both a
physical and chemical analysis of all samples were made and the samples
were grouped as good, fair, and poor on the basis of these analyses.
These data lyre been very useful in the breeding program.
If a
variety is to be of commercial value, it must be high in quality as
well as disease resistant and high yielding.
Since the chemical
analysis, particularly the soft resin content, is the best known index
to quality, all seedlings are checked carefully before being increased
for extensive yield trials.
Some seedlings have been found to have
two desired characters, suoh as high yield and mildew resistance,
but are lacklag in quality as indicated by the soft resin content.
Plant 4.33 is a good example of a plant of this type.
Since this
seedling is low in quality it cannot be introduced as a new variety
although it may be valuable as parent stook when crossed with varieties
possessing high quality.
Since the ohemical analysis data is so
valuable in breeding work, these data are included in this report as
a part of the permanent record kept on the breeding plots.
These data
are for the 1934 season as the analyses on the 1937 crop have not been
completed at the present time.
An experinent to determine the relation of stag. of maturity
to the formation of resins in Late Cluster hops was also conducted
69
in 000peration with Mr. Rabak.
Samples were pieked et approximately
one week intervals from August 3 to October 22.
These data are also
inoluded in this report so that they can be kept as a permanent reword.
7C
REPORT
OF
ANALYSIS OF SEEDLING HOPS GROWN
AT
,CORVALLIS
OREGON IN 1936
Seventy four seedling hops were grown on the experimental plot at
Corvallis, Oregon by Dr. R. E. Fore in 1936.
These were again divided
into three groups or classes according to a tabulation submitted by Dr.
Fore.
Group 1 consisted of 19 seedlings, group 2, 41 seedlings and
group 3, 16 seedlings.
Physical examination of the hops from the various seedlings of
each group was made for color, odor, percentage of seeds, percentage of
leaves and stems and moisture.
The percentages of total soft, alpha,
beta, gamma (hard) and total resins was made by chemical analysis.
The
results of the physical and chemical examinations of the samples were
tabulated according to groups.
The percentage of seeds in each sample
was determined to show which seedlings tend toward high or low seed content.
Seed formation may be an inherent characteristic of the seedling
or may depend upon the proximity of male to the female plants, thus
permitting more complete pollination.
High seed content in hops is of
course undesirable from the standpoint of quality.
The actual percent-
age of seeds in the hops produced by each seedling should be of value in
selection of the more desirable seedlings.
The cleanliness of picking as shown by the percentage of leaves
and stems in the samples is prinoipally of informative value although
it doeeaffect the quality by the introduction of undesirable extraneous
matter.
Table 1. - ANALYSES OF SEEDLING HOPS - CCRVALLYS
ORE. 1938
- Group I
:Leaves
RES/NS*
t QUAlity
:Seeds, &
abis-aotalsAlpha:Beta s GammasTotai s GUMMI..
:Stems sturs :soft $
(hard)resins: cation
s
s
: %
s
%
*
Sample
$
Color
Odor
*
t.
32.10-Cal.:Greenish yellow
2-33 -P
:Yellowish green
:Pleasant* aromatic
:Pleasant, flowery
:19.68:0.58 :7.40 :19.78: 5.02:14.76: 2.16 :21.94
:
:Stens
t
:15.94:0.66 18.00 :17.58: 2.37:15.21; 1.91 :19.49 s
:stens
52-31.4
:Pale yellowish green:Strong* not pleasant:10.77:0.68
28-1244
:Yellowish green
:Few brown cones
:Pale green
77-13-F
:Pleasant, flowery
:8.38 :17.33: 3.59:13.74: 2.60 :19.93 :
:stems
217.1811.28 28.10 :17.23: 2.94:14.29: 3.22 :20.45 :
s
*
:21.11:0.41
s:
s
: stems
*
99..18-F
35-5 -P
97-27-F
*
2
t
t
s
t
28.34 :15.22: 3.90:11.32s 2.18 :17.40 s
*
t
t
1
t
:7.28 :15.05tTraess15451 2.70 :17.75 s
4
17.44 114.961 0.43:14.53s 2.70 :17.68 s
:7.46 :14.76: 1.51:13.25: 1.51 :16.27 s
:stems
*
:11.7611.07 :7.18 :14.73: 1.62:13.11: 1.70 :16.45 s
t
*
32-31..F
t
:
*Yellow, green brawn :Strong, slightly
:13.22:0.35
moldy
:
:Brownish* yellow
:Strong* disagreeable:17.800.95
green
:
:Golden yellow
aromatic, not
116.01:1.02
pleasant
:
:Yellowish groom
:Pleasant, aromatie :15.34:0.49
t
:7.40 :18.78: 3.00:13.76: 2.22 :18.98 $
2
98 -31 -F
t
4
58-13-F
s Golden yellow
:Strong* not pleasant:15.450.40
a
98-28-F
*Green* yellow brown :Mild, unpleasant
a
:10.84:0.27
Good
:7.70 113.60: none :13.60: 1.12 :14.72
1
$
:7.34 :13.471 2.38:11.09: 2.50 :15.97 s
Fair
Table 1. - Con.
:Leaves s
Sample
Odor
Color
s
*
%
74-11-F
:Green, yellow brown :Pleasant, flowery
iTellowlsh green
*Fair. pleasant
:Strong, unpleasant
93-18-F
46-4-F
;Bright olive gm's **tido aromstic
91 -30 -I
sTellowish green
sTellawish green
Brown tint
t
95 -24-P
*
*
*
,Strong, aromatio
pleasant
:Strong, nightly
cheesy
t
%
s
Quality
t
*
t
% t%
t
s
t
%
t
%
s
%
s
t
16.94 :12.98: 0.53,12.45: 2.07 *15.05
*7.94 112.25s 0.43,11.82, 1.53 *15.78
:stems
8124911.05
111.8820.43
*13.820.77
* 6.90,0.51
:10.9610.76
* All percentages of resins oalaUlatod to dry basis
1%
:stems
:1848:0.92
t
69 -31 -F
s
114.40:058
:
77-29-F
RESINS*
s
:Seeds: &
sNois-tTotaltAlphatBeta s GammatTotsi s 01OWeirit (hard)sresinat cation
:Stems stare :soft t
*
t
16.68
:7.70
:7.94
:7.92
18.00
111.791 0.62s11.171 1.98,113.77
:11.78: none:11.76s 1.25 *13.03
111.21, 1.820.39 t 1.67 :12.66
: 9.88: 0.F4: 9.34: 0.91 :10.79
t 9.82: 0.54: 9.28: 1.27 111.09
t
Poor
73
Table 1 shows the analyses of the 19 seedlings of group 1, grown
in 1936 and arranged in the decreasing order of their soft resin content.
Of these five seedlings designated as 32-10-Cal., 2-33-F, 62-31-F, 2612-LC and 77 -13 -F are classed as rad based on their total soft resins
which ranged from 16.76 to 19.78 percent and their alpha resin content
which ranged from 2.37 to 6.02 percent.
Seven seedlings whioh are
classed as fair contained from 13.47 to 15.22 percent of total soft
resins and from 0 to 3.90 percent alpha resins.
The remaining seven
samples were classed as Ea. These, as noted from table 1 contained
very low percentages of soft resins and alpha resins.
Of the seedlings
in table 1 only one, namely, 52-31-F, was grown as a group 1 seedling
in 1935.
This seedling in 1938 again yielded hops with a high soft
resin content.
All seedlings in group 1 were of the Fuggles variety with the
exception of 32-10-Cal, presumably a California variety, and 26-12* Late
cluster variety, both of which were classed as good and 91-30X which
was very poor in quality.
The content of seeds in the samples of this group varied from
6.90 to 21.11 percent.
The samples were all clean picked* ranging
frown 0.27 to 1.28 percent of leaves or stems or both.
Table 2.
ANALYSES OF SEEDLING HOPS - CORVALLIS, ORB. 1936
- Group 2 -
MO
Sample
62 -27 -LC
Color
:Yellowish green
100-7-I
$
Odor
71-28-F
s
49-28-F
28-7
:Yellowish green
Millar's :Many brown cones
Resistant
%
%
817.42: 0.22 :6.90 :20.331 2.34:17.99:
stoma:
:19.59: 0.57 0.58 :19.32: 3.68115.64:
:21.70: 0.77 s7.10 :18.38: 4.39:13.99:
:24.78: 1.45 :8.20 :18.21: 2.07:16.14:
:Yellowish green,
:Pleasant, aromatic
brown tint
101 -32 -LC :Greenish yellow,
:Mouldy, aromatie
brown tint
s
27-31-X
:Golden yellow
"Flay:pry. aromatio
32-30-F
:Pale yellowish greensStrong, aromatic
100-8-F
:Green, yellow tint :Very flowery,
aromatic
4
92 -23-F
:Yellowish green
:Pleasant, aromatic
:Pale olive green
%
:Pleasant, flowery
40-27-LC
56-31-F
%
s
'Strong, aromatic
:Deep yellow green
%
1
59.214a1 :Pale greenish yellowarometic, pleasant
100 -29 -F
$
:Seeds: &
sMoie- sTOTAL4AlphasBeta :Gamma : Total 4. Claesifi:stems :tuns :soft s
:(hard): resins: cation
s
:Pleasant, flowery
:Aromatic, cheesy
8:5
%
2.79 :23.12 s
2.53 :21.85 :
1.93 :20.31 :
1.56 :19.71 s
:
:17.924 0.67 :7.24 117.95: 3.46:14.49: 3.01 :20.96 s
.
:
:1507: 1.12 17.40 :17.60: 0.63:16.97: 2.80 :20.40 :
:16.90: 1.62 17.76 :16.42: 2.08:14.34: 1.53 :17.96 :
:18424 none :7.40 116.15: 2.34:13.81: 1.64 :17.79
1
117.68: 0.25 :7.60
s
stems:
:16.66: 0.50 :7.64
stems:
:19.80: 0.32 :8.20
stems:
121.48: 0.38 :6.82
stems:
417.24: 0.49 :9.06
stems:
:30.40: 0.87 :7.32
* All percentages of resins caloulated to the
dry
basis.
2
_
:16.10: 2.24:13.861 1.54 :17.64 s
:
:15.98: 0.95:15.03: 1.84 :17.82 :
:15.57straces15.57: 2.30 :17.81 t
115.53: 0.36:15.17: 1.80 :17.33
:
:15.52straoes15.52: 1.70 :17.22 s
:15.51: 1.08:14.43: 2.65 :18.16 s
GOOD
Table 2 - Con.
Color
:Leaves:
RUINS*
(44k10,7
:Seeds: &
:Mois- tTotaltAlphas BetasGamma :Total s Cleesifi:Stems :turf: =soft as
t
1
t(hard) :resins: cation
Odor
s
Sample
s %
a
s
%
s%sst%s %
1
14 -32-F
:Yellowish green
:gild, aromatic
:20.79: 0.42 0.16 :15.20: 0.53:14467: 1.44 :16.64 s
s stems:
a
:Dark golden
73-12-F
:Golden yellow
brawn tint
s
101-15-LC :Greenish yellow
:Few brown cones
:Deep green
71-4-F
:Yellowish green
97 -21 -F
:Greenish yellow,
:
brawn tint
:Variegated yellow
green
688-1,4
:Greenish yellow
32-4 -F
$
$
:Strong, unpleasant
:Strong, aromatic
:10.4 : 1.56 17.70 :14.91: 2.43:11.48: 2.00 :16.91 s
113.91: 1.29 :7.80 :14.90: 0.42:14.48: 3.16 :18.06 s
:Strong, aromatic
:18.29: 1.19 :8.00 :14.87: 0.48:14.39: 1.85 :16.72 s
:Pleasant, aromatic
:Strong, unpleasant
:Pleasant, flowery
:10.84: 1.82 17.70 :14.86: 2.73:12.13: 1.80 :16.68
:1445: 0,60 :7.46 :14.68: none:14.68: 2.38 :17.08 :
:12.30: 0.62 17.40 :14.61: 2.73:11.88: 2.20 :16.81 s
:Strong, fairly
pleasant
:Pleasant, flowery
:13.01: 0.78 :7.44 :14.41: 0.58113.83: 2.50 :16.90 s
3
ff
84-11 -Cal :Yellowish green
a
61.24-F
%
s
I
1
:13.00: 0.85 :8.30 :14.17: 0.62:13.55s 2.78 :16.95 :
: stems:
s
s
:16.77: 0.55 :7.10 :14.161 0.32:13.84: 1.61 :15.77 s
stems:
:11.98: 0.77 :7.74 :14.13: 0.30113.831 1.70 :15,83 s
47 -18-F
:Golden, yellowish
green
:Yellowish green
97 -24-F
:Pale brawn
:Strong, unpleasant
10-30.-LC
seelden yellow,
green tint
:Yellowish green
:Strong, aromatic
:12.35: 0.65 :7.44 :14.00: 0.61:13.39s 2.50 s 16.50
:Pleasant, flowery
:12.06: 1.78 :7.16 :13.87: 0.64113.23: 2.58 : 16.45 s
:12.00: 0.30 :7.66 :13.86: 1.10112.76s 1.82 s 15.68 s
:Strong, unpleasant
:17.12: 0.66 :7.62 113.46: none:13.46s 1.63 s 15.09 :
:13.75: 0.81 :7.38 :14.05: 0.70:13.35: 1.64 :15.69::
t
a
77 -22 -F
stems:
stems:
40-13-F
a
s
s
a
97-31-F
1 stems:
:13.77: 0.30 :7.20 114.00: 0.32:13.88: 2.52 :16.52 s
: stems:
* A11 percentages of resins calculated to the dry basis
a
s
s
a
t
FAIR
Table 2 - Con.
sQue,A
tMois-sTotaltAlphatBeta :Gamma :Total sCleSsiTi.rn
:Seeds: &
t(hard)lresinss cation
:
: stemssture :soft t
t
2
Color
Sample
$
Odor
t
:
i
%
s
58.47.1,
99-17-F
:Yellowish green
26-32-F
:Variegated yellew,
:green brown
:Greenish yellow
80-15.4
:Yellowish green
It
67 -9 -LC
:Yellowish green,
brown tint
66 -29-F
t
s
57-28-F
"
% t%s%s%:%1%
s%
t
I
t
s
Mid, aromatic
t10.48: 0.45 :9.00 113.15straces13.151 2.34
:Strong, fairly
pleasant
:Strong, unpleasant
:14.95: 0.47 :7.30 s13.031 0.43:12.60s 1.94 :14.97 t
:Pleasant, flowery
:Strong, unpleasant
s
.Strong, aromatics
:stems
:stems
st
t
1
:
s
112.55: 0.72 :7.96 :13.03: 0.43:12.60: 2.60 :15.63 :
:stems
s 8.98: 1.22 :8,30 :12.651 0.62 :12.03: 3.44 :16.09 s
s
s
9.15: 1.26 :7.22 :12.41: 0.88:11.53: 2.62 :15.03 :
8.54: 0.79 :8.90 :12.21: 0.55:11.661 1.53 :13.74 s
:10.05: 3.32 :6.54 :12.13straces12.13: 1.70 :13.83 s
8
sarong, cheesy
.
'Yellowish green
ii-[-: ile
:11.36: 0.82 17.50 :13.23s 0.49112.74s 1.58 :14.81 :
s
56-44.4
l'fl.
$
s
61 -10-F
t
:Mild, flowery
:Aromatic, cheesy
67 -16-F
s
V0212
2
7..99s 2.89 17.56 :11.38: 0.45:10.93: 2.12 :13.50 s
:leaves:
t
813.46: 1.76 17.24 110.97s 0.80110.111 1.30 :13.27 t
:leaves:
* All percentages of resins calculated to the dry basis.
POOR
77
Table 2 shows the analyses of the 41 seedlings of group 2 grown
in 1986 and also arranged in the decreasing order of their soft resin
content.
Fourteen of these seedlings ranging from 15.61 to 20.33 per
cent are classed as good and seventeen ranging between 13.46 and 15.20
percent of soft resins are classed as fair.
The alpha resin content of
the fourteen seedlings classed as good were in general higher than the
seventeen classed as fair, although considerable variation occurred in
both classes.
Ten of the forty one seedlings in this group were
distinctly poor in quality based on their total soft and alpha resin
content.
It is noted from table 2 that the FUggles variety which
comprised 29 of the 41 seedlings, in general produced hops with lower
soft resin content than the Late clusters, Cal. and X varieties.
Six
of the 12 varieties other than the Fuggles led the list in high soft
and alpha resin content.
The seed content of all seedlings in this group varied from 7.99
to 30.4 percent while the percentage of leaves and stems ranged from 0
to 3.32 percent.
Most of the samples were very cleanly picked, containing
less than 1 1/2 percent of leaves and stems.
Table 3. - ANALYSES OF SEEDLING HOPS - CORVALLIS, ORE. - 1936
- Group 3
=Leaves:
:
RESINS*
s quality
:Seedss &
:Lois-aotaltAlphasBeta :Gamma :Total s Classifi:stems stare :soft :
s
s
:(hard)tresinst cation
s %
1
%
*
%
I % I % I % 1 %
I % I
s
Sample
Color
Odor
t
19-33 -OSC :Greenish yellow
5540-F
100-23-F
:Yellowish green
*Tale olive green
:Greenish yellow,
t
brown tint
*Strong, unpleasant
s
$
s
s
s
s
:
GOOD
:
:1842: 0.47 :7.74 115.70: 1.00:14.70: 1.82 :17.52
s17.15: 0.58 :7.70 115.32: 1.64:13.68s 1.80 :17.12
::stems :
00.95: 0.85 :8.00 :15.18: nonas15.18: 1.48 :16.66
s
43-28-F
s
:10.30: 1.06 ;7.00 :15.88: 0.64:15.24: 3.51 :19.39
:
e
68-6-LC
:Mild, pleasant
s
86-23-LCIF:Yellowish green,many :Strong, fairly
hown cones
s
pleasant
60 -29-LC
:Yellowish green
tStrong, aromatic
$
0.45 :7.28 :18.03: 0.50.17.47: 2.90 :20.93 s
stems:
t
t
1.37 :7.56 :16.80: 3.80:13.00: 1.51 :18.31
0.30 :7.50 :16.431 1.41:15.02: 1.73 :18.16
s stems:
$
57-30-F
$
:Very pleasant, flowery
:
:21.04:
"
:14.50:
:Pleasant, flowery
:16.90:
:stems s
$
$
:Pleasant, aromatic
57-25-F
:Golden yellow,
s
green tint
:Yellowish
een
:Golden yellow
green tint
:Yellowish green
:Mild, fairly
s
.pleasant
:12.76: 1.74 :7.26 :12.37: 0.44:11.93: 1.81 :14.18
:
70 -13 -EC
sPale green
sMild pleasant
:20.15: 1.00 :7.52s:12.19s 0.72:11.47: 1.14 :13.33
:
97-13-F
69-32-F
:15.74: 0.57 17.54 :14.67: 0.92:13.75: 1.59 :16.26
s
I
$
t
s
:
t
s
s stems:
:12.19: 1.26 17.10 :11.57: 0.42:11.151 1.07 112.64
:10.461 2.40 17.50 :10.84: none:10.84s 1.14 :11.98
:15.63: 0.48 :8.10 :10.83: 0.43 :10.40: 1.63 :12.46
POOR
s
68-10-7
4-33 -F
98 -12 -F
:Yellowish green
:Yellowish green
:Greenish yellow
FAIR
mild leasant :20.99: 0.50 :6.40 :14.14: 2.18:11.96: 1.98 116.12
aroma io
:P eaaan
6.92: 1.08 16.
0.
5
:Ve
'Strong, aromatic
:Pleasant, aromatic
Wild, unpleasant
* All percentages of resins calculated to dry basis.
s
s
s
79
The analyses of the 15 seedlings of group 3 are shown in Table 3
and are likewise arranged for ease of comparison according to their soft
resin content.
Seven of the seedlings containing from 15.18 to 18.03
percent of soft resins are classed as rood.
Two seedlings with 14.14
and 14.67 percent respeotively are considered fair while six ranging from
10.83 to 12.72 percent of soft resins were poor.
The alpha resin content
of all of the seedlings in this group shows much variation although it
will be noted that the six poor varieties are uniformly lower in alpha
resins than the remainder.
The seed content of the samples ranged from
10.30 to 21.04 percent. With one exception all samples were clean picked
and contained less than 1.75 percent leaves and stems.
A study of the maintenance of quality of hops produced from seedlings grown from season to season should be of value in the selection of
desirable types for commercial production.
However, quality alone
should not be the sole criterion of their worth.
Yield and resistance
to disease are equally important in determining their desirability.
The
work embodied in this report deals solely with quality as measured by
the total soft resin content of the hops and points out those seedlings
which because of their quality deserve attention for commercial propagation.
In order to learn which seedlings are most desirable it is necessary to
correlate their quality with yield and resistance to disease.
Only
those seedlings which have been grown for two or more successive seasons
are considered. A tabulation (Table 4) was made of twenty-three of the
seventritour seedlings grown for more than two successive seasons.
The tabulation shows the total soft resin content and the groups in which
8C
they were placed by the plant breeders making the growing tests.
Of
the 23 seedlings reported, 6 were grown for four consecutive seasons
beginning in 1933, one (73-12) of which was omitted in 19341 9 were
grown for three seasons and 8 for two seasons.
The several seedlings
were ranked according to their average soft resin content.
The two highest ranking seedlings were 52-31 and 101 -32 both of
which were grown for 3 successive seasons.
The three second highest in
rank 62-27, 19-33 and 73-12 were grown for 4 successive seasons.
Of
the next four in rank, 35-5, 49-28, 56-31 and 2-33, two were grown for
two seasons and two for four seasons in succession.
These were followed
in order by 14-32, grown for two seasons and 100-8 and 32-31, grown for
3 successive seasons.
The above 12 seedlings which represent those
classed as good in quality averaged from 15.12 to 18.27 peroent of soft
resins.
Of the remaining 10 seedlings ranked according to decreasing soft
resin content seven, namely, 68-5, 47 -18, 86-23, 84-11, 40-13, 70-13 and
10-30 averaging from 14.85 to 13.89 percent soft resins may be classed
as fair.
Four of these seedlings were grown for at least 3 seasons and
three for two seasons in succession.
The three lowest ranking (poor) seedlings 46-4, 60-29 and 443
averaged 13.31, 12.95 and 11.61 percent of soft resins.
The above results
of analyses of the 23 seedlings should after ourrelation with yield and
resistance to disease prove helpftl in the selection of those most
desirable to be grown.
In this report only the total soft resin content of the samples
was used for comparison because the soft resins which consist of the
alpha and beta resins is considered a comparatively accurate measure of
81
Usually hops with the highest soft resin content also
their quality.
contain the highest alpha and beta resin content.
The fifty -one of the seventy-four seedlings under investigation
but not specifically discussed in this report were presumably grown only
in 1936 and therefore no conclusions can be drawn from their analyses.
The gamma or hard resins do not have a direct bearing on quality
because of their insolubility in wort and therefore were not discussed
in comparison of the samples.
considerably in the samples.
The percentage of hard resins varied
It is not definitely known whether increase
in hard resins in any particular sample is due to changes in the soft
resins or to the oxidation of the essential oil.
contribute to the formation of the hard resins.
Perhaps both causes
It has been observed
in the work with hops that unusually high hard resin content is
frequently found in samples which possess an abnormal or objectionable
odor in which case it might be in part attributable to resinification
or oxidation of the essential oil.
It is hoped that this brief report may be helpful in the work of
selection and breeding of hop varieties combining desirable characters
of quality, yield and disease resistance.
Frank Rabak
Washington, D.C.
March 12, 1937
82
Table 4 - COMPARISON OF TOTAL SOFT RESIN CONTENT AND
GROUPING OF SEEDLINGS GROWN AT CORVALLIS FOR
TWO OR MORE SUCCESSIVE SEASONS FROM 1933 to 1936 INCLUSIVE.
Group
t
10ereentage of Total Soft Reeifit:
1934 : 1935 t 1936 average:Rank
Seedling:1934:1935A936 :: 1933 :
2-33
1
3
1
16.63
14.00
14.18
17.58
15.58
9
443
2
3
3
*
13.00
11.01
10.84
11.61
22
1040
3
3
2
*
12.85
14.83
14.00
13.89
19
14.-32
--
3
2
*
16.53
15.20
15.36
10
1943
1
1
8
17.49
16.77
14.36
18.03
18.86
4
2642
.....
3
1
*
* *
---
17.23
---
-.
2
2
1
*
15.28
15.35
14.73
16.12
12
....
3
1
*
* *
16.80
14.96
15.88
6
5
2
*
14.12
14.80
13.46
14.12
17
3
1
*
15.42
11.21
13.31
20
3241
354
4045
3
46-4
*
*
,
47 -18
2
1
2
*
17.00
12.72
14.05
14.59
14
49.28
1
8
2
17.37
14.91
15.60
16.67
15.36
7
5241
3
1
1
*
17.77
19.71
17.33
18.27
1
56.31
--
2
2
*
* *
16.00
15.52
15.76
8
60-29
3
3
3
*
10.50
13.17
15.18
12.95
21
62-27
1
1
2
17.55
14.93
18.12
20.33
17.73
3
--
3
3
14.01
15.70
14.85
13
70.43
2
1
3
9.74
16.81
17.18
12.19
13.97
18
73.12
--
3
2
17.59
* *
17.20
14.90
16.56
5
84-11
--
3
2
*
* P
14.10
14.16
14.13
16
86.23
--
8
3
*
*
18.00
15.32
14.16
16
100-8
2
1
2
*
12.45
16.15
15.24
11
68-5
101-32
-3
Wot grown in 1933
2
17.13
*
* *
17.75
17.95
17.85
2
**Not grown in 1-934
***Calculated
dry bails
83
O
REPORT
ANALYSES OF PO MO HOP VARIETIES
eon
cannua, caw. IN 106
Twenty three foreign varieties of hops were grown at Corvallis,
Oregon, by Dr* R. E. Fore in 1935.
1934 and 1935.
Many of these were also grown in
The hops were pinked when fully mature, dried, compressed
and cold stored for physieal and chemical analysis.
The result of these
analyses are given in Table 14
The oolor of the samples was variable, ranging from a pale
The odor of
greenish yellow to golden yellow with a brownish tint.
most varieties was very pleasant and flowery although some were
noticeably less pleasant than others.
The seed content was determined
in order to show which of the varieties were the heaviest seed producers
Presumably all were equally
and which tend toward low seed production.
subject to pollination from male plants
Determinations were also
made of the percentage of leaves and stems in the samples although all
may be considered as very clean picked.
Some contained only stems,
while others contained both leaves and stems. Most samples showed
less than one percent of these extranseus materials.
The strobiles
were observed as being somewhat smaller than the usual domestic varieties
gram on the coast.
The strobiles were caneiderably broken in most
samples, probably because of the difficulty of handling such small
quantities in the preparation of small pressed samples.
The moisture content was comparatively uniforn, ranging from
6.22 to 7.50 percent.
The majority of the varieties produced hops very rich in soft
resins, ranging from 15.90 to 21429 percent.
Of the twenty three varieties
grown, 12 contained more than 16 percent total soft resins. The Bavarian,
Late Grape and Burgunder varieties were of especially high quality as regards
soft resins.
Table 1 - PHYSICAL Ic CHENICALANALYSES OF FOREIGN HOP VARIETIES
ORS
AT CORVALLIS, ORE. IN 1936
Row s
& s Variety
Plants
No. s
s
s
:Leaves:
$
$
s
s
RES
s
s StrobilessMois.sTotaltAlpbas EetasCammasTotel
$Steme s
:tare *soft s
*
s(bardbresins
$
1
, %
* %
*
:
s
s
*
s
s
:
s
s
Color
s
Odor
s
'Seeds* &
1641 sbavarien ssGolden, yellowish *Pleasant,
s16.98:
s
$
green
$
$
$
flowery
28.40sLate grapeaellowish greon,ftwiPleasent,
:17.95s
s
brown cones
s
aromatic
s
17 -2 :Bavarian :Golden yellaw,greensStrongearoreatall.14:
:
tint
96-27$Burgunder *Pale green, yellow :Mild, fairly 120.10$
*(Siass)
tint
,
pleasant
a
89.7 :Golden
:Yellowish green,
:Pleasant,
:14.52:
s
Cluster : brown spots
$
flowery s
3-9
Early gleensPele green, yellow *Mild, not
:17046:
I
(Delia)
1
tint s
pleasant s
10.4 *Alsace
*Gold= yellow,
*Strong, fairlys19.5?:
s (Urbann) s
green tint
s
pleasant a
$
s %:%:%:%$%
*
s
s
s
s
2.20 sSmallaimed.$ 6.44:210E6s 7.50,13.79s 1.32, 22.61
a
broken s
s
*
s
s
*
0.43 eNedoaarges 7.66,19.88, 5.04:14.84s 1.871 21.75
stems *
broken
0.67 s
*
stems:
0.65 :Medium,
stems
broken
0.47 sMed.*partly
0.30 * broken
s
*
*
a
6,74119.75s 6.50113.25: 1.441 21.19
:
6.86:19.06: 4.00611540s 2.14: 21.20
:
7.26:18.55s 5.80112:751 2.05: 20.60
t
s
Ai
*
6.72:17.41: 4,41:13.00: 1.71: 19.12
$
0.60 *Small-med.: 6.46:17.10: 3.24213.861 2.35: 19.44
spart4
s
*
: broken
*
t
111.69: 0.58 sMird.milargos 7.44116,65s 5.44111:41s 1,73: 18.58
95.22*Spaltor
s (Simms)
:Yellowish green
sPlessant,
s
flowery
4144sSamling
*Green, yellow tint
s
u
u
ss(Urbann)
63.31:East tent :Yellow green, brown:Strong.
$ golding
s unpleasant
23-6 *Senling
:Yellowish green,
*Pleasant,
s(Salmen) :brown cones
s
flowery
u
9546*Verto
*
"
*Strong, not
s(Jagger)
s
pleasant
16-8 *Early greenliellowish green
sMild not
s (DUbs)
*
s
pleasant
s
s
*
: 8.05:
*
unbroben
1.34: ** s
6.22:16057* 5.39:11.18: 1.78: 18.35
222.22: 0.11 sbldimlarges 6.40,16.211 0.48:15.73s 2.82: 19,03
: treks:
$17.25: 0041 :Large.
: stems :unbroken
s
:
s
s
$
*
*
7.26116.18: 4.65:11.531 1.60: 17.78
*
*
s22.60$ 0.50 WedwIsrges 6.84,16.10, 1,24:14.861 1.88: 17.94
s stenos unbroken a
116.55: 0.49 *Small-ned.: 6.90,15.90, 2.0011340s 3.23: 19.13
* unbroken t
*
Table 1 - Can.
Row s
& a Variety
Plant:
s
RISME
eldeuvese
s
Color
$
Odor
,
&
StrebilessliCie-itotal*AlOmmillete4Genea sTotaI
atoms s
*tye *soft *
2(bard)sresins
s
*Seeds:
$
%
*
%
s
s
%
s
%
s
$
39.47sIandhopfensBright olive green 'Fairly strong,: 9476: 0.76 sidedrlarges 8.94816.681
s
flowery
s
unbroken:
98.40sSpalter
*Yellowish green
'Pleasant,
113.85: 0.52 Wed.-large: 8.88116.64:
s(Robaer)
flowery
s
s
unbroken*
94.17sTettnangersGreenleh yellow,
sIllds flowery :17.60: 0.86 sMed.brokens 7.02$16.142
s
Frith
s brown cones
s
96048s0olding
t
*
:Aromatics not :18.18: 0.91 :Redo-large: 7.80.16.08s
pleasant
s
s
brOken s
94.13*Blasser
s
'Pleasant,
111.90s 0.87 :Large.
2 7,88:14.94:
'
aromatic
s
s
unbroken:
37.24sSpalt
:Yellowish green
'Strongly
9.22: 0.56 sSmallsmed.4 6.48214.921
w(urbann)
a
arematie
s
s
mnbrokens
1044262blvort. :peep green, few
*Pleasant,
113.62, 0.66 sliedebrokens 7.80114.88:
*ler Grime *
brans cones
1
aromatic
s
98.3 Inge
screens yellow browniMild, fairly *20.271 1.65 sled. -large s 6.46:14.54*
$
Blanche
s
pleasant
$
s
s
broken $
104- GaMaschsr
:Yellowish green,
*Aromatics Aidtkp 9.62: 1.15 :M ediums
7.24214.108
$
Rote
s
brown cones
s
pleasant
s
as broken
96-13*Semseh
: Pale green, yellow ands aromatics 9.67* 0.34 sSmallmed.: 7:62,13,371
tint
*
broken s
%
%
1_
s
$
4.38:11.18s 1.51 :17.07
1
s
4.18:11.38s 1.68 117.12
3.08:12.08, 1.84 s18.98
*
s
1.20,13.88: 1.91 116.97
3.90811.042 1.70 :16.84
4.60:10.42s 2.00 :16.92
1.20:13088s 1.68 :16.46
s
140113.34s 1.60 :16.04
2.88111.222 1.40 :15.50
ft
111 All percentages of resins calemlated to dry basis.
0.71112.882 1.80 *14.67
86
The Tige Blanche, Auscher, and Semsch varieties were poorest in this
respect.
The highest soft resin yielding varieties likewise contained
the highest alpha resin content & vice versa.
The percentage of beta
rosins is usually lowest in those samples showing the lowest total soft
resins which likewise usually contain low alpha resin oontent# and is
obtained by subtracting the alpha from the total soft resin content.
The beta resin content of the varieties ranged from 0.71 percent in the
poorest quality hop (Semseh) to 7.5 percent in the highest quality
hop (Bavarian).
The percentage of hard (game) resins was comparatively
uniform in eighteen of the samples where it ranged from 1.30 to 2
percent.
The remaining five samples contained from 2.05 to 3.23 percent
of hard resins.
Unusually high hard resin content such as was found in
the Early Green (tuba) varisty(303 percent) is generally accompanied
by a strong unpleasant odor in the sample.
Twenty of the twenty three foreign varieties have been green
at Corvallis for two or more successive seasons.
In order that a
foreign
comparison might be made of the several varieties grown from
roots in Oregon Table 2, which shows the total soft resin content of
The
each variety grown during three successive years, was prepared.
varieties were tabulated in their decreasing order of their soft resin
content in 1934, 1935* and 1938.
The Burgunder (Simon) and Bavarian varieties show the highest
soft resin content averaging 19.94 and 19.82 percent respectively and
These
both are strikingly uniform during the three successive years.
are followed closely by Landhopfeu (Simon) almost identical in soft
resin content in 1934 and 1935 (20.88 and 20.88 percent respectively).
In 1936 however this variety showed a much lower content of soft
87
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF THE PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL SOFT RESINS
ellIIIIMONIMINIM WWI
IN FOREIGN HOP VARIETIES GROW IN (*EGC
FOR
TWO OR MORE SUCCESSIVE SEASONS
Foreign Varlt
1934
1935
1936
Average
Burgundor (Simon)
20.84
19.92
19.06
19.94
Bavarian
19.09
19.17
19.81
Landhopfen (Simon)
20.86
20.88
21.29
19.75
16.66
19.10
Alamo (urbane)
17,77
18.60
17.10
17.82
Late Grape
16.87
16.72
19.88
17.82
M
17.73
17.70
New Zealand Fuggles
16.70
17.89
*
17.29
Spalter (Simon)
16.91
17.54
16.85
17.10
East Kent Golding
17.16
17.87
16.21
17.08
17,37
16,57
16097
17.48
17.21
18,10
16.93
**
16.66
16.65
Spelt (urbann)
18,56
16.20
17.41
15,90
14.92
Semlinerialmon)
16.60
16.65
16.18
16.47
17,54
14.94
16.24
41
8a3434-(urbane)
Vert. (Jagger)
Early grown
**
Maser
17.71
16.57
Spalter (Rohner)
15,85
16.92
15.54
16.10
Tig Blanche
15.18
15.16
14,54
14.96
Mthlvertler Grum
**
14.67
14.88
14.??
Smash
**
14.09
13.37
1303
Auscber Rote
**
12,53
14.10
13.31
*met grown in 1936
** Not grown in 1934
88
resins than during the previous two seasons.
Other varieties showing
striking similarity in percentage of soft resins during throe successive
seasons were, Alsaoe (wrbann); Spalter (Simon), East Kent Golding;
Samling (salsa*); Spalter (Rohner) and Tige 'Blanche.
The Ausoher
Rote, Semsch, Muhlvertler Grune and Samling (urbane) varieties which
were grown for two successive seasons likewise show much uniformity in
this respeot.
Of these four varieties the three former, incidentally
show the lowest soft resin content of any of the varieties.
Providing the yields of many of the best varieties listed in
the table are satisfactory and if during the coming season (19ST) the
same uniformity of composition is maintained it might be desirable to
increase the planting stock of each to a point where they might be
grown on an store basis.
The eventual establishment of some of these
varieties for commeroial hop growing in this country seems probable.
In this connection it would be of interest and perhaps of value to grow
the more desirable varieties in some section of Oregon where by
elimination of the male vines they might be grown seedless.
A better
comparison, as regards quality, with imported hops which are seedless
and which are produced from these varieties in Europe could be made
providing they are grown seedless in this country.
Frank Rabak
Washington, D.C.
March 225,1937
89
REPORT
THE RELATION OF STAGE OF MATURITY TO
''ras randerzoi -61P hems
IN If0Pa.
Ma the werk on hops it has frequently been observed that the
picking of the crop is begun by growers when the hops are still in a
distinctly Immature stage of ripeness.
It was found that such hope
were noticeably leaking in lupulin as disclosed by physical examination
and later verified by chemical analysis of the samples.
Such early
picked or immature hops have a mash higher dry-out ratio because they
contain much more moisture than more fully matured hops.
It is
important, therefore, both from the standpoint of weight and quality
as determined by their full lupulin content, that picking should not
begin too early. Such procedure may be costly to the grower not only
in loss of weight due to dry.out of moisture but also in loss of weight
and quality due to low percentage of resins.
Such hops are likewise er
less value to the brewer.
For the purpose of obtaining information on the rate of formation
of the resinous constituents in hope and the approximate period of time
during which they maintain their highest percentage of these constituents.
preliminary experiments were conducted at the writer's suggestion by
Dr. D. C. Smith at Corvallis in 1934.
These tests showed that there was
a **operatively rapid rise in soft resin content once the hops begin
producing these constituents in the cones.
Unfortunately the successive
pickings were not made at definite intervals end therefore it was net
possible to definitely determine just when the hops contained their
maxima or near maxima content of soft resins.
It was however noted in these tests that when the hops reached
maturity as indicated by melbas high soft resin content
they maintained
90
the same high content to a marked degree for a period of
to 4 weeks.
The results obtained tram the eleven pickings made furnished valuable
preliminary information on the subject.
In 1955 the tests were again conducted with the same general
results but unfortunately only 8 pickings were made and these were begun
about 18 days later than in the previous season.
In 1936# through the kind cooperation of Dr. R. B. Fore, pickings
of hops were again made from several vigorous vines of the Late Cluster
variety located adjacent to each other in the experimental yard at
Cervallis.
The hops were picked beginning Aug. 3 at intervals of one
week to Aug. 24 and thereafter at intervals of one to six days until
Oat. 9, with two extremely late pickings on Oot. 16 and Oct. 22.
A total of 20 pickings were made. Each was made from all parts of
the vines and the hops were combined into one composite sample whisk
represented the maturity of the hops on the particular date picked.
Each successive picking represented strobiles of graudally increasing
maturity from distinctly immature to decidedly over mature hops.
The
dried and compressed samples were immediately placed in cad storage
and later subjected to pkysieal and ehemieal analysis and the results
tabiloated.
M. $
10
s mom sbatramsar
0
s
1336
0
I
t
t
Oar, faint. boplihos
1 1.14 "1st yellow.
$
s stews
$
aollowist green
pleaeaot
sPalo gommajolleoidi strong, &matte
s tint
I
'Pals gram
'Strong, aronatio
2036
s 0662 stsiamarollaii
small t otometetiolgr
*
=brains
s
s
2066
* 0.2$ dolma Toil owietiokr t1} to $ ta0 broils,. s
somilltorois stows
s
s
e
4026
1 ma aesseriferr mow elk to m, ss. brakes,
a
colascalat
I
s
ea* yellowish
I
*
ss
saramatio
spisagresabloomms167 s
11,47
s
a
slow p
e
1
sPetle
1046
largo
10.49
largo
11060
I
"
6066
en46
sat: rang, amonatio,
s
10046
I roma
"
laws
s
*Strong
arommtio
s
11,66
10004
sbrcenzisis tint
"
110$3
12000
willow green tint
s
1001$
'Strong
10.V$
10.01
*
"
e
a sem
s
s 0.66 t
Ores
saloalatod to d
basis
0
s 114At 80117.100010
$
1
1
ussason
'$1
s140411 4006.11047s
ussIssos
601$
11T661 60664220, usse 10.09
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
stiskr 0
*
0
0
s 246 s i
4" 0
t
s
*
1 1.57 s "
1$00066 74611206,* $006061000
7.7$
*Mae 44,1281664, 1106$120066
s
1014
$1266s 606*1350t 10044166$
*
T0S4
*MUM $041111316e 260018124
746
46064, 6099010$11 $0142160
6060
*Mae 601$1130604
0
w
s
I
s
s
s
0
0
a
s
s
1646
.17.0, 400042064* 20118s$000$
fess
e1$00* 6076,130061 2662s2101$
toss
s1701211 401645ate $00,1600$
us*
*17.15* 4044112092* 204$5110$2
6.10
$160644 50601160661 2044.1906$
$1000
*16.90* 60341150241 26041115022
t
s
0
*
s
0
24120018116
*
s
$
s
10614140
t1
s
s US$ Amp °Imam WA', s* a
testi*
4
60$6
s
s
s 636 s "
s
$
0
1" 0
s
$
121 s1901$14464s12Tes 100$4106
e
s
s 1004 t"
s
816060, 6096e1266t 2020120070
*16066e 6060,130051
0
s
o 0.1$ Oast
s
1064
s
s
s
41
s
0
o"
0
$
4066
s
0
otiolers" 0000
1 0*0.46 e
s
1166,
6000
s
o
s
t
w
e
s
s
0
islor 0
s
s
1002$
s 4.191 0.54* 20664 0461 4016
s
s
* 046 elellow.
s
$066
*
s$ to kil ta0 brass t
110 0
t 1006 s
11.6$
s
s
s 0044 s
e
t 1066 news 1.55* 0013* 1.19
1
s
s
s
e"
0
a
0000
s
s
Palo brava*
s
e 0
s
*
S
a 4066 a
s
Oslo yellowish
e
stows
076 s
stows
046 s
stows
s
spoon
Omni*
o
s
$
s
s
%TS
s
$
s
0
s
$
$
92
The first sample pinked Aug. 3 was very immature.
were only partially formed and measured approximately
The tiny cones
inch in length.
Even at this early stage a small percentage (1.80) of soft resins was
found to be present.
The sample picked one wok later (Aug. 10) with
)
Vinous-1
to 1 inch in length, possessed a faint hop-like odor and contained
4.28 percent of soft resins.
The sample picked Aug. 17 consisted of
eines considerably larger in size.
The first formation of seeds (2.30)
although small and Immature was noted in this sample.
It contained
12,38 percent of soft resins showing that a comparatively rapid formation
of lupulin took place between Aug. 10 and Aug. 17.
On Aug. 24 with the
soft resin content still continuing to increase rapidly the hops
contained 16.42 percent of these resins.
with cones measuring
The sample picked on Aug. 29
to 2 inches in length and which contained 8.28
percent of seeds and 17.93 percent of soft resins may be considered
as praotically mature,
From this date to Sept. 24 the samples as
indicated by their seed content and percentage of soft resins possessed
their MIXIMUnt high quality.
The percentage of soft resins of the ten
samples picked at Intervals during the period of 27 days remained
fairly constant in soft resins, ranging from 18.80 to 20.03 percent,
with correspondingly high percentage of alpha resins ranging from 5.12
to 7.04 percent.
Likewise the hard resins were fairly constant
varying from 143 to 2,20 percent.
In this series of samples, one
sample picked Sept. 13 which contained less soft and alpha resins and
considerably more hard resins (3.30) may be eliminated from consideration.
The deviation of this sample from the others may be explained by the
fact that it was pale brown (with slight green tint) in color and
possessed a disagreeable mouldy odor, which indicates that changes
93
affecting its composition had taken place during the drying or storage
of the sample.
by
The six samples picked from Sept. 29 to Oct. 22 as indicated
their off color (brown) may be considered as over mature.
Their over*
maturity was further reflected in their high content of hard resins
ranging from 2.57 to 2.62 percent. A decreasing percentage of soft
resins, although not noticeably rapid was noted in these samples.
The
decrease in alpha resins from 4.8 to 3.88 percent was more Narked*
In general it may be stated that the hops picked during the 21
day period of the 1936 season from Aug, 29 to Sept. 24 were best in
quality and fully mature.
The samples were immature prior to Aug. 29
and over -mature after Sept. 24.
During development of the hops in their
immature stages a rapid rise in soft resins and volatile oil (lupulin)
was noted while once matured the destruction or loss of these
constituents is mnoh slower but their color is most undesirable.
Duplication of this experiment during the coming season (198?) is
suggested with pickings to be made from the same or similar hop vines
on the same dates.
Seasonal conditions doubtless play an important pert
in the development of the hops and their constituents. While these
conditions in 1937 may not be the sane as in 1936 the results of such
tests should again indicate the approximate period of time when the
hops are prime or fully matured and possess their maximum high quality.
Frank Rabsk
Washington, D.C.
March 17, 1937
Fig. 1.
Flower Stages
94
1. Bud - no stigma showing
3. Majority of stigma out
5. One-half stigma dead
2. Few stigma showing
4. Flower fully developed
6. Stigma dead - burr forming
Fig. 2.
Steps in bagging female flowers for artificial crossing.
1. Arm with flowers in proper stage for bagging.
Fig. 2-2. Cotton in place around stem.
95
tO
a)
97
Fig. 2-5.
Three bags in place - note the tag giving identity of cross.
98
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
An unusual type of spike caused by downy mildew.
Stages of flower development.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
A Late Cluster plant. Picture taken day first stage of
maturity samples was picked, Aug. 2, 1937.
99
Individual arms of plant 29-25 showing variation in size of burr
on Aug. 2, 1937.
Fig. 7.
Fuggles - Row on left stripped but not suckered.
stripe d and suckered.
1CC
Row on right
-4"
4
- x14,he
Fig. 8.
Fuggles - Row on left suckered but not stripped.
stripped and suckered.
AA'
Row on right
103.
Fig. 9.
Fuggles - Row on left not stripped or suckered. Row on right
stripped and suckered. Mildew infection was much heavier early
in the season on the row not stripped or suckered, but the
yield was approximately the same as the check row on the right.
102
Fig. 10.
Fig. 11.
A Fuggles plant bagged for artificial pollination.
A bagged Fuggles plant - note that the majority of the bags are in
the shade.
Fig. 12.
Type of cloth bag used in comparison with parchment bags.
This type of bag was not satisfactory.
104
Fig. 13.
Fig. 14.
A badly spiked Late Cluster seedling male.
A hybrid seedling (L.C. x E.C. ) with nearly all of side arms spiked.
irj2
105
Fig. 15.
An Early Cluster plant not stripped or suckered.
Note the
numerous basal, s ikes._
*
Fig. 16.
A hop yard near Hermiston, Oregon.
background
b
,, *Pe...
Col
Note the training sled in
Fig. 17. Group of growers inspecting the
Experimental Yard. Note the heavy
growth of Bavarian hops.
Fig. 18. Group of growers inspecting the
Experimental Yard. An Early
Green plant on left.
Fig. 19.
A training cart used in the
Experimental hop yard.
Fig. 20.
Hop growers inspecting a good
seedling plant.
108
Fig. 21.
An abnormal type of mildew spike.
Fig. 22.
A terminal spike on a young plant.
later in the season.
This plant was killed by mildew
109
Fig. 23.
The semi-vase system of stringing in a hop yard near Santa
Rosa, California.
aN't
Fir. 24.
The vase system of stringing in a hop yard near Santa Rosa,
California. Note the 4 strings per plant.
7,-ipz,
4
''
--
k.
oltlet
- 4.
.,
e