r
-1
1968
ANNUAL REPORT
of
HOP AND MINT INVESTIGATIONS
(CReS, OAES 36, and 120)
r
Distribution of Copies
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
14
1
4
7
Hop Investigations,
Oilseed and Industrial Crops Research Branch,
Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station,
Dept. of Farm Crops, Oregon State Univ.,
Dept. of Agricultural Chemistry, Oregon State Univ.,
Dept. of Botany and Plant Path., Oregon State Univ.,
Irrigated Agr. Res. 4 Ext. Center, Wash. State Univ.,
University of California at Davis,
Parma Branch Experiment Station, Univ. of Idaho,
United States Brewers Association,
Western Utilization Research 4 Development Div.,
Authors.
Results of research reported
herein are preliminary,
subject to verification,
and are not for publication.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
HOP INVESTIGATIONS
CRe5-1 (OAES FC: 36)
BREEDING AND EVALUATING NEW AND IMPROVED VARIETIES
OF HOP
6
Alfred Haunold, C. E. Zimmermann and C. E. Horner
7
Exchange of Germ Plasm (AH, CEZ)
Crosses made in 1968
1966 seedling nursery
1967 seedling nursery
1968 seedling nursery
"SY" nursery
Seeded observation nursery
Triploid nursery
Mutation studies
9
9
9
9
10
12
Hop Genetics (AH)
Germination of hop seed
Cytological studies
Fertility of 2n + 1 pollen
Time of collection of microsporocytes
25
25
26
27
27
Reaction of 1967 Crosses to DM (CEH)
35
Evaluation of Mite Resistance (W. Cone)
36
Preliminary Evaluation (CEZ, CEH, STL)
Brewer inspection samples
Prosser nursery (C. H. Nelson)
42
42
49
Advanced Evaluation (CEH, CEZ, STL, AH)
Commercial production of advanced lines for brewing trials
Clonal increase
59
59
61
CReS -2 (OAES Bot: 36)
HOP DISEASES: THEIR ETIOLOGY
EPIPHYTOLOGY AND CONTROL
7
8
62
C. E. Horner
Hop Downy Mildew
Verticillium Wilt
Hop Virus Diseases
62
63
64
Page
CRe5-4 (OAES AC: 36)
AGRONOMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
TO IMPROVE YIELD AND QUALITY OF HOP
76
C. E. Zimmermann
Summary of results and conclusions
Quality genetic study
Supplemental light study
Meristem culture study
Use of herbicides on hops
Weed control in hops
CRe5-5 (OAES AC: 36)
CHEMICAL EVALUATION OF HOPS AS RELATED TO
IMPROVEMENT OF QUALITY THROUGH BREEDING
76
77
78
78
79
79
90
S. T. Likens and Gail Nickerson
Summary of Storage Studies
Part I.
1967-68 storage trials
1968-69 storage trials
Storage stability in solvents
Deterioration of alpha acid
Attempts to isolate product
Use of lupulin to indicate deterioration
Part II.
Summary of Analytical Work (12 tables without text)
Part III. Trial Crosses for High Analysis
Objectives
Justification
Experimental methods
Results
Discussion
Plans
90
90
90
90
91
91
91
99
111
111
111
111
113
113
113
MINT INVESTIGATIONS
CRe5-12 (OAES Bot: 120)
MINT DISEASES AND METHODS OF CONTROL
INCLUDING BREEDING FOR RESISTANCE
1
C. E. Horner and S. T. Likens
Cost-Benefit Analysis
1968 Research and Results
Stubble flaming for wilt control
Resistant varieties
Yield and quality of resistant strains
Certified planting stock program
Wilt control with systemics
Mint rust and black stem diseases
3
5
10
14
15
15
1
INTRODUCTION
C. E. Horner
This 1968 annual report of Hop and. Mint Investigations carried out
by the regional hop project headquartered at Corvallis, Oregon, includes
data collected and summarized during the period ,March 1, 1968 to
February 28,.1969.
It includes data in some .cases -which were collected
by personnel at the Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center
at Prosser, Washington.
All data on hop research. are reported under
one of four main lines of study, Detailed discussions and summarizing
data are presented for each experiment..or phase as a,separate section.
Additional data or ,notes ,which-are _important enough ,to be included as
a matter of permanent, record are appended to the report.
:
Some of the projects are conducted:cooperatively by.investigators
located at Oregon State University,. In these-cases; it is necessary
that a line project report be prepared by morethan one :person.
Where
this .has.occured,an,attempt -has been made to give each project leader
full ,credit -for his contribution .to the report.
The work summarized in this-report is supportedby public and
private funds. Cooperative research is carried out 11)r-Crops Research
Division; ARS, USDA; Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station; and
United States Brewers Foundation: hroughthe Agricultural Research
Foundation underMemorandum of,Understanding. In:addition certain
phases of the federal. breeding program are- cooperative with the
agricultural experiment,stations-in.California; Idaho and Washington
also under Memorandum-of Understanding. This report does not summarize
work done at any of the institutions. which .does not involve direct
cooperation.of,federal personnel.
The immediate staff of the hop research project during the preceding twelve months consisted,of the following persons.
This list
is madeup of regularly employed-personnel-whomereassociated with
the cooperative State-Federal hop:research program and thus contributed directlyto.the,work reported herein. Personnel doing independent
research.at Oregon ,State University and field assistants hired for
intermittent.or,seasonal jobs,ontheerative program are not included.
Mr, J. F. Anderson, Assistant in Plant Pathology, OSU,
Mrs. J. M. Barnes, Secretary, USDA,
Dr. Alfred Haunold, Research Plant Geneticist, USDA
Dr. C. E. Horner, Research. Plant Pathologist, USDA, Project leader,
Mr. Lynn Jewell, Laborer,
Mr, S. T. Likens, Research Chemist, USDA,
Mrs. Betty McCoy, Lab. Technician, OSU
Miss G. B. Nickerson, Chemist, OSU
Mr. B. R. Swanson, Biology Aide, OSU
Mr. C. E. Zimmermann, Research Plant Physiologist, USDA.
2
Papers published by hop and mint project personnel since the last
reporting period are as follows:
Venetian turpentine as an aid in squashing
1968.
Haunold, Alfred.
Stain Technology
and concomitant production of durable chromosome mounts.
43:
153-156.
Haunold, Alfred.
8:
503-506
Likens, S. T.
pp. 249-256.
1968.
1968.
A trisomic hop, Humulus lupulus L. Crop Science
Hop analysis In Proc. Amer. Soc. Brewing Chemists
Horner, C. E.
1969.
Mint disease control research.
Essential Oil Growers League. pp. 10-22.
1969.
Melouk, H. & C. E. Horner.
menthae. Phytopathology (Abstr.)
Melouk, H. 1969.
by Phoma menthae.
In Proc. Oregon
Production of polygalacturonase by Phoma
59:
13-14.
Production of polygalacturonase and macerating enzymes
87 pp.
Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University.
Sherrod, L. L. 1969. Nature of resistance to Verticillium dahliae Kleb.
in strains of peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) developed by irradiation.
121 pp.
1969.
Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University.
According to the Oregon Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
(26 Dec., 1968) U. S. production of hops was 43,733,000 pounds, 12 percent
Oregon was the only State
below last year and 16 percent below average.
with more hop production than last year. Acreage and yield were below last
Washington production was off sharply. Total value of
year in all States.
the United States crop was 10 percent below 1967.
U. S. and World Hop Production
Frost in April and cold, windy spring weather adverseley affected the
hop crop in all four producing states. Growth in Washington was very uneven,
Cold, extended rains in late August seriously
thus yields varied greatly.
effected Washington's Late Cluster variety and yields were much lighter than
normal. Oregon's hops were about average in production, although several
yards were damaged by heavy August rains. In Idaho, Early Clusters were
affected by adverse spring weather, but Late Clusters were generally good.
California production again declined, mostly because of reduced acreage.
Brewing value of Pacific Northwest hops was lower than usual.
The 1968 world hop crop was estimated at 195.8 million pounds (USDA,
CM & S) down from the 1967 crop of 206.7 million pounds, and below the 19621966 average of 199.5 million pounds. The four leading hop-producing
countries in 1968 were Germany, United States, United Kingdom and CzeckoFor
slovakia with 45.2, 43.8, 22.0 and 18.7 million pounds, respectively.
the first time in recent history, Germany replaced the U. S. as the world's
leading producer of hops.
3
Because of substantially reduced U. S. and world hop production, prices
increased in 1968 and continued to strengthen in 1969 on future crop contracts.
U. S. Mint Oil Production
The 1968 U. S. peppermint oil crop, estimated at 4.1 million pounds,
was 11% below the 1967 crop, but 53% above the 1962-1966 average.
Acreage
increased by 14% in 1968 to 73,000 acres, but yield decreased by 21%, or
15 pounds per acre.
Oregon peppermint acreage increased sharply from 25
to 31 thousand acres, compared to a 5-year average of 17.7 thousand.
The
U. S. average price was $5.13 per pound, 40 cents less than 1967, but
near average. The value of the 1968 peppermint crop was 20.9 million
dollars.
Spearmint oil production was estimated at 1.26 million pounds, 23%
below 1967, but 60% above the 1962-1966 average.
The value of the 1968
spearmint crop was placed at 7.2 million dollars from 23,000 acres.
Table 1.
State
Idaho
Washington
Hops:
Acreage harvested
Average
1967
1968
1962-66
-Acres-
Acreage, yield, production, season average price received
by growers, and value, average 1962-66; annual 1967-68
Yield per acre
1968
Average 1967
1962-66
-Pounds-
Value
Price per pound
Production
Average
1967 1968
1967
1968
1968
1967
1968
1962-66
1967
-1,000 pounds-Pct.-Cents-1,000 dollars
3,300
1,780
1,810
1,740
6,877
20,220 19,400 19,100
1,632
1,660
1,510
33,127
3,880
3,600
6,516
5,742
88
45.0
49.0
32,204 28,841
90
45.0
47.0
2,932
2,814
14,492 13,555
Oregon
4,340
4,900
4,500
1,420
1,490
1,480
6,174
7,301
6,660
91
48.0
48.0
3,504
3,197
California
3,460
1,900
1,500
1,710
1,830
1,660
5,924
3,477
2,490
72
51.0
52.0
1,773
1,295
31,900 29,800 28,400
1,631
1,661
1,540
52,102
49,498 43,733
88
45.9
47.7
United States
22,701 20,861
1/
Harvested production. Includes 1,790,000 pounds destroyed in kiln and warehouse fires prior to December 1,
1967 in Washington and California. Production also includes 34,000 pounds held in reserve in Washington
and Oregon under Federal Market Order 991.
2/
Harvested production.
Includes 158,000 pounds destroyed in kiln fires prior to December 1, 1968 in
Washington and California. Production also includes 19,000 pounds held in reserve in Washington and
Oregon under Federal Market Order 991.
3/
Taken from Oregon Crop Reporting Service release of 26 December 1968.
LI1
Table 2.
Seasonal
Planted acreage
group and Average 1968
1962-66
State
-Acres-
Mint for Oil: Acreage, yield, production, season average price received
by growers, and value; average 1962-66, annual 1967-68
Harvested acreage
1968
Average
1962-66
-Acres-
Production
Price per pound
Yield per acre
1968
1968
1968
Average
Average
Average
1962-66
1962-66
1962-66
-Dollars-Pounds-1,000 pounds-
Value
1968
Average
1962-66
-1,000 pounds-
Peppermint
Indiana
5,640
6,300
5,620
6,300
37
35
206
220
7.48
7.80
1,583
1,716
Michigan
2,060
2,100
1,860
1,900
30
32
56
61
7.48
7.70
420
470
Wisconsin
4,240
5,700
3,560
5,500
37
43
141
236
7.52
7.70
982
1,817
Idaho
1,480
5,100
1,480
5,100
57
51
84
260
4.72
4.90
397
1,274
Washington
16,300 23,200
16,300
23,200
72
63
1,178
1,462
4.09
4.40
4,874
6,433
Oregon
17,820 31,500
17,720
31,000
56
59
989
1,829
5.38
5.00
5,337
9,145
47,540 73,900
46,540
73,000
57
56
2,654
4,068
5.09
5.13
Total
13,592 20,855
Spearmint
Indiana
3,460
4,600
3,420
4,600
32
36
112
166
5.27
8.30
538
1,378
Michigan
2,820
3,300
2,560
3,000
27
31
71
93
5,45
8.70
350
809
Washington
8,020 15,400
8,020
15,400
75
65
605
1,001
3.71
5.00
2,314
5,005
14,300 23,300
14,000
23,000
56
55
788
1,260
4.06
5.71
3,201
7,192
Total
HOP. INVESTIGATIONS
CRe5-1, 2, 4, 5
and
OAES Project 36
C. E. Horner, S. T. Likens, A. Haunold
C. E. Zimmermann
6
CRe5.,1 (OAES_FC136) BREEDING,AND EVALUATING
NEW AND,IMPROVED, VARIETIES OF HOP
Alfred. Haunold
E. Horner, ancLCE. Zimmermann
.Work:on-.thisproject,consists,of-breedingand,develcpment of improved
lopvarietiesi.and sttdiesOfAechniqueaused inA)reeding*-genetics, and
botanyofAlopsThe-workdoneisNariedwithdifferentpersonnel involved
indifferent-aspectsoftheresearChitherefore4the-initials of the
investigator(s)AnvolvedfolloweaChsectionor-sub,,heading to identify
.thecontributions of each.
,The.general.procedure for breeding,and,evaluating,new varieties is
as follows:
Available
-Planting Stock
Trial or Operation
.Type of EvalUation
0
Pollinate
Seed
0
1
Greenhouse
Downy mildew
screening
I
(seedling)
Nursery
(single-hill)
Vigor-quality
selection
10
Quality, vigor
50
Year
2
3
4
Observation Block
.(10-hill plot)
Downy mildew
Verticillium wilt
.(a) Zbservation-Block
.Quality, vigor
300
(b).CommercialA)bsB1, -Virus, B.I.S.
Vigor
(10 -hill plot)
5
6
:(a),Observatiou Block
(b).Zommercial,.Obs,B1.
.(c) Yield Trial
,(replicated block)
Quality,,vigor,-B,I.S.
Quality, vigor
Vigor
4,000
Vigor, quality
Test brew
500
(a) Yield Trial
(b)-Commercial
Vigor, "quality
5,000
Commercial Trial
Test brew
(a) Yield Trial
(b) Com9ercial-Trial
(24cre minimum)
7
Test brew
50,000
7
Exchange of Germplasm (AH).
Requests for hop rhizomes and open pollenated seed again came to us
from various scientists engaged in hop research:
Dr. Aldo Calzoni F., Universidad de Colombia, Tunja, Colombia:
Rhizomes of Savinja Golding, Accession Number 61020
(a)
19209
Fuggle
19001
Brewers Gold
59008
Early Cluster
65103
E-2
65102
Yakima Cluster (L-1)
65001
Talisman
Open pollenated seed of Talisman, Accession Number 65001
(b)
59008
Early Cluster
Ing. Agr., Ramon Vasquez, Universidad de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico:
Rhizomes of Fuggle, Accession Number 19209
64100
Bullion
19001
Brewers Gold
Dr. A. S. Nash, Hop Research Station, Ringwood, Australia:
Open pollenated seed of Talisman, Accession Number 65001
59008
Early Cluster
Ing. George Francke R., P. 0. Box 8, Tecate , B. C., Mexico:
Rhizomes of Talisman, Accession Number 65001
64100
Bullion
19001
Brewers Gold
65102
Yakima Cluster
65103
E-2
Wild American (New Mexico) 60016
60014
Wild American (Arizona)
We did not receive any new germplasm material at Corvallis in 1968
Crosses made in 1968.
The crosses and open pollenated seed collections made in 1968 are
listed in Table 1. The cross number is a 4-digit number, the first two
It is anticipated that
digits denoting the year the cross was made.
never more than 99 crosses will be made in a single year. After selecting a given genotype in a certain cross, the cross number becomes part
of the selection number by adding the number of the particular plant to
the cross number, connected by a hyphen. For example, 6801-05, 6801-15,
and 6801-125. Thus selection numbers may be six or seven digit numbers
consisting of two portions connected by a hyphen. Accession numbers will
be carried in a master record, but the accession number Es se will not
reveal the year the number was assigned.
8
Crosses 6801 to 6804 (Table 1) are part of a genetic study to investigate inheritance of alpha acid. The combinations involved are high alpha x
high alpha, high alpha x low alpha, low alpha x high alpha, and low alpha x
Parents differing widely in alpha acid content were selected for
low alpha.
The high by high cross is a brother-sister combination, but the
this study.
Sufficient seed was
parents of the other three crosses are not related.
obtained in all four combinations to give a good seedling population with
the exception of cross 6804. The seeds were germinated by Mr. Zimmermann
under field conditions in peat pots and seedlings transplanted directly to
the field in the spring of 1969.
Cross 6806 involves two parents with high alpha acid to breed for
The seedlings will be grown directly in the
high alpha acid content.
field without greenhouse mildew screening. Crosses 6810, 6811, 6812, 6814,
6815, and 6816 are being grown in the greenhouse for mildew screening.
Seed from these crosses germinated poorly. Crosses 6817-6820 involve a
European type parent (61021 , formerly called "Swiss") in an attempt to
select for mildew resistance and European type. A large number of seedlings, particularly of crosses 6818, 6819, and 6820 are presently in the
greenhouse for mildew screening. Cross 6821 had poor germination and
was discarded.
Cross 6824 involves a mildew resistant parent (19151) and the seedlings will also be screened for mildew resistance in the greenhouse.
Crosses 6825 and 6826 came from wild European open pollenated females.
Germination generally was poor and only a few plants survived. Crosses
6827-6829 are open pollenated seed collections for cytological studies.
Crosses 6805, 6807, 6808, 6809, 6813, 6821, 6822, 6823, 6830, 6831,
and 6832, failed to germinate properly and were discarded.
When seed was harvested last fall, we observed that some crosses
had a large amount of already sprouted seed probably due to the rainy
Crosses 6805, 6807, 6809, and 6821 especially
weather in August of 1968.
showed a large percentage of sprouted seed. This may be one explanation
for the surprisingly poor germination of the 1968 seed.
The year 1968 was the wettest year on record in Corvallis, one of
the reasons why we also had a severe outbreak of downy mildew in the
main yard. Although valuable information on leaf, cone, and crown infection in some genotypes was obtained, it also severely affected genotypes
Selection in
that under normal conditions show some mildew tolerance.
Material
for
breeding
such material, therefore, was rather difficult.
1966
seedling
nursery,
purposes was selected from three nurseries, the
the 1968 seeded observation nursery, and the "SY" yield nursery.
1966 Seedling Nursery:
The 1966 seedling nursery, consisting of 392 single hill entries
was evaluated for the second year in 1968. All but 22 genotypes were
These 22 represent 10 of the original crosses. Cross
discarded.
number 6527 (Table 2) produced the largest number of promising offOnly one
spring (a total of six), followed by cross 6517 and 6535.
single genotype was saved from crosses number 6503, 6516, 6532, and
9
6536.
Some of the selected genotypes appeared to be rather
susceptible
to downy mildew, but they were selected on the basis of
quality data,
overall appearance, and vigor. It should be remembered
that we had
a severe mildew outbreak in the main yard in 1968 and.that
even material
with good mildew tolerance showed a.high incidence of
the disease.
1967 Seedling Nursery:
The 1967 seedling
nursery (from crosses made in 1966) was planted
in the main yard in .the spring of 1968.
Selections .were saved from
only 24 of the 76 crosses and,open pollinated.collections
made in 1966
(Table 3).
Several crosses.produced only a small number of seeds,
frequently with poor germination, while.others
showed a high susceptibility to downy mildew ,in.the greenhouse test
that they had to be
eliminated.
Most of the 213 selected seedlings.in the
nursery got established
in the spring, .but,a large.number of plants-later
were damaged considerably by downy mildew and,some-even.died.
The ,remainder will be
observed one more year, before final.selections for
testing in a replicated observation nursery.will be made.
1968 Seedling Nursery:
The
1968.seedling.nursery.was.established.in the spring of 1969
from seedlings.obtained-from .crosses.6701-6718
made in 1967 (see 1967
report, page.20)...Cross.6713.was,10096.susceptible.to downy mildew and
was discarded before field planting,-.A large number of
seedlings which
did not show
any,systemic,mildew.infection were planted in the field.
This portionof the,research.will be discussed
in-detail in the 1969
annual report.
"SY" Nursery:
The SYmursery-(SY
=segregation.for.yield) was.originally conceived
by Dr. S. N. Brooks to study the interrelationship
of.certain fertility
regimes (as,part,of environment) with low,
aledium,,andhigh vigorous
genotypes and.their offspring.in a replicated-test.
Most of the
genotypesin the testmere susceptible.to downy mildew and
about 8%
of the entries.did not,survive.
The original "SY" yield trial, therefore,
had to be abandoned in 1969., :Seven .genotypes
-were saved for further
study primarily on the basis.of.their.apparent
tolerance to downy mildew
(Table 4)
.Three of -these -genotypes were,discarded.before
planting in
the spring -of 1969 :because
of-their-low,alpha.acid -content. The remainder was planted
in.a.two,hill.seeded observation nursery (GP-OB).
The
first replication of.the,"SY" trial was -also saved for
physiological
field studies by Mr. Zimmermann.
Seeded Observation Nursery:
About 100 .genotypes were evaluated.in theseeded
observation
nursery at Corvallis-in 1968. These -included,named varieties
introduced
from foreign countries,
unnamed,selections introduced from abroad and
material developed .in our -breeding .program.-.. All
genotypes were represented by a minimum of three-and a maximum-of
seven hills, depending on
availability of planting stock. Notes were taken on general
appearance,
LU
vigor, growth type, cone set, -size, & shape, lupulin, aroma characterisSixty-two genotypes were saved initially
tics, and diseases (Table 5).
for further observation in either a seedless observation block (Si OB) or
in the germplasm block (GP) in the main yard. Additional notes on
systemic downy mildew infection were obtained from the crowns in early
spring 1969. Twelve more genotypes were discarded before planting in
1969 either because they showed severe systemic infection of downy
mildew or because of heart rot or other diseases (e.g. virus notes
obtained in 1968). These genotypes were all unnamed experimental
varieties: 62005, 62008, 63002, 63005, 63009, 64001, 64014, 64019,
64022, 65005, 65013, and 67062.
Twenty-three genotypes listed in Table 5 had desirable characteristics and they were planted in a 2-hill germplasm nursery (GP) in the
main yard. This nursery is a reservoir of potentially useful breeding
material. Many of these genotypes are foreign introductions and some
Defender=62051,
are named varieties introduced from abroad such as:
Janus=62053, Progress=66051, Ringwood Special=66053, CalicrOss=66054,
First Choice=66055, Smooth Cone=66056, Bramling Cross=68051, and Petham
Some of these varieties were also planted in the seedGolding=68052.
less yard for further observations (designated si comm): Alliance=66050,
Pride of Ringwood - 66052, Ringwood Special=66053, Calicross=66054, First
Choice=66055, Smooth Cone=66056, Builion=66030, and Bramling Cross=
Another 11 were planted in 4-hill plots in the breeding block
68051.
(BB, main yard), since they showed characteristics useful for our
62013, 62052 (Density), 63001, 63004, 63006, 63008,
breeding program;
64009, 64010, 64107 (Northern Brewer), and 66052 (Pride of Ringwood).
Occasionally a genotype was planted in both the seedless nursery and
either the GP or BB in the main yard.
Triploid Nursery:
A triploid nursery was established in 1968 as part of the genetic
The seedlings came from crosses made in 1967
research program.
between a tetraploid Fuggle female and selected males (1967 report,
pages 22-23). A total of 21 crosses (Table 6) are represented in this
nursery, but some of them involve the same male crossed to a different
tetraploid Fuggle selection. All four tetraploid selections (T1, T2,
T3, and T4) were repeatedly checked for chromosome numbers in 1968.
They were found to be pure, stable tetraploids and, therefore, will be
Therefore, there are
pooled as a single genotype for future work.
seven different combinations in the nursery (Table 6) which resulted
in a total of 776 seedlings that were transplanted directly to the
field the same year the seeds were germinated in the greenhouse.
Before transplanting, however, root tips were collected from all
genotypes for cytological analysis.
A chromosome count was obtained from 771 plants out of the total
A small number of genotypes were
of 776 transplanted to the field.
rather weak in the greenhouse and although root tips could be obtained,
The great
they were not moved to the field until the fall of 1968.
majority of these plants were cytologically unbalanced (29, 31, 32
chromosomes), but occasionally a triploid genotype was weak and grew
Most of the genotypes in each cross were normal triploids
poorly.
In considering the total number of genotypes from all seven
(2n=30).
11
crosses, 76% were triploids (2n=30), 13% had an extra chromosome (2n=31),
7% had one less than the normal triploid complement (2n=29), and the
chromosome number of the remainder varied from 2n=20 to 2n=42,
respectively.
Finding a genotype with 20 chromosomes was a surprise and almost
certainly this is not due to an accidental seed mixture.
A female
gamete of 10 chromosomes could conceivably have been formed, although
it would have had to be completely balanced in order to survive.
If
this was indeed so, it should occur very rarily and the ratio (1 in 771)
may bear this out. A small number of genotypes were tetraploids,
probably due to fusion of a non-reduced female gamete (n=30) with a
normal male gamete (n=10). An occasional genotype had more than 40
chromosomes, probably from a non-reduced female gamete (n=30) fertilized by a male gamete carrying one or more extra chromosomes.
This
should be a rare event, not only because of the low pollen viability,
but also since such pollen has to compete in fertilization with normal
pollen (n=10). The frequency with which gametes with extra chromosomes are found in diploid male hops is not known.
Another possibility which could result in seedlings with chromosome numbers in excess
of 40 under open-pollinated conditions is that a triploid male
produces gametes of varying chromosome numbers, which occasionally
succeed in fertilizing a non-reduced female gamete.
Some monoecious
triploids are also present in the hop yard and they could produce some
viable pollen.
Almost twice as many genotypes had 31 chromosomes than 29 (13.4%
vs. 7.4%). Most of the genotypes in either the 29 or 31 chromosome
group appeared weaker than the triploids.
Occasionally a 31 chromosome plant was very vigorous and could not be distinguished phenotypically from a triploid one. One of these (selection 6769-05) had
almost twice the alpha acid content as compared to other triploids in
the same cross.
The seedlings which were transplanted to the nursery in May and
early June 1968 generally developed normally and climbed a supporting
string up to about 10-12 feet height. Only a few reached the cross
wire.
About half of them produced flowers in late July and early
August.
Cones from a number of females were selected for preliminary
laboratory analyses (Table 7). Most of the males appeared to be
monoecious with well developed female flowers at the end of each side
arm which usually developed into a normal appearing, cone that also set
seed.
The anthers of these predominantly male monoecious plants
dehisced normally and produced a large amount of pollen.
It would be
interesting to find out if one could obtain selfed seed in this
material.
Some attempts were made in 1968, but generally the seedling
plants had only short side arms and the female flowers were not
receptive any more when the anthers began to dehisce.
A few open
pollinated seeds were obtained, but they failed to'germinate in the
laboratory (Table 1 crosses 6830 and 6831). Microsporocytes were
collected for cytological analysis, but only a few genotypes have
been analyzed thus far.
Generally the chromosomal irregularities
that one would expect from the extra genome in the triploid were observed, leading to one or several trivalents and a number of univalents.
Additional cytological studies with monoecious hop plants are planned
for next year.
2
Phenotypically, most genotypes .in the.triploid.nursery,had the Fuggle
type leaf, but other traits such as.sideaam.length,,yield.potential, etc., could
not be judged reliably in.these seedling plants.
A,summary,of,chemical,analysesof..females-that had_produced sufficient-cones-iri,1968. is presented in:Table: 7-Fifteen-crosses are listed
in ,the :table, representing-seedlingsfrom-6,of....the,T,different tetra-
combinationsAisted in Table6.- In-comparing the alpha
acid:values.:for.,the,various progenies .it appears that certain males
.contributecLsignificantly to-theJalpha-.acid-content,of the-progeny. For
example,;,the,i,threeprogenies-cominvfromAhe-Fu.:1,1-male-have alpha acid
contents,:around.,5%, with,only-an-occasional,genotype,below 4%. One
genotype,-6769-05 whichhad31,chromosomes had,,an_alpha- acid content of
10%,. almostAwiceas.,muchaa:other genotypes.iti:the same group. Beta
acicLin,this:_genotypealso,was.considerably.higher than that of any
.of,itssister selectionsAhother_male,-19010K,;appeared to produce
considerablyAessyalphaacicLin,any;ofitsprogeny:ascomPared to the
previous crossolnlya:few:females in,the-other.crosses produced
enough.cones- for_chemicaLanalysisandtherefore, no trend can be seen.
All females in, 968_will_again,be sampled for chemical analysis.
Twenty-threefemalegenotypes.:Irom, thetriploid.nursery were
planted, in areplicated.yield triaLat-two,locations (main yard &
seedless yard)-in thespring:ofI969-together,with-their diploid and
tetraploi&female,parents.:_kdetailed.analysis.:of.growth: rate (vigor)
and yield potential:-ofthese.geneticallyclosely;related diploid,
triploid, and..tetraploid.hops,is planned with this material.
Mutations studies.
N.:Brooks..were, under way in
Two..experiments:established
1968 in an-effortto:obtain;an Early.Cluster-(E-2),.tolerant to downy
mildewi_throughAmutation breeding:
(a)
UV irradiation:
The. ultraviolet irradiation.experiment. (UV),planted in the south-
west portionof,the,mainyard.consistedofthree>treatments of 2, 5 and
10 minutesUV, irradiationrespectively,-ofrhizome.material in the
laboratory before-field-planting. The.material-planted in the field
in the spring-of,196T(1967 report,,page. 24).consisted of:
Ten minutes,UV irradiation ..
Five.minutes,UV irradiation.-Two minutes,UV irradiation
.
.
880 rhizomes
-1222 rhizomes
.
545 rhizomes
Dr. Brooks had anticipated. to get a build,up.of downy mildew in
1968 and to.obtain superior,types,bynatural selection. A severe
outbreak of downyAnildew occured.in-1968, followed by the cool and wet
weather throughoutmost-of thegrowingseason, which. killed many of
the central crowns. The diseased.top.growth,was.removed in July and
the nursery flamed-with:a,propane flaming,:rigs. At.that time the
disease had not.spread very -much: to the new-rhizomes.formed this year.
New plants from - these - rhizomes emergedyin mid-summer which again
showed heavy mildew infection.inAugus-Land,September.
Healthy
13
appearing rhizomes from all three UV treatments were collected in the
fall for mildew screening in the greenhouse in 1969 to determine
whether a mutation for downy mildew tolerance has occured in this
material.
(b)
Ethyl methane sulfonate:
Another experiment started by Dr. Brooks involves the mutagenic
chemical ethyl methane sulfonate (EMS). Rhizomes of E-2 were treated
in the spring of 1968 with a solution of 0.75%, or 0.05% EMS,
respectively, and transplanted to the "B block" in the main yard.
The
approximately 90 rhizomes in each of the two treatments, planted at a
3-foot spacing, developed into vigorous plants. Mildew infestation in
this material was heavy and notes were taken in June and September.
Infection ranged from 0 to 100% early in the season, and from moderate
infection to total kill of the plants in the fall.
Surviving crowns
were dug in the fall and kept in cold storage during the winter for
greenhouse testing during 1969.
Table 1.
Crosses and seed collections made in 1968.
Cross
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
63006 x 63013M
63006 x 19005M
19105 x 63013M
19105 x 19005M
66052 x 63013M
62013 x 6616-35
62013 x 6616-66
62013 x 6618-40
65103 x 6220-09
65103 x 6310-01
65103 x 6322-01
19208 x 6220-09
19208 x 6310-01
19208 x 6322-01
48209 x 6310-01
48209 x 6322-01
61021 x 6220-09
61021 x 6310-01
61021 x 6322-01
61021 x 63013M
FuT x 6220-09
FuT x 6322-01
FuT x 63013M
19151 x 6310-01
Wild European x OP
Wild European x OP
56008 x OP
6668-01 x OP
6752-52 x 6668-01
6771-06()
6760-01 x 6659-17
6832
56001 x OP
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6 819
6820
6 821..
Location
of cross
Pedigree
No.
(BG x Ut526-4)x(BG x Ut526-4)
(BG x Ut526-4)x LCS
(LGpS x Fu-FuS)x(BG x Ut526-4)
(LGpS x Fu-FuS) x LCS
PrRi x (BG x Ut526-4)
(Su25S x Ut524-2)x(BG x Fu-Colo2-1)
II
Main Yd.
Reason
It
It
rr
It
H x L
H x L
L x H
L x L
sprouted;disc.
Quality
tt
Remarks
high a
I?
If
IV
(Su25S x Ut524-2)x[BG x(BG-EKGxBavS)]
E2 x Fu-Colo2-1
Smith Yd,
E2 x [(LGpS x Fu-FuS)x(EG-XS)]
E2 x [(LGpS x Fu-FuS)x(SSp-LCS
LC x Fu-Colo2-1
LC x [(LGpS x Fu-F
x(EGx XS)]
LC x [(LGpS x Fu-fuS)(SSp-LCS)J
FuH x E(LGIDS x Fu-FuS)(EG-XS)3
sprouted; disc.
DM, res.
discarded
sprouted;disc.
I?
I/
sprouted;disc.
rr
FuH x [(LGpS x Fu-FSASSp-LCS)]
Swiss
Swiss
Swiss
Swiss
FuT x
x Fu-Co12-1.
x [(LGpS x Fu- uSi(EG x XS)]
x [(LGpS x Fu- aSASSp-LCSYll
x (BC K Ut526Fu-Co1o2-1
(SSp-LCS
FuT x E(1.,GpSx Fu-i
FuT x (BG-Ut526-4)
(Fu x RV-XS)x[(LGp:Sx Fu-FuS) (EG-XS)]
[XS x (Fu x EG -ECS)] x OP
(56008-OP) x OP
(56008-0P)(x 56068-OP)
rr
rr
Europ. type
rr
I/
1
WGH
Retz,Aust,
Vienna,Aust.
Main Yd.
+a
Trip,DM res.
poor germ;disc.
DM res.
Europ.type
Aneuploids
11
If
It
(FuT x RV-FuS)()
(FuT x FuS) x [BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)](BG x Fu-FuS)]
Hallertau x OP
Parma, Ida.
Tetrapl.xTetrapl.
Monoecious self
did not germ.
Tripl.x Tripl.
did not germ.
Europ.type;DMres. poor germ;disc.
Table 2.
Female selections from the 1966 nursery.
2/
:Matur
:
:
.
Sel.
No.
Corvallis, 1968.
:
1968
:
:
loc.
:
Pedigree 1/
:
.
Quality
ity: Yield:
a
I
1/
2/
3/
2:62b
11:62a
11:64a
13:62
5:56a
6:64b
7:56a
7:62a
15:56a
17:56b
17:60a
17:61
17:62b
18:57
18:60a
20:64b
23:64b
24:63
24:64a
25:59
26:63
27:59
19209 x 19173M
64100 x 19060M
"
tt
56001 x 56001-19040M
56001 x 56001-19040M
"
"
It
n
n
n
II
It
ft
n
II
it
n
It
II
II
It
E
E
E
-
M
E
It
"
It
63020 x OP
56001 x 56001-19182M
It
OP = Open Pollinated
E = Early, M = Medium, L = Late
Leaf & Shoot Data: Summer 1968;
R = Resistant
[BG x BG-(EKG-BavS)] x OP
Ha x[Ha x (Bu x Be131S- Be131)J
tt
Root Data:
Spring 1969;
S
Seed1.0B.
Genetic
-
-
-
-
I
-
n
-
-
-
-
I
-
It
S
S
S
S
Seed1.0B.
-
Genetic
-
11
>Fu
2LC
=LC
-
>Fu
=LC
7.9 3.7 1.1
5.1 4.2 0.4
6.3 4.0 0.5
-
-
-
-
-
8.6 4.0 1.1
7.7 3.6 1.2
-
-
-
-
-
E
PLC
5.0 3.0 0.5
>Fu
=LC
-
5.8
5.7
6.9
9.8
-
-
>LC
-
S = Susceptible;
2.2
4.6
3.5
4.5
0.9
0.8
1.3
1.5
-
-
-
5.8 2.7 1.2
-
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
I
=LC
=Fu
-
S
I
M
M
M
E
VE
.
-
-
[BG x BG-(EKG-BavS)] x OP
(BG x Fu-FuS) x OP
"
"
-
(Bu x RV-XS) x EG-XS
(BG x Ut526-4) x OP
If
.m1/
%
-
Ha x(Ha x Fu-FuS)
Ha x(Ha x Fu-FuS)
n
63018 x OP
63021 x OP
M
tt
n
19115 x 19058M
63007 x OP
"
Fu x Stsp-LCS
Bu x EKG-BavS
(1
100g
10.2 3.2 0.9
%
6503-25
6512-24
6512-27
6516-24
6517-19
6517-46
6517-47
6517-56
6524-01
6527-02
6527-07
6527-09
6527-11
6527-17
6527-21
6532-14
6535-05
6535-17
6535-18
6536-05
6538-09
6538-17
:
.
:
DM 3/
:oil :Leaf:Root: Disposition
:
-
-
tt
II
Seed1.0B.
n
Genetic
Seed1.0B.
Seed1.0B.
I
S
R
R
S
S
n
S
S
n
I
S
Genetic
-
It
S
S
S
S
S
S
I
-
Seedl.OB.
Genetic
Seedl.OB.
Genetic
I = Intermediate, tolerant
Table 3. 1967-Seedling Nursery established in the Main Yard.
Selection
No,
6611-01
6621-01
6622-01
6623-01
6624-01
6625-01
6626-01
6628-01
6629-01
6630-01
6634-01
6635-01
6636-01
6642-01
6645-01
6646-01
6648-01
6649-01
:
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
11
10
27
07
02
05
02
02
05
18
02
40
06
08
06
to 02
to 06
6650-0.1 to 14
6656-01 to 09
6669-01 to 30
Total
Source
:
(Cross No.)
:
6611
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6628
6629
6630
6634
6635
6636
6642
6645
6646
6648
6649
6650
6656
6669
Spring 1968,
No. plants
Selec.:Surv,
11
4
10
27
7
11
7
4
2
0
5
2
2
2
5
2
18
2
40
20
6
6
8
3
6
4
0
2
6
5
14
11
9
3
30
21
213
116
Pedigree
19208
64100
64100
64100
64100
64100
19033
19038
19038
5204
59008
59008
62002
19124
19164
9185
19200
19200
19200
48209
66030
51101A
54066M
LC x OP
Bu x [(Oh x GC1-FuS) x (SemschS x 8-2 BrYd)
Bu x BelBurv-FuS
Bu x FuS-FuS
Bu x (XS x FuS-RVS)
Bu x OP
ruGp-THIS x [faS x (Oh x GC1-FuS)2]
LGp-ruS x )<'S x FuS-RVS)
OP
LC-p-FuS x OP
x OP
x 51114M
x 19043M
x 19037M
x 54066M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
OP
0.1;
58006M
OF
51114M
OP
OP
OF
51114M
19037M
54066M
OP
OP
[(3u x £C-U'5' x (Fu-BFav)] x OP
EC x Ut624-2
EC x OP
OJT:526-4 x 0t527-1)xUa x GC1-FuS)x(SemschS x 8-2B-z,Yd)]
x Serebr-FuS) x OP
(Pa x Bel 313-Bel 31) x OP
(LOp x FuS-RVS) x OP
Urbann-PCS x L2h x GC1-FuS) x (SemschS x 8-2 BrYd)]
Urbann-LCS x Fu3-FuS
Urbann-LCS x FuS-RVS
FuH x OP
Gosohie Bu x OP
Female selections from the SY-Nursery.
Table 4.
:
Sel. No.
:
Corvallis, 1968.
Quality
1968
Pedigree
loc.
o
6305-01
15:94a
16:87
16.94a
19209 x 19173M
Fu x Stsp-LCS
ft
6306-01
6310-03
25:80
7:94b
Fi
56001 x 19173M
lid x ..Dtsp-i-_:
x EL-',/,
Leaf- & shoot data = 3 hills
2/
GP = Germ Plasm, OB m Observation Nursery
:
Disposition 2/
0,93
0;
0;
0
GP-08
3,5
1,2
0,71
0;
0;
I
disc; a too low
7,3
3,9
1-9
0,86
0;
0;
0
GP-013
5-5
6,5
0;8
0, 6
0;
0;
1
GP-08
3
2,L
0.7
0;
0;
0
GP-08
0,8
0,39
1;
0;
I
disc; a too low
0,9
00/8
0;
0;
S
disc; a too low
,
19209 x 19058M
%
:
2,4
II
It
DM 1/
:
2,2
5,3
u
I7:94a
30:83
:
oil
:m1/100g
:a/8:
8
:
,
4
4
3 8
4-3
18
Female genotypes from the seeded Observation Nursery selected for
Table 5.
1/
:Vigor'
:
Pedigree
1968
sion No.: location
Acces-,-
:
61008
61011
61012
61014
61016
61017
61018
170:46-49
173:46-49
174:46-49
176:46-49
178:46-49
179:46-49
180:46-49
Poland CZ/66
"
P/K1
28/30
"
"
45/36
USSR
N16
"
N18
"
N34
62005
62008
62013
62051
62052
62053
63002
63004
63005
63006
63008
63009
63032
173:39-45
181:42-45
183:42-45
183:46-52
184:46-52
185:46-52
163:42-45
164:39-45
165:39-45
166:39-45
167:39-45
169:39-45
170:39-45
182:50-52
19120 x 58006M
Su25S x Ut524-2
56001 x 56001-19062M Ha x (Ha x EKG-BavS)
19120 x 58006M
Su25S x Ut524-2
Defender
Density
Janus
55081 x 19060M
Bu x EKG-BavS
19209 x 60031M
Fu x Colo4-1
56001 x 19182M
Ha x[Bu x (Be131S-Be131)]
59001 x 19040M
[(Els-FuS)x(EKG-BavS)]x Fu-FuS
19001 x 58015M
BG x Ut526-4
19001 x 19040M
BG x Fu-FuS
56002 x 58015M
BaCka x Ut526-4
g
64001
64002
64003
64005
64007
64008
64009
64010
64011
64014
64019
64020
64022
64023
64024
64026
64106
64107
189:42-45
190:42-45
191:42-45
193:42-45
195:42-45
180:50-52
188:46-49
189:46-49
190:46-49
194:46-49
188:50-52
189:50-52
191:50-52
192:50-52
193:50-52
195:50-52
186:46-52
187:46-52
19105 x 19173M
(LGS x Fu-FuS) x Stsp-LCS
g
65002
65003
65004
174:39-41
176:39-41
177:39-41
6 3001
f-p
f-g
f-p
f-p
P
ft
It
ft
It
ft
56001 x 19058M
Ha x EG-XS
19105 x 19058M
(LOS x Fu-FuS) x (EG-XS)
Zattler seedling (Wye)
ft
19208 x OP
59008 x 19062M
56002 x 19062M
It
ft
19001 x 19001-19062M
It
P
g
g
vg
f-g
g
g
g
f
f
vp
LC x OP
ECvx EKG-BavS
Backa x EKG-BavS
ft
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
tt
ft
ft
tt
BG x (Bu x Be131S-Be131)
German Var x OP
19208 x 19058M
LC x EG-XS
tt
19208 x 19060M
g
g
vP
f
19001 x 19182M
Wye 22/56/2
Northern Brewer
tt
vg
g
f
f
g
f
f
g
LC x EKG-BavS
19
further testing.
Corvallis, 1968,
.
3/
Type
Matur:
Plant:Cone
ity
:
DM
:
:
Crown:Shoot
Quality
:
Virus
:
.
a
%
:
8
:
%
:
4/
:
oil :DispositiOn
: ml/
100g
Fu
Fu
Fu
Fu
Fu
Fu
Fu
Fu
Ha
Fu
Fu
Fu
L
lg,loose
g,rich
compact
small
small
small
4/4
2/3
2°3
E
Cl
Fu
Cl
Fu
Fu
Fu
E-M
Fu
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Fu
small
4/4
0/4
0/4
./4
M
L
E
M
Fu
Cl
Cl
Cl
M
E
E-M
lg,loose
lg,rich
g,compact
0
y fleck
Fu yellow
fu yellow
Fu yellow
6.2 7.7
1.8
0
5.6 5.3
-
VS
VS
13.2 4.7
fu yellow
Lu yellow
Lu yellow
SL,ytleck
1'6
1/3
0;6
0
0/4
y fleck
heert pot
0,-+
3/3
0
3,4
3/4
0
Ha
Ha
g,sweet
g,uniform
sm,compact
Fa yellow
::4
0
3:4
0
Ha
Fu
Ha
-
Fu
Fu
M
M
M
VE
E
Ha
Cl
Fu
M
L
L
Cl
Cl
Cl
?
compact
sm,compact
lg,loose
white
sm,compact
like 58112
1/8
0/4
4/4
R
R
R
3/3
2/3
3/3
3/3
Fu sm,compact
lg,loose
v,poor
loose
4/4
7/7
2/3
0/3
2/3
V. high a
7.8 8.7 3.6
5.0 3.2
0
rich
6,0 1.3
yellow
leaf
yellow
yellow
0.5
Fa yellow
Fu yellow
0
0
0
BB
GP
BB
disc.
BB
disc.
BB
BB
disc.
slOB
slOB
slOB
slOB
BB
BB
BB
1.3
slOB
disc.
disc.
GP
high a
0
0
0
S
slOB,GP
GP
disc.
slOB
low a
low a
Lu yellow
Lu yellow
Sp leaf
mosaic
Fu yellow
Lu
Sp
Lu
Fu
-
small
-
3
lg,00mpact
lg,compacc
5.4 3.3
2.9
0/4
ringspot
S
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
GP
disc.
disc.
0
0
Cl
VI
M
L
L
L
M
M
E
M
Fu
Fu
Lu yellow
1/4
0/4
1/10
0/4
1/4
1/4
0/4
E
E
VE
E
E
E
E
rich
8.1 3.9
1.9
disc.
slOB
slOB
slOB,GP
slOB,GP
BB
slOB
GP
slOB
20
Table 5 cont.
:Vigorl/
Pedigree
1968
Accession No.: location
:
x
x
x
x
19060M
19172M
60026M
19058M
LC x EKG-BavS
Fu x (CT x Fu-FuS)
Pol CZ/C6 x Col 2-1
BG x EG-XS
65005
65007
65008
65009
65011
65013
65019
65026
65031
178:39-41
180:39-41
182:39-41
184:39-41
186:39-41
188:39-41
194:39-41
179:42-45
186:42-45
19208
19209
61008
19001
66050
66051
66052
66053
66054
66055
66056
66030
163:50-52
164:46-49
165:46-49
166:50-52
167:46-49
168:46-49
169:46-49
181:39-41
Alliance
Progress
Pride of Ringwood
Ringwood Special
Calicross
First Choice
Smooth Cone
Bullion (Goschie)
g
g
67062
68051
68052
193:46-49
166:46-47
175:42-45
USSR 30-6
Bramling Cross
Petham Golding
f
It
19151
19213
19208
56001
x
x
x
x
19058M
19060M
OP
56001-19040M
(Fu x RV-XS) x EG-XS
(LGS x FuS-RVS) x EKG-BavS
LC x OP
Ha x (Ha x Fu-FuS)
1/
p = poor, f = fair, g = good, vg = very good.
2/
E = Early, M = Medium, L = Late.
3/
Crown data:
Shoot data:
4/
f
vg
g
vg
vg
g
f
April 69; 0/4 = 4 hills inspected, all clean; 4/4 = 4 hills,
all diseased.
Summer 68; S = Susceptible; R = Resistant.
GP = Germplasm block; BB = Breeding block; sl OB = seedless Observation
nursery; sl comm = seedless commercial block.
21
DM '0/
:Crown:Shoot:
Type
Matur 2/
:Plant:Cone
ity
L
L
L
-
E-M
L
M
E-M
M
L
L
L
L
Cl
Bu
Cl
Cl
Cl
Fu
Ha
Fu
Fu
Fu
Cl
lg,loose
good
lg,loose
v,good
compact
garlic
compact
variable
0
0
0
0
0
4/4
E-M
?
sm,few
M
Ci
loose,shatte70J4
4/4
" ,long
:
:
%
oil
ml/
100g
'IS
0
6.3
1.4
1.1
v. rich
rich
0.8
6.0
5,9
9.1
1.3
1,6
6.5
1.3
1.3
7.7
6,6
5.8
5.0
1.3
6.6
2.5
0.4
-
y fLec.
3
4/4
hil_e
nc cones
4/4
2,4
4/
:
Disposition
disc.
disc.
Fu yellow
Fu yellow
1/4
4/4
4/4
a
%
lu yellow
2/3
0/3
fu .11314,
v,smali
som
-
Virus
C
Cl
Cl
CI
Cl
Cl
M
L
Quality
:
Fu yellow
GP
slOB
slOB
disc.
slOB
GP
slOB
slcomm,GP
GP
slcomm,BB
slcomm,GP
slcomm,GP
slcomm,GP
slcomm,GP
slcomm
disc.
slcomm,GP
GP
Table 6.
Cytological analysis of the progeny from a tetraploid Fuggle female crossed to selected diploid
males. Triploid Nursery, Corvallis 1968.
Chromosome Number 2n=
Cross:
No.
:20
Pedigree
:
1 /
tetrapl. Fu x FuS
1/
6753
6760
6763
6769
Ti
T2
T3
T4
x Fu 1-1
x
"
x
"
"
x
6761
6762
6765
6770
6771
T2
T2
T3
T4
T4
x Fu 2-4
x 19010M
"
x
"
x
"
x
6756
6772
Ti x 19040M
"
T4 x
tetrapl. Fu x Fu-FuS
6757
6766
6773
6774
T1
T3
T4
T4
tetrapl. Fu x EG-XS
6755
6775
Ti x 19062M
"
T4 x
6759
6768
6776
6777
T1
T3
T4
T4
ft
It
II
2/
tetrapl. Fu x FuS 1/
tetrapl. Fu x RV-FuS
14 104
7
82
2
25
4
33
12
17
8
1
13
24
1
5
n
2
1
1
it
94
39
1
41
1
47
1
135
136
131
108
32
1
5
30
31
22
4
42
2
1
39
39
5
27
27
23
3
33
7
27
42
29
42
2
1
3
3
3
14
10
5
1
11
4
15
10
10
15
16
24
1
17
17
4
30
30
3
3
3
1
2
2
6
1
1
1
1
6
1
4
27
1
3
1
1
9
2
1
1
57 588 103
7
0.1 0.17.4 76.3 13.4 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.1
1
1
Total No. plants
to field
42 : analyzed:pl.
132
109
33
48
1
1
1
1
1
3
:
40
41
10
1
33
5
2
tetrapl. Fu x EG-BavS
32
5
1
"
tetrapl. Fu x OP
OP
II
OP
H.jap?(prob.OP)
OP
Fu 1-1 and Fu 2-4:
31
n
n
Total Number of Plants
Percent
1/
1
30
29
n
x 19058M
x
"
x
"
"
x
x
x
x
x
28
6
6
37
38
771
100
776
originally thought to be a Fuggle sex reversal (male), but found to be two separate
crowns. Plants are assumed to be Fu x OP seedling, but their exact pedigree is unknown.
Table
7.
Chemical analysis of selected female seedlings.
1968
Sel. No. :Plot No.
6753-06
"
"
"
-20
-21
-23
6763-10
"
"
"
-17
-22
-26
6769-05
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
-08
-16
-17
-25
-31
-40
-41
-47
6762-03
"
-05
6765-01
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
-02
-04
-10
-12
-19
-33
-41
-42
-44
6:14
5:3
5:4
5:6
Tl x Fu 1-1
Tetrapl. Fu x FuS
30
It
II
tt
tt
fl
It
it
It
T3 x Fu 1-1
13:6
13:9
13:15
13:16
13:24
12:4
T4 x Fu 1-1
Tetrapl. Fu x FuS
il
It
II
It
II
It
It
II
it
It
Tett pi, Fu x FuS
31
Quality
a
:
8
:
a/0
4.16
4.93
5,79
3,43
2,56
4.22
2,49
3,80
1,62
1.17
2,32
0.90
5,73
4.08
6.14
5,72
3,28
2,90
2,73
3,97
1,75
1,41
2.25
1.44
10,05
5,00
6,37
3,27
1,57
1,53
1,82
1011
1,10
1,32
0,78
1.27
1,82
It
It
30
ti
It
It
6.1_8
It
II
It
II
It
II
It
It
It
II
II
II
It
II
31
4,92
5,09
4,00
3.38
5,30
It
II
30/31
5,9]
3,39
4,42
4,66
3,34
4,40
4,19
3.26
0.55
5,91
3.08
0.18
4.14
3,71
4.07
1.56
4,81
3.58
2.07
3,74
2.81
3.75
1,43
5.34
2,00
2.26
2,47
3.09
2.19
2,14
3.08
3.41
2.79
0,70
2,10
0,72
1.95
1.16
0,95
1.75
0.91
1.10
8:4
8:6
T2 x19010M
11:2
11:3
11:5
11:11
11:13
11:20
10:7
10:15
10:16
T3 x19010M
10:17
:
u
9:3
9:9
9:14
9:18
12:13
12:14
12:20
Chrom.:
No,
Pedigree
:
Triploid Nursery, 1968.
Tetrapl. Fu x RV-FuS
Tetl
30
pl. Fu x RV-FuS
tt
11
:
Remarks
V. high a
Chrom. mosaic
Table 7 cont.
Sel. No.
:
1968
Plot No.
:
Pedigree
:
:
Chrom.
No.
Quality
:
a
%
:
a
:
aia
%
6770-18
14:4
T4 x 19010M
Tetrapl. Fu x RV-FuS
30
2.23
1.50
1.49
6771-13
16:23
T4 x 19010M
Tetrapl. Fu x RV-FuS
30
5.17
3.17
1.60
6756-04
8:16
7:12
Ti x 19040M
Tetrapl. Fu x Fu-FuS
30
-28
4.70
4.72
4.56
3.13
1.03
1.51
6772-32
17:24
T4 x 19040M
Tetrapl. Fu x Fu-FuS
30
4.56
2.71
1.62
6773-01
18:9
T4 x 19058M
Tetrapl. Fu x EG-XS
30
4.36
3.20
1.36
6774-02
"
-14
19:20
18:5
T4 x 19058M
Tetrapl. Fu x EG-XS
30
3.85
3.40
2.88
4.67
1.34
0.73
6755-04
7:20
7:24
Ti x 19062M
Tetrapl. Fu x EKG-BavS
30
3,08
5.10
7.06
2.16
0.44
2.33
20:14
19:5
T4 x 19062M
Tetrapl. Fu x EG-BavS
30
3.31
3.66
3.25
2.79
1.02
1.31
"
"
-08
6775-01
"
-17
It
"
6759-02
8:8
Tl x OP
Tetrapl. Fu x OP
30
4.17
3,20
1.30
6777-10
rr
-18
-27
21:10
21:18
20:2
T4 x OP
Tetrapl, Fu x OP
30
3.37
1.94
4.66
2.06
3.52
3.37
1.64
0.55
1.38
rr
Remarks
25
Hop Genetics (AH).
Portions of the genetic research in 1968 became more closely
allied with the breeding phase of the program, since I assumed a part
Some of
of Dr. Brooks' duties following his transfer to Beltsville.
the research that was planned for 1968 had to be postponed, but most
of the important phases of the genetic research proceeded as planned.
Germination of Hop Seed.
A cooperative experiment between the Agricultural Engineering
Research Division, USDA-ARS, Lincoln, Nebraska and the Hop Investigations Group, CR, Corvallis, Oregon was conducted in 1968 to see whether
hop seed subjected to radio-frequency treatments would show a favorable
germination response. Positive results of such treatments on the germination of alpha alpha seed, wheat, and corn had previously been
reported in the literature and the Nebraska group was eager to try
seeds from diverse species.
Open pollinated hop seed was collected in the main hop yard at
Corvallis in the fall of 1967 and stored at room temperature for about
three months before sending it to Nebraska. Two seed lots were mailed,
one with clean seeds (W0,,without perianth) and one where the perianth
The radio-frequency treathad not been removed (W-:with perianth).
After
ments and dosages were seleoted by the Nebraska researchers.
irradiation the seed was returned to Corvallis. Each sample from the
various radiation treatments was divided into two parts. Part one
was immediately surface sterilized and placed into Petri dishes on
moist filter paper in a germinator under short day conditions (8 hour/
The
day, fluorescent light, at 25° C, and 1.6 hour/night at 10° C.).
other portion (part 2) was surface sterilized and placed into moist
Petri dishes in the refrigerator for 8 weeks of vernalization prior
to germination. Each sample represented about 200-350 seeds for each
treatment.
Tables 8 & 9 are a summary of the various temperatures, radiofrequency treatments and exposure times. Sixteen samples (including
two controls) represented the group without perianth, 34 samples were
in the group with perianth.
Generally as exposure times to radio-frequency irradiation increased,
germination decreased. Up to about 40% of the hop seed was able to
germinate even without vernalization (Table 8) but frequently only
Heavy
after extended exposure to fluorescent light in the germinator.
mold growth developed after about 10 days in the germinator and many
seeds from then on, although they produced a small radicle and extended
their cotyledons, would not have developed into healthy hop plants.
Radio-frequency treatment - -aside from the negative effects at higher
doses--did not appear to stimulate germination of hop seeds. Control
samples had about the same final germination as treated samples,
although it appeared that at the first germination reading for nonvernalized material (12 days after seeds were placed into the germinator),
more seeds of the low Rf treated lots had germinated than of the control.
26
Germination of vernalized hop seed was about,twice that of nonvernalized material (Table 9). Rf treatment did not appear to have any
beneficial effect on seed germination, and even the low dosage treatments did not appear to differ from the control.
It was concluded that
hop seed germination does not respond favorably to stimulation by Rf
treatment. Vernalization unquestionably is important and can double
the germination percentage. Alternating day-night conditions and
fluctuating temperature seems to be of advantage, particularly in
causing some of the slower germinating seeds to germinate.
Cytological studies of the progeny of an open pollenated female triploid hop.
The triploid ,female 56008 (pedigree:
19098 x 19183M; Unknown
seedling x (Fu x EG-ECS) crossed to 10 different males in 1967 gave very
low seed set (1967 report, Table 4: Crosses number 6741 to 6750).
These seeds plus another group of about 1000 open pollinated seeds
collected on 56008 (Crosses 6751 and 6752) were germinated in the spring
of 1968 in order to obtain aneuploid seedlings. A large number of
aneuploids was obtained (Table 10) and some genotypes with unexpected
chromosome numbers were also found. Among the aneuploids, the largest
group (13.3%) were primary trisomics (2n+1), followed by the 2n+2 group,
respectively. A sharp dropoff in genotypes with higher chromosome
numbers occured in the following classes, 2n+3, 2n+4, etc., with the
fewest individuals represented in the 24-27 chromosome class. This
probably is related to low vigor and viability of such genotypes, but
some of these plants could be maintained in the greenhouse. The
number of survivors increased again in the 28, 29, and 30 chromosome
classes, but only a few genotypes were recovered with chromosome
numbers ranging in the low 30's. A surprisingly large number of genotypes (34%), however, were found to be tetraploids (2n=40n).
The
cytological origin of these individuals is probably explained by nondisjunction and formation of non-reduced eggs (n=30), but their large
number suggests a possible mechanism for production of natural tetraploids in hop. A few genotypes were also found whose chromosome
number exceeded 40 and whose cytological origin is hard to explain,
such as the plant with 55 chromosomes (Figure 1). A few genotypes also
had a small chromosome similar to a telocentric which appeared to
function normally at mitosis, since it was found in all the root tip
cells of such individuals.
Cytological studies with some of these
genotypes are planned for the future.
The origin of the aneuploids can be explained by meiotic irregularities in the triploid parent.
Occasionally a gamete with one or
more extra chromosomes is fertilized by a normal pollen grain forming
a viable embryo which results in a viable hop plant.
Most of the
primary trisomics are presently growing in the greenhouse soil bed for
further cytological studies.
27
°.
se. 1 ts.1M
..;,
4,
S..
V
.
.1, .- go
ill
.641100
Figure 1.
Metaphase chromosomes (root tip preparation) from
a female hop plant with 2n=55 chromosomes. Most cells
actually contained 54 chromosomes plus a fragment (arrow).
Fertility of 2n+1 pollen and transmission of a trisomic chromosome.
Pollen from the trisomic male (cross 6533; pedigree 63019 x OP)
was used to pollinate a diploid female in the greenhouse in 1967
(1967 report, page 58). Of the 217 well-developed seeds obtained
(cross 6740), 106 germinated in the spring of 1968n Of these, 94
seedlings were normal diploids, 6 had 21 chromosomes, 4 had 31 chromosomes and 2 had 40 chromosomes, respectively. This would indicate
a transmission of 5.7% of the extra chromosome through the pollen.
None of the trisomic plants, however, exhibited the lanceolate leaf
type characteristic of the trisomic male parent° It is possible that
this particular trisomic chromosome in another genetic backgrounds
produces a different phenotype, or that a "trisomic shift" has occured.
Further studies with trisomics are planned for the coming year.
Time of collection and meiotic activity of microsporocytes.
All microsporocytes of the four genotypes selected for time of
collection study in 1966 (1967 report, page 49) have been analyzed
for meiotic activity. The four genotypes in the study are:
Accession or Selection No.
6533-12
19009M
52046M
64102M
63019 x OP
19209 x FuS
19213 x OP
PI302776
Pedigree
[BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)] x OP
Fu x FuS
(LGpS x FuS-RVS) x OP
WA x OP
Of these, 6533-12 is a selection from cross 6533, the other three
are entries in the male breeding block chosen at random. All genotypes
28
showed meiotic activity at any of the ten different collection times
ranging from 5 A.M. to 10 P.M. over a 24 hour period on cline 29-30,
1966. Good pachytene, diakines $.s, metaphase I and meiosis II figures
were obtained from all collections. It appears that there is no
meiotic periodicity in hop and that morning or afternoon collections
of microsporocytes could give good specimens for cytological studies
of meiosis.
Table 8.
Germination of hop seed following radiofrequency electrical treatments at 4.0 kV/in. without
vernalization. Moisture content in equilibrium at 75° F. and 40% RH. Seed characteristics:
El = 1.76 and 2.01, 0 = 0.09 and 0.11 for seed with and without perianth, respectively.
Seeds
with lower initial temperature stored at 00 F. for 48 hours prior to RF treatment.
Germinated
with 8 hours of fluorescent light (25° C.) and 16 hours of dark (10° C.).
Spring 1968.
1/:
Treatment
Initial
No.
temp.
:
OF.
WO-1
13
:
Frequency
:
MHz
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
78
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
W-21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rn
:
:
:
Final
temp.
Sec.
oF.
20.0
25.0
28.0
30.0
33.0
36.0
40.0
111
133
152
162
175
195
231
8,0
10,0
119
127
139
Control
40
12.0
14,1
16.0
18.0
20.0
20
Germination
:
Control
40
2
Treatment
Exposure
time
143
160
170
175
Control
40
20,0
25.0
28.0
30.0
33.0
36.0
40.0
112
136
148
157
171
183
224
:
12
:
:
days
:
13
17
22
13
14
16
days
:
:
20
:
25
:
days
:
days
:
2/
29
days
:
:
31
days
:
:
34
days
8
20
24
26
18
21
12
3
7
27
28
33
22
29
19
12
3
3
4
6
8
9
10
15
20
18
16
14
14
10
22
24
24
22
20
22
27
32
36
30
30
35
37
36
42
40
40
3
7
28
27
31
19
11
38
40
37
38
39
41
37
19
42
40
21
13
13
15
10
26
26
30
26
19
15
43
43
47
-
7
18
21
23
18
12
10
2
5
2
2
5
14
33
33
40
25
36
23
14
45
27
37
25
16
34
34
34
38
26
14
36
35
36
37
39
32
17
39
36
48
30
41
38
41
28
17
43
31
34
38
39
41
45
37
41
30
24
12
27
8
25
19
10
2
4
5
6
41
45
36
-
30
-
39
41
50
-
39
-
9
Table 8 cont.
1/:
Treatment
Initial : Frequency : Exposure
Treatment
time
temp.
No.
0 F.
MHz
Sec.
:
:
:
W-29
76
Control
40
30
35
36
37
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
8.0
10,0
12.0
14,0
16,0
18.0
20,0
22,0
31
32
33
34
38
39
76
Germination 2/
: Final
: temp.
0 F.
117
134
146
143
158
171
187
208
Control
10
45,0
60,0
75.0
82.5
90,0
97,0
105.0
112.5
120.0
127,5
135°0
150.0
116
127
137
154
155
159
156
179
169
196
199
25
WO = without 'perianth; W = with perianth.
2/ -Indicates test terminated because 3.1, heavy mold
1/
:
12
:
days
:
16
:
20
:
days
:
days
:
25
days
29
: days
:
:
:
31
days
:
:
34
days
%
14
20
13
25
30
34
38
37
25
34
32
46
47
52
55
55
40
54
57
55
51
51
53
52
30
25
32
38
53
-
44
-
5
25
16
22
24
12
4
7
12
3
6
9
12
24
30
36
35
43
32
39
1
1.3
6
10
34
32
29
29
28
22
18
4
43
41
37
34
38
28
27
47
44
48
45
46
8
20
23
24
26
23
19
22
15
6
44
29
28
11
8
14
16
23
4
6
7
8
15
14
13
17
12
11
6
13
1
:,,
3
5
0
0
-16
47
32
44
44
20
19
11
51
53
51
36
49
50
29
22
17
39
-
-
55
50
47
49
47
46
31
49
51
49
49
32
34
9
31
Table 9.
Germination of hop seed following radiofrequency electrical treatments at 4.0 kV/in. and subsequent storage at 3° C. for 54 days
(vernalization). Moisture content in equilibrium at 75° F. and 40%
Seed characteristics: e' = 1.76 and 2.01, c" = 0.09 and 0.11
RH.
Seeds with
for seed with and without perianth, respectively.
lower initial temperature stored at 0° F. for 48 hours prior to RF
Germinated with 8 hours of fluorescent light (25° C.)
treatment.
and 16 hours of dark (10° C.). Spring 1968.
Treatment :Initial
No.
WO-1
:
temp.
° F.
13
:
Fre-
:quency
MHz
3
4
5
6
7
8
78
W-21
20
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
76
temp.
° F.
20.0
25.0
28.0
30.0
33.0
36.0
40.0
111
133
152
162
175
195
231
8.0
10.0
12.0
14,1
16.0
18.0
20,0
119
127
139
143
160
170
175
20.0
25.0
28.0
30.0
33.0
36.0
40.0
112
136
148
157
171
183
224
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
117
134
146
143
158
171
187
208
Control
40
:
1
4
:
:
11
:
18
:day: days: days: days
%
%
6
73
71
73
3
53
48
53
53
44
29
3
16
32
1
11
14
2
47
58
53
58
57
58
31
22
68
74
78
76
72
2
4
5
6
4
3
3
3
4
1
4
72
67
44
79
80
80
76
82
79
39
46
4
21
35
2
15
4
24
0
7
7
4
12
17
8
64
60
56
53
62
53
4
33
15
0
7
5
76
80
77
75
80
77
9
8
71
63
9
9
75
72
75
73
69
46
34
16
57
37
64]
43
54
53
13
Control
40
22
23
24
25
26
27
:
Final
Control
40
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
:Exposure
time
Sec.
:
:
Control
40
2
9
Germination
Treatment
1/:
76
72
77
73
12
80
78
85
71
84
79
46
23
14
39
28
13
82
82
88
76
85
81
49
25
18
32
Table 9 cont.
1/
Treatment
No.
:
:Initial
temp.
:
° F.
W-38
39
76
:
:
Frequency
MHz
WO
:
Treatment
Exposure
time
Germination
:
:
Final
temp.
Sec,
o F.
45.0
60.0
75.0
82.5
90.0
116
127
137
154
155
169
156
179
169
196
199
215
Control
10
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1/
:
1
:
day
4
913.0
105.0
112,5
170,0
127,5
135,0
150.0
without perianth; W
:
with perianth.
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
:
:
4
:
days
54
44
59
59
56
45
:
11
days
82
74
80
75
78
18
:
days
85
79
82
9
56
20
27
80
81
71
68
78
49
58
25
31
3
6
8
35
67
61
44
72
44
3
26
40
1
9
0
0
8
:
33
Table 10.
Cytological analysis of the progeny of a female triploid hop
pollinated by various males. Corvallis, 1968.
Cross:
No.
Pedigree
a
:
Chromosome Number, 2n=
:
6741
56008 x 6438-04; x Def-Colo3-2
6742
56008 x 6535-20; x [pG x Fu-FuS)x OP]
6743
56008 x 19009M;
x Fu-FuS
6744
56008 x 19041M;
x EG-XS
6745
56008 x 19058M;
x EG-XS
6746
56008 x 19173M;
x Stsp-LCS
6747
56008 x 51114M;
x [(LhS x GC1-FuS)x
(SemS x 8-2BY)]
20
21
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
3
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
1
3
1
6748
56008 x 52046M;
x [(LGpSxFuS-RVS)x0P]
6749
56008 x 60019M;
x NM 2-3
5
4
3
6750
56008 x 60026M;
x Colo 2-1
1
3
1
6751
56008 x OP;
x OP
20
34
23
7
1
1
1
6
8
6752
56008 x OP;
x OP
12
14
26
9
3
2
3
3
9
45
63
59
18
5
3
4
10
24
9.5 13.3
12.5
Total
Percent
1/
Female 56008 = [XS x Fu x EG-ECS)]
1
1
1
3.8 1.1 0.6 0.9 2.1 5.1
34
Chromosome Number, 2n=
29
30
31
34
37
38
39
40
41
48
42
50
55
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
9
4
1
4
1
11
5
6
7
22
15
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
7
77
3
6
7
58
7
1
8
15
.159
11
1
4.7 3.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 1.7
1
1
2
1
1
3.2 33072.3 0,2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2
:
Total No.
seeds harv.: pl. obt.
25
6
2
1
47
16
1
0
46
18
4
0
45
20
4
1
38
18
24
6
454
212
325
174
1015
472
35
Reaction of 1967 Crosses to Downy Mildew (CEH)
About 7000 seedlings froM 23 crosses were grown'in the greenhouse
for testing for resistance to downy mildew. Seedlings were allowed
to grow from March to August,.when they had-ceased:terminal elongation
and had set fleshy crowns and crown buds. Top growth was then removed
and the top of the -crown was exposed by removing the soil over it..
Crowns were inoculated directly by hypodermic needle with a suspension
carrying 250,000 spores per rn L SeedlingSwer4 then cpvered.with
moist cheescloth for two days. After 10 days the seedling crowns,
and buds were sprayed with a suspension of 100,000:spores per ml. and
again covered for two days.
Excellent crown and bud infection*6S obtained. After about two
months,' seedling crowns were dug and evaluated for systeMic crown
infection.
Table 1.
Reaction-ofeedlingS fl'om 1967 CroSses to
Downy Mildew InOculatiOn
Tota1:2
Wetted
Cross No
plants
plants
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
724
732
733
736
1749
'1425
40
26
247
1805
268
268
244
154
266
279
1275
243
241
204
133
232
Totals
205.
,:210.
11
'
'
71
91
90
84'
'.86
87
75
76
79
100
:146
82
90
304
59
26
49,:
70,
81!
:
-:
81-
65
83
19
131
11
25
165
179
128
376
93
50
54
83
113
114
Percent
infection
63
52
91
99
96
78
82
108
88
69
'9
6789
,5374
79
77,
36
Evaluation for Resistance to Spider Mites
(Wyatt Cone', Washiaiton State Univ., Prosser)
PURPOSE:
To determine if genetic lines of hops have inherent natural
resistance to the attack of twofspotted spider mites and hop aphids.
METHODS AND MATERIALS:
Slip roots from all original plant selections in Experiment A
were taken in March, 1967 to replant missing or weak hills. Crowns in
Experiments
and C did not have many slip roots so no attempt was
made to fill in weak or vacant hills. The yard was first irrigated in
April. Missing pegs were replaced May 8 and coir string installed
May 10. Training, was started immediately thereafter and concluded
May 29. A tally of the plant stand was made on July 18 and a leaf
sample for mites, mite eggs, aphids and predators taken July 19 July 27. An-inspection of plants in Experiments A, B and C was made
on August 30.31 with assessment of damage due.to mite infestation
rated, in six categories (very bad, bad, poor, fair, good and very good).
Observations were also made on tolerance of.cones to mite attack
regardless of leaf injury and on damage by the-hop looper, Hypena
humuli (Harris). The final leaf sample for mites, mite eggs, aphids
inTredators was taken September 1 - September S. Plants rated very
bad, bad or-poor -were not sampled, Large numbers of hop looper pupae
were recovered September 10-20 and held for emergence.
Plants were
cut down, hauled.out of the yard.and.burned following the first hard
frost in October.
RESULTS:
Twospotted spider mites -occurred in sufficient numbers during
1967 to insure .an adequate.evaluation.of.feeding,injury to different
plant selections...The.popuiation increased to-a.peak of about 400
mites .per .leaf .during -the second,week,of,Auguat (Figure 1). A
population-decline-during,late.August was,foltowed,by,an increase during
the first -week of-September,,to.a season-peak =population of about SOO
mites per leaf.
Table 1 'presents a.comparison-of.two commercially -grown selections
with some -of the breeding
The -number. ,of ,mites, mite eggs,
predaceousAnites.and,hop.aphids.were the-criteria used for making the
comparison.,-The-two,commeroial,hops,involved were an .early maturing
selection,4121,.and,a,latematuring selection, L8. The L8's were
planted-and evaluated,asmbaby hops"-in 1966. ,A.range of mite
infestation densities (2.6 to.S.S) were observed,for the different
plots of LiPs-but,the entire range wavconfined,to,the densities
observed for,the,better breeding line selections.(#20 with 2.2, #23
with S.6.and.#7,with-6.3). At -that times-the narrow .range (fidelity)
of infestation,densities-was-of,interest,beceuse -it possibly reflected
37
the lack of plant variation within the selection..
But the low mite
densities were of doubtful significance -because the plants were newly
established and no_residentaitepopulation.had,developed. In 1967
the L8,selectionrclearly,hadfewer.mites than any of the other
breeding lines
The range of mites per leaf for nine L8 plots was
25.3 - 101.3 with,an average of,42,00 .:In ranking the 23 plots for
Experiment .A, L8 occupied,the.first,seven positions.
Selection
#9 (11-46) was 8, #20 (11-48) was.9 and,#23 (11-42) :was 11, Of the
selections tested in -1966, _#20 and,#23-were rated -first and second,
respectively. No ,hop cones were harvested for evaluation of quality.
Visual inspection ,indicated some reddened bracts on 1,8 cones.
Careful
timing of harvest might permit harvosting an unsprayed crop of suitable quality_ Similarly with _E21, observing the,earliest possible
harvest date might permit the harvest of an,unsprayed crop.
By the
time the.final_mite-population,estimates were made,,E21 cones were
past maturity and the mites had heavily damaged,the,cones. Maturity
dates for many of the breeding_line selections,were not available but
field observation indicated several plants with a heavy mite population on the leaves had a good cone crop with little mite damage. These
were #13 (13-29) in replicate C.and #11.(13-1) in replicate D.
Selections in plots #2, 6, 8, 12 and 13 will be observed for early
maturity and possible avoidance of-mite-injury by early harvest.
Bullion 43,(plot 5, Experiment 8). rhad heavy.leaf injury but a good
crop of undamaged cones _when the final evaluation-was made.
With these
exceptions, plants having_a high mite population on leaves generally
had damaged cones.
38
Table 1.
Comparison of hop genotype selections based on season means
of two-spotted spider mites, mite eggs, predaceous mites and
hop aphids. Experiment A. Prosser, Washington 1967.
Plot
Selection
L8
No.
No. of
mites
present
Hills
sampled
Mean no. per leaf
Mites
Aphids
Eggs.
Pred.
16.
0.4
1.2
3, 4, 14
16,17,18
19,21,22
62
52
42.0
11-46
9
15
8
45.7
8.5
0.0
0.8
11-48
20
13
4
63,5
6.7
0.5
6.2
11-42
23
15
8
71.2
22.7
0.0
0.8
13-1
11
14
4
94.0
68.7
0.0
0.0
8-25
15
14
2
106.5
185.5
1.0
3.0
13-45
1
14
1
112.0
136.0
0.0
1.0
13-18
10
15
8
114.0
69.8
0.0
0.6
13-49
5
14
2
132.0
201.5
0.0
0.0
30
30
167.0
77.0
5.0
37.0
286.0
91.0
0.0
0.0
E21
border
11-1
7
14
1
50-12
2
13
0
64-10
6
2
0
Plants defoliated or injury
10-3
8
14
0
too great at harvest to
8-13
12
10
0
warrant counting.
13-29
13
15
0
39
Table 2.
Comparison of hop genotype selections based on season
means of two-spotted spider mites, mite eggs, predaceous
mites and hop aphids, Experiment B_Prosser, Wash. 1967.
Plot
Selection
No,
No. of
hills
present
Mites
Mean No. per leaf
Eggs
Predators
Aphids
0.0
Bullion #2
1
1
105
0.5
Bullion #3
3
3
905
0,5
0.0
0.5
65-30
44
3
11.0
1.0
0.7
1.7
65-44
31
2
14.0
403
0.0
3.2
52-28
13
1
16,5
5,5
0.0
0.0
64-21
63
3
21.0
3,5
0.2
2.7
.24.0
4,6.
0.0
0.2
12-22
13-43
35
1
45.0
35,0
0,0
0.0
10-2
60
1
47 0-
1105'
0.0
0.5
RnJu ly too great at harvest to warrant counting:
Plants defoliated
Selection
Plot No.
Hills
Selection
Plot No.
Hills
69-49
4
2
53-48
30
1
Bullion #5
5
3
66-40
34
1
69-9
6
1
50-32
40
1
64-22
7
1
11-16
43
3
Bullion #6
8
3
68-7
46
1
8-39
9
3
52-34
47
3
10-45
12
3
68-9
52
2
10-47
15
1
51-30
55
1
52-19
16
1
53-49
58
3
11-26
22
1
13-3
64
1
53-36
25
1
8-2
2
2
40
Table 3.
Comparison of hop genotype selections based on season means
of two-spotted spider mites, mite eggs, predaceous mites
Experiment C. Prosser, Wash. 1967.
and hop aphids.
Plot
Selection
No.
No. of
hills
present
Mites
Mean no. per leaf
Predators
Aphids
Eggs
66-2
13
2
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
69-29
47
2
1.0
6.0
1.0
1.0
Bullion #1
15
1
7.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
53-7
38
2
10.5
1.5
0.5
0.0
67-30
35
1
61.0
2.5
0.0
0.5
Plants defoliated or injury too great at harvest to warrent counting:
Selection
Bullion #3
Plot No.
Hills
Selection
Plot No.
Hills
2
1
67-6
31
2
Bullion
11
1
50-15
33
1
51-38
12
1
64-38
37
1
52-12
16
1
52-26
39
1
67-18
17
1
13-27
40
1
Bullion
19
1
64-37
43
2
50-11
20
1
50-9
46
2
64-26
21
1
68-51
49
2
64-11
22
1
65-1
57
2
64-25
24
2
13-39
59
1
52-17
26
1
53-4
62
1
65-50
28
1
41
)( X X = 1965
0-0-0 = 1966
550
*--111-40 = 1967
MITES
PER
LEAF
4
JUNE
Figure 1.
1
2
3
JULY
4
1
2
3
4
AUGUST
Comparison of.mite population densities on hop
Prosser, Wash.
leaves in 1965, 1966 ,and .1967.
1
SEPT.
42
Preliminary Evaluation (CEZ, CEH, STL)
Brewer inspection samples,
Twelve advanced genotypes were considered for evaluation by the USBA
Hop Committee in 1968. Table 1 is a summary of data obtained on the 12
lines grown in Oregon, Washington and Idaho.
Genotype 63008 was discarded from the advancement program due to
poor pickability and possible virus symptoms. , This high oil content in
63008 may warrant its consideration as germplasm material. Genotype
19110 was not sent to brewers ,because of poor samples.
The sample
obtained from Prosser, Washington vas .damaged from smoke during a kiln
fire and the Oregon sample contained cones damaged by downy mildew.
Genotype 21002 was removed from the varietal program, but will be maintained in the germplasm poollor its early maturing character. The sample
from 61021 was not submitted to the USBA Committee because of its uncharacteristic '!Hallertau'! aroma. This line is scheduled for additional
USBA consideration in 1969, but its low yielding potential is a serious
limitation.
Three samples from Oregon, three from Washington and one from Idaho
were selected and sent to each member of,the USBA Subcommittee on Hop
Research for their hand evaluation.
Supplemental information such as indicated yield, alpha acid, beta
acid, percent oil, maturity, and deterioration in storage, were supplied
with each sample.
Brewers were asked to fill in the following form:
DESIRABILITY:
Score 0 to 15
HOP TYPE:
High quality
Continental
Other
ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL:
None
Limited
Unlimited
COMMENTS:
43
Table 1.
Selections - Evaluated for Advancement and USBA Hand Evaluation, 1968.
Access.
Identification
USBA /Lab
No.
Pedigree
No.
No.
Source
Agronomic
Cone
Matur-
Yield
ity-
ETIC7-i7757EF Cone
Pickability k%
Vine Overall
21001
63018
63019
Sel (F-R2)
3/411G,1/8EKG,
1/16 Bay.
11
1
231
Ore.
8/21
6-7
300
G
F
F-G
2
232
Ore.
9/5
10-11
300
G
G
G
3
245
Ore.
9/17
10-11
SOO
F
P
F-P
253
Ida.
9/5
10-12
Sel (UI-40)
68051
Bramling
Cross
5
338
Wn.
9/1
5-6
64107
North. Brew.
6
335
Wn.
9/1
6-7
337
Wn.
9/15
9-10
Sel (L-16)
61021
Sel (Hall.)
-
241
Ore.
9/5
4-5
400
G
F
F-G
21002
Sel (FGA)
-
244
Ore.
8/15
9/10
350
G
G
G
19110
3/8 Belgion #31
-
243
Ore.
9/17
8-9
500
G
F
F-G
19110
3/8 Belgion #31
-
336
Wn.
9/15
8-9
63008
1/28G, 3/8 Fug.
-
242
Ore.
9/17
9-10
450
P
F
F
1/
2/
Code number assigned hop samples sent to the .USBA Hop Research Committee
for hand evaluation.
Evaluations of poor, fair, and good were based on visual examination during
machine harvest.
Eleven of 12 evaluators had returned information at this writing.
following tables give a summary of evaluations, and show the individual
evaluations of each.
The
44
%tnc
Chemical
@ 8% H2O
%CoH %as %as ml oil
USDA
Disease.. HandEvaluation
Disposition
Remarks
DM-Other,.
Aroma,
Over
1968
1969
G
BIS
BIS
Some cone DM
G
BIS
BIS
Hi analysis
1008
12.8
27
6.5
4.8
1.0
mild, pl.,
I
Eur.
12.0
27
8.8
7.5
str. ester,
2.5
type
pl.
10.8
33
5.6
5.2
bl. Eur.
0.9
F-G
BIS
BIS
similar to F-R2
Hall. type
BIS
BIS
Cl. pedigree
atyp.
6.3
-
5.4
7.0
0.6
I
(Romanko)
8.1
28
6.6
2.5
BIS
0.4
off- similar to Cl.
sta.
7.8
-
10.0
3.6
1.2
-
BIS
off-
d. green cone
sta.
6.8
-
7,2
6.0
BIS
0.3
11.8
-
7.8
6.4
1.4
I
14.2
-
3.6
5.1
1.4
S
11.1
41
6.2
7.8
1.3
-
hay,off,bl.
Rusty mild, bl.
mottle
F
F-G
-
mild,ester
off- LC selection
sta.
(Skotland)
BIS
cone >Hall.
Germpl 1. cone, white
hops, low a
off-
sv. cone DM
sta.
10.6
-
4.5
5.8
0.4
13.2
33
7.8
8.7
3.6
off smokey
-
leaf
mottle
curly
str. ester
BIS
F
Disc.
-
off aroma not
character.
1. ped., V.Sm.
cone, hi oil
Summary of USBA Evaluations, 1968 Samples.
(Averages or totals of 11 evaluations)
Potential
11.7 type
ni
Sample Identification
Indicated
yield
Bales/Acre
Estimated
Alpha acid. Alpha
acid
yield
(%)
lbs./acre
.-4
.e.,
Desirability
(%)
Oil
mls/
100g
Beta
acid
..-4
01
4
...-31
aoc
4.1
s4
.4
be A
= .ri
4.
C.0
) X 0
0
(0-15)
78-91
6.5
4.8
1.0
10.7
3
6
2
8
2
1
9-11
158-194
8.8
7.5
2.5
9.5
5
5
1
2
7
2
9-11
101-123
5.6
5.1
0.9
8.6
4
6
1
S
3
3
10-12
108-130
5.4
7.0
0.6
7.8
3
4
4
3
5
3
Wn. Brawling Cross
5-6
66-79
6.6
2.5
0.8
9.4
5
5
1
5
4
2
No.6
Wn. N. Brewer
6-7
120-140
10.0
3.6
1.2
9.0
4
7
0
4
4
3
No.7
Wn. Sel. L-16
9-10
130-144
7.2
6.0
0.5
8.4
4
5
2
2
5
3
No.1
Ore. Sel. R-2
6-7
No.2
Ore. 63018
No.3
Ore. 63019
No.4
Idaho 40
No.5
46
USBA Hop Research Committee Evaluation, 1968 Samples
Desirability
Eval-
uator
Hop type
(0-15)
Potential
Remarks
Sample Code No. 1 ,= Oregon ,grown selection .R-2; 6.5% alpha, 4.8% beta,
1.0% oil; this .is ,an early maturing,mildew.tolerant."European" type,
yields = better than ,Hallertaui but has - no yield advantage over Fuggle.
JBB
European
14
RSH
High-quality
12_
WEH,
Continental
12
GCV,
Continental
10
FJH
Continental
12
JBS
Other
LSG
PS
Continental
Continental.
AJS
Continental
5
AGW
Continental
12
Limited
Low - intensity aroma; low yield;
low alpha.
Clean but ,weak aroma; very good
High quality
10
Unlimited
quality; limited only by low yield.
Small cones, pleasing color.
EDS
_
5
14
12
Unlimited
Clean, high,pitched aroma, European type,,not as.rich as Styrian.
_Unlimited- Nice uniform sample, good color,
good cones, cones tough.
__LimitecL
Useful-for brewers using European
hops.
Mild - aroma, low- alpha, slightly
Limited,
grassy.
Limited
Pleasant aroma, maybe slightly
immature.
None
Combination-Fuggle-Bullion odor;
Bullion odor-over-rides; low yield;
Limited
Limited,
None
low alpha.
Aroma too perfumy.
Pleasingly aromatic, mild, pleasant,
small cones.
Sample Code-No, 2:= Oregon grown-highanalysis, high yielding selection
63018,41pha-8.8 beta 7.5, oil -2.5,m1/100,g. Hop might require cold
storage.
JBB
Talisman
RSH
High quality
5
Limited,
WEH
Other
High quality
5
_GCV
12
Limited
Unlimited
FJH
Other
JBS.
LSG
PS.
,
EDS
12
14
None
Unlimited
Unlimited
Full aromatic fragrance, a bit too
pungent.
Good whole cones, good color, nice
lupe, don't like aroma.
Could be used for extract.
Fine hop, excellent aroma and
appearance.
Odor too strong, but high alpha
may appeal to some.
Good for extract, Bullion note
over-rides others.
Objectionable harsh aroma.
Aroma heavy, pleasant.
Pleasant, very aromatic, fine
14
12-
Unlimited
Unlimited
selection.
Excellent quality hop.
Fine aroma, a first-rate hop.
Limited--
5
Limited
quality
10
Limited
High quality
High quality
5
MS-- High quality
AGW
10.5
Continental
High quality
Continental
47
USBA evaluation -- cont.
Eval-
Desirability
uator Hop,type
(0,15)
Remarks
Potential
Sample Code No. 3 = Oregon grown high.yielding_selection 63019 with mild
aroma and_other,characteristics of-UEuropeae hops., A1pha,5.6, beta 5.1,
oil 0.9 m1/100 g.
JBB
RSH.
Cluster
Continental
WEH
GCV
FJH
JBS.
LSG
PS
Other
Continental
Other
Continental.
High quality
Continental
AJS
Continental
AGW
High quality
Other
EDS
12
10
5
.7.
5
8
10
10
8
11
9
Unlimited. ,Desirable fragrance, a good hop.
Nice sample,_uniform cones,
Limited
good.lupe.. Limited only because
of,European aroma.
Aroma.not desirable.
Limited
Unlimited Mild aroma, good appearance.
Low,aroma,but "cut" looks fat.
None.
Mild .Hallertau aroma.
Limited
Pleasant .aroma; good potential.
Limited.
Unlimited Strong,,pleasant aroma, good for
final hopping.
Sweet, aromatic; good cone
Limited
structure and color.
Unlimited
Rather low in aroma, somewhat
Limited
straw-like.
Sample Code No. 4 = Idaho _grown, lhigh yielding selection by Dr. Romanko.
Alpha 5.4, beta 7.0, oil 0.6 m1/100 g.
JBB
Cluster
10
RSH
High quality
10
WEH.
High quality
Continental
Other
12
GCV
FJH
JBS
High quality.
10
LSG
PS
Other
Continental
3
3
5
9
Rather light aroma, slight fragrance, grassy note, poor color.
Few whole cones, poor color but
Limited
nice aroma. Condition of sample
limits score.
Unlimited. Good domestic aroma.
Poor appearance, poor aroma, dry.
None
Odd,odorpoor color, badly
None
handled.
Unlimited Nice hop, aroma like mild Yakima,
good for most brewers.
Unpleasant aroma, broken cones.
None
Very ripe, cones broken aroma
Limited
Limited
good.
AJS
Continental
7
Limited
Sweet, aromatic odor, variable
Unlimited
None
No comment.
Broken, shattered sample, little
aroma.
color.
AGW
EDS
High quality
Other
10.
7
48
USBA evaluation -- cont.
Desirability
Eval,uator
Hop..type
(0-'15)
Potential
Remarks
Sample Code,No. .5 g Washington.grown,Bramling,Cross variety; low
yielding, ,early. maturing,=with 6.6 alphaand 2.5 beta.
Unlimited
Odd,general_.odor, in other
xesPects:similar to Yakima
12
Limited
,Goodappearance, good color
Other
Continental
4
None
Limited
Continental
13
JBB
Cluster
RSH.
Continental
WEH
GCV
FJH
10.5
seedless.
:limited -by low yield.
8
Aroma off.
Fair qualityAlop, some grassy
odor.
Unlimited.
qice,.mild aroma; excellent
color.
JBS
High quality_
10.
Unlimited
LSG.
Continental
10
Limited
Pleasant:aroma, good continental
PS
Continental..
10
Limited_
Mild, .delicate aroma; small, pale
AJS
AGW
High quality
High quality
Other
4
Unlimited
Unlimited
L imited
Medium aroma; yield too low.
No comment.
Good color, avg. aroma.
.
Nice mild aroma; limited by low
yield.
type.
cones.
EDS
12
10
Sample Code .No. .6 = Washington .grown .Nerthern Brewer_variety.
This is
an early maturing, low yielding (in.Washingtan}.variety now being
planted in Great Britain and.Europe. Alpha.10.0, beta 3.6, oil 1.2
m1/100 go
JBB
Bullion.
RSH,
High quality.
WEH
GCV.
FJH
Other
Continental
Other
8
JBS
Other
5
LSG
PS
Continental,
High quality
AJS
Continental
.10
AGW
Continental
8
EDS.
High_quality
7.5
13_
7
8.
10
11
12,
Limited,
Raw,,t4ppentine-like &roma; perhapsfor_extract if turpentine
noted lost.
Unlimited_ ..Nice appearance; uniform cones;
high_. alpha might offset low yield.
Extract hop.
Limited:::.
Unlimited .Dry sample; mild aroma.
Limited
Grassy odor, but no doubt useful
for extract.
Limited
Aroma too strong, acrid; good
extract .hop,but low yield.
Limited
Good aroma, good continental type.
Limited
:Strongly aromatic; high alpha
might justify.price incentive.
Unlimited. Good .color and cones; astringent
aroma,,high alpha might justify
premium.
Limited.
.Unusual-aroma; encourage interest
because of.high,alpha for extract.
Unlimited ,Good-aromit nice color.
49
USBA evaluation -- cont.
Eval-
Desirability
uator Hop type
(0-15)
Remarks
Potential
Sample Code No. -7 = Washington grown selection of Late Cluster variety
Selection is high yielding ,and late maturing and suscepcalled L-16.
tible to mildew, with about 8% alpha and.6% beta acids.
JBB
RSH
High quality
0
11
Extremely low aroma; no potential
None
Unlimited Yery-Apild but pleasant aroma; hope
8
None
Unlimited
Limited
Unlimited
Limited
High quality
9
Limited
AJS
High quality
14
AGW
Other
Continental
WEH
GCV
FJH
JBS
LSG
Other
Continental
Other
High quality
High quality
PS
5
7
8
14
shatter,isnot.characteristic.
Unusual aroma, very mild.
Fair aroma; some dryness.
Mild aroma; not too pleasant.
Excellent hop; best of group.
Harsh ,aroma, but good cone and
alpha.
EDS
8
9
Unlimited
Limited
Limited
(1) Aroma clean, aromatic,
(2) Aroma faint, unpleasant.
Sweet; persistent aroma; good
alpha and yield.
Unusual aroma; not encouraging.
Brownish lupe., not very good
sample.
Prosser, Washington Nursery
Two-hundred and thirty single hill hop clones were evaluated at
Prosser, Washington in 1968. These clones represented material grown in
The following 2l genotypes were
the 1964-65 nursery at Corvallis.
selected for .advancement into a 5-hill observation-block in 1969.
6302-02
6305-01
6307-23
6308-25
6337-14
6314-22
6338-16
6321-03
6338-19
6337-11
6337-13
6339-13
6443-14
6340-15
6344-30
6345-35
6401 -17
6402-39
6407-02
6428-07
6440-07
The following 12 advanced lines from Corvallis will be established
in an observation block at Prosser in 1969:
62013
63002
63004
63006
63009
63018
63019
63020
63021
21001
21002
61021
Genotypes 6321-03 and 6407-02 selected at Prosser were also selected
for advancement at Corvallis and assigned accession numbers 64007 and
65011, respectively.
The following data on performance of material in the "Prosser
Nursery" was taken by Mr. C. E. Nelson.
50
1968 Hop Variety Ratings: Prosser, Wash.
Acc. No.,
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No.
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
6348-2
5
3
4
7-9
308-17
7
4
3
7-16
6349-9
.4
3
3
7-19
308-20
5
4
2
7-19
6348-21
6
3
6
7-9
308-21
5
6
6
7-16
6343-42
7
3
6
7-26
6348-30
3
5
4
6-28
6343-43
5
3
3
6-12
6348-40
6
1
4
7-16
6345-45
3
3
2
7-16
6348-46
5
3
6
7-9
6343-48
.7
7
4
6-26
6343-49
6
5
3
7-9
5954-11
7
4
5
7-23
6343-50
7
6
2
6-28
307-8
8
6
3
7-23
6343-41
7
6
2
6-28
307-13
6
2
6
7-23
6343-52
3
5
4
6-21
307-17
6
S
4
7-23
6342-2
7
3
6
7-23
307-23
8
6
6
7-23
308-24
4
3
2
7-16
307-25
7
5
6
7-19
308-25
6
9
7
7-19
307-28
6
6
8
7-16
6344-2
6
6
8
7-19
6348-1
9
2
5
7-16
6344-16
9
4
6
7-26
6348-10
6
4
4
7-23
6344-19
9
5
4
7-16
6348-21
5
6
6
7-23
6344-30
8
8
8
7-12
308-2
5
7
6
7-9
6344-32
9
0
0
8-2
308-11
7
5
2
7-5
6341-32
5
6
6
7-12
308-17
7
4,
3
7-19
6343-32
6
7
8
7-19
* 0 = poor
9 = very good
51
1968 Hop Variety Ratings: Prosser, Washington
Plant
Acc. No
Cone
vigor size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
6343-39
5
7
5
7-9
316-4
5
5
5
7-16
313-2
5
5
7
7-5
316-8
5
0
0
7-23
313-10
7
5
4
7-23
316-9
8
6
6
7-12
313-13
5
3
6
7-16
316-16
3
0
0
8-2
313-16
6
6
4
7-30
316-19
4
2
2
7-23
318-3
6
0
0
8-2
316-26
6
0
0
8-2
317-7
4
1
4
7-30
316-29
6
6
4
7-23
317-8
8
4
1
7-16
316-32
7
2
3
7-26
317-13
5
3
3
7-19
316-41
7
7
4
7-12
316-1
5
5
4
7-16
301-2
7
2
5
7-12
316-2
5
7
7
7-9
6342-2
6
5
4
7-16
6348-53
5
3
1
7-16
6342-25
6
3
6
7-23
6347-3
1
2
3
7-23
302-2
8
7
6
7-12
6347-7
8
3
4
7-9
6345-33
1
0
0
8-2
6347-10
6
4
1
7-5
6345-35
6
8
5
7-5
6347-22
6
5
4
7-9
315-3
7
6
2
7-9
6342-3
7
5
3
7-16
315-7
9
5
3
7-16
6342-8
4
2
2
7-16
315-13
4
5
2
7-26
6342-14
6
5
1
7-5
6347-24
5
5
3
7-9
316-3
6
7
5
7-16
6347-29
3
4
1
7-9
* 0=poor
9=very good
52
1968 HopNariety Ratings: Prosser, Wash.
Acc. No.
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No.
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
6347-36
5
4
3
7-2
314-22
7
7
6
7-23
6347-45
5
4'
5
7-9
314-38
5
6
6
7-16
6342-15
5
2
1
7-26
314-40
4
5
4
7-16
6342-16
6
2
1
7-19
304-3
5
5
3
7-16
6342-23
7
6
1
7-2
305-1
5
7
6
7-16
6342-34
4
3
2
7-15
305-4
4
5
5
7-16
315-21
6
5
4
7-19
6346-1
4
3
5
7-19
315-23
6
4
3
7-26
6346-2
6
3
2
7-9
315-24
9
4
4
7-23
6346-3
7
5
4
7-16
315-25
8
4
4
7-23
6346-4
6
5
6
7-16
315-36
7
6
6
7-23
6342-38
8
5
7
7-16
315-37
8
4
3
7-23
6342-40
6
3
1
7-12
315-3
6
8
5
7-12
6342-42
7
5
6
7-26
314-4
5
4
4
7-19
6338-19
7
7
6
7-16
314-6
4
3
3
7-16
310-1
8
6
5
7-23
314-8
5
6
4
7-19
310-2
8
2
6
8-2
314-12
6
4
6
7-23
310-4
6
7
6
7-19
314-15
5
6
5
7-16
306-2
5
6
4
7-16
314-16
6
6
5
7-16
306-4
8
6
7
7-12
5
7-23
306-5
6
6
5
7-16
314-20
* 0 = poor
9 = very good
53
1968 Hop Variety Ratings: Prosser, Wash.
Acc. No
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No.
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
322-1
8
5
8
7-23
319-9
5
8
5
7-19
322-2
4
3
6
7-23
320-2
4
6
4
7-19
322-3
4
6
4
7-23
325-3
5
6
4
7-19
322-4
6
7
7
7-23
325-5
4
6
6
7-12
311-1
5
0
0
7-26
325-6
4
5
2
7-12
311-3
4
4
4
7-12
325-12
4
5
4
7-19
309-2
6
4
3
7-26
324-1
6
6
5
7-19
309-3
4
5
2
7-23
324-5
7
4
2
7-19
309-5
4
5
3
7-12
324-6
5
4
3
7-19
6346-8
4
4
4
7-16
6346-24
8
2
4
7-5
6342-43
6
5
3
6-28
6346-29
7
6
8
7-16
6342-47
6
3
4
7-16
6346-33
8
5
2
7-5
6342-49
4
5
3
6-26
6341-1
6
3
6
7-5
6339-16
9
5
7
7-16
6341-2
4
2
6
7-16
309-6
5
0
0
7-23
6341-31
2
7
5
6-26
309-7
6
6
3
7-23
6341-32
4
4
2
6-17
321-3
8
6
8
7-16
6338-22
8
2
5
6-26
321-4
7
6
5
7-19
6338-23
6
3
4
7-5
319-4
7
6
7
7-9
6338-24
9
4
4
7-16
319-7
6
7
8
7-19
6338-25
9
4
7
7-9
poor
9 = very good
54
1968 Hop Variety Ratings: Prosser, Wash.
Acc. No..
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No.
326-3
9
2
4
7-30
6341-40
326-7
7
9
7
7-6
6341-42
326-11
9
0
0
7-23
401-7
5
0
0
401-9
7
6
401-17
7
401-22
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
4
2
7-5
3
4
3
7-16
6338-30
4
7
7
6-26
7-23
6338-31
6
3
3
6-26
7
7-19
6338-33
3
4
2
7-9
4
6
7-26
6338-22
8
3
7
7-9
6
6
6
7-16
402-17
5
7
4
7-16
401-24
7
5
6
7-26
402-18
5
6
3
7-26
401-26
7
6
6
7-19
402-22
5
0
0
7-26
428-2
3
7
2
7-9
402-23
6
6
3
7-5
428-3
3
6
4
7-16
402-26
8
6
5
7-9
428-7
6
9
7
7-12
402-27
7
4
4
7-16
402-2
8
6
5
7-9
402-27
6
5
2
7-2
402-5
,1
4
4
7-26
402-33
4
0
0
7-30
402-6
6
0
0
7-26
402-35
5
6
3
7-16
6346-39
5
6
4
7-9
402-39
9
7
8
7-12
6346-41
7
7
4
7-9
'404-11
6
7
6
7-12
6346-43
3
5
4
7-9
405-1
9
6
5
7-9
6341-34
3
3
3
7-5
405-5
5
7
6
7-5
6341-36
8
3
1
7-5
405-16
5
5
3
7-5
* 0 = poOt
9 .= very good
55
1968 Hop Variety Ratings: Prosser, Wash.
Acc. No,
Plant Cone
vigor. size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No.
41
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
405-18
5
6
S
7-9
435 -8
S
8
4
7-12
6346 -51
2
5
3
7-12
415-5
5
5
3
7-12
6345-15
6
6
2
7-12
415-6
6
5
2
7-5
6345-43
7
7
1
7-9
415-15
7
6
7
7-23
6345-40
7
6
1
7-9
415-18
7
5
4.
7-12
6340-15
7
7
3
6-26
415-19
5
0
0
7-23
6340-34
S
6
3
7-5
416-4
5
6
3
7-12
6340-52
9
0
0
7-5
6345-46
5
7
1
7-5
6338-41
8
1
0
7-2
6345-47
7
3
3
7-12
6337-1
6
2
1
7-9
6345-50
6
5
2
7-16
6337-3
6
4
3
7-5
6344-2
6343-48
9
8
4
6-26
6339 -7
1
6-26
405-19
5
7
7
7-12
6339-13
3
6-26
409-2
5
5
7
7-16
6339-14
2
6-26
407-2
7
7
7
7-16
6339-16
407-4
7
6
5
7-12
6337-8
5
3
7-19
407-9
6
2
S
8-2
6337-11
8
3
6-26
407-10
5
7
5
7-19
6337-13
5'
8
7-5
407-14
0
0
0
7-26
6337-14
7
7
6-26
407-15
9
2
1
7-26
417-2
9
poor
9 = very good
7-9
7-9
0
7-26
56
1968 Hop Variety Ratings: Prosser, Wash.
Acc. No.
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
417-9
5
5
4
7-16
427-18
4
8
4
7 -16
417-10
5
3
2
7 -26
418-4
4
3
4
7-23
417-11
6
4
3
7-23
419-7
9
2
2
7-26
417-2
8
0
0
7-26
420-4
2
3
4
7-30
427-1
7
5
4
7-23_
432-2
5
5
5
7-12
427-3
8
6
4
7-16
432-16
5
5
4
7-12
427-6
4
5
5
7-16
426-4
4
6
3
7-16
427-7
5
6
4
7-16
426-5
4
3
6
7-19
427-9
5
2
7
7-26
425-16
4
3
6
7-26
6344-5
6
4
4
7-16
6344-15
7
3
4
7-9
6344-14
8
8
0
7-9
6344-17
6
6
2
7-19
6339-28
8
4
0
7-9
6344-18
6
4
2
7-16
6339-44
7
5
0
6-26
6344-26
6
4
6
7-16
6339-45
4
4
0
6-24
6344-39
7
7
1
7-2
6339-46
4
0
0
7-2
6338-3
7
4
6
7 -5
6339-47
6
0
0
6-28
6338-5
5
4
3
7-9
6337-16
5
4
3
7-2
429-1
6
5
6
7-19
6337-20
6
4
3
7-19
429-5
5
4
4
7-19
6337-23
4
4
2
7-2
429-10
6
5
8
7-26
427-13
6
7
5
7-16
430-11
4
6
4
7-16
* 0 = poor
9 = very good
57
1968 Hop Variety Ratings:Alroaser
Acc. No4
Plant
vigor
Cone- Conel---lrasw'm
size
shapv-date-
Acc., No.
Washington
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
436-3
5
9
3
7-19
440-5
9
6
4
7-16
433-9
5
4
4
7-16
440-7
9
8
5
7-16
433-14
8
0'
0
7-19
442-2
7
7
5
7-16
433,24
6
3
6
7-19
442-5
7
8
3
7-12
441-3
5
8
3
7 -5
443-11
8
6
4
7-16
441-6
3
7
2
7-5
443-12
5
7
3
7-16
6344-41
4
6
3
7-9
443-14
8
6
5
7-19
6344-45
8
4
1
7-16
443-17
7
5
4
7-19
6344-46
8
4
3
7-5
443-13
6
2
3
7-23
6338,8
.5
6
3
7-5
443-40
7
2
3
7 -16
6338-10
6
6
3
7-5
443-50
6
3
2
7-16
6338-11
4
1
0
7-9
443-51
6
4
4
7 -16
6338-13
8
4
6
7-9
443-57
3
0
.0
7-26
441-7
4
7
3
7-5
6343-12
5
4
1
7-26
441-8
4
8
6
7-5
6343-14
3
4
3
6-26
437-17
4
8
4
7-5
,6343-37
3
74
438-9
8
8
3
7-16
6343-39
4
3
1
7-2
439-3
7
7
2
7 -12
6338 -14
4
3
3
7-16
439 -6
8
6
4
7-12
6338-15
5
1
3
7-16
440-1
7
5
3
7-23
6338-17
3
4
2
7-9
* 0 = poor
9 = very good
58
1968 Hop Variety Ratings: Prosser
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No.
Wash.
Plant
vigor
Cone
size
Cone
shape
Bloom
date
Acc. No.
Plant
vigor
6338-19
5
3
5
7-12
411-5
4
7-12
326-2
4
4
4
7-19
411-11
8
7-30
443-62
4
4
3
7.19
411-12
8
7-23
443-65
5
0
0
7-26
411r14
8
443-69
6
6
0
7-19
411.18
443-87
7
5
6
7-19
412-2
7-16
316-6
5
4
4
412-7
7 -19
443-89
6
3
4
7-12
443-91
7
3
4
7-23
443-98
4
6
5
7-26
443-100
6
4
4
7-16
413-6
4
0
413-31
4
3
4
7-26
413-40
5
3
5
7-19
413-44
4
5
4
7-16
413-53
4
5
4
7.16
403-2
5
3
3
7-30
403-5
6
2
4
7-26
403-7
7
2
4
7-26
411-4
3
3
3
7-19
* 0 = poor
Cone
size
9 = very good
-
1
7
7-26
7 -5
59
Advanced,= Evaluation(CEZ, STL, CEH, AH)
Commercial Production of-Advanced..Lines for Brewing Trials.
Three advanced selections (56008, 56013, 58112) were grown commercially in two acre blocks to produce .sufficient hops for brewing
trials. The pertinent data -and observations-on these varieties is as
follows:
Variety 56008
This is an early hop .with Fuggle and Early Cluster in its background.. It has a low cohumulone .ratio -similar to Fuggle, but, unlike
Clusters, it requires refrigeration -during storage. Most brewers in
the U.S.B.A. Hop.Committee, especially those.who -favor high quality,
have liked this hop.
.
Approximately 7% of the mature.hills displayed -a leaf yellowfleck symptom and will be removed this year and replanted with symptomfree stock. Dr. Skotland- diagnosed the yellow fleck as :a virus Prunus
necrotic ringspot...Agronomically this genotype requires minimal
The long
management.though it.has a tendency.to slip on the string.
cones are subject to breakage in the.picking machine, but shatter is
at a minimum. This variety is only moderately resistant to mildew and
wilt.
Grower: Stauffer Brothers, Hubbard, Oregon
Harvest date: 31 August 1968
Acres harvested for U.S.B.A.: 1.08
10.3 bales
Yield per acre:
12 (2297 lbs. net)
Bales shipped to storage:
2.0%
Quality analyses: seed content
1.5%
leaf and stem
7.5%
alpha acid
5.6%
beta acid
2.07 m1/100 gm.
oil
Variety 56013
This is a midseason variety with, a.- strong Fuggle background.
It
has features of continental-type hops such as an alpha-acid, beta-acid
ratio near one, a low cohumulone, ratio, and.a mild but characteristic
aroma.
56013 requires refrigerationduring storage.
Brewers using
continental-type hops should beconsidered.for test brews. Our samples
are seeded {l2 %) but this variety performs exceptionally well grown
It has darker green color in sample which does not
seedless.
indicate immaturity...It retains its green color during harvest
season better than other varieties and cones are not damaged or
discolored by, wind. and adverse weather,.
tance.
It has- mildew- and wilt resis-
60
The seeded condition: of: this variety. in 1968 detracted from its
Since 56013 appeared,to.be well adapted at Prosser,
commercial - potential.
we think tests in Washington.under.seedlessconditions would be
warranted.
Grower: Mission .Bottom Farms Inc.,,Salem, Oregon
8 .September, 1968
Harvest date:
1.59
Acres. harvested:
8.8 bales
Yield per acre:
Bales shipped to storage:. 15.(2798 lbs. net)
12%
Quality. analyses
seed content
2%
leaf and stem
6.0%
alpha acid
5.4%
beta acid
1,20 m1/100 gm
oil
:
Variety 58112
Its
This is a late hop with.a Bullion,and Fuggle background.
analysis, however, is.more like Clusters.with a.medium.to high alphaacid content with-relatively.high.cohumulone.ratio.It has excellent
storage characteristics similar to-Clusters. Several U.S.B.A. brewers
have rated this hop, high, however, it.should be suitable for testing
by any users of_Cluster types.. 58112-also.resists windburn and other
factors.which. cause.cone discoloration. However, ,the petal base turns
brownish upon drying; the.actual lupulin.color does not change
appreciably.
Agronomically this genotype.has.several characteristics which
require special management. Namely,,spring.growth is delayed, new
In 1968 yield was
shoots are prostrate,.and.shoots are non-vigorous.
It
reduced by the strong.hermaphroditic tendency of this genotype.
has good mildew and wilt resistance.
Coleman. Ranch Inc., St. Paul, Oregon
Grower:
14 September, 1968
Harvest date:
1.69
Acres harvested:
Yield per acre:
8.6 bales
17.(2899 lbs. net)
Bales shipped to storage:
Quality analyses: seed content 2.0%
leaf and stem 0,0%
8.9%
alpha acid
3.5%
beta acid
0.81 m1/100 gm.
oil
The 44 bales.(200 lbs. each) of_hops from the above described
commercial-scale trials were shipped to cold-storage at the
Washington State Hop Producers warehouse in Yakima, Washington.
The Hop Research Committee of.the-U, S. Brewers Association will
arrange for several brewers to test these varieties by their normal
brewing procedures.
Two of the advanced lines during their-commercial harvest are
shown in Figures 1-4.
60a
Figure 1. Variety 56008 at harvest, 31 August, 1968.
Yield 10.3 bales per acre; alpha acid 7.5%.
Figure 2.
1968.
Variety 56008 being cut for harvest, 31 August,
60b
Variety 56013 at maturity, 8 September, 1968,
Yield 8.8 bales per acre; alpha acid 6,0%.
Figure 3,
Figure 4.
Variety 56013 going into the picking machine.
61
Clonal Increase.
The propagation. program established five years ago at Corvallis
was to have provided a continuous supply of .rhizomes from all
advanced hop lines. Hop lines would be 'increased continuously until
the line was discarded or released for commercial production and
further increased by a designated commercial propagator.
The past program failed due to unanticipated demands of rhizomes
and because hop lines were increasedtoo.late in the varietal program.
The present increase program starts tHrlame year a hop clone is
selected for advancement beyond the nursery (year-2).
Planting stock for nurseries at Prosser is available after
year-2 in the varietal testing program at Corvallis.
In year-2 and
-3 propagules are available for downy mildew test, verticillium wilt
test, and observation block plantings, The major discard of advanced
genotypes occurs during year-3, -4, or -5 and consequently results
in discarding 2 to 4,000 propagules.
An intensified propagation program coupled with planting
seedlings directly into field nurseries will facilitate accomplishing
the advancement of genotypes to release within 8 years. This
technique is described under CRe5-1, Triploid Nursery and under
CRe5-5, Part III, Trial Crosses for High Analysis. The high analysis
study was used as a trial program to determine the feasibility of an
early increase in meeting the needs of testing genotypes for advancement.
In this study 19 lines were selected in year -1 on the basis of
producing 120 lbs a-acid/acre and data obtained ,at t e end of year-2,
are summarized in this report under CRe5-5, Part III.
62
CRe5-2 (0AES Bot :36) HOP DISEASES:
THEIR
KIOLOGY, EPIPHYTOLOGY, AND CONTROL
C. E. Horner
Hop Downy Mildew
The growing,season =of 1968 'in Oregon'was.one=of the most favorable 'for downy 'mildew in 'recent years. The 'most 'severe epidemic of
downy 'mildew 'ever 'experienced developed in the =Corvallis experimental
yards -in 1968. = 'While 'this 'outbreak ,ruined our =advanced yield trials,
it did allow =us to evaluate 'and 'discard 'a large 'number of susceptible
lines 'which 'otherwise 'would 'have 'taken 'space and 'time. Growers
controlled downy 'mildew 'exceptionally 'well in 'spite of weather very
favorable for mildew.
The 'mildew 'epidemic allowed us to define respective levels of
resistance in 'conmiercial 'varieties, introductions, and experimental
lines. For example, the 'otherwise 'excellent variety Pride of Ringwood
from Australia had '100% 'mildew infection in the cones.
The =mildew outbreak 'gave us confirming evidence that the
systemic 'crown 'infection phase is 'very important in 'evaluating hops'
for resistance. For 'example, 'even Fuggle which 'is very resistant,
had considerable leaf and 'cone infection and 'judged 'on that basis
alone might have 'been 'called susceptible., 'However, Fuggle is highly
resistant to 'systemic 'crown 'infection =and 'thus 'does not carry the
disease 'over from year to 'year. On 'the 'other hand% ,Clusters, which
are susceptible to "crown 'infection 'carry 'the disease in the crown,
and -are susceptible 'to 'crown 'rot. Examination of crowns in October
showed 'Fuggle with 'healthy crowns and 'Clusters with mostly dead crowns.
Table 1 shows a 'summary 'of downy mildew infection in several
advanced 'selections 'and 'commercial 'varieties. 'These data were obtained
from field plots and 'represent 'the 'degree of foliage infection.
Individual 'plant 'data are liven in Table 2.
Table 3 shows 'the 'degree 'of systemic 'crown 'infection present in
April 1969 'on the 'same plants shown in Table 1. A comparison of data
in Tables '1 'and reveals that some genotypes with considerable sus-
ceptibility to 'foliage infection are resistant to 'crown infection.
For example, genotype 56008 showed a high incidence of lateral spikes
and a very high susceptibility to 'leaf infection (Table 1)
.
However,
56008 'had 'a low 'incidence and severity of crown infection. The extreme
susceptibility of '56008 'could be a 'problem in =this otherwise promising
line.
The 1968 'mildew 'epidemic 'allowed us to 'further evaluate the
comparative resistance of the 'three advanced selections 56008, 56013,
and 49110 by comparing. the number 'of systemically infected shoots
(spikes) in a 'propagation area These data are 'shown in Table 4.
Genotype '56013 had "the least incidence of spikes (30%). This degree
of infection is, however, cause 'for concern 'about 'the resistance level
in this genotype.
63
In a greenhouse test, the relative resistance.to crown infection
Of the advanced lines,56008, 54013i 58112-and,19110,were compared
with-the commercial varieties Fuggle (resistant) and-Yakima Cluster
(susceptible). -Plantsweregrown from, small-rhizome pieces in
containers.. After fleshy crown had formed, the_crown area was
inoculated by- injection with sporangiaand zoospores of Pseudoperono!pore bunuli. After about,six weeks, plants were dug and the crowns
examinerra,systemiciinfection. ,Results are,shown in Table 5.
Yakima, Cluster-and Fuggle showed,susceptible and resistant
reactions as ,expected..: Genotype,58112Aid,not-become infected.
$6112 ,also showed high,resistance,to-foliage infection (Table 1).
their reaction, whereGenotypes-19110.4nd 56013 were intermediate
as 56008 ,showed a relatively,high,incidence,(42%) of crown infection.
Verticillium Wilt
For two years we- have. -been: trying to improve-our techniques
for testing-for- resistance -to Verticillium wilt disease. This has
been accomplished - and-we are ,confident thatour 1968 tests and results
sre meaningful. - None of the advanced-selections-being grown offStation are highly susceptible to_the Verticillium wilt strains
presentin- commercial hop - producing areas of- Oregon -for Washington.
-
llowever,,hop-line 56033.is more-vesistant.thananyof the commercial
varieties.
Resistance-to Verticillium wilt is complicated by.the fact that
various strains iof the - causal organism ,are present in most good
The following table
agricultural soils -of- the - Pacific Northwest.
shows the.reaction-of.Bullion, Fuggle,,and four advanced hop lines
to five different-strains .of. Verticillium.
a/
-Percent infection - -by Verticillium strains
#146 #148 4138-DM Average infection
#95
#119.
-.
pop-Varieties .Potato
Bullion
Fugal'
56008
56013
58112
19110
Mint
Hop
Hop
0
-0
0
3
3
0
32
-31
6
33
1
1
-1
21'
28
23
46
53
0
76
73
5
6
77
.53
17
...80
21
20
62
-
.by all strains
10.6
39.4
48.2
6.8
16.6
46.8
Percent infection based on a minimum, of-75 and a maximum of
-150 assays for-each-variety-strain combination.
64
With Verticillium.wilt, one must.differentiateAmtween infection
capability.anddisease=iinducing capability.. In the table above , wilt
strain 138-DM infected all-genotypes ,tested but ,did not produce severe
symptoms of disease in any. Mild ,symptoms were produced-in Fugg19 and
19110 ,genotypes only., Other genotypes were symptomless. All of the
hop varieties shown in .the table ,are."tolerant" to -wilt infection;
that is they may-become infected but they do notiaecome seriously
diseased. ,However, we-never ,know .when-one-of -our -new ,selections will
be sufficiently susceptible .to-become severely-diseased-from infection
by one of the prevalent strains-of Verticillium. -Therefore, we feel
it is essential to test,each-oneduring its advanced stage of
evaluation. Further, we never know when a.new,strain -of Verticillium
will be introduced 'or-mutate that, has the capability of killing hops
as does thexirulent.progressive strain in Europe.
The statement-made,in-our.1967:,report-remains-valid and bears
repeating. ,"Results,from,three,yearsof tests,-seven.years.of field
observations,-ancLseveral-surveysclearly-established that the hop
Verticillium wilt4)roblem-in the: Pacific.
is entirely different
from that in England and
The virulent -hop »killing strain of
Verticillium.is not present-in the Pacific. Northwest.- Those strains
which are present:(and they-are-widespread)-are-not primarily hop
pathogens, .but infect_hops that-are planted,on ,land infested by
-previous-cropping to-potatoes,luint,..and strawberries, or by uncontrolled-susceptibIeweeds-in hop-yards. -While-these-strains do not
rapidly_kilhhops,they-may cause-a-gradual,decline-in productivity."
Hop-Virus Diseases
In 1965,,collections of-plants-with.-virus-likesymptoms were made
from_growets,plantingsand,ftom.advanced experimental. lines. Rhizomes
were planted_in-the.spring of -1966. .In_1966.,and-1967.symptoms were.
recorded-on each,plant-in.afive,hill.plot.In.the-spring of 1968,
eight "virus_symptom-types"Anfour-hop-genotypes-were selected for
further study:and were_plantedl-in-replicated-five-hill plots.
Symptoms_were_again recorded-and:.symptoth-expression is shown in
Table_6.._Thesereplicated,plots:will be harvested in 1969 to
obtain..information on reductionA)f,yieldassociatedwith virus-like
symptoms.
65
Table 1.
Summary of Downy Mildew infection on "17 rows" of Varieties
in Yield Trial, Main Yard. Data taken 11-14 June, 1968.
Genotype
No. of
plants
Basal/P-;
Spikes
Lateral /1 Terminal /1
Spikes
Spikes
Leaf/12-
infection
0.4
2.7
13.1
0.85
2.4
33.2
15.1
0.47
1.8
13
3.2
1.4
0.31
1.0
BB307
13
3.8
1.9
0.69
1.5
19110 -15 -S
12
6.2
11.6
1.1
3.3
50 -S
17
0.76
-
0.71
56008
13
3.2
12.2
0.15
3.9
58112
15
1.2
1.5
0.20
0.67
Say.G1d.
17
1.3
0.88
0.12
0.88
Fug. H
16
0.19
0.13
0.0
0.69
9
1.1
5.3
0.56
1.9
65102YC=(L -1)
14
22.2
29.1
1.1
3.7
E-2
11
22.5
33.6
1.9
3.7
BG
12
3.7
3.8
0.0
1.0
08830
14
21.1
6.9
OB813
8
10.2
56013
15
61101=Y Gd.
Talisman
/a
Average spikes per plant.
/b
Based on 0 to 4; 0 = no infection and 4 = severe infection.
66
Table 2
Downy mildew data. on "17 rows'!,of varieties in yield trial-4Data taken 11,14 June, 1968.
main yard.
"
Variety
Plant
No.
Basal
spikes
Lateral
spikes
Term.
spikes
Leaf
inf.
Re larks
-44 if,
tiff
OB-830
56012
1
18
2
0
3
2
9
1
3
3
11
9
10
6
14
9
4
6
0
2
1
0
3
3
3
2
0
0
2
12
6
4
1
3
0
3
0
3
4
6
5
0
0
0
3
2
3
3
4
5
6
30
13
7
12
8
12
30
24
21
17
26
13
14
28
48
9
10
11
OB 813
57011
1
9
2
27
3
4
5
12
5
7
6
8
10
11
9
22
,
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
0
2
10
18
19
2
3
7
3
8
1
2
8
9
8
0
2
1
5
0
2
7
1
2
3
18
37
30
0
2
4
58
1
2
5
0
2
13
15
16
15
19
9
21
19
0
0
2
1
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
32
44
10
57
40
34
11
29
13
60
25
13
22
23
Y Gd.
1
10
2
1
1
61019
2
1
2
2
OB 831
56013
2
6
7
8
1
0
1
1
2
0
2
1
1
0
2
8
1
2
22
1
1
3
2
0
0
0
4
8
3
1
1
5
5
2
1
6
4
2
7
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
rlk
67
Table .2 cont.
Plant
Basal
*pikes
Lateral
spikes
Term.
spikes
Leaf
inf.
Variety
No.
Y4WL
$
9.
10
1
3
2
1
2
0
1
4
2
0
0
11
12
13
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
1
2
2
0
0
1
3
1
1
1
10
7
0
2
9
6
4
1
2
2
1
1
5
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
2
3
3
61019
19020
90 307
1
1
0
2
13
0
3
3
5
1
1
5
1
2
8
3
4
16
5
5
6
18
14
9
6
9
11
0
0
0
0
0
7
8
7
21
9
10
11
12
2
19137
1
2
50-S
2
1
1
3
4
5
6
2
0
0
0
1
2
2
7
0
0
0
9
10
1
0
2
1
11
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
19110
15-S
8
12
13
14
15
16
17
8
1
9
0
7
2
6
7
22
9
2
1
3
3
4
3
1
4
0
0
0
2
1
1
Remarks
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
0
Mild split leaf virus
68
Table 2 cont.
Plant
Variety
OB 826
56008
No.
Say.Gld.
61020
Lateral
spikes
Term.,
Leaf
spikes
inf.
1
0
23
1
2
1
11
0
0
3
0
4
1
14
24
5
3
2
6
1
12
7
2
8
4
12
4
4
4
1
4
0
0
4
0
4
-
10
11
12
13
10
11
16
9
10
0
4
2
10
0
5
8
0
1
10
0
4
4
4
9
OB-835
58112
Basal
spikes
0
4
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
6
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
4
5
6
1
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
3
10
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
3
0
4
1
1
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
8
2
2
0
9
1
0
0
0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
5
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
3
0
1
2
2
1
1
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
Remarks
69
Table 2 cont.
Plant
Variety
Fu. H
48209
No.
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Talisman
65101
1
0
0
0
1
Lateral
spikes
0
0
0
0
Term.
spikes
Leaf
inf.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
7
2
2
5
0
1
6
1
1
2
0
0
3
6
0
0
4
0
3
1
1
7
1
1
0
0
2
8
5
3
8
9
0
7
1
2
1
8
15
36
15
22
1
4
0
3
1
4
30
1
19
2
3
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
30
33
21
38
8
23
9
10
11
29
27
19
12
13
14
26
25
10
5
2
3
9
1
4
17
22
16
10
32
35
32
22
2
4
4
1
3
6
3
3
3
3
6
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19001
1
0
Bc
2
13
3
1
4
4.
5
4
6
7
8
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
1
Remarks
1
2
3
65102
YC(L-1)
Basal
spikes
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Basal spike No. high/
basal shoots
7o
Table 2 cont.
Variety
19001
BG
65103
E-2
Plant
No:
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Basal
spikes
Lateral
spikes
Term.
spikes
Leaf
inf.
6
4
0
1
1
0
1
6
5
,0
6
2
0
0
29
17
22
16
17
37
14
30
28
25
13
13
24
50
46
1
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
32
2
4
25
37
34
41
30
38
1
3
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
3
2
1
Remarks
71
Table 3.
Systemic Downy Mildew Infection in 15 Hop Genotypes
located in "17 Hills" area, Main Yard, April, 1969.
Evaluation of Systemic Infection
Strap
Clone
Ident.
Crown
Infection /a
Ab Infection
Ratio %
Severity Ratio %
Root
/t) Infection/a
Severity
Ratio %
Severity
OB813/57011
24
0.29
12
0.12
0
0.00
OB830/56012
12
0.12
0
0.00
0
0.00
OB831/56013
18
0.18
6
0.59
0
0.00
Yug.Gld /61019
25
0.24
29
0.41
6
0.59
BB307/19020
12
0.18
18
0.24
0
0.00
15-S/19110
6
0.18
25
0.35
6
0.59
50-S/19137
12
0.18
12
0.18
0
0.00
OB826/56008
53
0.94
35
0.77
18
0.18
OB835/58112
59
0.71
76
1.24
6
0.59
Say.G1d/61020
29
0.41
29
0.59
6
0.18
0
0.00
24
0.24
0
0.00
19
0.24
25
0.25
0
0.00
Y.C1./65102
100
3.88
100
3.65
100
3.59
E-2/65103
100
3.71
100
3.65
100
3.65
35
0.65
41
0.65
18
0.35
Fu.H./48209
Tal./65101
Br.G1d./19001
/a
Percent infected of 16 or 17 hills evaluated.
/b
Maximum severity = 4.0
72
Table 4
Downy mildew spikes
--
Propagation block, main yard, June, 1968.
Variety
No. plants
No. spikes
19/110
193
48
19/110
201
80
19/110
190
99
19/110
77
24
661
251
38
63/06
5
5
100
56/08
152
66
56/08
204
76
Sum 56/08
356
142
56/13
252
87
56/13
225
69
56/13
226
67
56/13
250
68
56/13
53
10
1006
301
Sum 19/110
Sum 56/13
Percent spikes
40
30
73
Table 5.
Reaction of Advance Hop Lines to Downy Mildew Crown
Inoculation, compared with Fuggle (resistant) and
Yakima Cluster (susceptible) controls.
No.
Genotype
tested
No. plants
infected
Percent
infection
Remarks
56013
29
8
27.6
mostly
pith. inf.
56008
24
10
41.7
mostly
pith.
clean
58112
20
0
0
19110
25
5
20.0
mostly
pith. inf.
Fuggle
20
3
15.0
mostly
pith. inf.
Yak. Cluster
24
23
95.8
severe
crown rot
74
Table 6.
Virus study
group
G-2071-3
Hall.
Fuggle
Fuggle
Fuggle
128-I
56-08
Hall.
L. Clu.
Fuggle
Fuggle
Hall.
144 -I
Bullion.
Fuggle
Rep. 1
Control
1968 Hop Virus Observation--Virus Nursery--September 15, 1968.
Observed symptoms
By hill number
Symptom type
Sev. mosaic
Split leaf
Sev. mosaic
Yellow fleck
Sev. mosaic
Split leaf
Yellow fleck
Healthy
Virus - ?
Rusty mottle
Early yellow
Leaf curl
Sev. mosaic
Yellow fleck
Sev. mosaic
Yellow fleck
1
2
3
4
+
+
M
M
++
M
M
M
+++
+++ +++ +++
+++
+++
+++
+
++
4.4.
4.1.
++
+++ +++ +++ +++
.1.4.
M
M
-
-
-
++
+++
M
M
M
-
-
M
M
M
++
++
-
-
-
-
M
M
+++ +++ +++
-
Fug. ?
.1.4.
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++
M +++ +++ M
M
+
++
-
+++
Y.F. ++
++
-
-
+++ +++
++
++
++
Remarks
5
-
Severe cup, yellow fleck
Small nec. fleck
No virus
Yellow fleck ++
Very severe
Mild
Severe
-
Rep. 2
Control
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++
Rep. 3
Control
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++
Severe
Rep. 4
Control
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++
Severe
Rep. 1
Control
Rep. 2
Control
-
Yellow fleck
tt
I/
Rep. 3
Control
Rep. 4
Control
Rep. 1
Control
Rep. 2
Control
-
-
Severe
-
++
++
++
Moderate
++
++
++
++
Moderate
-
-
-
-
-
++
++
++
++
++
-
-
++
-
I/
-
++
++
-
+
++
-
Moderate
-
++ +++ +++
Severe
++
Mosaic in +4,
Early leaf
chlorosis
It
-
-
75
Table 6 cont.
Observed symptoms
By hill number
Virus study
group.
Rep. 1
Control
Symptom type
1
Severe mosaic
++
Rep. 2
Control
ft
Rep. 3
Control
ft
Rep. 4
Control
Rep. 1
Control
Rep. 2
Control
Rep. 3
Control
tf
It
+4+
H
It
II
+++
Split leaf
and curl
Rep. 2
Control
Rep. 1
Split-leaf on some
plants
+++ +++
+
+++ +++
+
+
+4.
++
++ ++4-
+
Remarks
5
-
++
++
++
++
4.1.
++4.
++
-
Rep. 4
Control
Rep. 1
Control
+
4
+++ +++ +++
Rusty mottle +++ +++
of lower leaf
II
3
++ +++
-
II
2
-
-
++ +++
++ +++
-
-
-
++
++ +++
++
++ +++ +++
B
M
Symptoms severe,growth
near norm.
+
++
++ +++ +++
Leaf curl
and stunt
Severe yellow fleck
It
No symptoms
Rep. 2
Control
Rep. 1
Control
Rep. 2
Control
Yellow fleck
and stunt
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++
+++ +++ +++ +++ +++
H 4 & 5 vigorous
76
CRe5-4 (OAES AC-36) AGRONOMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS TO IMPROVE YIELD AND QUALITY OF HOPS.
C. E. Zimmermann
A reduced effort was applied to this line project in 1968 in lieu
of the transition following the departure of S. N. Brooks. Greater
effort was applied to assisting the. CRe5 -1 project and aiding Dr. Haunold's
breeding program.
Summary of results and conclusions:
A propagation nursery was maintained to provide additional planting
stock of the three advanced lines, of selected male clones for seeded
commercial hop yards, of advanced material for plantings at Prosser.
A herbicide trial at Corvallis on established hops provided residue
samples and verified results obtained last year namely the phytotoxic
effect of Casaron and Sinbar.
Six herbicide trials established in
Washington hop yards showed that soil active herbicides were ineffective
for weed control.
The Washington trials will be repeated in 1969.
Paraquat, Simazine, and Dinitro were effective in the control of
weeds in Oregon throughout the year.
Hops irradiated with artificial light, sunset to sunrise, during the
period of floral initiation. (May 25 ,to. June 20)-produced a greater
number of cones than control plants. -Theaffect of supplemental light
on hops was similar to that obtained with an-exogenous application of
GA3 during this same period, Gibberellin-A3 was registered for use on
hops during 1968 with a negligible tolerance of 0.1 ppm.
Seeded hop cones contain a greater number of lupulin glands than
seedless; therefore, seeded cones possessmore a-acid Hper cone than
seedless.
Wild American. germplasm is associated with. a cone morphology which is
tolerant to shatter.
Several different sterile tissue culture methods were used in an
attempt to promote roots on apical meristems. TIBA, auxin, kinin, and
gibberellins were used as growth regulators in pre-treating shoots
prior to culturing.
A field culture technique was developed to evaluate vigor and
quality of hop lines grown from seed, -Selections were made in the
seedling year, transplanted and re- evaluated in 1968.
This trial will
be continued and verified in 1969.
77
QUALITY GENETIC STUDY
C. E. Zimmermann, A. Haunold, and S. T. Likens
High-low reciprocal crosses were made in 1968 to determine genetic
information associated with a-acid inheritance.
The low x low cross did not provide sufficient seed; therefore,
an additional high x high cross was added to the study.
(Additional
details under CRe5-1) Seeds were planted in three inch peat pots,
covered with sand-peat moss mixture and placed outdoors on November 21,
Temperatures during the winter ranged as low as 10° F. and
1968.
during January the pots were covered with 18" of snow.
Table 1 is a summary of crosses planted and the number of seeds
which produced normal appearing seedlings. The H x H and L x H cross
resulted in a large number of albino seedlings and others without
epicotyls.
Table 1.
Type of
a cross
H x H
H x L
High Quality Study - Summary of crosses planted in peat pots
outdoors on November 21, 1968.
Female
63006-1/2 BG,
1/2 Utah WA.
63013-1/2 BG,
1/2 Utah WA.
63006-1/2 BG,
19005-1/2 LC,
h Utah WA.
L x H
19105-1/2 LG, 3/8
Fug. 1/8 x
L x L
19105-1/2 LG, 3/8
Fug. 1/8 x
H x H-
Pedigree
Male
62013, 1/2 Utah
WA, 4 Su, 4 x
x
63013-1/2 BG,
1/2 Utah WA.
19005-1/2 LC,
x
6616-10-1/2 BG,
4 Fug, 4
Colo. WA.
No. seeds
Progeny
1/2
BG, 1/2 Utah
WA.
planted
germinated
SOO
143
4 BG, 4 Utah
WA, 4 LC, 4 x
500
184
DG,
BG, 4
Utah WA, 3/16
Fug, 1/16 x
500
136
204
15
500
131
DG, 4 LC, 3/16
Fug, 5/16 x
4 BG, 11 Utah WA,
1/8 Fug, 1/8 Su,
1/8 Colo WA,
1/8 x
The potted seedlings will be planted directly in the field during the
spring of 1969 (detailed in 1967 AR, under CRe5-4) followed by a detailed
evaluation of male and female lupulin during the growing season.
78
Supplemental Light Study
Commercial hops irradiated with 1-2 fc. of artificial light during
short days, produced an apparent greater number of cones than control
plants.
The irradiation of hops during the period of floral initiation
(May 25-June 20) resulted in increasing, flower set similar to that
obtained with applying exogenous GA3 during the same period. The use
of supplemental lighting in commerical, hop yards is not practical in
the U. S. due to a U. S. Patent. granted. to. Japanese workers.
I have
been informed that they have also been granted a patent in England.
Gibberellin-A3 registered for use in hops was used on a limited scale
in commercial yards during 1968, but it is expected to expand in 1969.
Meristem Culture Study
Sterile culture of hop tip.meristems was largely unsuccessful.
Several types agar media were used with various growth regulating
compounds without success. This method was initiated as a cooperative
effort in assisting Dr. Skotland at Prosser in propagating virus-free
tissue. The study was terminated pending the development of improved
sterilizing techniques of the original stem tissue.
79
FC 36-9
USE OF HERBICIDES ON HOPS.
C. E. Zimmermann and
Phillip D. Olson, Dept. of.Farm Crops,
cooperating
Introduction
Currently, there are no herbicides registered on hops that are used
exclusively for weed control.
There are large amounts of DNBP applied for
stripping and suckering and some weed control is achieved if the DNBP is applied
on the weeds present at the time of this application.
Mechanical cultivation is the only practice employed by hop growers
for weed control. Cultivation begins early in the spring and is continued until
the lateral branches are well developed.
The first cultivations in the spring
are to remove excessive shoots from the rootstock.
This mechanical pruning is
needed to shape the rootstocks, confine the crowns, remove diseased portions and
keep runners to a minimum. Cultivation is continued through the remainder of the
season for weed control.
If the grower is careless, several harmful effects can result from
cultivation. Towards the latter part of the season growers cannot cultivate
deeper than two to four inches without destroying or seriously injuring the small
feeder roots. This will check growth and cause early ripening, which in turn,
reduces yields.
Careless use of machinery will also injure the root crowns.
Injured crowns are subject to root rots, which often shorten the life of the hop
plant. This damage necessitates much annual replanting and increases the cost of
production.
The use of herbicides could eliminate most of the damaging cultivation.
Outside of the early spring cultivation, proper use of a herbicide or herbicides
would reduce the weed problem, especially around the crowns or areas not accessible by machinery.
Thus, the use of herbicides may reduce production costs
through decreased replantings and increase yields through reduction of weed
competition.
Weed Control in Established Hops
The purpose of the experiment was to determine the effects of several
herbicides on the vigor of established hops. Three herbicides, terbacil, diuron,
and simazine were applied alone, as split application, or as combination-split
applications. Additional information and plot diagrams of the two herbicide
experiments is detailed in the 1966 and 1967 Annual Report.
Methods
A cover crop of winter wheat was planted between each row of hops in the
fall of 1966. A row of five hills was selected for each plot.
Each plot was an
eight foot strip 18 feet long, with a guard row of hops between each plot.
All
applications were made with a bicycle sprayer. The herbicides were applied as a
broadcast application with 8003 nozzles at 30 P.S.It The applications were made
in a volume of 38 gallons per acre.
The hops were in a dormant stage at the time
of both the winter and spring applications. Two visual evaluations of percent hop
80
injury and percent weed control were made in the summer of 1967. Principal weeds
present at the time of the evaluations were annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum),
redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris),
annual bluegrass (Poa annua), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), and filaree
(Erodium sp.). Tables I & II)
Discussion
The terbacil treatments effectively controlled all weeds present except
Both treatments seriously injured the hops. Injury appeared as
field bindweed.
a burning effect on the leaves approximately four months after treatment. Most
of the hop plants died eight to nine months after treatment.
Diuron at four pounds per acre applied in the fall did not control the
weeds as well as the diuron four pounds per acre applied as a split application.
There
Both of these treatments controlled the weeds to an acceptable degree.
was no appreciable damage to the hops with either of these treatments.
The two simazine treatments were comparable in weed control. The
simazine four pounds per acre applied as a split application appeared to control
all the weeds well in the first evaluation, but dropped to a lower percent control of annual ryegrass than the simazine four pounds per acre treatment in the
second evaluation. The hops did not show any injury or vigor reduction with either
of these treatments.
The simazine, diuron split application was very effective in controlling
The treatment caused no
all weeds present, with the exception of filaree.
visible crop injury.
In conclusion, all of the treatments appeared to be acceptable on a weed
control and hop tolerance basis, with the exception of both of the terbacil
With the current cultural
treatments which inflicted serious injury to the hops.
practices in hops, possibly a treatment down the rows with cultivation between
This would be more
the rows could be the best way to approach the weed problem.
Compreconducive to the current traditional cultural practices of cultivation.
hensive trials should be established in the hop growing areas of the northwest
for future registration of these herbicides in hops.
Weed Control in Hop Establishment
The purpose of the experiment was to evaluate several herbicides, old
and new, for possible use in hop establishment. Crop selectivity was estimated
by visual injury (loss of vigor or growth retardation) to the young hops.
Methods
Brewers Gold, Fuggle, L-1 and L-8
Four varieties of nursery stock:
were planted by hand February 3, 1967. Prior to planting, pre-plant incorporaAll
tion treatments were incorporated 4-6" with a double discing method.
herbicides were sprayed as a broadcast application with a bicycle sprayer using
8003 nozzles at 30 P.S.I. The applications were made in a volume of 52 gallons
81
of water per acre. After the post-emergence treatments were applied, a bean
A splitpole trellis system was placed down each row of hops for training.
block design was used as the experimental design.
Post emergence applications were made when the hop varieties were in
the following stages of growth; Brewers Gold 3-9 leaves, Fuggle 4-10 leaves,
L-1 3-8 leaves, and L-8 just emerging. Weeds present at the time of post
emergence application were annual ryegrass Lolium multiflorum, annual bluegrass
Poa annua, white clover Trifolium repens, mouse-ear Chickweed Cerastium glomeratum,
horsetail Equisetum arvense, miner's lettuce Montia perfoliata, moth mullien
Weed
Verbascum blattaria, and California poppy Eschscholtzia californica.
species present at the time of evaluations were annual ryegrass, annual bluegrass,
California poppy, barnyard grass Echinochloa crusgalli, pigweed Amaranthus
retroflexus, Canada thistle Cirsium arvense, common groundsel Senico vulgaris,
wild lettuce Lactuca sp, plantain Plantago sp and goldenrod Solidago sp.
Tables (III, IV, V) are a summary of results.
Discussion
Herbicides that appeared to not injure any one of the four varieties
tested more than 20% were trifluralin at 1/2 lb/A, dichlobenil at 2 lb/A,
There
simazine at 2 lb/A, CP 50144 (Lasso) at 3 lb/A, and maloran at 4 lb/A.
were several other compounds that appeared to be non-toxic to one or two of the
hop varieties. They were trifluralin at 3/4 lb/A, simazine at 4 lb/A, CP 50144
at 6 lb/A, maloran at 8 lb/A, diuron at 2 and 4 lb/A, sesone at 4 lb/A, paraquat
at 1/4 lb/A, 2,4-D at 1 lb/A, CIPC at 4 lb/A, and OCS 21799 at 4 lb/A.
Continuation of research is needed to determine to a greater degree the
safety of the promising compounds tested.
Table I
WEED CONTROL IN ESTABLISHED HOPS
USDA SEEDLESS YARD, CORVALLIS, OREGON
FIRST EVALUATION
Percent Hop Injury and Weed Control by Visual Estimate)"
TREATMENT/
Hops
% Injury
Rate
Rep Rep
lb/A
II
I
active
2
terbacil-fall
4
diuron-fall
4
simazine-fall
2
diuron-fall +
diuron-spring 2
terbacil-fall + 2
terbacil-spring 2
simazine-fall + 2
simazine-spring 2
2
simazine-fall
diuron-spring 2
1/
2/
Annual
Ryegrass
% Control
Annual
Bluegrass
% Control
Avg
Rep
Rep
I
II
Avg
Rep
Rep
Groundsel
% Control
Filaree
% Control
Avg
if
Rep
I
Rep
II
Avg
Rep
I
Rep
Avg
II
100
100
100
100
70
85
100
30
65
0
0
0
10
95
100
55
100
100
100
100
75
100
100
25
47
87
100
100
100
100
1.00
100
100
100
100
82
0
75
75
75
75
100
100
100
82
100
100
20
60
100
95
97
100
80
82
77
100
100
20
100
90
90
90
75
90
75
0
0
0
50
65
57
0
0
0
0
0
85
85
75
0
0
0
0
70
80
85
10
5
5
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
LOU
90
Evaluation scale 0-100% (0 = no effect)
Time of treatment:
Fall = December 29, 1966
Spring = April 13, 1967
Silt loam
Soil type
June 5, 1967
Date of Evaluation
50
100
40
Morning
Glory
RepI RepII x
Rep Rep Avg
I
II
-
-
0
0
0
WEED CONTROL IN ESTABLISHED HOPS
Table II
USDA SEEDLESS YARD, CORVALLIS, OREGON
SECOND EVALUATION
Percent Hop Injury and Weed Control by Visual Estimatel/
TREATMENT?/
fall
terbacil
fall
diuron
fall
simazine
fall +
diuron
spring
diuron
fall +
terbacil
spring
terbacil
fall +
simazine
simazine :spring
fall +
simazine
spring
diuron
mechanical
Rate
lb/A
active
2
4
4
2
Hops
% Injury
Rep I Rep II
Avg
Pigweed
% Control
Rep I Rep II
Avg
Groundsel
% Control
Rep I Rep II
Avg
95
90
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
93
100
93
100
40
85
60
90
50
87
94
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
60
80
70
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
75
62
0
0
0
98
95
97
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
90
100
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
20
20
5
0
2
0
0
0
30
Avg
20
98
70
98
20
40
90
90
90
Ryegrass
% Control
Rep I Rep II
94
80
95
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1/
2/
Evaluation scale 0-100% (0 = no effect)
Time of treatment
Fall = December 29, 1966
Spring = April 13, 1967
Soil type - Silt loam
August 24, 1967
Date of Evaluation
Table III
HOP ESTABLISHMENT
USDA SEEDLESS YARD, CORVALLIS, OREGON
FIRST EVALUATION
Percent Hop Injury by Visual Estimatell
TREATMENT
Pre-plant Inc
trifluralin
trifluralin
Pre-emergence
dichlobenil
dichlobenil
CIPC
CIPC
diuron
diuron
simazine
simazine
terbacil
terbacil
CP 50144
CP 50144
sesone
dicamba
picloram
dephenamid
dephenamid
RP 11755
RP 11755
Nia 11092
Nia 11092
Ciba 6313
Ciba 6313
OCS 21799
OCS 21799
SD 11831
SD 11831
Rate
lb/A
Rep
I
Fuggle
Rep II
L-1
Rep II
Brewers Gold
Avg
Rep
1
Rep II
Avg
Rep
Avg
Rep
I
L-8
Rep II
Avg
1/2
3/4
10
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
0
20
10
0
0
0
I0
10
10
0
20
10
2
10
40
0
5
0
0
0
0
20
40
0
10
10
4
0 ,
20
40
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
8
90
90
90
0
20
90
100
95
10
90
2
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
50
85
90
,0
25
87
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
LO
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
0
90
50
90
90
2
100
75
100
100
3
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
90
100
0
5
0
0
0
25
15
92
40
0
20
0
0
0
0
70
35
5
0
0
0
97
0
10
5
0
5
0
5
0
50
10
10
90
0
5
90
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
10
20
10
15
95
100
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
0
0
0
4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
100
100
100
100
55
95
90
90
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
:.5
0
2
6
0
10
5
12
90
95
4
4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
4
0
0
0
8
0
10
5
100
100
100
100
10
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
100
45
100
8
2
8
0
2
0
4
100
50
10
99
95
100
100
100
100
30
0
0
10
:0
0
0
85
0
100
100
42
100
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
95
100
100
95
100
50
0
0
0
10
50
10
10
30
0
5
0
90
50
95
0
10
90
100
100
100
100
5
45
100
HOP ESTABLISHMENT ( CONTINUED)
Table III
TREATMENT
Pre-emerge
and
Post-emerge
CIPC t DNBP
Post-emergence
paraquat
paraquat
dalapon
dalapon
2,4-D
2,4-D
bromoxynil
bromoxynil
dicamba
dicamba
Rate
lb/A
Fuggle
Rep II
Rep I
Avg
Brewers Gold
Rep II Avg
Rep I
Rep I
L-1
Rep II
Avg
Rep I
L-8
Rep II
Avg
4t3
0
50
25
0
90
45
95
90
92
0
90
45
1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
80
90
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
50
25
0
0
0
40
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
1/2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
80
100
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
'10
15
10
25
20
0
12
15
1
5
10
1
1/2
1
1/
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
Evaluation Scale 0-100% (0 = no injury, 100 = complete kill)
Date of Planting - Feb. 3, 1967
Application Dates:
Pre-plant inc. - Feb. 3, 1967
Feb. 6, 1967
Pre-emergence
Post-emergence - April 19, 1967
Silt loam
Soil type
Date of Evaluation - June 5, 1967
0
10
0
10
5
HOP ESTABLISHMENT
Table IV
USDA SEEDLESS YARD, CORVALLIS, OREGON
FIRST EVALUATION
Percent Weed Control by Visual Estimateli
California
Golden
Wild
Barnyard Canada
Annual
Annual
Poppy
Rod
Plantain
Groundsel Lettuce
Thistle
Bluegrass Ryegrass grass
Rate
Control
Control
%
o Control % Control % Control % Control % Control % Control % Control %
lb/A
TREATMENT
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Pre -pLant Inc. active
0
53
10
100
10
0
70
70
75
1/2
trifluralin
-100
75
100
13
0
100
100
3/4
trifluralin
Pre- emergence
dichlobenil
dichlobenil
CIPC
CIPC
diuron
diuron
simazine
simazine
terbacil
terbacil
CP.50144
CP 50144
Sesone
dicamba
picloram
diphenamid
diphenamid
RP 11755
RP 11755
Nia 11092
Nia 11092
Ciba 6313
Ciba 6313
OCS 21799
OCS 21799
SD 11831
SD 11831
2
95
70
4
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
97
100
100
100
100
0
0
4
8
2
4
2
4
1
2
3'
6
4
4
2
6
12
4
8
2
4
4
8
4
8
2
4
0
65
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
40
55
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
90
95
35
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
95
20
50
100
70
10
100
95
75
100
25
75
87
100
5
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
85
100
83
85
70
100
0
0
0
30
35
20
100
100
100
90
100
95
100
10
90
100
100
100
100
60
97
0
100
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
30
0
67
100
77
0
100
0
85
30
83
100
100
60
85
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
10
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
95
100
.100
100
100
100
0
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
100
85
95
100
100
87
100
100
35
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
25
100
100
35
25
100
100
100
100
100
97
90
100
97
100
100
100
100
--
100
-30
--
100
100
100
-100
100
100
100
10
70
-70
TREATMENT
Post-emergence
CIPC + DNBP
paraquat
paraquat
dalapon
dalapon
2,4-D
2, 4-D
bromoxynil
bromoxynil
dicamba
dicamba
00
,1
HOP ESTABLISHMENT (CONTINUED)
Table IV
California
Golden
Wild
Barnyard Canada
Annual
Annual
Poppy
Rod
Plantain
Groundsel Lettuce
Thistle
Bluegrass Ryegrass grass
Rate
Control
Control
%
Control
%
% Control % Control % Control % Control % Control % Control %
lb /A
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
Avg
active
4+3
1/2
1
5
10
1
25
100
100
43
100
0
23
87
100
10
100
100
90
70
80
0
2
75
20
30
0
0
1
35
5
85
20
20
90
1/
0
50
5
20
20
90
100
0
17
10
100
100
100
100
1/2
1/2
1
75
15
10
Evaluation Scale 0-100% (0 equal to check)
Feb. 3, 1967
Date of Planting
Date of Applications:
Feb. 3, 1967
Pre-plant Inc.
Pre-emergence - Feb. 6, 1967
Apr. 19, 1967
Post-emergence
Silt loam
Soil type
June 5, 1967
Date of Evaluation
0
100
100
100
10
97
100
100
85
100
0
30
0
100
97
100
90
0
0
5
55
95
5
25
35
100
---
100
100
100
100
87
100
--
85
95
55
55
0
95
55
90
100
100
0
Table V
HOP ESTABLISHMENT
USDA SEEDLESS YARD, CORVALLIS, OREGON
second evaluation
2/
Percent Hop Injury and Weed Control by Visual Estimate
TREATMENT
Pre-plant Inc.
trifluralin
trifluralin
Pre-emergence
dichlobenil
dichlobenil
CIPC
CIPC
diuron
diuron
simazine
simazine
terbacil
terbacil
CP 50144
CP 50144
sesone
dicamba
picloram
diphenamid
diphenamid
RP 11755
RP 11755
Nia 11092
Nia 11092
Ciba 6313
Ciba 6313
OCS 21799
OCS 21799
SD 11831
SD 11831
Rate
lb/A
active
1/2
3/4
Fuggle
% Injury
Rep Rep
Avg
II
I
0
10
20
20
10
15
Brewers Gold
% Injury
Rep Rep Avg
I
II
10
10
20
20
Rep
15
15
Rep
Avg
II
I
Pigweed
% Control
L-8
L-1
% Injury
% Injury
Rep Rep
Avg
II
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
70
40
2
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
30
15
5
0
2
4
4
40
70
30
77
80
5
100
0
10
100
5
25
100
10
0
5
100
40
90
50
100
2
4
0
100
100
10
10
10
98
90
0
100
100
10
20
50
60
70
10
95
10
8
100
100
100
97
100
100
100
60
90
20
100
100
100
100
100
_5
77
10
35
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
100
100
100
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
20
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
10
0
40
50
30
100
100
0
0
45
15
30
35
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
20
100
20
20
70
10
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
10
27
85
95
20
20
40
70
100
100
100
100
6
12
4
8
2
4
4
8
4
0
8
60
100
100
2
4
0
70
100
100
0
0
15
2
100
100
100
100
0
20
100
100
4
4
0
100
100
0
10
100
100
10
80
0
100
100
0
4
1
2
0
20
90
2
5
20
20
80
95
20
95
100
10
20
100
100
10
0
0
95
37
100
20
10
10
75
0
0
5
25
75
100
100
100
100
100
30
87
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
0
30
0
15
100
100
100
83
100
100
55
40
65
100
100
100
100
0
0
Rep
Rep
Avg
I
II
90
90
90
90
90
90
100
60
100
60
100
60
80
75
80
80
58
87
83
45
87
48
85
90
90
95
35
100
75
40
95
65
70
90
90
100
20
100
90
100
60
98
0
100
50
75
65
35
90
95
40
75
90
50
80
30
100
90
90
90
50
100
100
100
80
100
50
100
100
100
80
40
75
100
Ryegrass
% Control
Rep Rep Avg
I
II
40
70
80
55
83
40
100
20
85
0
90
90
95
100
100
90
90
95
95
90
95
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
20
20
40
10
30
15
100
100
100
95
100
100
100
90
100
100
0
0
0
95
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
80
95
,85
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
70
99
25
100
75
87
73
37
83
97
HOP ESTABLISHMENT - cont.
Table V
TREATMENT
Post-emergence
CIPC + DNBP
paraquat
paraquat
dalapon
dalapon
2,4-D
2,4-D
bromoxynil
bromoxynil
dicamba
dicamba
Checks
Rate
Ib/A
active
4+3
1/2
1
5
10
1
2
1/2
1
1/2
1
1/
Fuggle
% Injury
Rep Rep
I
II
100
50
Avg
Brewers Gold
% Injury
Rep Rep Avg
II
I
L-1
% Injury
Rep Rep
L-8
Avg
II
I
15
35
00
85
83
95
20
60
60
60
100
10
10
20
100
100
100
0
0
0
30
60
60
70
95
100
80
100
75
100
73
97
75
90
40
100
70
90
100
0
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
97
100
100
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
10
100
100
100
80
95
100
100
75
80
90
20
0
85
91
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
36
40
80
Evaluation scale 0-100% (0 equal to check),
Feb. 3, 1967
Date of Planting
Application Dates:
Pre-plant Inc - Feb. 3, 1967
Feb. 6, 1967
Pre-emergence
Post emergence ,April 19, 1967
Soil type - Silt loam
August 24, 1967
Date of evaluation
% Injury
Rep Rep
Avg
90
90
80
90
90
90
90
90
100
100
100
100
0
0
0
20
10
85
95
90
0
15
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
83
100
100
100
0
0
0
65
100
90
100
30
10
50
100
100
100
90
100
100
100
90
100
100
90
100
80
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
90
65
70
90
65
90
90
100
100
70
90
II
II
II
.5
95
95
90
100
100
Ryegrass
% Control
Rep Rep Avg
I
I
I
.0
Pigweed
% Control
Rep Rep Avg
65
100
100
100
0
0
50
60
25
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
CRe5 -5 (OAES FC:36)
CHEMICAL EVALUATION OF HOPS
S. T. Likens and Gail Nickerson
PART I.
SUMMARY OF STORAGE STUDIES TO APRIL 25:
1967-68 Storage Trials:
Eleven varieties were baled and stored at three temperatures (RT, 35° F.
and -50 F.). They were sampled at 0, 3, 6, and 11 months (Table 1).
Results indicated relatively small changes in a- or 8-acid contents at the
low temperatures over this period. Room temperature, however, showed a
range of deteriorations ranging from more than 80% less of a-acid for Bu
Six months at room temperature
and B.G. while Clusters lost only 10%.
was concluded to be the best time and temperature for evaluating storageability.
Increase in the ratio of A275/325 was inversely proportional to
the loss of a-acid during storage at room temperature and was considered to
be a direct indicator of storageability (Figure 1).
1968-69 Storage Trials:
Twenty-six varieties were baled and stored at room temperature (only)
for six months (Table 2). These were ranked using "% a-acid remaining" as
the index of storageability:
(also see Table 3)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(very good)
(good)
(fair)
(poor)
(very poor)
retained
retained
retained
retained
retained
90-100% of the original a-acid.
80-90% of the original a-acid.
60-80% of the original a-acid.
40-60% of the original a-acid.
less than 40% of the original a-acid.
The 26 varieties are grouped in summary form in Table 4.
The correlation of % a-acid remaining with
in the 1968-69 studies as it was in the 1967-68
When the 26
good indication of storageability.
according to A275/325, an array was found which
according to % a-acid retained (Table 5).
A275/325 was not as good
study, but was still a
varieties were grouped
was similar to grouping
Which method is a better indicator of storageability is not clear.
One measures the relation of the a-acid content of two samples; the
original and stored, which introduces sample variation. The other measures
the ratio of breakdown products (A275) to the a-acid left (A325). Either
method would separate good from bad and probably judgement based on both
methods would be the best indication of the varietal characteristic.
Future trials should have analyses of duplicate samples for the
"original" value.
Storage Stability in Solvents:
Manufactures of hop extracts claim that a varietal difference exists
for the stability of a- and 8-acids after extraction into solvents.
Six varieties representing all groups of storage stability were
These were held at room
extracted into benzene and analyzed immediately.
temperature (in the dark to prevent photoisomerization) for six days and
The results were somewhat erratic, but no indication of
analyzed again.
varietal differences was apparent, either from a-acid data or from A275/325
ratios during the first six days.
yl
The solutions were exposed to an additional 21 days storage at room
temperature, but were not kept in the dark. This resulted in a large loss
of a-acid for four of the six varieties. Those showing the least change
were N. Brewer (Smith--see footnote, Table 6) and Brewers Gold, which is
contradictory to their stability grouping of whole hops. More will be
reported on this subject at a later date.
Deterioration of a-acid while exposed to air and light:
A sample of 66030 (group. II or IV) was extracted in benzene and part
was kept in dark and part had air bubbled through it under fluorescent
light for eight hours. There was no significant change in a-acid content
or A275/325.
This is of interest from an analytical standpoint.
Attempts to isolate oxidation product of a-acid which produced A275 increase:
An extract of aged hops was evaporated to "dryness" and redissolved
in pentane.
The residue was dissolved in ethyl ether. An aliquot of each
was developed on thin-layer Silica Gel G. with ethyl acetate and pentane
containing a small amount of formic acid.
Spots were recovered and
eluted with ethyl ether. Analysis before and after chromatographing
indicated such a procedure was unsatisfactory since the A275 was not recovered.
Use of lupulin to indicate deterioration of a-acid:
A275/325 was shown to correlate with deterioration of a-acid in whole
hops (1967-68). Deterioration of whole hops was shown to be varietally
associated.
Since the varietal nature of deterioration was destroyed when
extracted a-acid was allowed to deteriorate, it appears that differences in
deterioration may be a result of the physical nature of the lupulin gland.
Since the glands can be preserved by replacing air with N2 or CO2 (commercial
processes), differences in deterioration rates could be associated with
gland permeability to 02.
If this hypothesis is valid, it should be possible to measure deterioration in lupulin as well as whole hops. Either measurement of loss of
a-acid, or measurement of A275/325 should be a satisfactory indicator.
Microscopic examination of detached lupulin showed that the break at
the stem cell was clean and did not permit leakage. Thus, tests of varietal
differences of deterioration ratio would be dependent on 02 permeability.
Growers have long been cautioned against drying hops in excess of
60° C because of a possible loss of a-acid during the 8-10 hour exposure
period.
Consequently, 600 C was selected as a temperature at which
deterioration could be expected in 2 or 3 days.
Samples of Brewers Gold (whole and lupulin) and Yakima Cluster (whole
and lupulin) were placed in open dishes in a 60° C oven and sampled at
0, 24, 48, and 72 hours.
They were extracted with toluene and A275/325
measurements were made on aliquots in alkaline methanol.
The varietal nature of deterioration was borne out by the lupulin as
well as the whole hops (Table 7, Figure 2). Lupulin appeared to be slightly
more resistant to oxidation than whole hops, probably because all the
glands are whole.
°'
Table 1.
1967 Storage Experiment
65103
Fuggle (SL)
Oil
a
58112
as
Bs
A275
A275
A355
Oil
13s
4.8
2.6
0,27
0.72
7.2
7.4
5.0
0.22
1.13
6.7
6.8
2.5
0.30
2.3
4.3
3.7
4.4
3.7
3.3
0.60
0.50
0.40
7.1
6.8
5.7
7.2
6.2
1.3
0.33
0.45
0.61
6.1
4.8
5.0
4.0
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.86
0.81
0.40
6.9
6.4
5.7
6.5
5.9
5.7
2.4
2.3
1.6
0.35
0.43
0.52
1.26
1.12
1.01
5.2
4.9
4.5
4.9
4.7
4.3
2.6
2.6
2.6
0.24
0.30
0.33
0.61
0.61
0.51
7.1
7.3
6.9
7.0
7.4
7.1
4.6
5.0
4.9
0.23
0.23
0.26
1.02
1.17
0.81
9.6
7.2
5.6
6.8
6.8
6.7
2.5
2.7
2.5
0.31
0.35
0.36
1.05
1.21
1.22
5.3
5.2
4.9
4.7
4.8
5.0
2.5
2.6
2.3
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.51
0.66
0.61
7.2
7.3
6.9
7.4
6.9
6.7
4.9
4.9
4.5
0.23
0.24
0.24
1.97
1.11
1.11
7.8
7.1
7.1
7.4
6.8
8.7
2.7
2.5
2.6
0.31
0.32
0.34
Storage
Conditions
Oil
Original
1.42
5.0
R.T. Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
1.10
0.75
0.50
4.6
35°F Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
0°F
3
6
10
Storage
months
months
months
A275
as
a
a
s
2.1
a
cp
355
355
56013
Talisman
Yakima Cluster
Original
0.92
9.3
9.1
5.6
.21
1.98
9.6
9.9
4.8
.26
2.34
6.5
6.5
6.1
.21
R.T. Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
0.45
0.75
0.69
8.9
8.7
8.1
8.8
8.6
8.0
5.7
5.8
4.7
.25
.28
.33
1.62
1.30
0.59
9.4
4.4
8.8
6.7
9.5
7.9
2.7
3.7
3.6
.29
.42
.79
0.85
0.50
0.40
5.6
4.8
3.6
4.4
2.5
1.6
4.1
2.5
0.9
.53
.90
1.52
35°F Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
0.96
0.61
0.81
7.0
9.3
8.8
8.9
6.1
6.1
6.0
.24
.24
.25
1.78
1.90
1.28
9.4
9.7
8.8
9.3
10.2
9.5
4.5
4.7
4.6
.26
.26
.27
1.87
1.62
1.21
6.9
6.9
5.6
6.3
5.9
3.4
6.0
6.1
6.5
.25
.28
.30
---0.86
0.82
9.8
9.2
8.8
9.4
6.0
5.6
5.6
.23
.25
.27
1.02
2.05
1.84
9.8
9.9
9.3
10.0
9.7
9.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
.25
2.38
2.45
1.93
6.7
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.3
5.4
6.1
6.3
5.9
.23
.24
.30
8.8
9.2
0 °F Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
9.0
8.6
.27
.30
Table 1 cont.
56008
Storage
Conditions
Oil
Original
R.T. Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
Brewers Gold (SL)
A275
A355
a
cp
a
2.18
7.5
7.3
6.1
.21
1.30
0.70
0.50
6.9
5.4
4.7
5.7
3.9
2.5
4.7
3.1
1.2
.39
.73
2.03
2.13
1.61
7.4
6.9
6.8
7.5
6.6
3.8
1.11
2,11
1.90
7.4
7.5
7.8
7,1
6.9
6.3
s
Oil
66030
A275
A355
Oil
acp
acp
as
121s
2.72
10,6
10.2
5.1
.25
2.71
8.8
705
6.3
7.2
4.9
4.6
3,3
1.9
0,6
.56
1,43
1.85
1.00
0.69
11.0
10.4
1.27
1.51
0.80
0.69
6,0
6.0
7.6
.24
.25
.29
--2.47
2.04
10,5
10.5
9.9
10,1
10.0
9.4
5.0
5.1
4,7
.27
.30
.37
2.74
2.58
1.91
5.8
5.9
5.5
.25
.26
.30
2,75
2,77
2.36
10,3
10.5
10,2
10.3
9.9
9.3
5.0
4.9
4.5
.25
.31
.34
$s
.93
as
as
A275
A355
12.9
5.8
.24
5.1
3.3
1.0
.33
.60
7.3
11.5
8.2
5.0
12.5
12.0
13.0
13.3
12.5
13.2
5.6
5.7
5.4
1.15
35 °F Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
0°F
3
6
10
Storage
months
months
months
Bullion (SL)
Brewers Gold (S)
Original
3,10
10.7
11.1
5.8
.23
2,72
8.5
8,6
4.0
026
R.T. Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
1.21
0.91
0,69
9.5
7.7
5.6
8.8
5.1
2.0
3.7
2.1
1.7
.47
.94
7.4
6.4
4.8
6.1
4.5
0.1
2,6
1,8
2.6
.55
.82
1.39
1,11
0,80
0.40
1,23
35°F Storage
3 months
6 months
10 months
2.28
2.35
2.04
10.8
10.6
9.3
10.6
11.0
8.4
5,9
5.4
6.2
.25
.27
.34
2.27
2.28
1,61
8.3
8,1
7.8
8.4
7.9
7.5
3.7
3.8
3.4
.27
.33
.41
3.18
2.76
2.55
10.5
10.7
10.4
11.1
10.8
10.4
5.5
5.7
5.4
.23
.26
.29
1.06
2.77
2.32
8.7
8.8
8.4
8.6
8.6
7.8
4.0
4,0
4.9
.27
.28
.30
0
o
F
3
6
10
Storage
months
months
months
.24
.26
.26
94
Table 2.
1968 Storage Experiment, 10 April 1969
Fall 1968
ml oil
100 gm % as
Sample
Alliance (S)
Brew Gold (SL
Bull (S)
Bull (SL)
Bull (Gosche)
E-2 (S)
E-2 (SL)
Fuggle (S)
Fuggle (SL)
Hall. (SL)
A
% as
A
275
Spring 1969
ml oil
100 gm % a
325
1.04
6.9
10.9
10.5
11.3
11.6
7.4
10.0
5.0
2.1
5.4
4.8
6.1
6.5
4.6
6.0
2.2
0.24
0.24
0.26
0.23
0.22
0.24
0.22
0.24
0.69
0.56
0.45
0.55
0.50
0.59
0.59
0.55
1.14
6.7
5.6
3.3
5.3
0.24
0.20
0.55
0.20
0.30
0.34
0.40
0.35
0.40
1.44
3.68
3.19
2.83
3.22
0.85
Hall. (Swiss SL)
Ida-40 (SL)
N. Brew. (Smith SL)
Talis. (SL)
Yak. Cl. (S)
1.41
0.84
2.34
7.8
5.3
6.4
6.9
11.4
5.2
1.02
5.9
8.2
4.1
4.5
0.22
0.21
0.23
0.21
0.21
Yak. Cl. (SL)
1.03
9.4
6.2
0.21
0.60
19110 (SL)
1.34
6.2
7.8
0.21
0.69
56008 (SL)
56013 (SL)
58112
62013 (SL)
63018 (SL)
63019 (SL)
63020 (SL)
63021 (SL)
FR-2 (SL)
1.44
1.92
0.83
2.93
2.46
0.93
1.06
1.70
1.03
8.8
6.1
6.8
13.3
8.8
5.6
6.1
5.0
6.5
5.8
6.2
3.0
4.7
7.5
5.2
5.2
7.8
4.8
0.22
0.19
0.24
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.20
0.25
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.48
0.59
0.35
0.40
0.40
0.54
6616-24 (SL)
6619-8 (SL)
6620-6 (SL)
6620-24 (SL)
6659-3 (SL)
3.12
2.30
1.73
1.91
1.16
6.6
7.7
7.0
6.0
9.4
6.1
6.3
6.1
6.8
6.5
0.23
0.22
0.25
0.26
0.23
0.40
0.50
0.30
0.41
0.35
(xx)
A
p
5.2
6.1
6.0
7.6
8.6
6.9
(8.3)
4.0
(3.7)
4.7
3.8
(3.8)
6.5
4.6
7.6
4.1
5.7
(5.9)
8.6
(8.8)
5.0
(4.9)
4.9
3.6
5.7
8.1
5.8
4.7
5.0
2.8
5.5
(5.5)
3.1
5.5
4.2
3.3
6.8
% as
% $s
275
A325
4.9
3.2
3.6
6.3
6.4
6.5
8.4
3.7
(3.7)
3.0
2.5
(2.0)
4.9
4.1
4.9
3.9
5.7
(5.7)
9.2
(9.6)
6.0
(5.7)
2.9
1.8
5.8
5.6
3.3
3.7
4.1
1.5
5.3
(5.3)
2.1
4.0
1.8
0.5
5.7
Values in parentheses are reruns; i.e., another extraction.
0.48
1.2
1.21
1.6
0.7
1.08
0.9
0.72
0.63
2.6
0.39
3.6
4.7
0.33
0.37
1.8
(1.2) (0.45)
1.5
0.82
0.97
1.4
(1.3) (0.97)
3.6
0.62
0.34
5.3
1.3
0.84
2.5
0.46
0.37
3.2
(3.4) (0.35)
0.30
4.9
(5.0) (0.23)
0.40
5.4
(4.1) (0.40)
1.05
1.7
1.14
1.5
0.37
2.1
0.87
1..6
0.86
2.4
0.44
2.7
0.40
3.8
0.99
1.9
0.34
3.6
(3.3) (0.40)
0.4
1.07
0.74
2.5
1.1
0.9
1.4
1.14
1.52
0.55
95
Table 3.
Ranking of Commercial and Experimental Hops According to Storage
Stability after Six Months at Room Temperature.
1/
Rank
68/67
Genotype
1968
Orig
%
Remain
a
Final
A 275
Orig
oil
1967
Orig
%
Remain
a
3/-
Alliance (S)
Brew Gold (S)
Brew Gold (SL)
Bull (5)
Bull (SL)
Bull (Gosche)
E-2 (S)
E-2 (SL)
Fuggle (S)
Fuggle (SL)
Hall. (SL)
Hall. (Swiss SL)
Ida-40 (SL)
N.Brew(Smith SL)
Talis (SL)
Yak Cl (S)
Yak Cl (SL)
19110
56008
56013
58112
62013
63018
63019
3/5/2/5/4/5/5/3/-
63020
63021
F-R-2
6616-24
6619-08
6620-06
6620-24
6659-03
3/2
3/-
1/1
1/5/4
5/5
2/2
4/5/-
1/
6.9
71
0.48
1.4
10.9
10.5
11.3
11.6
7.4
10.0
29
34
56
55
88
84
74
45
40
1,21
1.08
0.72
0.63
0.39
0.33
0.37
0.82
0,97
0.62
0.34
0.84
0.46
0.37
0.30
0.40
1.05
1.14
0.37
0.87
0.86
0.44
3.7
3.2
2.8
3.2
1.2
0.8
100
204
0,40
0.99
0.34
1.07
0.74
1.14
1.52
0.55
1,1
1.7
1.0
2.4
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.2
10.2
52
58
0,82
0.93
2.7
2.7
11.1
12.9
46
64
0.94
0.60
3.1
2.7
7.4
8.5
0.28
0.7
4.8
77
0.45
1.4
9,9
80
0.42
2.0
9.1
94
0.28
0.9
7.3
605
6.8
54
38
87
0.73
0.90
0.43
2.2
2.3
8.6
5.0
6.7
5.6
7.8
5.4
63
77
11.4
5.8
43
66
8.2
70
98
9.4
6.2
8.9
6.1
6.8
13.2
8,8
5.6
(7.0)
6.1
5.0
6.5
6.6
7.6
7.0
6.0
9.4
94
33
29
85
42
38
66
(60)
68
30
82
32
52
26
8
61
1.1
1.4
0,8
2,3
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.9
0.8
209
2.5
0.9
Ranking determined as follows:
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Descript.
V Good
Good
Fair
Bad
V Bad
Orig
oil
325
325
3/-/4
5/4
5/4/4
3/3
2/2/2
3/4/3
4/3/1
3/5/-
Final
A 275
% Remain
90-100
80-90
60-80
40-60
0-40
1.1
96
Table 4.
Very Good
L-1(2)
C19110
Relative Storage Stability of Several Hop Varieties by Groups
Good
E-2 (3)
Talisman (1)
C58112 (2)
C21001
Poor
Fair
Alliance
Fuggle (2)
Idaho 40
Talisman (1)
C63019
C603020
166030 (2)
6659-03
L-1 (1)
Brewers Gold (2)
Bullion (2)
Fuggle (1)
Hallertau
161021
C56008 (1)
C62013
6619-08
Very Bad
Brewers Gold (1)
Bullion (1)
C56008 (1)
C56013 (2)
C63018
C63021
6616-24
6620-06
6620-24
1.
6 months, dark, 72° F in 1/2 lb. bales
Storage Conditions:
(11 lb./1 cu. ft.) in polyethylene bags.
2.
Spectrophotometric analyses made before and after storage period
on single samples.
3.
Grouping was on the basis of the fraction of a-acid remaining
after the storage period:
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very bad
90-100%
80-90 %
60-80 %
40-60 %
<
40 %
remaining
remaining
remaining
remaining
remaining
4.
Numbers in parentheses indicate number of times (years) the
variety has fallen into that group.
5.
L-1 and E-2 are Clusters grown from certified rootstock provided
by C. B. Skotland, WSU, Prosser.
6.
Numbers preceded by C, I, and 66 are experimental lines.
7.
All varieties listed were grown at Corvallis.
97
Table 5.
Alternate Scheme of Ranking Storageability
Rank
Descript
A275/325
I
V Good
Good
Fair
Poor
V Poor
0.20 - 0.35
0.35
0.45
0.45 - 0.60
0.60
0.80
II
III
IV
V
I
(0.2-0.35)
Yak Cl (2)
E-2
Idaho - 40
Table 6.
35-0 . 45 )
E-2 (1)
Talisman (1)
Fuggle (2)
Yakima Cl (1)
58112
Fr-2
11910
63020
63019
III
IV
(0.45-0.6)
(0.6-0.8)
Alliance
Gosche (1)
Talisman (1)
6659-03
Bullion (1)
Gosche (1)
56008 (1)
6619-08
A 275/325
0 days 6 days
Cluster
Talisman
62013
Hallertau
N.Brew(Smith)
Brewers Gold
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.28
0.28
27 days
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.25
0.27
0.28
1.29
1.45
2.96
2.47
0.72
0.76
Selection from N. Brewer field:
Table 7.
V
(7.08)
Brewers Gold (3)
Bullion (2)
Fuggle (1)
Hallertau
Swiss
N. Brewer(Smith)
56008 (1)
56013 (2)
62013
63018
63021
6616-24
6620-06
6620-24
Storage of Benzene Extracts
Variety
*
II
(0 .
>0.80
% a-acid
0 days 6 days
9.6
5.1
9.5
10.7
5.5
11.3
11.2
5.2
10.6
9.3
8.9
3.2
27 days
1.3
0.5
1.5
0.5
6.7
4.9
% remain. a
after 26 days
13.5
10
0
9
60
55
May actually be Brewers Gold.
Ratios of A275/325 after accelerated deterioration at 60° C.
Variety
0 hr
24 hr
48 hr
72 hr
Yakima Cluster (whole)
(lupulin)
0.27
0.27
0.28
0.41
0.38
0.55
0.42
Brewers Gold (whole)
(lupulin)
0.27
0.32
0.35
0.54
0.53
0.81
0.67
98
40
20
80
60
10
% a-acid remaining
FIGURE 1.
Relation of A275/A325 and % a-acid remaining
after 6 months storage at room temperature.
Whole
0.8
----- Lupulin
Brewers Gold
OYakima Cluster
0.6
LS")
CN
(Y)
4,C
S
0
0.2
0.0-4
0
r
413
hours at 60° C
FIGURE 2.
Comparison of A275/A325 between whole cones and
lupulin after 600 C storage.
72
PART II:
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL WORK TO FEB 1. 1969.
The following twelve tables summarize all analytical data up'-to''
Feb. 1, 1969. The tables are grouped aSfollows
Table 1 - - - - Experimental Varieties by accession no:
Table 2 - - - - Named Varieties by accession no.
Table 3 - - - - Maturity samples for 56008i.of-stationH
Table 4 - - - - Maturity samples for 56013, off-Station
Table 5 - - - - Maturity samples for 58112, Off-Station
Table 6 - - - - Selections from 1966 seeded nursery
Table 7 - - - - Initial data on 1968-69 storage-Samples:
(see previous section, thiS report, for'
complete' data)'
Table 8 - - - - Lupulin from "hi- quality" maleS
Table 9 - - - - Lupulin for maturity
Table 10- - - - Samples for maturity estimates
Table 11- - - - Miscellaneous hermaphrodites
Table 12- - - - Service analyses of Idaho selections
100
Table 1.
Experimental varieties collected in 1968.
(Table dated 1 Feb. 1969)
introductions
Lab No.
Access.
Location
Marv.
date
M.C.
a(%)
a(%)
Main Yard
Smith
Washington
Stauffer
Main Yard
Idaho
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Weathers
Idaho
Main Yard
Smith
Main Yard
Coleman
Idaho
Smith
Smith
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Smith
14 Sept.
17 Sept.
8.8
11.1
10.6
11.7
13.1
10.1
6.6
6.2
4.5
7.5
5.2
5.2
6.4
7.8
5.8
5.6
5.4
4.6
1.03
0.79
0.76
1.34
0.96
1.13
10.6
8.9
5.8
1.53
8.0
6.0
6.1
5.5
5.4
5.2
6,2
3.6
3.5
2.9
3.0
1.09
1.13
1.54
0.98
2.83
2.54
2.38
2.27
- -1.41
0.81
1.06
2.38
2.50
Washington
Main Yard
gain Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Main Yard
--11 Sept.
11 Sept.
5 Sept.
11 Sept.
9 Sept.
9 Sept.
3 Sept.
No.
225
243
336
125,6,7
194
275
213
318
255
135,6,7
266
211
319
212
220,1,2
269
328
258
210
217
218
226
219
259
222
234
175
242
232
245
315
324
172
193
192
173
148
326
335
174
171
149
191
254
316
119
19110
19110
19110
56008
56008
56008
56008
56008
56013
56013
56013
5601$
56013
58112
58112
58112
58112
57011
61010
61012,
61018
61019
61020
62013
62013
62052
63001
63008
63018
63019
63020
63021
64004
64005
64006
64013
64107
64107
64107
65008
65029
65030
65031
66030
06030
66050
.
Includes foreign
31
11
17
14
29
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Aug.
a/a
- --
8
17
16
12
16
14
23
17
17
17
17
17
14
14
10
10
21
11
17
5
17
10
17
11
12
12
11
5
17
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
10.7
6.7
13.3
5.8
7.4
8.8
11.2
--14.3
12.9
5.2
8.3
5.6
8.0
6.1
10.2
8.9
6.9
6.8
--8.2
6.2
5.6
5.7
5.5
5.8
7.7
5.3
2.4
2.2
11.4
8.3
11.9
13.2
5.4
5.7
7.8
8.8
5.6
6.1
5.0
3.7
5.0
3.8
8.0
8.1
11.4
7.8
9.3
11.6
7.8
10.0
6.3
2.9
4.4
1.4
3.8
3.3
2.78
4.74
0.76
1.33
11.2
10.4
11.6
6.0
6.5
1.3
1.78
4.62
11.7
8.6
9.2
13.2
12.0
10.8
10.4
13.2
6.8
11.4
8.2
3.2
2.81
1.64
1.14
0.90
1.17
1.07
1.17
0.64
0.64
1.56
5.3
6.0
3.9
5.2
1.33
2.08
2.19
4.7
3.3
5.0
8.7
7.5
5.2
5.2
7.8
5.8
3.6
.72
101
Oil
1.3
0.4
2.1
2.4
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.5
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.5
2.9
1.3
3.6
2.5
0.9
1.1
1.7
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.9
1.9
2.3
1.2
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.8
3.2
1.3
Reason for sampling
coH (S)
Current evaluation
BIS - not sent because aroma
Off-Station
Seed. Cott
Ida. eval.
Cott (Seeded)
Storage
Hand evaluation
Off station
Ida. evaluation
Seed. Cohumulone
Storage
Seed Cohumulone
Off station
Ida. evaluation
Storage
Hand evaluation
Varietal Identification
Varietal Ident. (Polish)
Varietal Identification
Varietal Identification
Varietal Identification
Hand evaluation
Storage
Varietal Identification
BIS
BIS
BIS #2
BIS #3
Storage
Storage
Ha. Cross
Ha. Cross
Ha. Cross
Ha. Cross
Remarks
41% Cohumulone
Avg. 3 bales. 34.9% Cohumulone
re-run = 8.6a, 5.98
Avg. 3 bales.
34% Cohumulone
Avg. 3 bales
re-run = 12.4a, 5.18
Density
32.9% Cohumulone
27% Cohumulone
re-run : 5.5a, 4.98, 33% Cohumulone
re-run (Ser.#332) 7.0a, 4.98
re-run: 5.0a, 7.60
Discarded (CEZ)
To seedless OB in 1969 (CEZ)
Discarded (CEZ)
Northern Brewer
Baby, seedless questionable
var. Ident. (CEZ)
BIS #6
Northern Brewer (wn)
Polish W.A.
Discarded (CEZ)
Ha. Cross
Discarded (CEZ)
Ha. Cross-Select. from seed OB Discarded (CEZ)
Ha. Cross
Hand evaluation
Storage
Varietal Identification
Alliance
Storage
102
Table 1.
Experimental varieties collected in 1968. Includes foreign
(Table dated 1 Feb. 1969)
introductions
Lab NO.
Access.
Nary,
date_
Location
No,
F
341
150
240
277
239
237
238
233
338
201
66050
66051
66052
66052
66053
66054
66055
68051
68051
68052
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Idaho
Main Yard
Main Yard
Main Yard
Smith
Washington
Main Yard
a(%)
a(%)
2.1
1.6
6.5
7.0
6.8
5.9
9.1
10.2
--7.8
9.0
7.7
6.6
8.1
6.6
5.8
5.0
--2.5
---
M.C.
a/a
I
3
5
21
17
21
21
21
4
4
11
Sept.
Sept,
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
10.3
7.8
6.4
7.6
3.24
3.69
1.40
1.34
1.33
1.32
2.64
103
Oil
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.4
Reason for sampling
Storage
Varietal Identification
Varietal Identification
Evaluation
Varietal Identification
Varietal Identification
Varietal Identification
Varietal Identification
BIS
Varietal Identification
Remarks
Alliance (same sample, as above)
Progress
Pride Ringwood. (very over ripe)
Pride Ringwood.
Ringwood Spec. (over ripe)
Calicross
(over ripe)
First Chbice
(over ripe)
Bramling CrOss (over ripe lOdays)
Bramling Cross
Petham Golding
Table 2.
Named Varieties.
Lab
Access.
No.
No.
223
257
317
228
256
325
224
344
327
339
276
314
244
231
262
59
323
282
241
19001
19001
19001
64100
64100
64100
65103
65103
65103
48209
48209
19209
19209
21001
21001
260
340
235
237
261
320
227
267
176
216
342
321
Location
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Main Yard
56001
56001
61021
61021
61021
61021
61021
61021
65101
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Idaho
Main Yard
Smith
Smith
Goulet
Goulet
Smith
Idaho
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Wash.
Smith
Smith
65101
65101
65102
65102
65102
65102
Main Yard
Idaho
Main Yard
Smith
Main Yard
Smith
Harv.
Date
20
12
12
20
9
9
14
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
29 Aug.
5 Sept.
23
23
23
17
19
5
16
5
5
5
21
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
?
M. C.
a
a
a/a
10.0
10.4
4.1
2.54
12.8
10.9
5.1
2.14
-
-
-
-
10.8
8.4
10.6
9.8
11.3
9.3
11.4
14.2
12.8
-
11.3
6.1
7.4
10.0
6.8
2.6
5.0
3.6
6.5
7.6
11.8
-
6.1
4.1
4.6
6.0
3.3
1.8
2.2
5.1
4.8
-
-
5.6
2.8
7.8
5.3
5.8
6.4
-
11.4
-
-
-
12.7
8.4
6.5
-
-
6.8
7.2
6.0
-
-
17 Sept.
-
1.85
1.49
1.61
1.67
2.06
1.44
2.27
.71
1.35
-
1.05
.48
1.22
-
1.29
1.24
-
7 Sept.
10.2
5.8
4.0
1.45
21,:Sept.
10.3
7.8
11.8
10.8
10.0
10.5
5.5
6.9
7.7
9.3
3.2
3.8
4.6
1.72
1.82
1.67
1.52
1.82
1.50
23
11
10
11
10
Sept.
Sept,
Sept.
Sept,
Sept,
8.2
9.3
6.1
4.5
6.2
Oil
Reason for Sampling
Commercial Name
0.3
Cohumulone, seeded
hand evaluation
Storage
Cohumulone, seeded
Hand evaluation
Storage
Cohumulone, seeded
Storage (seeded)
Storage (seeded)
Storage
Evaluation
Storage
BIS, Identification
BIS no. 1
Selection from Fu
Selection from Fu
Storage
Evaluation
BIS (potential)
Hand evaluation
Storage
Cohumulone (seedless)
BIS (std) #7
Hand evaluation
Storage
0.9
1.0
Cohumulone seeded
Evaluation
Cohumulone (seeded)
1.0
1.0
Storage
Storage
Brewers Gold
Brewers Gold
Brewers Gold
Bullion
Bullion
Bullion
E-2
E-2
E-2 (re-run 9.9a,6.16)
Fuggle-H seedless
Fuggle-H (Idaho)
Fuggle seeded
"Fuggle" G-A
"Fuggle" R-2
Fuggle (also under sel.)
Fuggle (also under sel.)
Hallertau
"Hallertau" Stemier (Ida)
"Hallertau" - S
"Hallertau" - S
"Hallertau" - S
Late Cluster
L-16
Shinshuwasi
Talisman (seedless)
re-run: 5.6a, 4.10
Talisman (seeded)
Talisman (Idaho)
Yakima Cluster (L-1)
Yakima Cluster (L-1)
Yakima Cluster (L-1)
Yakima Cluster (L-1)
3.7
-
2.8
-
0.9
2.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
1.1
0.3
1.4
-
1.5
0.3
-
105
56008 Off-Station Trial
Table
(Table dated
3.
Lab
No.
D.M.
Date
10
12
14
17
20
22
26
31
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
125
126
127
or M.C.
19.4
19.3
17.6
20.2
18.1
19.1
20.6
24.9
14.3
11.5
11.3
12.4
one
wt.
192
162
176
204
210.
180
188
202
a
___
- --
8.9
8.1
7.2
8.1
7.2
Oil
1.14
1.40
1.07
1.94
2.02
-
Feb. 1969)
- --
3.02
3.35
3.27
3.22
5.5
5.6
5.8
2.00.
2.2
wet bops
damp hops
Green-mach. pick (avg.of dup.:
Dry-loose (;avg. of dup.)
Bale #2.34.9% cohumulone
Bale #4 39% cohumulone
Bale #5
56013 Off-Station Trial
Table
Lab
No.
135
136
137
(Table dated 1 Feb. 1969)
4.
D.M.
Date
10
17
21
26
31
5
8
9
10
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
or M.C.
16.9
17.6
18.9
19.1
20.8
22.2
26.6
8.1
8.2
7.6
8.1
Cone
wt.
a
R
84
107
136
134
141
172
147
---
6.9
6.1
5.2
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.1
4.5
- --
5.5
5,4
5.5
Oil
0.17
0.65
0.48
1.22
1.41
1.48
1.79
1.60
1.3
1.0
1.3
wet hops.
Green-mach. picked (avg. dup.:
Dry-loose (avg. dup.)
Bale No 2
Bale No 6 34% cohumulone
Bale No. 10
106
58112 Off-Station Trial
(Table dated 1 Feb. 69)
Table 5.
Lab
-No.
Date
195
196
214
215
220
221
18
22
27
31
4
8
14
D.M.
or ICC.
Cone
wt.
18.0
20.2
18.6
19.1
21.3
23.0
20.7
21.7
6.0
8.6
7.0
7.6
7.6
160
200
169
160
180
166
152
181
-----
Aug.
Aug.
Aug,
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
15 Sept.
17 Sept.
222
Table 6.
6310 - 1
6310- 2
---_M 00
7.7
----7.3
6.8
8.3
8.9
9.1
8.8
8.7
- --
-----
9
---------,2.8
2.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Oil
0,24
0.36
0.58
0,63
0.60
0.90
0.57
0.66
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.8
daMp hops
Green - machine picked
11
tt
Dry - loose
II
Il
Bales 1,6,12 34% Cohumulone
II
II
II
II
Selections for Commercial Potential from 1966 Seeded Nursery &SY
IDENTIFICATION
Select. # Loc.
6503-25
6517-19
6517-46
6517-47
6527- 2
6527- 7
6527-11
6527-17
6527-21
6532-14
6535-18
6538- 9
a
02-62b
05-56a
06-64b
07-56a
17-56b
17-60a
17-62a
18-57
18-60a
20-64b
24-64a
26-63
04-87
06-90b
Lab,
No.
229
117
100
99
123
102
116
122
121
101
115
98
124
230
Harv.
date
9
3
29
29
3
29
3
3
3
29
30
29
3
9
Sept.
Sept.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Oil
M.C.
10.4
9.2
7.6
7.6
8.4
7.3
9.8
6.2
6.8
8.1
6.6
8.2
8.3
9.8
a
9.5
10.2
7.9
5.1
6.3
8.6
7.7
5.8
5.7
6.9
9.8
5.0
5.8
8.1
4.5
a
3.9
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.6
2.2
4.6
3.5
4.5
3.0
2.7
3,9
6.1
a/a
cont.
3.2
0.9
1.1
0.4
0.5
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.8
1.3
1.5
0.5
1.2
0.7
0.2
2.1
1.2
1.6
2.1
2.1
2.6
1.2
2.0
2.2
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.4
Co-H
12.9
24
30
33
32
43
34
8,17
26
25
107
Table
7.
Storage 1968-9 (at R.T. from Oct. 1, 1968) /1
Lab
A275/A
No.
Genotype
Harv.
Source
M.C.
341
317
343
325
316
344
327
314
339
323
340
363
326
320
342
321
318
319
328
322
315
332
324
333
334
329
330
331
Alliance (S)
Brew. Gold (S)
Bull. (S)
Bull. (S1)
Bull. (Gosclu)
E-2 (S)
E-2 (S1)
Fu (S)
Fu (S1)
Ha (S1)
Ha (Swiss) (S1)
Ida-40
N. Brew (Si)
Ta (S1)
Yak. Cl. (S)
Yak. Cl. (S1)
56008
56013
3
12
20
9
9
Main Yd.
Smith
10.3
12.8
10.4
10.8
11.2
10.6
9.8
11.4
11.3
11.4
12.7
/1
See previous section, this report, for complete data.
58112
62013
63020
63020
63021
6616-24
6619- 8
6620- 6
6620-24
6659- 3
29
23
5
5
5
14
17
17
11
10
29
12
17
10
10
re-run
17
5
5
16
16
4
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Main. Yd,
Smith
Smith
Main Yd.
Smith
Main Yd.
Smith
Smith
Smith
Idaho
Smith
Smith
Main Yd.
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
of #315
Sept.
Smith
Sept.
Smith
Smith
Sept.
Smith
Sept.
Smith
Sept.
Smith
Sept.
11.9
10.2
10.0
10.5
10.6
13.3
12.6
11.7
10.4
10.9
13.2
13.0
12.4
11.2
10.7
11.3
a/8
6.9
10.9
10.5
11.3
11.6
7.4
10.0
5.0
6.7
5.6
8.4
5,4
11.4
5.8
8.2
9.4
8.9
6.1
6.8
13.2
6.1
7.0
5.0
6.6
7.6
7.0
6.0
9.4
2.3
5.1
4.8
6.1
6.4
4.6
6.0
2.2
3.3
5.3
6.5
6.9
5.2
4.0
4.6
6.2
5.8
6.2
3.0
5.5
5.2
4.9
7.8
6.2
6.4
6.1
6.8
6.5
325
Oil
0.236
0.240
0.256
0.227
0.221
0.242
0.222
0.242
0.24 3
1.4
0.200
1.1
0.215
1.5
0.8
3.00
2.14
2.18
1.85
1.81
1.61
1.66
2.28
2.03
1.06
1.29
0,78
'0.207
2,19
1.45
1.78
1.51
1.54
0.98
2.26
2.40
1.17
1.43
0.64
1.06
1.19
1.15
0.89
1.44
0.231
0.209
0.215
0.214
0.216
0.195
0.243
0.222
0.228
0.242
0.204
0,229
0.222
0.253
0.261
0.226
3.7
3.2
2.8
3.2
1.2
0.8
1.0
2.4
2.3
0.3
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.9
0.8
2.9
1.1
1.7
2.4
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.2
108
Table 8.
Analysisof lupulin from hi-quality males
Harvest
date
0
%
a
B
.02:48-a
03:49
13 Aug.
13 Aug.
13
14
14
.27
04:48-a
09:49
10:48-A
18-July
14-Aug.
14 Aug.
14 Aug.
14 Aug.
30
39
15
53
45
13
Lab
No.
Selection # Location
49
66.6 -29.
47
37
65
60
64
62
35
51
55
61
57
48
83
52
63
80,
50
247
246
77
248
79
78.
82
6616-34.
6616-35
6610-52
6616-53
6616-57
6616-60.
6616-67
6616-72
6616-73
6616-26
6618-27
6618-29
6618-39
6618-40
6620-27
6620-28
6620-34
6620-35
66.20 -40
6620-42
6620-50
6620-51
6620-52
6634-02
-11:48-b
.12:48-b
-14:49
16:48-b
16:49
18:48-a
18:48-b
19:48-a
22:48-b
22:49
26:48-b
26:49
28:49
28:50-a
28:53
28:54
29:52-b
29:53
29:54-a
24:50-b
18July
13 -Aug.
13
14
17
13
22
16
14
22
13
17
17
22
17
23
22
22
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Aug.
Aug.
July
July
Aug,
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Aug.
Sept.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
7
6
17
12
21
48
31
29
10
41
26
28
18
11
19
14
17
18
30
14
48
20
20
23
31
25
36
30
34
8
14
24
25
22
12
20
15
15
12
17
13
24
17
20
a+B
35
33
40
62
48
48
18
50
53
52
26
68
35
35
35
48
38
60
47
54
a/8
0.9
0.4
2.3
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.1
3.4
].8
1.5
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.2
2.4
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.7
Comments.
109
Lupulin collected for maturity curves.
Table 9.
Harv.
date
Lab
-
No.
Identification
38
39
40
42
43
45
46
53
54
58
66
67
68
69
84
Yak.
Yak.
Fug.
Yak.
Fug.
Fug.
Yak.
Fug.
Yak.
Fug.
Yak.
Late
Yak.
85
86
Cl. (S), Y.T.
Cl. (S), Y.T.
(SL) Smith
Cl. (S) Y.T.
(SL) Smith
(SL) Smith
Cl. (S) Y. T.
(SL) Smith
Cl. (S) Y.T.
(SL) Smith
Cl. (SL) Smith
Cl. (SL) Smith
Cl. (S) Y.T.
(SL) Smith
Fug.
(SL) Smith
Fug,
Yak Cl.
(SL) Smith
Yak Cl.
(S)
Y.T.
Table 10.
a
(%)
(%)
19 July
24 July
26 July
30
23
6
6
13
13
1
1
15
21
21
21
21
27
27
27
45
42
35
28
36
42
41
26
37
Variety
Location
Harv.
date
41
Fug. R-2
Fug. GA
Gosche Bu
USDA
Bu
Smith
Smith
Smith
Smith
6
7
23
23
Lab
73
74
Table 11.
0.55 ml oil
0.6
ml oil
Samples collected for maturity estimate to
determine harvest date.
No.
44
28
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Avg. DM = 20.7%
Avg. DM = 21.3%
Oil content = 2.20
Oil content = 2.20
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Miscellaneous Hermaphrodites collected
Lab
No.
Identification
Date
56
70
81
26:05-12
29:05-12
Fug. * (SL) Smith
13 Aug.
21 Aug.
15 Aug.
(%)
a
(%)
41
19
For Al Haunold
Female Cones, for AH
I10
Table 12.
Lab
No.
Identification
75
76
104
103
105
106
107
108
129
128
130
131
132
178
177
179
18Q
181
268
270
271
272
273
274
278
283
286
285
284
280
279
282
281
267
277
276
275*
266*
269*
*
Idaho samples run for Dr. Romanko
Ida 40 (SL)
Ida 40 (S)
Ida 40 (SL)
Ida 40 (S)
Ida Ha (Faust)
Ida Ha (Steiner)
Ida IV - 45
Ida VII- 22
Ida 40 (SL)
Ida 40 (S)
Ida IV - 45
Ida VII - 22
Ida Ha (Steiner)
Ida 40 (SL)
Ida 40 (S)
Ida IV - 45
Ida VII - 22
Ida Ha (Steiner)
Ida JDC-1
L.C.-N
Ida ECO FFT
SVC-1
32
38
48
33
46
T - 1
T - 2
T - 3
GOFRLC
Ida Ha (Steiner)
T - G
Ida Talisman
Ringwood Sp.
Ida Fug. H
Ida 56008
Ida 56013
Ida 58112
a & $
Harv.
date
M.C.
19
19
26
25
21
27
27
27
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
19
19
19
19
20
23
24
20
23
20
23
23
19
16
23
23
17
17
17
17
23
9.3
15.9
16.4
18.6
8.4
9.5
16.8
14.4
22.8
17.2
9,7
13,2
8,7
7.0
13.8
9.3
14.3
13.2
11.5
19.4
12.1
11.0
12.3
8.7
16.0
17.8
11.3
13.7
9.1
8.2
9.8
7.6
12.6
7.8
7.0
9.3
10.1
10.7
8.7
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
acids verified by re-runs.
a
(%)
2.4
4.7
3.5
5.2
8.4
2.7
2.0
2.1
2.9
5.4
2.2
1.5
2.5
4.9
5.3
1.9
2.5
3.0
4.7
7.7
4.0
5.5
3.6
2.8
3.3
2,6
4.7
6.0
6.5
7.1
6.4
2.8
7.5
6.8
10.2
2.3
5.2
6.2
6.9
Oil
0
cont.
(%)
a/f3
4.5
0.53
0.77
0.52
0.88
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.6
1.2
0.43
0.37
0.39
0.38
0.88
5 45
0.28
0.39
0.67
0.88
0.39
0.45
0.61
0.96
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.90
0.97
0.82
0.62
0.64
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.1
0.48
4.4
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
2.4
0.3
0.2
0,3
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
0,4
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.3
1.1
0.9
1.4
0.6
1.0
1.7
1.4
6.1
6.7
5.9
7.0
6.2
5.3
5.3
7.6
6.1
4.9
5.3
6.3
7.3
5.9
4.8
5,0
4.9
4.9
4.3
3.2
5.2
4.0
2.9
4.0
4.2
4.4
3.4
3.4
3.7
5.5
5.8
1.7
3.8
7.6
1.8
4.6
5.4
2.9
111
PART III- TRIAL,CROSSES FOR HIGH ANALYSIS
S. T. Likens and C. E. Zimmermann
Objectives:
The original objective of this experiment mas ta determine whether
crosses in which both Tatentsvere selected,f:oxHtagh-quality (a and 8-:
acids) could be expected-to yield.progeny,efeven higher a and 1-acid
contents (AR 1967i p, 99) . A propagationtria4-involving novel techniques 1/ intended to permit chemical evaluation in the seedling year
was superimposed (AR 1967 and this report CRe5 -4)..
After evaluation of the 1967 seedlingcropi,a,second major objec7
to determine- he relationship of various CheMi..,
1) "seedling year"
cal and morphological characteristics between:the
2) the "baby year" (1968) and 3). the first "mature year" (1969).
(1967),
tive was established:.
Justification:
There has been ,appreciable speculation hy research people as to
whether physical and chemical properties of "baby hops" (first year
plantings from greenhouse sets of seedlings-or from vegetative cuttings
of mature crowns) would be-reliable guides for selection of superior
types (or rejection of inferior types).
Thus, the customary operation requires a seed to be planted in the
greenhouse the first year, the ,seedling -crowntohe planted in the field
the second year, and selection,of,superior genotypes,the third'yeal
In addition to the value of high,analysis-crossesi this experiment
is intended to establish the reliability of observations in the "seedling
year" (under novel management) as 'well as in the "baby" and first "mature"
years.
If novel handling of seeds .and seedlings results in adequate tellability in judgement of physical and,chemical-properties in either the
"seedling" or "baby" yeati two or one years, tespectively,,cotad be
deducted from the time required to advance ;a newHvariety to release.
Experimental methods:
Sixteen physical' properties (including certain disease ebserVations)
and seven chemical properties were, measured in 1967 ("baby year") and
appear in Table 2. Most are self-explanatoty but a few comments beyond
those given on the first page of the table may be helpful:
PluCkability:
11
Related to the anticipated ease of machine - picking:
Measured with a spring:-104ded dynamometer.
A brief description of the differences in management and propagation
techniques is giVen in 1967 AR (p,,.99) but a more detailed 'account
will be prepared at the termination of this trial.
112
Male flowers:
Indicates presence of .the male flower parts, but
'does not .indicate .fertile pollen.
Inter-sexes:
Denotes the combination of 'both male and female inflor. usually a cone which
has rudimentary male 'flowers in it.
-escences .in ,the same unit
.
White cones:
Cones which prematurely, ,go .into a chlorotic condition
as a .result of .a 'partial ,deterioration of the stem to
which the cone is .attaohed.. , This is relatively common
in some ,varieties under seedless conditions and is
detrimental.
Clusters:
Indicated the extent of branching in the flowering
branch. Related to 'the number of cones per plant and,
thus, to the yield.
a-acid per acre:
Results ,from multiplying the percent a-acid in the cones
times the lb. cones per acre and is related to the cost
of producing this valuable component.
Density:
Related to shattering (both green and dry) and subsequently to preservation .of the lupulin during storage.
Set:
Judgement of the number of flowers at flowering time.
Number of cones
per plant:
Related to yield and may be .inversley related to cone
size.
Cone weight:
Determines yield when multiplied by number of cones.
Lupulin per cone:
Quantity and quality ,of ,lupulin are two basic but
separate requirements.
%a and0-acids:
The major quality factors of hops with a-acid being
appreciably more desireable. All analyses by the
spectrophotometric method.
a
(ratio):
Indicated the quality of the ,lupulin. High ratios are
superior for producing hops -of high bittering power in
the brewing process.
coB
(sum of hop acids): a+0 constitues about .70% of the weight of lupulin.
Also related to anticipated value as an extract-hop.
% a-acid in
lupulin:
Indicates quality of lupulin (related to an3 ratio).
Oil content:
May be undesireable to many brewers and to extracters
practical interpretation is unclear. Also may be related to the stability of sand a-acids during storage.
.
.
113
a/oil (ratio)
If oil is implicated in storageability, this ratio
may be more meaningful than oil content.
Results:
Correlations between "seedling" and "baby" ,years have been completed
for chemical quality factors only- Although statistical analyses for
both correlation and regression ,analysis thave been completed, only the
correlation coefficients will be presented at this time (Table 1).
Detailed data and observations during both ,1967 and 1968 years
for the entire plot are presented ,in,Table '2 (Only certain copies of
this report will contain Table 2).
Discussion:
Correlation coefficients for cross 6818 (Table 1) are extremely low
and may erroneously indicate a lack of predictability of any of the
Examination of Table 2 indicated two or three
quality characteristics.
possibilities of errors in sample identification, for example, 6618-13
in addition, computer calculations to insure accuracy
and 6618-14,
remain to be done,
the 0.65 to 0.80 range
In general however, most coefficients are
and indicate that while some confidence could be placed in "seedling"
year analyses, rejections on these properties should be made cautiously.
There are 19 genotypes within the trial which produced 120 or more
If all lines showing less than 8%
pounds of a-acid per acre in 1968,
a-acid in their seedling year had been rejected, none of the 19 would
While the significance of this observation is not clear,
have been lost.
it may come into better focus after analysis of the 1969 crop is complete.
Plans:
The same observations will be made in 1969 as are shown in Table 2
for 1968. The data will be summarized, interpreted and, hopefully,
published.
Selections of any outstanding genotypes will be made on the basis of
the information obtained and intered into the varietal development program.
All other plants will be destroyed and the trial will be terminated.
Correlation coefficients for 1967 vs. 1968 for various chemical
components from "high-analysis" crosses. seedling and baby years).
Table 1
Cross No,
6616-1
6617-1
6618-1
6619-1
6620-1
6659-1
Total
to
to
to
to
to
to
25
2
25
16
25
16
a-acid
8-acid
a/R
(1+13
% lupulin
0.74
0.76
0,75
0.78
0.70
0.13
0.66
0.42
0,57
0.48
0.81
0.64
0.66
0.39
0.80
0.67
0.72
0.04
0.69
0.54
0.54
0.73
0.74
0.33
0.74
0,35
0,69
0.65
0.41
0.65
MINT INVESTIGATIONS
CRe5-12 and OAES 120
C. E. HORNER and S. T. LIKENS
1
CRe5-12 (OAES 120) MINT DISEASES AND METHODS OF CONTROL
INCLUDING BREEDING FOR RESISTANCE
C. E. Horner and S. T. Likens
INTRODUCTION
Mint disease continues to play an important but generally declining role
in Oregon peppermint oil production. The major exception is in central Oregon
where Verticillium wilt continues to spread and increase in severity. Flaming
and modification of cultural practices have checked wilt losses in western
Oregon. Flaming continues to give adequate rust control.
Major emphasis the past three years has been on identification and testing
of wilt-resistant strains developed by Dr. M. J. Murray.
The first two sections of this report constitute a summary of ten years of
disease control research and an economic analysis of the benefits therefrom.
Remaining sections cover current research results, outlook, and future plans.
A DECADE OF MINT DISEASE RESEARCH IN OREGON
Rust of peppermint has been brought under satisfactory control by propane
flaming of fields at a critical time in the life cycle of the parasite (1, 2).
This practice is used by all peppermint growers who have a rust problem and has
eliminated the use of chemicals that might cause flavor problems, hazardous
residues, or contaminate the environment. Rust on spearmint, caused by a
different race of P. menthae, has not been adequately controlled by flaming
because of the systemic nature of one stage in its infection cycle.
Verticillium wilt is the most serious disease of mints. If not controlled,
it removes fields from profitable production within a few years of the initial
Soil fumigation, genetic resistance, and modification of culture and
outbreak.
systemic fungicides have been investigated as means of control.
Soil fumigation was extensively tested and found to be effective but very
expensive (4).
In 1961, we discovered that flaming the stubble after harvest drastically
reduced spread and build-up of wilt. Subsequently flaming was developed
Liquid petroleum gas
commercially and is now widely used for wilt control (3).
This kills
(propane, butane) is used to flame stubble immediately after harvest.
the Verticillium inoculum in the stems without damaging the underground runners.
Fields in which a flaming program was started when wilt first appeared have had
an essentially normal productive life (6-10 years).
Development of certified, disease-free planting stock has been accomplished
and is an important feature of the total Verticillium wilt control program.
Since 1963, 110,000 individually tested plants have been distributed to growers
In 1968, about 280 acres
through the Oregon Certified Seed and Plant program.
of certified planting stock was grown. In this stock there is zero tolerance
for Verticillium wilt.
2
Since 1958, a continuing study of the biology of the wilt fungus has been
We have given special attention to survival in the soil environment
(7), the interaction of host and parasite in the host rhizosphere (5, 6), and
the role of alternate host in maintaining inoculum in the soil.
Development
of techniques has been important (8). These studies have revealed important
facts about the biology of the fungus which have been useful in control.
conducted.
Since 1965, we have cooperated with Dr. M. J. Murray, geneticist,
A. M. Todd Company, in an evaluation of wilt resistance in strains of peppermint
developed by X-ray and gama irradiation. Moderate to high levels of resistance
have been identified in several clones.
These clones have been increased and
are now in field-scale trials to obtain oil yield and oil quality information.
Many potential systemic fungicides have been evaluated for wilt control.
Some have been promising, but none have emerged as a practical control.
References cited
1.
Horner, C. E. 1963.
53:
1063-1067.
2.
Horner, C. E.
1965.
Control of mint rust by propane gas flamini and contact
herbicide. Plant Disease Reporter 49:
393-395.
3.
Horner, C. E. and H. L. Dooley.
1965. Propane flaming kills Verticillium
dahliae in peppermint stubble. Plant Disease Reporter 49: 581-582.
4.
Horner, C. E. and H. L. Dooley.
1966. Control of Verticillium wilt of
peppermint by soil fumigation. Plant Disease Reporter 50: 97-100.
5.
Lacy, M. L. and C. E. Horner. 1965. Verticillium wilt of mint: interaction
of inoculum density and host resistance. Phytopathology 55: 1176-1178.
6.
Lacy, M. L. and C. E. Horner. 1966. Behavior of Verticillium dahliae in
the rhizosphere and on roots of hosts and nonhosts.
Phytopathology 56:
427-430.
7.
Martinson, C. and C. E. Horner.
1964. Colonization of plant debris in soil
by Verticillium dahliae. (abstr.) Phytopathology 54: 900.
8.
Nadakavukaren, M. J. and C. E. Horner, 1959. An alcohol agar medium selective for determining Verticillium in soil. Phytopathology 49: 527-528.
Field disease cycle of peppermint rust.
Phytopathology
3
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF MINT DISEASE CONTROL RESEARCH, 1959-1968.
The Oregon peppermint oil industry is an example of the striking benefits
which can be derived from a relatively small investment in agricultural research.
Since 1958, the annual farm gate value of Oregon peppermint oil production
has more than doubled; from $4 million to $9 million.
The major problems of
the industry have been pests and diseases, some of which have threatened to
destroy the industry entirely. In each case, research has provided answers
to not only alleviate these problems but also to encourage the orderly, progressive development of the industry. The following research benefit analysis
deals with my own work on mint disease control; similar benefits have derived
from insect and weed control research.
In 1948, mint rust became epidemic. From 1950 to 1958, losses ranged
from 5 to 25%, averaging about 10% of the crop. By 1958, control measures
had been developed by research, and since that time, losses have ranged from
1 to 5%, averaging less than 3% of the crop. As shown in the following chart,
the benefit from rust control research for the 10 year period 1959-1968 has
been $2,609,000.
In 1951, another mint disease, Verticillium wilt, was discovered in
Oregon and subsequently became epidemic. From 1952 to 1962, this disease
removed about 12,000 acres from mint production in the Willamette Valley. A
concentrated research program was undertaken in 1956 and by 1963 methods had
been developed which greatly reduced losses but did not entirely control the
disease.
Losses from wilt have been reduced from 15% to less than 5% annually.
The chart shows benefits from research of $4,370,000 for the period 1959 to
1968.
Research on wilt control is continuing. At present (1968) several strains
of peppermint resistant to wilt have been identified from 58,000 originally
selected by Dr. Murray.
The release of a wilt-resistant peppermint strain
would reduce losses from 5% to about 1% for a further annual benefit of about
$350,000.
The cost of mint disease control research for the 10 years 1959-1968 has
been $240,000; the benefits to growers have been over 6 million dollars.
Benefits to users are more difficult to assess, but I am sure mint oil would
cost users much more than it now does if pests and diseases were causing 30-40%
loss at the farm level. What is it worth to have orderly, stable and progressive development of the industry?
4
Cost and Return Analysis of Mint Disease Control Research at OSU, 1959-1968.
Crop Value, Cumulative 1959-1968
Rust loss, 10%
Loss with control, 3%
Net rust loss
Cost of control
$58,700,000
$5,870,000
1,761,000
4,109,000
1,500,000
Net return from rust research
$2,609,000
Wilt loss, 15%
Loss with control, 5%
8,805,000
2,935,000
Net wilt loss
Cost of control
5,870,000
1,500,000
Net return from wilt research
Total return from all research
Cost of research
Net benefits of research
4,370,000
6,979,000
240,000
$6,739,000
Source of research funds, 1959-1968
Major users of mint oil
Oregon State University
Oregon Mint Growers
Mint oil dealers
$130,000
60,000
30,000
20,000
$240,000
5
RESEARCH RESULTS, 1967-168
1.
Stubble Flaming for Wilt Control
Flaming plus chemical weed control without plowing or cultivation continues
to be the key to wilt control in western Oregon where it is universally
practiced.
The fear that stands would decline with such practices has not been
substantiated by experience. Many fields flamed for 6-8 consecutive years had
essentially normal stands and yields in 1968.
Since 1966, records of wilt incidence have been kept on 12 flamed peppermint fields. Wilt has increased in 4, decreased in 3, and remained static in
5 (Table 1). On the average, wilt is at a low level and nearly static on the
approximately 15,000 acres where flaming is practiced. Growers who plant clean
stock on land with no or a low wilt infestation can be assured that it will
have a normal productive life of 6-10 years if recommended practices are
followed.
Table 1.
Effect of Stubble Flaming on Incidence of Wilt in 12 Peppermint Fields
Field No. and Grower
Helms #1
Helms #2
3
Chambers
4
Fry
5
Oakley
6 Harbert #1
7
Harbert #2
8
Bowers
9
Kropf
10 Doolittle
11 Linn
12 Mathany
1
2
2.
Estimated percent wilt
1966
1967
1968
8
1
2
2
5
4
4
5
8
9
3
3
4
2
3
0.1
0.5
1
2
1
1
3
2
5
1
2
2
10
5
1
1
6
1
1
1
4
Wilt trend
down
up
up
static
static
up
static
up
static
static
down
down
Wilt Resistant Varieties
Our major emphasis in 1967-'68 was on testing Dr. Murray's strains for
wilt resistance, yield and quality.
1967 was primarily an establishment and
propagation year. Our first commercial distillations were made in 1968.
In 1967, Dr. M. J. Murray, A. M. Todd Co., supplied 69 strains of
'Mitcham' peppermint to screen for wilt resistance. These were planted in
replicated 8 foot plots in a field area of known heavy wilt infestation. The
susceptible control was Mitcham peppermint. The resistant controls were Menthe
crispa for very high resistance, M. spicata 'Native' for high resistance
clone 63-15 for moderate resistance. These plots contained many strains in
which wilt resistance had already been identified. Data were taken on wilt
incidence and severity during the growing seasons of 1967 and 1968.
Table 2
shows wilt incidence and severity in these strains at mid-August the normal
harvest period.
The best 25 strains for the two years are ranked in the right
hand columns of table 2.
6
Table 2.
Wilt Resistance of 69 Mint Strains (Incidence in %;
severity on scale of 0-5 = none to dead plants)
Wilt incidence and severity
1967
1968
Mint strain
Mitcham
Spearmint
M. Crispa
58
92
1265
3201
3202
2236
1229
1383
1873
1164
1320
1421
1692
2687
1793
1717
1745
2673
1034
1039
2096
2666
2110
1990
62-15
2441
62-18
2209
1858
1436
5077
5060
5086
5055
5075
5078
5088
5067
5085
5056
5084
5071
5089
5091
5061
Inc.
69%
25
10
16
20
12
16
16
15
34
37
29
34
62
56
39
47
77
64
47
73
43
43
44
59
50
67
54
47
43
71
67
53
46
49
66
36
71
71
88
43
67
60
83
83
78
60
39
Sev.
3.4
2.4
1.4
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.6
2.2
3.1
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.7
3.7
3.6
4.0
3.4
3.4
3.7
3.4
4.4
3.9
3.4
3.7
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.6
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.0
Inc.
58%
05
01
23
29
28
27
28
29
30
30
25
26
30
46
30
42
44
45
45
45
25
52
40
43
42
45
43
32
48
45
30
26
40
34
60
37
42
38
50
28
32
34
3.7
48
40
58
4.1
2.9
48
34
Best 25 strains by years
Sev.
3.1
0.6
0.3
3.0
2.8
2.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Rank
1967
1968
1
Crispa
1265
2236
Crispa
spear.
58
3201
3202
92
spear.
1873
1034
1436
1164
3201
5062
5067
3202
1265
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1873
1229
1164
5055
1383
1692
5061
1034
1039
62-18
5067
2096
5077
2687
1745
2441
5062
58
92
2236
1383
1692
1858
1320
1229
5085
5079
5053
5060
5056
5091
Wilt resistance of 69 mint strains - - cont.
Wilt incidence and severity
1967
Mint strain
5057
5083
5072
5070
5062
5090
5064
5068
5079
5092
5082
5081
5063
5053
5069
5076
5054
5052
5074
5065
5058
Inc.
53%
53
63
70
47
63
70
79
61
79
60
77
69
63
64
77
96
69
77
68
54
1968
Sev.
3.7
4.0
3.9
4.3
2.3
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.4
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.6
3.8
3,4
Inc.
44%
40
37
48
28
35
68
40
32
52
48
46
34
33
55
56
46
38
58
37
38
Sev.
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.0
Resistant strains vary in several characteristics such as vigor, leafiness, rhizome production, flowering date and amount of bloom.
Table 3 shows
vegetative vigor of selected strains in their first year of growth compared to
Mitcham control.
In general differences in vegetative vigor were less in the
second year. All plots were flamed and treated with Sinbar herbicide.
There
were no apparent differences among strains in sensitivity to either flaming
or Sinbar, except for native spearmiment, which was badly damaged by one or
both treatments. Figure 1 shows a portion of the wilt screening plot with
Mitcham control in the center foreground and the moderately resistant, vigorous
strain 1383 in the background.
8
Table 3.
Vigor or Selected Peppermint Strains Compared to Mitcham
(Mitcham = 100%) October 6, 1967.
Plots
10
11
12
Total Avg.
100
100
100
100
80
90
80
90
100
100
110
100
90
80
80
80
80
70
1200
1040
1080
960
1100
Strain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mitcham
100
100
70
80
80
70
40
50
100
90
100
90
90
104
80
80
60
100
90
100
90
100
100
100
90
90
100
90
70
90
58
92
3201
3202
1265
2236
1164(50)
1229(25)
1383(36)
1873(33)
1421
2687
1692
2096
1039
1034
5055
5057
5056
5061
5062
5067
5077
100
50
60
120
130
100
130
90
100
130
80
100
100
90
90
80
100
70
100
70
150
130
130
140
90
90
100
100
100
100
80
100
100
90
90
110
70
100
180
170
200
130
90
100
100
130
70
80
90
100
80
90
100
120
140
100
80
80
80
70
70
50
90
180
180
170
130
110
100
110
110
120
90
90
110
100
100
150
90
90
90
60
80
60
90
150
150
150
180
90
100
120
110
120
130
80
90
90
80
90
80
80
170
120
150
150
150
150
150
140
90
90
100
60
100
130
90
150
11Q
90
110
120
70
70
110
100
100
100
120
130
150
130
100
180
120
130
150
100
80
80
100
100
80
70
90
100
200
150
120
120
100
150
130
130
200
100
200
150
200
170
90
800
1010
1950
1710
1780
1770
1140
590
690
620
660
610
350
600
550
460
630
530
230
100
87
90
80
92
67
84
163
143
148
148
95
98
115
103
110
102
88
100
92
92
105
106
77
In the spring of 1967, plots one fourth acre in size were planted with
strains 58, 92, 1229, 1320, 2236, 3201, 3202 and Mitcham control on Mr. Willard
Hamlin's farm near Corvallis, Oregon. A good stand was obtained but there was
insufficient growth to warrant harvesting that year.
In the greenhouse, 500-1000 plants of each of the above strains were
produced wilt-free and planted in June 1967 in a wilt-free area of central
Oregon for increase. Rootstock production on the wilt-free plants was exceptional and provided enough stock to make two-thirds acre plots of strains 58,
92, 1229, 3201, 3202 and Mitcham control. These were planted 24 April, 1968 on
Wayne Chambers' farm near Albany, Oregon.
These plots
Figure 2 shows the plots at Chambers' as they appeared in July.
We had planned
were planted under ideal conditions and management was perfect.
to harvest August 15 but rains beginning on the 14th and continuing till the
first week of September delayed harvest. Figures 3 to 8 show strains 58, 92,
Data taken on wilt
1229, 3201, 3202, and Mitcham respectively on 31 August.
incidence August 30, 1968, are shown in Table 4. Plots were harvested on
September 5; oil yields are shown in Table 5. All wilt-resistant strains
Oils from these plots and also from
yielded equal to or better than Mitcham.
Hamlin's plots, distilled September 7, were sent to A. M. Todd Co.
8a
Portion of wilt resistance screening plot, 1967.
Figure 1.
1383.
Center foreground plot is Mitcham, behind it is strain
Figure 2. Wilt resistant strains in yield and quality
test plots, July, 1968.
8b
Figure 3. Wilt resistant strain 58 in 1968 yield and
quality tests.
Figure 4. Wilt resistant strain 92 in 1968 yield and
quality tests.
8c
Moderately resistant and high vigor strain
Figure 5.
1229 in yield tests.
Figure 6. Wilt resistant strain 3201 in 1968 yield
and quality tests.
8d
I
Figure 7. Wilt resistant strain 3202 in 1968 yield
and quality tests.
Susceptible Mitcham control in 1968 yield
Figure 8.
and quality tests.
9
Incidence of Wilt in Chambers' Half Acre Plots.
Table 4.
August 30,1968
% of Mitch.
(var x 100)
Variety
No. wilted
No wilted/1000 sq. ft.
m
92
192
26.70
7.1
Mitcham
719
100.00
26.6
3201
210
29.21
7.8
1229
118
16.41
4.4
3202
146
20.31
5.4
58
251
34.91
9.3
Table 5.
Hay and Oil Yields, Chambers' Plots, 1968
Plot size:
0.5 acres
Harvest date:
5 September, 1968.
Planted 24, April, 1968
Oil yield/acre (lbs)
Mint strain
Amount of hay
Mitcham
one half tub
49.4
92
one half tub
49.2
3201
two thirds tub
61.6
3202
one half tub
64.0
58
three fifths tub
64.4
1229
three fourths tub
65.6
10
3.
Yield and Quality of Wilt-Resistant Strains
Some strains matured earlier than Mitcham and this could have an effect
on yield and quality. To determine oil quality in relations to maturity,
small plots were harvested from the large Chambers plots on August 15 and
August 31, 1968.
Data on oil content as % oil of the dry weight were obtained
also.
A wider range of harvest dates would have been desirable, but the
"earliness" of some of the strains was not observed in time to allow a wide
range of dates.
Table 6 and 7 show yield, as % oil, of the resistant strains
in comparison with Mitcham.
Mitcham contained the highest percentage of oil (on a dry weight basis)
at both harvest dates; strain 1229 contained the lowest oil percentage at
both dates. However, strain 1229 had the highest yield of oil per acre (Table
5) indicating that it produced much more foliage per acre than Mitcham.
Quality of oil produced by the resistant strains was evaluated by us
and the A. M. Todd Company. Gas chromatography was used to compare oil
sample with Mitcham (Table 8). In addition, oil samples were submitted to
A. M. Todd Company from commercial scale distillations of the Chambers' half
acre plots.
Their evaluation of oil quality is in Table 9.
From small, two-year-old plots, samples were harvested August 15 and
At the August 15 sampling, Mitcham and strain 1229 were judged
to be mature (full-bloom) whereas the other strains were already overmature
(past full-bloom). Hay samples were distilled and oils were assayed
chromatographically. Comparison of major oil components at two harvest dates
is shown by Table 10. Menthofuran, a component contributing to poor oil
flavor was very high, in Mitcham as well as the resistant strains.
Further,
menthofuran was higher at the later harvest date.
Other oil components were
within the range of acceptable standards.
The data in Table 10 suggest that
the resistant strains will require an earlier harvest date to insure an
acceptable quality, especially as regards menthofuran.
31, 1968.
11
Table 6.
Oil Yield of Wilt-Resistant Strains in Small Samples
from Chambers' Large Plots
First Harvest
15 August, 1969
ml. oil
per 100 gm.
Percent
oil
Avg.
Rep.
No.
Mint
Strain
Oil,
ml.
Dry hay
1
Mitch.
Mitch.
Mitch
7.00
7.15
7.05
310.0
331.0
301.5
2.25
2.16
2.33
2.03
1.94
2.10
2.02
1229
1229
1229
4.45
4.35
5.40
304.5
1.31
1.34
1.59
1.41
304.0
1.46
1.49
1.77
3201
3201
3201
8.18
6.00
6.20
376.0
359.0
332.0
2.17
1.67
1.86
1.95
1.50
1.67
1.71
3202
3202
3202
5.55
6.55
7.20
364.0
365.0
373.5
1.52
1.79
1.92
1.37
1.61
1.73
1.57
58
58
58
6.50
8.30
7.20
338.5
381.0
359.5
1.92
2.17
2.00
1.73
1.95
1.80
1.83
92
92
92
6.75
7.20
7.95
409.0
407.5
387.0
1.65
1.76
2.05
1.48
1.58
1.85
1.64
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
gm.
2905
% oil
12
Table 7.
Oil Yield of Wilt-Resistant Strains in Small Samples
from Chambers' Large Plots
Second Harvest- 31 August, 1969
Rep.
No.
Mint
Strain
Oil
ml.
1
Mitch.
Mitch.
Mitch.
Mitch.
8.10
10.40
7.65
9.30
445.5
463.5
380.5
505.0
1.81
2.24
2.01
1.84
1.64
2.01
1.81
1.66
1.78
1229
1229
1229
1229
8.20
5.80
6.70
7.15
617.0
456.0
512.0
609.0
1.32
1.27
1.30
1.17
1.20
1.14
1.18
1.06
1.15
3201
3201
3201
3201
9.35
10.50
9.40
10.85
520.0
595.0
493.0
598.0
1.79
1.70
1.90
1.81
1.62
1.59
1.72
1.63
1.64
3202
3202
3202
3202
10.00
10.75
10.30
11.40
572.0
618.5
529.0
615.5
1.74
1.73
1.94
1.85
1.57
1.56
1.76
1.67
1.64
58
58
58
58
6.40
8.55
8.50
8.60
462.0
477.0
488.0
462.0
1.38
1.79
1.74
1.86
1.25
1.61
1.57
1.68
1.52
92
92
92
92
11.15
9.45
13.85
11.50
653.0
547.0
734.0
622.0
1.70
1.72
1.88
1.84
1.54
1.55
1.70
1.66
1.61
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
LSD at .05 for % oil = 0.17
Coefficient of variation = 7%
Dry hay
gm.
Ml. oil
per 100 gm.
Percent
oil
Avg.
% oil
13
Table 8.
Comparison of Major Oil Components of Resistant Strains with
Mitcham by GLC.
GLC Conditions:
0.4 111 on 1/8" X 16' 5% Quadrol: SAIB (40:60) 60/80 mesh
Chromosorb "P" column, isothermal at 1330 C, Hydrogen Flame detector,
attenuation X 20,000.
percent in strains:
Compound
Pinene
Camphene
Limonene
Cineole
*Menthofuran
*Menthone
Isomenthone
Menthyl acetate
Neomenthol
*Menthol
Pulegone
Piperitone
58
92
1229
3201
3202
Mitcham
1.5
1.9
2.3
6.8
5.4
1.1
1.7
2.1
1.3
2.0
1.5
7.3
4.1
27.5
1.5
1.9
2.4
6.3
5.5
20.7
2.8
4.3
6.2
41.8
0.9
1.7
1.0
1.9
2.1
6.3
5.3
19.5
2.8
4.3
5.7
38.8
0.9
2.5
1.2
1.8
2.1
6.0
2.9
20.5
2.8
5.3
7.2
40.1
0.7
2.7
5.4
6.1
19.3
2.8
4.3
5.7
21.9
3.3
4.6
5.9
39.9
0.8
1.3
38.5
1.4
2.2
3.6
3.9
2.7
38.8
1.1
2.1
Components of major interest from a flavor standpoint.
Table 9.
Strain
Mitcham
Oil Assays by A. M. Todd Company of Commercially Distilled
Plots of Wilt-Resistant Strains
Esters
Alcohols
Ketones
Menthofuran
7.9
3.9
6.8
6.6
6.6
5.0
55.4
50.6
53.4
54.6
53.8
53.4
23.8
28.7
22.5
21.9
23.7
23.1
3.3
4.1
5.6
5.4
5.1
6.4
Typical area
oil,'68 crop 6.5
57.3
21.5
3.0
1229
3201
3202
58
92
Odor
"control"
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Very
Good
14
Table 10.
Strain
Mitcham
Comparison of Major Oil Components in Resistant Strains at Two
Harvest Dates.
Harvest
date
Aug. 15
Aug. 31
Menthofuran
5.3 La
8.1
Menthone
Menthyl
acetate
Menthol
14.8 La
12.4
5.8 La
50.9 La
5.6
50.6
1229
Aug. 15
Aug. 31
8.3
13.3
22.8
17.9
4.5
3.8
42.1
44.6
58
Aug. 15
Aug. 31
8.7
10.2
19.6
12.3
4.9
4.7
45.1
47.1
92
Aug. 15
Aug. 31
8.7
10.6
20.4
13.8
5.0
5.3
46.0
49.1
3201
Aug. 15
Aug. 31
8.6
10.7
19.7
15.8
4.6
4.6
47.2
50.3
Aug. 15
Aug. 31
9.7
10.9
19.2
15.5
4.7
4.7
45.6
50.5
3202
a All values are meanLcof:Ctwo samples
4.
Certified Planting Stock Program
In 1968, Oregon growers produced 283 acres of certified peppermint
This program is now firmly established and operates finanrootstock.
cially on a self-sustaining basis. Nuclear stock is produced each year
Increase from nuclear plants is certified
from disease-free plants.
Foundation, Registered, Certified I and
in four classifications:
Certified II. Foundation is the first year increase from nuclear plants
and Certified II is the fourth year of increase. Production in each
category in 1968 was as follows:
Foundation
Registered
Certified I
Certified II
4.0
46.5
73.8
-- 159.0
----
acres
acres
acres
acres
The regulations governing production of certified rootstock were
tightened in 1967 to exclude their production in any county where
Verticillium wilt is known to be present. Exceptions to this rule are
allowed only if clear geographical barriers exist which separate the
certified plantings from infected stock by at least five miles.
Figures 9 and 10 show two fields of certified rootstock at inspection time in July.
14a
rootstock
Figure 9. Certified disease-free peppermint
field near Mt. Hood, Oregon.
Inspecting certified peppermint planting near
Figure 10.
Prineville in central Oregon.