r
1969
ANNUAL REPORT
of
HOP AND MINT INVESTIGATIONS
CRIS Work Unit 0650-05-01 & 02
(OAES Projects 36 and 120)
Distribution of Copies
4
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
2
1
Authors
Dept. of Agr. Chem., Oregon State Univ.
Dept. of Bot. & Plant Path., Oregon State Univ.
Dept. of Farm Crops, Oregon State Univ.
Hop Investigations
Irrigated Agr. Res. U Ext. Center, Wash. State Univ.
Oilseed & Industrial Crops Res. Branch
Oregon Agri. Exper. Station
Parma Branch Exper. Station, Univ. of Idaho
University of California at Davis
Western Utilization Res. and Development Div.
Results of research reported
herein are preliminary,
subject to verification,
and are not for publication.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
BREEDING, GENETICS, PATHOLOGY, PHYSIOLOGY AND CULTURE OF HOPS AND
MINT: CRIS WORK UNIT 0650-05-01 and 02 (OAES PROJECTS 36 AND 120)
5
HOP INVESTIGATIONS
Breeding, Genetics and Evaluation
Exchange of germ plasm
New numbering system
Accession numbers assigned in 1969
Crosses made in 1969
1967 seedling nursery
1968 seedling nursery
Advanced observation nursery
Female and male breeding blocks
Female germ plasm nursery
Male germ plasm nursery
Triploid nursery
Hop Genetics
Cytological analysis of seedlings from a tetraploid x
diploid cross
Sex expression of seedlings from a tetraploid x diploid cross
Comparison of growth rates of triploid and tetraploid hop plants
Yield and quality of hop as related to level of polyploidy
Cytological studies on the seedling progeny from a cross of
triploid x diploid hop
Tetraploid seedling nursery
Genetic block
Commercial Evaluation
Off-station production for brewing trials
Recommendations for disposition of "off-station" varieties
Other advanced selections
Hop Diseases
Hop downy mildew
Verticillium wilt
Virus diseases
Hop Physiology and Propagation
Propagation of advanced lines
Evaluation of new lines
Evaluation of hops in seedling year
Correlation of plant morphology and yield
Relationship of floral initiation, growth factors and
supplemental lighting
5
5
6
7
7
13
13
21
21
29
29
33
42
42
42
42
46
46
48
51
53
65
68
69
71
71
74
77
82
82
83
83
83
84
Page
Hop Chemistry
Storage stability
Trial crosses for high analysis
Development of a pool of high analysis lines
"Preliminary" crosses for genetic study of alpha acid
inheritance
Summary of selection of genotypes suitable for consideration as
parents in crosses for high quality and high analysis
Males
Females
Plans - 1970 crop year
Plans - 1971 to 1975
98
98
100
103
Appendix
117
105
109
110
111
111
112
MINT INVESTIGATIONS
Introduction
152
Wilt-Resistant Varieties
152
Wilt Control by Stubble Flaming
153
Certified Planting Stock
153
Rust Control - Some Problems and Solutions
1.
Flaming too early
2.
Poor heat penetration in dense, matted rootstock
154
154
154
INTRODUCTION
C. E. Horner
This 1969 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, 1969 to
February 28, 1970.
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 six main lines of study.
Discussions and summarizing data are
presented when appropriate. Additional data or notes which are important
enough to be included as a matter of permanent record are appended to the
report.
The work summarized in this report is supported by public and private
Cooperative research is carried out by Crops Research Division,
ARS, USDA; Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station; and United States
Brewers Foundation through the Agricultural Research Foundation under
Memorandum 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.
funds.
The immediate staff of the hop research project during the preceding
twelve months consisted of the following persons.
This list is made up
of regularly employed personnel who were associated with the cooperative
State-Federal hop research program and thus contributed directly to the
work reported herein.
Personnel doing independent research at Oregon State
University and field assistants hired for intermittent or seasonal jobs on
the cooperative program are not included.
Mr. J. F. Anderson, Assistant in Plant Pathology, OSU,
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,
Miss G. B. Nickerson, Chemist, OSU,
Mr. C. E. Zimmermann, Research Plant Physiologist, USDA.
Papers published by hop and mint project personnel since the last
reporting period are as follows:
Horner, C. E. Mint Disease Control Research.
Proceedings of Annual
Meeting, Oregon Essential Oil Growers League.
(April 1969) pp. 10-21.
Likens, S. T. and H. D. Antles. Hop Analysis, and ASBC Sub-Committee Report.
Amer. Soc. of Brewing Chemists Proceedings for 1968.
(May 1969).
-2-
Melouk, H.
Production of Polygalacturonase and Macerating Enzymes by
Phoma menthae. Ph.D. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
(1969) 87 pp.
Melouk, H. and C. E. Horner. Production of Polygalacturonase by Phoma
menthae.
Phytopathology, vol. 59 (January 1969) pp. 13-14.
Sherrod, L. L. Nature of Resistance to Verticillium dahliae Kleb. in
Strains of Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) Developed by Radiation.
Ph.D. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, (1969) pp. 121.
U. S. Hop Production
According to the Oregon Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
(29 December 1969), U. S. production of hops was 41.8 million pounds,
5 percent below last year and lowest since 1961.
Total acreage was
down 5 percent. Yield per acre was up in Idaho and Washington but
down in Oregon and California. Total value of the United States crop
was $21,305,000 (Table 1).
U. S. Mint Oil Production
According to the Oregon Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
(23 December 1969), the U. S. production of peppermint oil was 4.6
million pounds or 60 pounds per acre on 77,800 harvested acres. This
production was 13 percent higher than last year's crop, due to a 5
percent increase in harvested acreage and a 4 pound per acre increase in
yield over 1968. The U. S. average price, at $4.77 per pound, was 38
cents less than last year and 76 cents below the 1967 price.
However,
total value of production increased 5 percent over 1968, from $21,125,000
to $22,095,000.
Production of spearmint in the U. S. totaled 1,752,000 pounds of oil,
27 percent above 1968 and 7 percent higher than 1967.
The 27,000 acres
harvested had a yield of 65 pounds per acre, compared with 23,000 acres
and 60 pounds per acre in 1968. The average price was estimated at $4.82
per pound for a total value of production of $8,442,000, 8 percent higher
than a year ago, but 6 percent below 1967 (Table 2).
Table
1.
Hops:
Acreage harvested
Acreage, yield, production--season average price received
by growers and value--annual 1967, 1968 and 1969
Yield per acre
Production
State
1967
1968
1969
-Acres-(000)
Idaho
1967
1968
1969
-Pounds-
1/1967 1/1968
ZI1969
-1,000 Pounds-
Price/lb.
1969
1968
-Pct.-
1968
1969
-Cents-
Value
1968
1969
-1,000 Dollars-
3.6
3.3
3.2
1,810
1,740
1,860
6,516
5,742
5,952
104
48.0
53.0
2,756
3,155
19.4
19.1
18.1
1,660
1,510
1,560 32,204
28,841
28,236
98
46.5
50.0
13,411
14,118
Oregon
4.9
4.5
4.2
1,490
1,480
1,250
7,301
6,660
5,250
79
48.0
52.0
3,197
2,730
California
1.9
1.5
1.5
1,830
1,660
1,550
3,477
2,490
2,325
93
52.0
56.0
1,295
1,302
29.8
28.4
27.0
1,661
1,540
1,547 49,498
43,733
41,763
95
47.2
51.0
20,659
21,305
Washington
United
States
1/
Harvested production. Includes hops destroyed in kiln and warehouse fires after harvest and quantities
placed in reserve under Federal Market Order 991.
1/
Total production. Quantities available for market will be governed by regulations issued under
Federal Market Order 991.
Table 2.
Seasonal
group and
State
Mint for Oil: Acreage, yield, production, season average price received
by growers, and value; annual 1968 and 1969
Planted acreage
1968
1969
Harvested acreage
-Acres-
-Acres-
1968
1969
Yld per acre
1968 1969
Production
-Pounds-
-1,000 pounds-
1968
1969
Price per pound
196 8 1969
Value
1968
1969
-Dollars-
-1,000 dollars-
Peppermint
Indiana
6,300
6,500
6,300
6,500
35
36
220
234
7.80
6.60
1,716
1,544
Michigan
2,100
1,800
1,900
1,700
32
34
61
58
7.70
6.60
470
383
Wisconsin
6,500
7,100
6,300
6,900
43
45
271
310
7.70
6.70
2,087
2,077
Idaho
5,100
5,700
5,100
5,700
51
65
260
370
4.90
4.50
1,274
1,665
Washington
23,200
21,000
23,200
21,000
63
68
1,462
1,428
4.40
4.00
6,433
5,712
Oregon
31,500
36,500
31,000
36,000
59
62
1,829
2,232
5.00
4.80
9,145
10,714
74,700
78,600
73,800
77,800
56
60
4,103
4,632
5.15
4.77
21,125
22,095
Indiana
4,600
5,100
4,600
5,100
36
38
166
194
8.30
7.60
1,378
1,474
Michigan
3,300
4,600
3,000
4,200
31
38
93
160
8.70
8.60
809
1,376
Washington
15,400
17,700
15,400
17,700
73
79
1,124
1,398
5.00
4.00
5,620
5,592
Total
23,300
27,400
23,000
27,000
60
65
1,383
1,752
5.64
4.82
7,807
8,442
Total
Spearmint
-5-
BREEDING, GENETICS, PATHOLOGY, PHYSIOLOGY AND CULTURE OF HOPS
CRIS Work Unit 0650-05-01 ? -02
OAES Project 36
Alfred Haunold, C. E. Zimmermann, S. T. Likens and C. E. Horner
HOP INVESTIGATIONS
Breeding, Genetics and Evaluation
Exchange of germ plasm
Requests for hop seed in 1969 were filled as follows:
M. Karta, Hyland Farms, India:
Seed of Bullion x OP (40:9-12), 1969.
Jorge Francke, P. 0. Box 158, Tecata, Baja
Genotype
Name
60014 x OP
Ariz. 1-3 x OP
60015 x OP
Ariz. 1-4 x OP
60016 x OP
N. Mex. 1-3 x OP
60018 x OP
N. Mex. 2-2 x OP
60020 x OP
N. Mex. 2-4 x OP
65101 x OP
Talisman x OP
64100 x OP
Bullion x OP
65103 x OP
E2 x OP
65102 x OP
Yak. Cluster x OP
66051 x OP
Progress x OP
California, Mexico:
Source
47:1-4
48:1-4
49:1-4
51:1-4
52:1-4
36:1-4
40:9-12
38:5-8
34:5-8
32:19-20
H. H. Fischer, New Crops Research Branch, USDA:
Genotype
Name
60014 x OP
Ariz. 1-3 x OP
60015 x OP
Ariz. 1-4 x OP
60016 x OP
N. Mex. 1-3 x OP
60017 x OP
N. Mex. 2-1 x OP
60018 x OP
N. Mex. 2-2 x OP
60020 x OP
N. Mex. 2-4 x OP
(19001-50015M) x OP
(BG x Ut526-4)x OP
(19209-60028M) x OP
(Fu x Colo2-3)x OP
Source
47:1-4
48:1-4
49:1-4
50 :1 -4
51:1-4
52:1-4
40:29-30
42:29-30
The following persons received hop rhizomes from Corvallis in the past year:
H. B. Dowse, New York University, Bronx, New York 10453:
25 rhizomes each of Fuggle, 19209, and Brewers Gold, 19001.
R. R. Romanko, University of Idaho, Parma, Idaho:
10 rhizomes each of Backa, 56002, and Northern Brewer, 64107.
-6-
Mrs. Betty Lucas, Cottage Grove, Oregon:
5 rhizomes of Brewers Gold, 19001.
At Corvallis we did not receive any germ plasm for testing or
observation in 1969.
New numbering system
A change in the numbering system was made in 1969 which should allow
greater flexibility and continuity in handling research material than was
possible with the previous system.
The system is similar to the one used
by cereal breeders.
1)
Cross numbers: All cross numbers will be four-digit numbers
with no hyphens; for example, 6901, 6911, etc. The first two digits
indicate the year the cross was made; the second two digits are the
arbitrary cross numbers within the particular year. Open pollinated
seed collections are handled like crosses.
It is anticipated that
never more than 99 crosses or open pollinated seed collections will
be made in one year.
2)
Selection numbers: All selection numbers are temporary six
or seven-digit numbers consisting of two parts connected by a hyphen;
for example, 6901-01, 6901-11, 6911-154. The first portion is the cross
number; the second portion is the particular plant selection from this
cross.
Thus, if fourteen plants are selected from cross No. 6901, the
selection numbers are 6901-01 to 6901-14. If a selection is thought to
be particularly valuable for any reason, a permanent accession number
will be assigned and the selection number will be dropped. Sould
Prosser (Washington) or Parma (Idaho) have selections which should be
tested by several stations, we will use the prefix W (Washington) or
I
(Idaho), or a permanent accession number without any prefixes may be
assigned to the selection.
3). Accession numbers: All accession numbers have five digits without hyphens.
They are arbitrarily assigned numbers beginning with 21001
in 1969 and will be assigned without skips. Accession numbers per se
will not reveal the year the number was assigned. They will be entered
in the master record, and also in the Federal annual report for that
year, together with the selection number and the complete pedigree and
history of the genotype (if available). A large M following an
accession number indicates "male". Previously assigned accession numbers
will not be changed, except that the prefixes C or I will be dropped.
Also, a hyphen or /, which was sometimes used with the old accession
numbers, will be eliminated and replaced by a 0 to give a five-digit
number.
4)
Duplication: Under no circumstances should a cross, selection,
or accession number ever be duplicated, even if different prefixes are
used for selection numbers to indicate different stations.
-7-
Accession numbers assigned in 1969
Twelve genotypes received permanent accession numbers in 1969
Two (21001 and 21002) are types with European aroma characteristics that are of interest to some U. S. brewers who presently
import such hops; 21003 is a tetraploid Fuggle developed from Oregon
Fuggle (19209) by colchicine treatment; 21004 and 21005 are high alpha
types with a strong Brewers Gold (BG) background; 21006 to 21010 are
selections carrying the Sunshine trait (yellow-green leaves). One of
these (21009M) is a male. These genotypes are of potential use for
genetic studies.
Genotypes 21011 and 21012 are selections made by
Dr. Skotland at the Prosser, Washington Experiment Station; 21011 (L16)
is a late maturing, good yielding Late Cluster, that has also shown
great tolerance to two-spotted spider mite infection.
Another genotype,
21012 (E21),is an Early Cluster selection that definitely matures earlier
than Early Cluster.
(Table 1).
Crosses made in 1969
The crosses made at Corvallis in 1969 are summarized in Tables
Table 2 lists the crosses made for plant breeding purposes.
There were four main objectives:
1) improving downy mildew resistance
of the Yakima Cluster (YC) variety (crosses No. 6901, 6902, 6903);
2) breeding for high alpha acid (crosses No. 6904, 6905, 6906);
3) improved yield potential, mildew resistance and alpha acid content
(crosses No. 6907 and 6908); and 4) triploids with European background
and improved alpha acid content (crosses No. 6909 and 6910).
In
addition, two male selections (6616-61 and 6669-09) were identified by
Mr. Likens as high alpha potential males with good storage stability.
Therefore, storage stability will also be a selection criterion in
seedlings from crosses 6905, 6906 and 6910.
2 and 3.
Good seed set was obtained with all crosses. Extra seed of crosses
No. 6901, 6903, 6904, 6905 and 6906 was made available for work at
Prosser, Washington.
Crosses for genetic purposes (Table 3) include No. 6911 and 6912
(inbreeding through brother - sister mating), studying the viability
of pollen from tetraploid male seedlings such as 6668-01 (crosses No.
6913, 6914, 6915, 6916 and 6917), 6751-98 (crosses 6918, 6919, 6920
and 6921), 6752-59 (crosses 6922, 6923, 6924 and 6925), and 6769-12
(crosses 6926, 6927 and 6928). Good seed set was obtained in nearly
all of these crosses. Total number of seeds obtained varied from 25
seeds (cross 6926) to 2,227 seeds (cross 6917). Most crosses yielded
several hundred seeds (about 5-7 seeds per cone).
Seed weight (Table 3)
varied from 6.53 mg per seed (cross 6916) to 2.14 mg per seed (cross 6914).
Seedlings will be sub-sampled and checked for chromosome numbers. In
addition, triploid progenies from the Yakima Cluster and Brewers Gold
crosses will be channeled to the breeding program to select for triploid
types with characteristics similar to the female parent.
Table
Acc.
No.
1.
Accession Numbers Assigned in 1969.
Source
Pedigree
Remarks
21001
Commercial Fu. Yd.,
Oregon
Unk. coll. by C. E. Zimmermann in 1961, called "FR2"
diff. from Fu.
21002
USDA hop yard,
Corvallis
Unk. coll. by C. E. Zimmermann from Fu Block in
1965, called "FGA"
diff. from Fu.
21003
Ore. Fuggle
(Acc. No. 19209)
Tetr. female, obt. by A. Haunold in 1966 by colchicine
doubling of chromosomes.
Originally 4 sister clones
called Ti, T2, T3, & T4, which were pooled in 1969.
2n=40 chrom.
low vigor 4 yield
21004
Sel. No. 6619-01
BG x (BG x Fu-FuS)
high a potential
21005
Sel. No. 6659-03
[BG x (BG-EKG-BavS)] x (BG x Fu-FuS)
high a potential
21006
Sel. No. 6735-04
19137 x male seedling of cross 6159; Su 50S x
(Ut 523-4 x EG-XS)
yellow leaves,
sunshine trait
21007
Sel. No. 6735-05
ft
21008
Sel. No. 6735-01
21009M
Sel. No. 6735-02
21010
Sel. No. 6735-03
21011
L16, Prosser, Wash.
21012
E21, Prosser, Wash.
It
sister of 21006
it
brother of 21006
it
Sel. by C. E. Skotland from a Wash. Late Cluster
It
Early Cluster
sister of 21006
L. matur., Cl. qual.
V. early, Cl. qual.
-9-
Table 2.
Crosses made for plant breeding purposes.
Cross
Pedigree
No.
6901
65102 x 64032M
YC x 2L118-0P
6902
x 64033M ;
YC x 2L118-0P
6903
6904
;
"
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
158:1-17
DM res; =Z. seedl.
37:1-4
a;
x 6616-61;
(Su2SS-Ut524-2)x(BG x Fu-Colo2-1)
a + storage
x 6669-09;
(Su25S-Ut524-2)x Gosch Bu-OP
a + storage
19105 x 6616-61;
(LGpS x Fu-FuS)x(BG x Fu-Colo2-1)
It
Reason & Remarks
;
;
It
Location
of
x 64037M
YC x 7K491-0P
62013 x 19039M
(Su25S-Ut524-2)x FuS-RVS
6905
Corvallis, 1969.
35:19-20
DM res + a
29:22-25
Tripl. +
x 6669-09;
(LGpS x Fu-FuS)x Gosch Bu-OP
21003 x 19039M ;
Fu tetrapl. x FuS-RVS
x 6616-61;
Fu tetrapl. x(BG x Fu-Colo2-1)
a
Crosses made for genetic purposes.
Table 3.
Corvallis, 1969.
1969
Cross
No.
No. of
Location
of9
Pedigree
Side-
No. seeds
Tot. wt.
Wt. per
arms :cones:seeds
per cone
of seed
seed
Remarks
mg
6911
22:14
6912
6720-14 x 6720-22;
(Fu x SSp-LCS)2
4
3.358
6720-14 x 6720-23;
(Fu x SSp-LCS)2
4
13.810
inbreeding
6913
160:1-17
19001 x 6668-01; BG x
[[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]x OP]
3
178
1745
9.80
6.521
3.74
6914
37:5-8
19004 x 6668-01; XS x
[[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]x OP]
4
77
263
3.42
0.564
2.14
64107 x 6668-01; NB x
[[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]x OP]
2
11
88
8.00
0.289
3.28
6916
6511 x 6668-01; (BG x EG) x
[[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]x OP]
2
47
205
4.36
1.339
6.53
6917
L8 x 6668-01; YC sel x
[[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]x OP]
3
241
2227
9.24
11.031
4.95
6915
Smith
viabil.IV poll;
tripl.
1
,--,
c)
6918
160:1-17
19001 x 6751-98; BG x
[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
2
127
702
5.53
2.317
3.30
6919
Smith
64107 x 6751-98; NB x
[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
3
33
148
4.48
0.322
2.18
6920
It
65011 x 6751-98; (BG x
EG-XS)x[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
2
70
260
3.71
1.134
4.36
Table 3.
Cont.
1969
Cross
No.
6921
Location
of 9
Smith
No. of
Pedigree
Side-
No. seeds
Tot. wt.
arms:cones:seeds
per cone
of seed
Wt. per
seed
g
mg
L8 x 6751-98; YC sel x
[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
2
80
572
7.15
2.869
5.02
Remarks
viabil.IV poll; tripl.
6922
160:1-7
19001 x 6752-59; BG x
[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
2
66
417
6.32
1.576
3.78
692 3
Smith
64107 x 6752-59; NB x
[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
2
18
138
7.67
0.471
3.41
65011 x 6752-59; (BG x
EG-XS)x[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
2
48
175
3.65
0.816
4.66
L8 x 6752-59; YC sel x
[XS x(Fu x EG-ECS)]
2
119
821
6.90
4.177
5.09
?I
6924
6925
it
I
6926
37:5-8
19004 x 6769-12; XS x
(Fu Tetr.-FuS)
3
9
25
2.78
0.066
2.64
II
6927
Smith
65011 x 6769-12; (BG x
EG-XS)x(Fu Tetr.-FuS)
2
70
326
4.66
1.301
3.99
I/
6928
II
L8 x 6769-12; YC sel x
(Fu Tetr.-FuS)
2
83
455
5.48
1.972
4.33
6668-01 x 6668-01;1[XS x
5
25
199
7.96
0.916
4.60
selfing of cloned IV O'
5
5
0
0
0
0
selfing of bagged IVO'
6929
29:9-12
(Fu x EG-ECS)]x ON®
6930
25:6
6751-1340; [[XS x (Fu x
EG-ECS)]x 013)0
Table 3.
Cross
No.
Cont.
1969
Location
of
No. of
Pedigree
Side-
No. seeds
arms:cones:seeds
per cone
Tot.wt.
of seed
Wt. per
seed
g
mg
Remarks
II/
6931
26:8
6751-261 0 ; [[XS x(Fu x
EG-ECS)]x OP]
5
11
3
0.27
0.008
2.67
selfing of bagged
6932
37:5-8
19004 x 6772-20; XS x
(Fu Tetr. x Fu-FuS)
2
3
2
0.67
0.003
1.50
viabil. III poll ondipl.
6933
Smith
65011 x 6772-20; BG x EGXS)x(Fu Tetr. x Fu-FuS)
2
47
80
1.70
0.466
5.83
It
II
L8 x 6772-20; YC sel x
(Fu Tetr. x Fu-FuS)
2
95
356
3.75
1.266
3.56
II
II
6659-170) ; [[BG x (BG x
EKG-BavS)]x(BG x Fu-FuS)]
9
4
4
1.00
0.021
5.25
6934
6935
29:7
selfing of bagged III
-13-
The tetraploid selection, 6668-01, is a monoecious, predominantly
male, plant with female flowers at the tips of the sidearms.
It was
grown in four hills in 1969.
Pollen frbm one clone was used to fertilize
bagged cones on a sister clone.
This is actually self-pollination, which
resulted in 199 well-developed seeds and a seed set of 7.96 seeds per
cone (cross No. 6929, Table 3). Seeds will be germinated in 1970 and
checked cytologically. Most should be tetraploids if meiosis on the male
and female side was normal as expected. Selfing of a bagged sidearm,
which contained both female and male flowers (cross 6930 and 6931), was
almost a complete failure, probably because there is about a two to three
week interval between pollen shedding and receptiveness of the female
inflorescences. When female flowers on a given sidearm are receptive,
pollen shedding is still two to three weeks off; and when pollen does
become available, the female is no longer receptive.
When pollen from
triploid monoecious plants was used on a diploid female (crosses No.
6932, 6933, and 6934), or a monoecious sidearm was bagged for selfing
(cross 6935), seed set was very low. The only exception was cross No. 6934
which produced 356 seeds on 96 cones (Table 3). Seedlings will be checked
cytologically and most are expected to be aneuploids.
1967 seedling nursery
The 1967 seedling nursery was evaluated for the second year in 1969.
Most of the plants appeared to be low in vigor and some did not even reach
the cross wire.
Only one selection, 6635-38, was saved for the germ plasm
block at Corvallis. It is an early maturing female plant with a pronounced red strig.
Other selections by Mr. Zimmermann for testing at
Prosser, Washington are listed in Table 4. Although none of these looked
particularly promising in the two years of observation at Corvallis, they
did exhibit some desirable traits and additional testing under a different
environment seems warranted.
1968 seedling nursery
The 1968 seedling nursery, consisting of over 700 genotypes plus
appropriately spaced check varieties throughout the nursery (Brewers Gold
and E2), was planted at 31/2 foot spacing in the main yard on April 30, 1969
(Table 5).
The seed bed was excellent and plants got established very
well with almost no losses. Seedlings were trained on a single string
and preliminary information on sex expression and downy mildew reaction
was obtained. Selections from this material will be made in 1970.
Approximately 100 genotypes from this group (Table 5a) were selected
by Mr. Zimmermann for planting at Prosser, Washington in 1970. They all
are seedlings from crosses with E2, Yakima Cluster, Brewers Gold, or
Bullion, respectively, and detailed data on this material from Prosser
as well as Corvallis will be obtained.
Table 4.
Sel.
No.
Female Selections from the 1967-Seedling Nursery (SN-67), Corvallis, 1969.
Spring 1968)
(Planted Main Yard:
Purposel/
Date
of Cross cross wire
JDne
1969
Location
Pedigree
KOW H111.
8
30
ft
aAMR
11
28
0
aAMR
2
25
0
/I
aAMR
15
22
0
/I
64100 x OP; Bu x OP
AR
11
30
0
19038 x 51101M; LGp-FuS x
51101M
19038 x 54066M; LGp-FuS x
(XS x FuS-RVS)
52043 x OP; [(Fu x EC-ECS) x
AR
3
20
0
early;Sv. DM Disc.
AR
3
26
0
Fu type
AR
7
20
0
Sv. DM Disc.
1
7/15
7/10
0
0
0
0
0
vig.; late
L. Cl; Sv. DM Disc.
poor SA
64100 x 19043M; Bu x (Bel
Burv-FuS)
-27
18:51
6625-01
2:52a
6626-01
18:54a
6628-01
20:50a
6630-05
21:52b
Sarre
Prosser
16:51
19:52b
Remarks'
20
6622-11
6623-05
Disposition
2
64100 x 51114M; Bu x 51114M
-09
Virus
aAMR
aAMR
13:50a
14:50a
6621-01
Date
25% flow.
I/
64100 x 19037M; Bu x (FuS-
'V
good picker
Bu; good picker
rich; weak SA
E; open cone shatters
FuS)
(Fu- BFav)]x OP
6635-17
-22
-25
-34
-35
-38
5:50a
5:53
6:50a
7:50b
59008 x OP; EC x OP
7:51
7:53
6636-05
23:54a
6636-06
23:54b
62002 x 51114M; (Ut525-4 x
Ut527-1)x 51114M
a
a
a
a
a
a
20
4
5/30
5/29
5/28
20
27
7/1
10
It
AR
8
20
0
AR
9
29
0
late
very late
VE; red strig.
early; Fuggle
It
late; lup.
Table 4.
Sel.
No.
Cont.
1969
Purpose-1j
Location
Pedigree
Date
25% flow.
June
Virus
AR
10
19
0
AR
12
28
0
Fu type; Sv. DM Disc.
MR
11
7/14
0
good cone;mod. DM
MR
6
28
0
Fu type;Sv. DM Disc.
a
a
a
6
11
0
9
6
7/13
20
0
0
good; high lup
late; high lup
two plants
Row I Hill
6642-07
25:54a
6645-02
14:52a
6650-13
27:54a
6656-04
8:52a
6669-10
10:51
10:52b
12:52b
-12
-28
19124 x OP; (Fu x SerebrFuS) x OP
19164 x OP; (Fu x Bel 31SBel 31) x OP
19200 x 54066M; Urb-LCS x
FuS-RVS
48209 x OP; FuH x OP
66030 x OP; Goschie Bu x OP
II
tt
Date
cross wire
June
of Cross
1./
J
AR = aphid resistance; MR = mite resistance; a = high a acid content.
E = early; L = late.
Disposition
Prosser
RemarksV
Fuggle
-16-
Table
5.
Corvallis, 1969;
1968 Seedling Nursery (SN68).
(Planted April 30, 1969).
Location
Sel. No.
Source
30:42a-64b
31:42a-64b
32:42a-64b
33:42a-64b
34:42a-64b
6701-01 to 35
6701-36 to 68
6701-69 to 103
6701-104 to 135
6701-136 to 142
Cr6701
34:46b-52a
6702-01 to 09
Cr6702
65103 x 51114M; E2 x[(LhS x GC1-FuS) x
(SemschS x 8-2 BYd)]
34:52b-64b
35:42a-52a
6703-01 to 19
6703-20 to 34
Cr6703
65013 x 63015M; E2 x[BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)]
35:52b-64b
36:42a-64b
37:42a-64b
38:42a-64b
39:42a-64b
40:42a-54a
6704-01 to 18
6704-19 to 53
6704-54 to 85
6704-86 to 120
6704-121-to 153
6704-154-to 172
Cr6704
65102 x OP; YC x OP
40:54b-64b
41:42a-46a
6705-01 to 16
6705-17 to 22
Cr6705
41:46b-63
6706-01 to 24
Cr6706
65102 x 51114M; YC x[(LhS x GC1-FuS) x
(SemschS x 8-2 BYd)]
41:64a-64b
42:42a-55
6707-01 to 02
6707-03 to 23
Cr6707
65102 x 63014M; YC x(BG x Ut526-4)
42:56a-64b
43:42a-42b
6708-01 to 14
6708-15 to 16
Cr6708
65102 x 63012M; YC x (BG x Ut526-4)
43:43-57
6709-01 to 20
Cr6709
65102 x 63013M; YC x (BG x Ut526-4)
43:58a-64b
44:42a-64b
45:42a-46b
6710-01 to 11
6710-12 to 46
6710-47 to 53
Cr6710
65102 x 63015M; YC x[BG x(BG x EKG-BavS)]
45:47-50b
6711-01 to 06
Cr6711
19001 x 63015M; BG x[BG x(BG x EKG-BavS)]
45:51-64b
46:42a-45
6712-01 to 19
6712-20 to 25
Cr6712
19001 x 63012M; BG x (BG x Ut526-4)
46:46a-56b
6714-01 to 17
Cr6714
Pedigree
65103 x OP; E2 x OP
It
11
It
/1
/I
65102 x 19040M; YC x Fu-FuS
//
11
I/
1/
II
It
It
II
11
19001 x 63014M; BG x (BG x Ut526-4)
-17-
Table
5
Location
cont.
Sel. No.
Source
Pedigree
46:57-64b
47:42a-47
6715-01 to 12
6715-13 to 21
Cr6715
47:48a-64b
48:42a-58b
6716-01 to 24
6716-25 to 50
Cr6716
48:59-64b
49:42a-54a
6717-01 to 09
6717-10 to 26
Cr6717
49:54b-62b
6718-01 to 12
Cr6718
64100 x 63015M; Bu x[BG x(BGxEKG-BavS)]
49:63-64b
50:42a-44a
6733-01 to 03
6733-04 to 07
Cr6733
19151 x 19041M; (Fu x RV-XS)x(EG-XS)
50:44b-46b
6736-01 to 04
Cr6736
64100 x 63014M; Bu x (BG x Ut526-4)
91
tl
II
64100 x 63013M; Bu x (BG x Ut526-4)
It
it
It
64100 x 63012M; Bu x (BG x Ut526-4)
It
11
I/
19208 x 19040M; LC x Fu-FuS
11
-18-
Table Sa.
Selec.
No.
6701-01
-02
-12
-14
-17
-24
-27
-31
-39
-44
-54
-55
-60
-67
-68
-111
Evaluation of Hop Selections for Prosser from 1968
Nursery; Corvallis, 1969.
1969
Location
30:42a
1/
Purpose
DMR
DM - DISC.
50b
52b
57
59
DM - DISC.
62a
31:44a
47
54b
55
60a
64a
DM - DISC.
64b
33:47
34:50b
6703-02
34:53
low lup.
SMR
E2 x 51114M
aDMR
E2 x 63015M
11
-21
-30
60b
35:42b
48b
6704-01
35:52b
DMR
-05
-06
-13
-33
-38
-45
-52
-58
-63
-65
-66
-93
-94
-105
-120
-124
-138
-147
-153
-158
-164
-167
Comments
E2 (Cluster) x OP
:42b
49
6702-07
-13
Cross
55
tl
9
Yakima Cluster x OP
It
56a
61
36:51
54b
I/
91
59
64a
37:44b
48b
50a
50b
38:46b
38:47
54b
64b
39:44a
54a
60b
64b
40:44b
48b
50b
91
91
tt
DM - DISC.
11
It
It
It
ft
11
It
DM - DISC.
DM - DISC.
-19-
Table 5a, cont.
Selec.
No.
6705-07
-11
-15
6706-03
-22
-23
6707-04
1969
Location
40:58b
1/
Purpose
Cross
DMR
Yak. Cluster x 19040M
It
61
64a
41:48b
62a
It
SMR
11
Yak. Cluster x 51114M
62b
42:42b
48a
aDMR
-12
6708-01
42:56a
aDMR
Yak. Cluster x 63012M
6709-01
-08
43:43
43:48a
aDMR
Yak. Cluster x 63013M
-10
-20
50a
56b
6710-01
43:58a
44:46b
48a
-19
-21
-23
-32
-38
-49
6711-01
-03
6712-01
-03
-06
-10
-11
-13
-21
-25
49
55
59
Yak. Cluster x 63014
weak SA
11
11
aDMR
Yak. Cluster x 63015M
/1
It
It
t/
//
45:43
47
48b
BC-a
Brewers Gold x 63015M
45:51
52b
BC-a
Brewers Gold x 63012M
11
I/
55
58a
58b
60a
46:42b
/1`
'I
46:48b
-08
50b
6715-02
46:58a
60a
64a
47:42a
42b
43
no lup; DM -DISC.
DM-DISC.
DM-DISC
suscept. to
aphids
11
45
6714-05
-OS
-11
-13
-14
-15
Comments
BC-a
a
Brewers Gold x 63014M
DM-DISC.
DM-DISC.
Bullion x 63014M
DM-DISC.
lup on strig.
11
11
11
If
-20-
Table 5a, cont.
Selec.
No.
6716-08
-13
-17
-28
-32
-40
6717-06
-07
-08
-11
-13
-15
-16
-18
1969
Location
47:53
56b
60a
48:44a
46b
52a
a
48:62b
63
64a
49:42b
44a
46a
a
It
46b
48a
/I
-21
-22
-26
50a
6733-02
49:64a
50:42b
-05
1/
11
Purpose
Cross
Comments
Bullion x 63013M
It
'I
It
II
11
t
DM - DISC.
DM - DISC.
Bullion x 63012M
high alphid
It
count
I'
It
/I
I/
tl
50b
I/
54a
Genetic
DMR = downy mildew resistance
SMR = spider mite resistance
a
= high a-acid
BC = backcross
19151 x 19041M
t/
no lup.
-21-
Advanced observation nursery
Twenty-five selections from the seeded observation nursery (see 1968
report, pages 9, 10, 19 and 20) were grown in a 10-hill advanced observation nursery in the seedless yard in 1969 (Table 6).
They were evaluated as baby plants in 1969 and 11 of the original 25 selections could
be discarded on the basis of diseases (downy mildew, virus) and poor
growth and vigor. The remainder is listed in Table 6. Generally there
are two basic types, continental and extract, and some that are suitable
both as a continental and extract type hops. Several continental types
showed excellent yield potential (eg. 64002, 64003, 64007), but were low
in quality, primarily alpha acid. Others appear to be good yielders
with acceptable quality (6517-47, 6527-17).
Some genotypes (eg. 63032,
64026, 6503-25) had European aroma characteristics but were relatively
high in alpha acid and thus suitable as extract hops.
These are marked
as cont-ext.
Extract types generally were higher in alpha acid than the
continental types and some (eg. 63032, 65009, 65011, 6532-14) showed
exceptionally high alpha acid potential. However, all except 63032
have a strong Brewers Gold background. We will attempt to accumulate
such high alpha types that are not related to Brewers Gold in order to
have a broader genetic base for selection of extract types, and perhaps
also obtain better storage stability than Brewers Gold.
Female and male breeding blocks
Females
Genotypes grown in the female breeding block at Corvallis in 1969
are summarized in Table 7.
This material, grown in four-hill plots,
includes' old established varieties such as Bullion, Brewers Gold, Fuggle,
Early and Late Cluster, Talisman, and recently introduced foreign
varieties such as Pride of Ringwood, Ringwood Special, Northern Brewer,
etc., a collection of Wild American hops collected in 1960, and various
unnamed genotypes that are of potential use for hop breeding.
Over 20
entries in this block were newly planted in 1969 and data from these
baby plants are sketchy. Some genotypes in the female breeding block
showed severe virus symptoms and they were discarded.
These are: 54029,
19004, 63001, 63004.
Genotype 21005 (Selection 6659-03),which had
received an accession number in 1969, was rated very susceptible to downy
mildew on the basis of a 20-plant greenhouse test by Dr. Horner. A
crown dug in the field, however, was clean and, therefore, this genotype
will be retained for further testing.
At pruning time in early 1969, data on systemic crown infection by
downy mildew were obtained and some genotypes were found to be completely
infected (4/4).
These were 60021, 60037, 60040. Surprisingly, Hallertau
(56001) showed no crown infection at all and Early Cluster (59008) only
had two of four hills infected.
Conceivably these genotypes may not be
Hallertau or Early Cluster, respectively. Split leaf virus was evident
Table
6.
Advanced Observation Nursery Grown at the Seedless Yard, Corvallis, 1969.
Diseases)
Acc. or
Sel. No.
63032
64002
64003
64007
64024
64026
65002
65009
65011
6503-25
6517-46
Pedigree
56002 x 58015M;
BaCka x Ut526-4
19105 x 19173M; (LGS x
Fu-FuS)x SSp-LCS
I
II
DM:Virus:Vert.
Quality
Vigor
Matur.
Cone
type
Comp.
G
VG
M
Loose
P
G
0
G
0
0
0
M
0
0
19105 x 19058M; (LGS x
Fu-FuS) x EG-XS
19001 x 19001-19062M;
BG x(BG x EKG-BavS)
19001 x 19182M; BG x
(Bu x B 31S-B 31)
19208 x 19058M; LC xEG-XS
0
0
0
M-G
M-L
Comp.
Comp.
0
0
G
M
Comp.
0
0
0
P
M
loose
0
0
0
19001 x 19058M; BG xEG -XS
P
?
0
loose
Comp.
0
P
0
0
0
0
M
M
M
M
G
0
0
M
M
Comp.
M-G
M
0
0
G
0
0
M
M
M
Comp.
Comp.
M
0
0
M
VG
Iv
19209 x I9173M;
Fu x SSp-LCS
56001 xeseedl. of Cr5937;
Pick.
M-L
YF
0
April, 1969.
Planted:
M-P
-
Comp.
-
a
B
Oil
%
%
ml
Yield
Remarks
WA aroma, ContExtr.
11.8 6.5 2.1
P
3.9 4.5 1.1
VG
Cont.
3.2 7.2 1.2
5.1 4.3 0.9
G
Cont.
VG
7.7 3.6 2.5
G
Extr.
7.0 7.2
M
Cont. -Extr.
G
M
WA aroma, Extr.
BG type, Extr.
G
P
Extr.
Cont. - Extr.
8.0
13.1
12.1
7.0
-
6.8 1.3
9.3 7.8 2.3
3.1 0.8
Cont., VG
6.1 4.7 0.6
G-P
Cont.
6.1 4.6 1.0
5.5 4.9 1.1
G
G
Cont.
Cont.
G
Extr., g. set
Ha x (Ha x Fu-FuS)
6517-47
6527-17
6532-14
1/
60007 x 19173M; (Su25S x
EG-XS) x SSp-LCS
63018 x OP [BG x (BG x
EKG-BavS)] x OP
YF = yellow fleck
G = good, M = medium, P = poor
M = medium, L = late
M-P
G
G
13.0 4.4
-
Table 7.
Acc. or
Sel.No.
19001
19004
19110
19120
19137
19151
19185
19200
19208
19209
Summary of Female Genotypes Included in the Breeding Block.
1969
Plot No.
39:9-12
37:5-8
35:1-4
43:1-4
44:1-4
33:5-8
34:1-4
38:1-4
34:9-12
35:9-12
Pedigree
Brewers Gold
Unknown S
XS x Bel 31S-Bel 31
Su 25S
Su 50S
Fu x RV-Unknown S
LGpS x FuS-RVS
Urbann x LCS
Late Cluster
Fuggle
21002
21004
21005
42:5-8
39:5-8
40:5-8
48209
50024
52018
54029
41:1-4
33:9-12
45:1-4
39:1-4
FGA
BG x (BG x Fu-FuS)
[BG x(BG x EKG-BavS)]x (BG x
Fu-FuS)
Fuggle H
Els-FuS x EKG-BavS
[FuS x(LhS x GC1-FuS)]x OP
(LGp-ECS x Tet Fr-FuS)x XS
56001
56002
56008
56012
56013
57011
58001
58004
58016
58112
59008
36:9-12
37:9-12
54:1-4
41:5-8
33:1-4
35:5-8
53:9-12
54:9-12
52:9-12
42:1-4
38:9-12
Hallertau ?
Backa
Unknown x (Fu X EG-ECS)
(Fu x RV-XS)x(EG-XS)
(Fu x Sereb-FuS) x OP
(Bu x RV-XS) x LC-FuS
W AM. Utah 523-1
"
"
523-4
I,
"
526-5
(Bu x Fu-FuS) x OP
Early Cluster ?
Diseases
Cross
DM
Virus) wire
Apr.
June
June
0/4
0/4
25%
17
7/8
YF2;SL1
11
SL1
0
27
13
20
7/17
25
7/6
26
26
1/2
0
10
2/3
0/4
SL2
SL3
5
0
0
0
12
7/17
7/6
7/10
7/3
25
26
baby
baby
0/2
0/4
0/4
SL1
0
12
1/4
YF2
0/4
0/4
SL1
SL1
0
0
7/14
L
10
10
13
8
7/6
28
7/7
7/4
7/6
7/3
7/6
11
SL1
SL1
10
0
VL
VL
M
M
M
SL3
SL1
L
M
M
M-S
M
M
M
M
30
0
0/4
0/4
0/2
0/2
2/4
M
M
7/15
7/10
7/12
5
0
0
Cone 2
flow, size
June
SL1
0/4
0/4
Corvallis, 1969.
12
8
12
7/10
7/16
7/4
7/9
L
VS
L
Mature1/ a
L
48.5
31.5
37.3
52.9
47.6
18.4
38.4
2.18
0.94
0.88
2.98
2.27
0.44
2.05
1.33
1.46
1.74
43.1
59.7
51.8
45.9
22.6
22.0
20.7
25.1
1.91
2.72
2.51
1.83
27.7
37.3
44.7
43.4
42.0
33.7
32.4
45.9
27.7
32.4
32.6
0.86
0.81
37.1
L
35.2
36.4
38.3
41.7
0.91
0.92
0.87
E
E
L
50.5
48.2
22.4
33.7
2.25
1.43
L
VE
E
L
L
L
M
VE
E
54.8
46.6
48.9
E
M
VL
E
L
M
M
VE
L
L
L
S
L
VL
VL
VL
L
M
va
22.3
33.4
42.2
17.7
21.0
42.1
26.7
35.2
33.5
22.1
M
VL
S-M
a
%
M
M
S-M
Quality
E
1.61
1.34
1.29
Table
7
cont.
1969
Sel.No. Plot No.
Acc. or
Pedigree
60014
60015
60016
60017
60018
60020
60021
60024
60025
60027
60029
60032
60033
60034
60035
60037
60038
60039
60040
60041
60042
60043
47:1-4
48:1-4
49:1-4
50:1-4
51:1-4
52:1-4
53:1-4
46:5-8
47:5-8
48:5-8
49:5-8
50:5-8
51:5-8
52:5-8
53:5-8
46:9-12
47:9-12
48:9-12
49:9-12
50:9-12
46:1-4
Wild Am. Ariz. 1-3
Ariz. 1-4
"
"
it
"
N. Mex. 1-3
t/
N. Mex. 2-1
"
N. Mex. 2-2
"
II
New Mex. 2-4
"
II
"
N. Mex. 3-1
Colo. 1-2
"
Colo. 1-3
"
11
" Colo. 2-2
If
" Colo. 3-1
Colo. 5-1
"
II
" Colo. 6-1
It
Colo. 7-1
"
Colo. 7-2
"
11
Wyo.
2-1
"
Wyo. 3-1
"
If
" Mont. 1-1
It
Mont. 2-1
"
1/
Mont. 3-1
"
Shinshuwase
Wild Am. N. Mex. 3-2
61021
62013
62052
63001
63004
63006
63008
36:5-8
37:1-4
40:1-4
44:5-8
54:5-8
31:1-4
43:9-12
Hallertau S (=Swiss)
Su 25S x Ut WA 524-2
Density
BuX x EKG-BavS
Ha x (Bu x Bel 31S-Bel 31)
BG x Ut 526-4
BG x Fu-FuS
43:5 -S
It
,,
,,
,,
,I
II
Diseases
DM
Virus
Apr.
June
2/4
2/4
2/4
?/4
3/4
1/4
4/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
0/4
1/4
0/1
1/4
4/4
0/4
2/4
4/4
0/1
0/4
0
0
SL1
Cross
wire
June
21
8
June
7/16
7/11
17
22
28
30
25
27
0
0
0
0
Cone2j Ma- 3/
25%
ture-' a
flow. size
27
299
0
6/16
0
25
30
SL1
0
SL1
SL1
0
0
SL2
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
0
0
0
0
SL2
SL1;YF1
baby
baby
7/16
29
27
27
6/5
7/17
7/3
24
30
6/7
7/17
26
7/7
7/12
7/7
27
7/1
7/13
21
26
8
16
7/16
6/4
7/10
%
M-S
M-S
VL
VL
VL
VL
M
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
L
L
VE
M
L
M
VL
VE
VE
E
VE
VE
S
E
L
M
M
M-S
L
M
VS
L
VE
L
L
L
VL
M
L
L
L
7/16
M
M
20
30
L
L
VS
VL
M
M
M
M
M
L
7/16
7/10
7/18
Quality
M
M
13
a/a
%-
40.9
46.1
48.7
41.1
47.6
28.1
55.0
41.6
40.5
20.3
48.6
60.0
28.7
31.4
34.2
45.7
21.5
47.5
52.9
48.3
42.4
32.9
40.4
40.2
32.1
35.5
23.4
38.2
22.0
28.3
28.8
37.5
27.9
16.6
39.1
27.5
30.9
33.5
38.5
32.3
31.2
32.5
33.6
40.7
1.01
1.15
1.52
1.16
2.03
0.74
2.51
1.47
1.41
0.54
1.74
3.61
0.73
1.14
1.11
1.36
0.56
1.47
1.69
1.49
1.26
0.81
45.0
52.9
46.5
41.4
32.7
54.4
39.4
34.1
23.0
29.1
33.7
39.5
24.0
32.6
1.32
2.31
1.60
1.23
0.83
2.26
1.21
Table
7.
Acc. or
Sel. No.
cont.
1969
Plot No.
Pedigree
63018
63019
63020
63021
63027
41:9-12
42:9-12
45:9-12
44:9-12
45:5-8
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
64008
64009
64010
64100
64107
65101
65102
65103
66052
31:5-8
31:9-12
32:9-12
40:9-12
32:5-8
36:1-4
34:5-8
38:5-8
32:1-4
Z Seedling
Z Seedling
Z Seedling
Bullion
Northern Brewer
Talisman
Yakima Cluster (L-1)
E-2 (EC selection)
Pride of Ringwood
ft
If
Diseases
Cross
DM
Virus 11 wire
June
Apr.
June
25%
Cone
Ma2/
flow. size-4 ture-
0/4
0
1/4
SL1
12
10
27
7/12
10
25
7/17
S
S
S
S
7/2
25
7/16
7/16
7/14
M-S
VS
M
M
M
25
M
L
7/8
7/15
7/3
M-S
M
L
L
L
L
M
E
L
L
11
SL = Split leaf; YF - Yellow fleck:
.?"
S
= Small, M = Medium, L = Large
2/
E
= Early, M = Medium, L = Late
1/4
0/1
SL1
SL1
baby
0
0
0/4
SL1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0(=best) to 4.
7/14
7/5
7/9
18
a
a/B
June
baby
BG x Fu-FuS
BG x Fu-FuS
Quality
a
7/15
7/11
M-L
L
L
L
VL
L
L
34.8
53.1
52.9
36.6
49.6
30.5
27.0
23.0
39.6
36.6
1.14
1.97
2.30
0.92
1.35
45.4
45.7
32.3
30.2
37.1
23.0
19.2
27.7
33.6
32.7
29.2
1.41
1.51
35.9
48.2
51.0
52.8
48.0
45.7
48.0
0.97
2.10
2.65
1.90
1.43
1.40
1.64
Table 8.. Male Genotypes Grown in the Breeding Block.
Acc. or
Sel. No.
Corvallis, 1969.
Diseases) Cross
Location
Row/Hill
Pedigree
DM/Virus
19005
19006
19007
19008
19009
19010
19036
19037
19039
19040
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
33:13-14
34:15-16
44:13-14
40:15-16
45:15-16
48:15-16
54:13-14
36:15-16
38:15-16
39:15-16
Late Cluster S
Hybrid 3 or 4
Brewers Favorite S
Semsch S x 8-2 Br Yard
Fu x FuS
RV x FuS
LC x FuS
FuS x FuS
FuS x RVS
Fu x FUS
0/2
2/2
1/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
SL2
SL1
SL1
19041
19043
19044
19046
19047
19048
19050
19051
19054
19058
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
47:13-14
48:13-14
49:13-14
50:13-14
51:13-14
52:13-14
38:13-14
40:13-14
43:13-14
34:13-14
EG x Unknown S
Bel Bury x FuS
Fu x FuS
LCS x FuS
His x FuS
FuS x RVS
Fu x FuS
Burgunder S x FuS
EKG x BavS
EG x Unknown S_
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
1/2
1/2
0/2
0/2
SL1
SL1
19060
19061
19062
19085
19170
19172
19173
19182
19183
51060
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
35:13-14
37:13-14
36:13-14
39:13-14
54:15-16
33:17-18
34:17-18
35:17-18
36:17-18
42:13-14
EKG x BavS
Late Gp x FuS
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL2
SL1
SL1
ft
ft
Landh S x Gold Cl - FuS
Unknown x (EKG x EK-KGS)
Cats Tail x Fu - FuS
Str Sp x LCS
Bu x Bel 31S - Bel 31
Fu x EG - ECS
Verte S - LCS x Late Gp - FuS
0
0
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
0
SL1
0
0
SL3
SL3
SL2
SL2
wire
June
21
18
16
25%
flow
7/14
7/8
7/25
30
7/2
7/9
5
25
24
7/4
9
30
13
7/8
12
13
17
7/7
7/8
9
5
12
12
29
8
12
9
13
8
a +8
a/a
66.3
68.6
51.4
63.6
70.8
57.8
77.3
0.17
0.31
0.42
June
10
9
Quality
a
30
7/9
7/7
30
7/9
7/7
7/15
7/9
7/7
7/6
7/7
7/8
18
7/2
30
12
7/17
11
7/6
20
9.7
16.2
15.3
40.5
18.7
29.8
12.9
23.1
35.2
38.8
56.7
52.4
30.8
20.1
41.9
11.8
37.8
45.0
19.8
17.9
40.8
33.4
51.9
29.6
32.0
59.6
33.1
30.3
57.3
59.0
30.5
49.3
82.7
49.7
73.0
71.4
70.9
75.3
77.2
76.9
71.3
82.7
0.59
0.68
32.6
11.9
37.5
28.9
36.4
32.0
23.9
42.5
38.4
9.3
45.2
60.6
35.9
53.4
39.9
26.9
46.0
23.3
32.9
60.7
77.8
72.5
73.4
82.4
76.3
58.9
69.9
65.7
71.2
70.0
0.72
0.20
1.05
0.54
0.91
1.19
0.57
1.82
1.17
0.15
36.1
23.1
52.1
28.0
64.4
50.0
24.3
29.7
73.1
59.5
68.5
1.75
0.36
1.06
0.20
0.46
1.45
1.30
1.31
0.20
1.14
1.48
0.35
0.30
1.34
0.68
Table 8.
Cont.
Acc. or
Location
Row/Hill
Sel. No.
Pedigree
Diseases)" Cross
DM/Virus
wire
June
June
7/8
7/15
7/7
7/8
7/7
7/8
7/9
21
22
7/1
34.3
16.6
17.9
23.3
22.3
22.2
18.6
27.4
35.2
14.1
45.8
44.8
50.5
50.7
27.2
41.3
28.9
48.0
34.2
39.2
30
41.5
28.2
45.6
39.8
30.6
41.7
43.6
30.8
37.3
16.6
54.5
40.6
63.0
53.6
50.9
46.5
47.7
49.3
47.1
42.7
37.7
51061
51101
51114
52040
52042
52044
52045
52046
52047
52048
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
41:13-14
46:13-14
45:13-14
42:15-16
43:15-16
46:15-16
47:15-16
33:15-16
35:15-16
37:15-16
[BG x(EKG x EG- KOS) ]x(Saml x Be131S-Be131)
FuS x(Lh x Gold Cl-FuS)
(LhS x Gold Cl-FuS)x(SemschS x8-2 Br Yard)
[LhS-RVS x(SemschS x 8-2 Br Yard)]x OP
Late Gp-FuS x Late Gp-FuS
(Fu x Serebr-FuS) x OP
(EKG x EG-KGS) x EG-Unknown S
(Late GpS x FuS-RVS) x0P
(Str Sp x EG-Unknown S) x Str Sp-LCS
(LC x FuS-RVS) x OP
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
SL1
54066
58111
60013
60019
60023
60026
60028
60030
60031
63011
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
41:15-16
53:13-14
38:17-18
39:17-18
40:17-18
41:17-18
42:17-18
43:17-18
44:17-18
37:17-18
Unknown x FuS-RVS
[(BG x Be131S-Be131)x(Late Gp-FuS)]x OP
Wild Am. Ariz. 1-2
Wild Am. N. Mex. 2-3
Wild Am. Colo. 1-1
Wild Am. Colo. 2-1
Wild Am. Colo. 2-3
Wild Am. Colo. 3-2
Wild Am. Colo. 4-1
Late Gp-FuS x EG-Unknown S
0/2
0/2
0/2
1/2
SL1
SL1
1/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
SL1
0/2
0/2
SL1
SL1
SL1
63012
63013
63014
63015
63016
63017
64101
64102
64103
64104
64105
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
45:17-18
46:17-18
47:17-18
48:17-18
49:17-18
50:17-18
53:15-16
49:15-16
52:15-16
51:15-16
BG x WA Utah 526-4
2/2
0/2
0
0
1/1
SL1
SL1
SL1
50:-15-16
II
II
"
BG x(BG x EKG-BavS)
BG x WA Utah 526-4
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
Unknown
Wild Am. x OP
Wild Am. x OP
Eastwell Gold x 321
Fu x 321
11 SL = split leaf; 0 = best, 4 = worst.
0/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
1/2
0/2
0
SL2
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
12
15
12
15
16
9
9
0
SL1
SL2
9
18
0
0
7/8
21
19
7/1
28
8
7/25
7/1
30
9
0
9
9
0
SL1
SL1
7/9
7/15
22
29
0
0
SL1
SL1
25%
flow
11
'9
7/7
7/7
7/9
7/2
25
20
22
20
20
30
Quality
a
S
(241-
80.1
ag3
53.3
0.75
0.37
0.35
0.46
0.82
0.54
0.64
0.57
1.03
0.36
49.2
32.0
28.9
45.8
31.7
37.4
34.7
44.0
42.8
72.6
77.4
77.5
50.7
76.4
73.4
81.1
65.5
81.3
59.4
1.33
0.57
1.43
1.38
0.67
1.31
1.17
0.88
0.85
0.39
24.5
33.8
17.1
22.0
23.3
28.6
23.0
31.0
38.1
17.1
32.6
79.0
74.4
80.1
75.6
74.2
75.1
70.7
80.3
85.2
59.8
70.3
2.23
1.20
3.68
2.44
2.18
1.63
2.07
31.1
61.4
68.4
74.0
49.5
63.4
47.5
75.3
69.4
1.59
1.24
2.49
1.16
DM = downy mildew: 0/2 = 0 infection, 2 hills; 1/2 = 1 of 2 hills
infected.
-28-
throughout the nursery, but symptoms were generally mild (mostly SL1).
Some genotypes, notably 58001, were severely infected and may have to
be discarded.
Mr. Likens and his staff collected lupulin from cones at maturity
and analyzed them for alpha and beta content. This is valuable additional information, listed under the quality column in Table 7.
Lupulin
from some genotypes (19120, 19185, 50024, 60032, 60040, 62013, 63019,
63020) was very high in alpha acid and relatively low in beta acid,
resulting in a favorable alpha/beta ratio. The highest alpha/beta
ratio in this group was 3.61 for genotype 60032, a Wild American hop
collected in Colorado. Other genotypes had a high beta acid content
but were lower in alpha acid which resulted in a low alpha/beta ratio
(eg. 19151, 56001, 56002, 58004, 60020, 60027, 60033, 60038, 60043,
63004).
Several Wild American genotypes are found in this group also,
including two from Colorado (60027, 60033). Other genotypes were
identified that fell somewhere between the two extreme groups.
In most
cases, the combined alpha + beta values equalled or exceeded 70% of the
lupulin, which indicates that lupulin glands used for the analysis
were generally free of extraneous material (pollen, dust, etc.).
Males
Over 60 male genotypes were grown in a two-hill male breeding block
in 1969 (Table 8). Some of these are open pollinated seedlings from
named female varieties, but most are from planned crosses from our
breeding program. Mildew data based on crown infection obtained at
pruning time were taken.
Only five genotypes showed 100% infection (2/2);
namely, 19006M, 52045M, 63012M, 63016M, 63017M (Table 8). Some genotypes
were low in vigor and failed to reach the cross wire. With exception of
a few genotypes, virus infection (split leaf) was slight, but it was
found throughout the nursery.
A few severely virus-infected genotypes
will be discarded in 1970. Resin glands were collected at pollen shedding
time by a new technique developed by Mr. Zimmermann and Mr. Likens.
They
were subsequently analyzed for alpha and beta acid.
Alpha plus beta acid
values should account for about 70% of the lupulin, but in some genotypes
this figure was much lower, eg. 19043M (50%), 52042M (50%), 52045 (48%).
This may be due to pollen or dust impurities in the original lupulin
collection.
In other genotypes, however, the alpha plus beta total was
well in excess of 80% (eg. 19058M, 19085M, 19041M, 64103M, 60028M, 60031M).
The last two genotypes are Wild American males collected in Colorado. Alpha
contents ranged from the lows of 9.3% (51060M) and 9.7% (19005M) to the
high values of 63.0% (63014M), 54.5% (63012M) and 53.6% (63015M). All of
the last three genotypes have a strong Brewers Gold background and two are
crosses between Brewers Gold (19001) x Utah 526-4 (58015M).
Unfortunately
genotype 58015M is no longer in our germ plasm pool. The alpha/beta
ratio, which perhaps is most meaningful, varied from lows of 0.15 (51060M),
0.17 (19005M), 0.20 (19061M, 19036M), to the high values of 2.49 (64104M),
2.44 (63015M), and 3.68 (63014M).
-29-
Female germ plasm nursery
This nursery, consisting of over 80 genotypes in two-hill plots, is
a germ plasm reservoir of potentially useful material collected over the
years. It also includes some named foreign varieties.
Good field notes
on growth and disease reaction were obtained in 1969 (Table 9).
A number
of genotypes, most of them adjacent to each other in one portion of the
field, showed severe virus symptoms (split leaf and yellow fleck).
These
genotypes were discarded and are not included in the Table.
Mildew crown infection of most genotypes in this block was either
mild or completely absent. Most plants reached the wire, including
the ones severely infected with virus. Some genotypes in this nursery
are still being carried under a selection number (eg. 6512-24, etc.).
Some of these selections are monoecious plants with various amounts of
male and female flowers.
They are being retained for future genetic and
chemical studies.
Chemical quality data from isolated lupulin glands were obtained for
a number of genotypes (Table 9), and again a wide range of alpha and
beta acid values was observed. Genotype 19105 had the lowest alpha acid
value and the lowest alpha/beta ratio, while Petham Golding (68052) had
the highest alpha acid and the highest alpha/beta ratio.
In no instance
did the beta values approach the extremes found for alpha acid. Alliance
(66050), an English variety, had very high alpha and the lowest beta
values in the group, resulting in a very favorable alpha/beta ratio of
3.27.
Genotype 53023 had the highest beta acid (52.2%).
The proportion
of high beta types in the germ plasm block (Table 9) is considerably
higher than in the more advanced female breeding block (Table 7). This
may be the result of the selection pressure for good alpha types in the
hop breeding program over the past years.
Genotype 61016, an unnamed
clone recently introduced from Russia, had very low alpha and beta values
(alpha + beta + 33.7%), which almost certainly cannot be solely attributed to sample impurities. This genotype will be retested again in 1970.
Male germ plasm nursery (including backcross males)
This nursery is also a pool of material potentially useful for
breeding or genetic purposes. Relatively little is known about this
material.
Some genotypes which are presently grown in the "Backcross
Nursery" (but are not from a backcross program) appear to possess
excellent resistance to downy mildew. These genotypes (64032M, 64033M,
64034M, 64035M 64036M and 64037M) originally came from open pollinated
seed obtained from Wye College, England. They have a European (Hallertau ?)
female parent, but the male parent is unknown. Three of these, 64032M,
64033M, 64037M,in 1969 were crossed to Yakima Cluster (Table 2).
Split leaf virus was evident throughout the nursery, but infection was
slight (SL1). Quality data from isolated lupulin glands were obtained for
Table
9.
Acc. or
Sel. No.
Female Selections from the Germplasm Block.
1969
Plot No.
Pedigree
Corvallis, 1969.
Diseases 1/
DM
Virus
25%
flow.
flow,
Cone
size
Maturity
Quality
a
S
a/R
DI
19003
19012
19027
19028
19032
19093
19094
19105
19113
19144
42:21-22
34:21-22
48:19-20
49:19-20
38:19-20
41:19-20
43:19-20
35:19-20
32:21-22
39:19-20
Red Vine S
LGp x FuS
Fu x FuS
EG x ECS
RV x OP
Fu x RV-Unknown S
Bu x Bel 31S-Be131
Late GpS x Fu-FuS
50040
50075
50091
51104
52013
52020
53023
53050
54002
54003
51:19-20
33:19-20
34:19-20
53:19-20
50:19-20
44:19-20
52:19-20
40:19-20
48:21-22
47:21-22
Spalter x EKG-BavS
(EKG x EG-KGS) x Fu-FuS
54004
54005
54007
54010
54015
61008
61011
61012
61014
61016
46:21-22
52:21-22
49:21-22
35:21-22
36:21-22
37:27-28
38:27-28
39:27-28
40:27-28
41:27-28
LGp-FuS x (CtT x Fu-FuS)
(Tet-XS x LCS) x LGp-FuS
LGp-FuS x OP
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
1/2
0/2
0/2
128 I
Samling x TetFr-FuS
LGp -FuS x LC-FuS
FuS x (LhS x GC1-FuS)2
(BFav x LGp -FuS) x OP
(XS x Bel 31S-Bel 31) x OP
[FuS x(LhS x GC1-FuS)2]x OP
EG-ECS x OP
(BG x Fu-FuS) x FuS-RVS
LGp-FuS x EKG-BavS
SL3
SL1
SL1
SL1
0
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL4
0/2
YF1;SL1
1/2
SL1
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/1
0/2
0/2
0
0
0/2
0/2
0/2
(Ore Res -KGS x LGp - FuS)x(Fu x Be131S-Be131) 0/2
(BG x EG-ECS)x(Fu x Bel 31S-Bel 31)
0/2
Pol. CZ/66
1/4
Pol. P/K1
0/4
Pol. 28/30
1/10
Pol. 45/36
0/4
USSR N16
1/4
7/3
7/7
7/12
7/14
7/12
7/17
20
7/10
7/8
7/6
7/5
7/9
VS
VL
L
S
VS
M
M
M
M
M
M
VL
S
S
L
L
L
S
L
S-VS
M
M
VS
L
SL1
SL1
SL1
7/14
S
S
L
7/5
7/16
M
M
M-S
L
0
L
S
VL
M
VL
L
L
M
L
VS
L
L
7/20
S
SL1
SL1
SL1
7/5
7/8
7/6
M
SL1
SL2
SL1
SL1
SL1
7/6
7/14
30
7/8
7/3
7/14
7/10
7/10
7/14
7/14
S
S
VS
S
27.3
20.8
47.8
49.5
29.5
6.4
41.8
49.9
23.8
21.7
34.0
45.0
0.65
0.42
2.01
2.29
0.87
0.14
26.5
40.5
0.65
27.1
40.5
19.2
40.9
28.0
49.4
24.2
21.2
44.8
28.4
46.0
29.8
44.0
26.3
52.2
43.4
0.61
1.43
0.42
1.37
0.64
1.88
0.46
0.49
36.9
33.7
38.3
32.9
0.96
1.02
42.7
18.7
27.1
15.0
1.57
1.25
M
L
M
VE
VE
S
E
S
M
M
VE
Table
9
cont.
Acc. or
1969
Sel. No. Plot No.
Pedigree
Diseases 1/
DM
Virus
Apr
June
61017
61018
61019
61020
62051
62053
64020
64026
64106
65003
42:27-28
43:27-28
45:19-20
46:19-20
31:19-20
31:21-22
49:27-28
50:27-28
44:27-28
51:27-28
USSR N18
USSR N34
Yugoslavia Golding
Savinja Golding
Janus
Defender
Backa x EKG-BavS
BG x (Bu x Bel 31S-Be131)
Wye 25/56/2
LC x EG-XS
1/4
0/4
0/4
SL1
65026
66050
66051
66053
66054
66055
66056
68051
68052
6022-01
53:27-28
35:27-28
1/4
SL2
36:27-28
32:27-28
33:27-28
34:27-28
54:21-22
31:27-28
40:29-30
LC x OP
Alliance
Progress
Ringwood Special
Calicross
First Choice
Smooth Cone
Brawling Cross
Petham Golding
BG x Ut 526-4
6028-01
6185-01
6220-03
6220-04
6220-06
6221-01
6228-01
6230-01
6305-01
6305-03
44:29-30
39:29-30
47:29-30
46:29-30
43:29-30
44:29-30
41:29-30
45:29-30
46:27-28
47:27-28
Ha x Fu-FuS
Su25S x Ut 524-2
Fu x Colo. 2-1
Fu x Colo. 2-1
Fu x Colo. 2-1
Ha x Fu-FuS
Ariz. 1-4 x Ariz. 1-1
NM 2-2 x Ut 525-2
Fu x 19173M
Fu x 19173M
32:19 -20
0
0
0
0/4
SL2
SL1
0
0/4
4/4
4/4
SL1
2/4
25%
Flow.
June
7/18
7/2
7/1
7/14
7/16
7/16
7/8
7/10
7/10
7/15
7/9
7/15
7/14
7/14
7/8
Cone
size
7/12
7/18
Quality
x
-6
M
E
S
L
L
L
L
L
E
E
E
M
M
L
S
E
VS
M
VS
M
M
L
E
E
VL
M
L
L
VE
L
M
M
L
L
M
M
L
VL
VL
VL
VL
E
L
L
L
L
VS
VL
M
p
a/f
1,
39,9
42.9
44.5
45.4
51.3
37.0
34.1
27.4
20.4
19,8
1.08
1,26
1,63
2.28
2.59
51.4
41.1
40.9
46.3
21.5
36.3
30.7
28.1
2.39
1.13
1.33
1.65
41.9
55.2
52.3
40,7
43.1
43.5
46.0
35.7
16.9
23.0
29.8
33.9
31.4
28.6
1.17
3.27
2.27
1.36
1.27
1,39
1.61
58.4
17.5
3.33
E
L
VL
7/14
7/15
7/16
7/16
7/16
7/14
Maturity
L
M
Table
9.
cont.
Acc. or
1969
Sel. No. Plot No.
Diseases 1/25%
Pedigree
DM
Apr.
6305-04
6305-05
6512-24
6517-56
6524-01
6527-09
6535-17
6536-05
6538-17
6735-04
6735-05
1/
48:27-28
45:27-28
31:29-30
33:29-30
34:29-30
35:29-30
36:29-30
37:29-30
38:29-30
36:19-20
37:19-20
Fu x 19173M
Fu x 19173M
Bu x EKG-BavS
Ha x (Ha x Fu-FuS)
SA101-1, 2 x EG-XS
(Su 25S x EG-XS)x(Stsp-LCS)
(BG x Fu-FuS) x OP
(BG x Fu-FuS) x OP
Ha x [Ha x (Bu x Bel 31S-Bel 31)]
Su 50S x [Ut 523-4 x EG-XS]
Su 50S x [Ut 523-4 x EG-XS]
SL = split leaf, YF = yellow fleck; 0=best, 4=worst.
Virus
June
flow
June
7/19
7/17
7/14
7/17
7/10
7/17
0
0
7/16
7/15
7/16
7/20
Cone
size
Maturity
VS
L
S
L
E
L
M
M
S
L
E
E
S
VL
M
S
E
L
S
M
VS
M
-33-
most genotypes in this group (Table 10). Alpha acid values generally were
high.
This is not surprising for the males with a strong Brewers Gold
background (63033M to 64031M), but was somewhat surprising for the males
with a strong European background obtained from England (eg. 64035M, 64036M),
and particularly for the two males with a strong Hallertau-Fuggle background
(65035, 65037M).
Alpha/beta ratios on the average were higher in this
nursery than for most entries in the Male Breeding Block, but did not
approach the high or low extremes found in the latter nursery.
Triploid nursery
Detailed data on growth, flowering, sex expression, diseases, maturity,
yield per plant, pickability, cone weight, seed set, and seed size were
obtained for the nearly 800 genotypes grown for the second year in the
triploid nursery (see 1968 report, page 10). In addition, Mr. Likens and
his staff obtained chemical quality data on the most promising female
selections.
Approximately 350 female genotypes were harvested individually
at maturity with the mechanical picker. One hundred twenty-five genotypes
with a yield in excess of 4,500 grams (9 bales per acre) were selected
initially. Of these, 50 were discarded later primarily on the basis of
infection by Verticillium wilt and virus diseases.
Cross numbers and
pedigrees of the 14 crosses involving tetraploid Fuggle (FuT, Accession
No. 21003) are listed in Table 11. The proportion of Fuggle germ plasm in
the various crosses varies from a low of 2/3 Fuggle (from the tetraploid
female parent), when the male parent did not carry any Fuggle parentage,
to a high of 11/12, when the male parent had a large percentage of Fuggle
in its pedigree.
The 1969 lupulin analyses of the various male parents
are also included in Table 11. Two Fuggle-like males (Fu 1-1 and Fu 2-4),
which were found on two different hills in the old hop yard in 1966
(see 1967 report, bottom of page 47), and which originally were thought
to be a result of Fuggle sex reversal, were not retained in subsequent years.
Surprisingly, some very interesting triploids came from crosses involving
these two males, particularly from cross 6761. Nine genotypes from this
cross are among the 26 triploids selected by Mr. Zimmermann for testing at
Prosser, Washington (Table 12).
Data on the most promising 75 triploid
selections, based on yield and disease reaction, are presented in Table 12.
With one exception (Selection No. 6769-05, a 31 chromosome female), all of
these genotypes either showed no virus or Verticillium wilt symptoms at all,
or the symptoms were very mild (Table 12). Maturity is indicated by the
25% flowering date and the harvest date. We found a full range of maturities
from very early (selection 6765-33) to late. A number of good-yielding,
early genotypes could be identified, but there were more good-yielding, late
genotypes than early ones.
In 1969, hops in the Willamette Valley of Oregon
generally matured seven to ten days earlier than usual.
Therefore, an early
September harvest date in 1969 might be comparable to about September 10
in another year.
As mentioned earlier, the cut-off point for yield was
4,500 grams (approximately 9 bales per acre). A large number of genotypes
exceeded this figure by a substantial margin, notably selection No. 6769-02
(22 bales), 6769-03 (18.1 bales), 6763-19 (18.7 bales), 6771-04 (15.9 bales),
6760-41 (16.9 bales), 6760-71 (16.4 bales), 6761-16 (16.1 bales), and many
others.
Pickability, as judged from cone shatter and vine clean-up in our
portable hop picker, varied from excellent (rating of one) to very poor
i
zr
rn
Table 10.
Male Genotypes from the Backcross Nursery.
Acc. or
Sel. No.
1969
Plot No.
63033
63034
64027
64028
64029
64030
64031
64032
64033
64034
64035
64036
64037
65034
65035
65036
65037
1/
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
42:25-26
43:25-26
37:25-26
38:25-26
39:25-26
40:25-26
41:25-26
44:25-26
45:25-26
46:25-26
47:25-26
48:25-26
49:25-26
33:25-26
34:25-26
35:25-26
36:25-26
Corvallis, 1969.
Diseases lj
Pedigree
BG x Ut 526-4
BG x Ut 526-4
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
BG x (BG x EKG-BavS)
2L118 x OP; (Z-OP from
2L118 x OP; (Z-OP from
2L118 x OP; (Z-OP from
7K491 x OP; (Z-OP from
7K491 x OP; (Z-OP from
7K491 x OP; (Z-OP from
Ha x (Ha x Fu-FuS)
Ha x (Ha x Fu-FuS)
Ha x (Ha x Fu-FuS)
Ha x (Ha x Fu-FuS)
DM
0/2
0/2
Wye)
Wye)
Wye)
Wye)
Wye)
Wye)
0/2
1/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
1/2
SL = split leaf, YF = yellow fleck; 0=best, 4=worst.
Virus
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1;YF1
SL1
SL1
SL1
0
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL2
Cross
wire
June
flow
a
a
June
%
%
18
7/8
7/5
7/7
7/6
7/8
29
13
7/9
14
16
7/1
16
28
7/2
29
7/8
7/8
7/1
7/2
7/4
22
17
Quality
25%
18
a/5
46.6
46,0
55.2
50.8
47.3
47.4
49.6
29.3
37.3
33.9
28.4
27.9
25.3
30.9
33.8
29.9
44.9
30.3
1.38
1.62
1.98
2.01
1.53
1.40
1.66
0.71
1.23
56.8
49.3
32.6
18.3
50.4
29.0
45.6
23.5
25.6
23.4
28.5
29.1
41.5
28.1
2.42
1.93
1.39
0.64
1.73
0.70
1,62
-35-
Table 11.
Pedigree of Selections from the Triploid Nursery. Corvallis, 1969
Cross
No.
Propor. 1969 lup. anaL ofd parent
a
a+6
Fuggle
ap3
a
Pedigree
17
6756- 21003 x 19040M; FuT x Fu-FuS
11/12
38.8
29.7
68.5
Remarks
1.30
6759-
x OP
;
"
x OP
2/3
d'unknown
6760-
x Fu 1-1;
"
x FuS
5/6
edisc.in
6761-
x Fu 2-4;
It
x FuS
5/6
If
6763-
x Fu 1-1;
"
x FuS
5/6
If
6765-
x 19010M;
"
x RV-FuS
9/12
x Fu 1-1;
"
x FuS
5/6
6770-
x 19010M;
"
x RV-FuS
9/12
6771-
x 19010M;
"
x RV-FuS
9/12
6772-
x 19040M;
"
x Fu-FuS
11/12
6773-
x 19058M;
"
x EG-XS
2/3
6774-
x 19058M;
"
x EG-XS
2/3
6775-
x 19062M;
"
x EG-BavS
2/3
6777-
x OP
"
x OP
2/3
1968
6769-
II
29.8
28.8
57.8 1.06
crdisc.in
1968
;
33.4
49.3
82.7
0.68
37.5
35.9
73.4
1.05
d'unknown
Table 12.
Sel. No.
Selections from the Triploid Nursery, based on Yield and Disease Reaction.
25%
flowering
June
6756-04
1Date
/
Diseases
Yield
Pick-2/ Cone
Virus Vert. harv. Plant acre abil.
wt
Wilt
dry
Aug.
g
bales
mg
%
Seed
Quality
Seed
cone
Corvallis, 1969.
a
$
%
%
a/0
Remarks
7/4
25
SL1
SL1
0
1
29
9/2
5150
5600
11.4
12.3
3
3
165
250
2.37
-25
1.42
1.32
1.03
4.7
8.3
3.8
3.7
1.23
2.26
6759-03
7/5
SL1
0
29
4960
10.9
2 -3
240
1.86
1.39
5.7
4.8
1.19
6760-02
25
7/5
30
30
26
18
25
27
7/6
20
7/3
SL1
SL1
SL1
0
SL1
1
28
28
9/3
9/3
28
9/3
28
22
5240
5300
4500
4510
7680
4620
5700
4550
3
235
185
285
170
220
225
235
290
160
245
155
4.17
1.75
2.67
3.44
1.34
2.19
2.83
3.60
2.21
5.81
3.01
3.13
0.81
7.5
1-2
4
4
2
3-4
3
3
3
5
0.66
1.19
1.68
2.35
1.72
3.16
1.09
6.7
6.4
4.6
4.0
4.2
5.7
3.3
5.7
5.4
3.8
3.4
3.7
3.4
2.5
1.86
1.14
1.49
1.75
0.65
1.66
1.86
2.05
1.84
early
early,Prosser
1.88
1.81
31 chrom.
7/4
29
30
7/6
28
27
7/2
7/6
7/1
7/5
7/5
7/4
29
SL1
SL1
220
265
210
160
200
220
190
3.68
1.67
2.49
2.88
4.40
1.95
2.32
1.62
3.23
1.98
2.61
2.92
2.14
2.64
0.93
6.8
9.5
2.8
5.6
2.48
1.21
1.30
7.9
6.1
9.5
9.4
10.9
7.2
8.2
7.9
10.5
3.6
7.8
3.1
3.2
-04
-16
-20
-41
-43
-47
-68
-71
-106-119
6761-04
-12
-16
-35
-42
-47
-61
-77
-100
-111
-112
-117
-120
0
0
0
SL1
0
SL1
0
-0
SL1
0
0
0
SL1
SL1
0
0
SL1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
22
.7440
9/3
28
6450
4850
11.6
11.7
9.9
9.9
16.9
10.2
12.6
10.0
16.4
14.2
10.7
28
9/3
28
9/3
28
28
4800
5440
7300
4940
4540
5300
5100
4740
6680
4550
5210
4920
4650
10.6
12.0
16.1
10.9
10.0
11.7
11.2
10.5
14.7
10.0
11.5
10.8
10.3
29
9/3
9/4
1
29
0
9/4
0
0
29
14
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-3
3
2
1-2
2
2
135
3
205
175
185
230
255
2-3
3
2-3
2
1.72
1.78
2.09
1.53
1.32
0.84
2.29
1.30
1.33
2.05
2.61
4.8
8.4
5.8
3.7
8.9
7.1
6.9
3.7
3.0
3.7
3.4
3.9
2.8
3.9
4.3
5.4
Prosser
c..i
1
1.71
2.51
1.91
2.58
3.14
2.93
2.14
2.10
2.83
Prosser
vg, Prosser
Prosser
2.69.
Prosser
Prosser
v.early
2.01
1.45
Prosser
Prosser
Prosser
Prosser
Table 12.
cont.
25%
Sel. No.
flowering
Diseases 1/
Vert.
Virus
Date
Yield
harv. Plant Acre
Pick-a/ Cone
Aug.
6763-02
7/4
0
1
9/4
-09
-10
-19
-20
20
0
7/3
7/7
7/4
0
0
0
26
26
29
26
6765-02
25
25
-04
-06
-12
-31
-33
-34
7/6
7/3
23
20
25
6769-02
7/1
-03
-05
-08
-10
-11
-28
-31
-35
-45
29
6770-18
-21
-25
6771-01
-04
-05
7/2
7/3
20
19
7/3
21
20
26
7/1
24
17
21
7/4
7/5
SL1
SL1
0
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
0
0
0
14
9/2
9/2
0
0
0
0
14
8
SL1
0
9/2
26
26
0
0
19
g
Quality
Seed
cone
a
225
260
225
170
215
5.08
1.98
4.49
4.71
3.29
3.04
1.36
2.74
2.75
1.88
6.2
9.5
7.7
5.9
5.6
4.8
5.1
3.3
3.5
2.6
1.30
1.87
2.31
1.71
2.12
Prosser
Prosser
Prosser
Prosser
225
210
235
320
235
205
165
4.02
2.76
2.97
2.61
2.28
2.35
1.88
1.25
1.52
2.04
3.3
6.6
1.06
"early
7.2
5.9
8.3
4.3
6.1
3.1
2.4
3.0
2.6
3.1
2.5
3.3
2.74
2.37
2.26
2.70
1.74
200
165
180
195
220
255
220
250
2.37
1.67
0.36
1.47
2.44
3
7.8
8.4
9.1
7.6
4.4
5.5
10.9
7.1
8.6
8.5
4.1
3.7
4.5
3.8
8.5
5.8
6.5
3.7
4.5
3.8
1.92
2.29
2.01
1.99
0.52
0.95
1.67
1.94
1.92
2.20
highest yld.,pra
125
225
3.74
2.97
0.74
2.10
3.25
3.08
2.33
2.32
2.01
1.52
2.8
1.8
2.34
2.30
2.22
v.early
early
early
2.20
2.80
3.18
early
wilt
June
%
Seed
abil.
wt.
a/13,
Remarks
dry
mg
bales
6300
7350
7300
8500
5000
13.9
16.2
16.1
18.7
11.0
2-3
5130
6650
5860
6220
6600
4690
5840
11.3
14.7
12.9
13.7
14.6
10.3
12.9
2-3
22.0
18.1
15.8
13.4
13.5
15.7
11.0
16.0
12.2
11.4
3
2
4
3-4
3
2
4
5
2
1
1-2
1.85
1.81
2.68
3.85
0
0
SL1
SL2
SL1
SL1
SL1
0
0
9/2
0
0
26
21
0
9/4
0
0
1
0
26
19
0
0
19
0
1
9/4
10000
8200
7163
6080
6110
7100
5000
7240
5550
5180
0
0
0
0
14
19
21
5240
6420
4460
11.6
14.2
9.8
2-3
2-3
2-3
200
250
245
3.55
2.43
3.62
2.57
1.54
2.05
6.7
0
0
SL1
0
0
0
6300
7227
5600
13.9
15.9
12.3
2-3
2-3
SL1
22
28
9/2
260
0
4.15
4.54
4.02
2.77
3.99
2.20
6.9
5.2
5.6
3
4
2-3
2-3
1-2
3-4
1-2
3
4
325
195
1.51
1.89
1.99
0.98
0.91
4.0
7.7
3.5
3.1
1.8
1.8
1.85
v.early,Pro.
Prosser
v.early,Pro.
v.early,vg
Prosser
Prosser
31 chrom.a
Prosser
early
Prosser
early, Prosser
31 chrom.
31 chrom.
Table
cont.
12.
25%
Sel. No.
flowering
Diseases 1 I Date
Virus Vert. harv.
wilt
June
Aug.
Yield
Plant Acre
g
2-3
2-3
345
225
3.65
4.45
2.51
2.45
5.6
5.9
3.7
4.9
1.52
1.20
ft
6140
4300
4880
5900
6150
13.5
9.5
10.8
13.0
13.6
1-2
1-2
0.49
0.92
2.07
0.66
1.14
0.29
0.71
2.93
0.52
0.50
8.5
7.8
6.2
7.6
3.5
3.7
4.2
2.1
2.28
1.86
1.43
1.97
1.65
early, Prosser
2-3
170
270
385
235
140
5090
6500
11.2
14.3
2-3
3-4
250
245
2.08
2.98
1.74
2.75
7.7
4.1
4.1
5.5
1.87
0.74
early
17.3
11.1
10.9
11.1
2-3
14
21
7830
5020
4950
5050
210
265
210
220
3.43
2.49
1.59
3.34
2.13
2.05
1.68
2.90
6.5
7.0
5.2
5.9
4.1
3.5
2.4
3.4
1.57
1.97
2.20
1.74
v. early
early
14
14
14
5260
5170
4820
11.6
11.4
10.6
2-3
2-3
185
190
295
2.55
3.67
1.71
1.98
3.27
1.53
3.8
4.2
5.3
1.8
1.4
2.3
2.08
2.97
2.33
v. early
v. early
v. early
710
950
2380
1.6
2.1
5.2
17.61 12.25
2.07 1.92
0.27 0.13
4.5
3.2
6.6
2.5
2.2
4.2
1.80
1.45
1.57
baby
low vigor
Smith yd.
SL1
SL1
1
9/3
0
22
1
9/4
9/4
17
21
0
0
0
0
6777-16
20
SL1
0
-18
-33
7/3
0
0
0
-02
-04
-14
-19
6774-06
7/3
-14
22
6775-01
26
-03
-17
-18
7/3
19209
21003
19209
21
27
20
0
S1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
%
11.4
11.6
22
21
21
21
21
23
19
25
26
25
%
3
2
3
3
3
2-3
2-3
2
265
220
190
Verticillium Wilt: 0=none to 4(dying).
4;
SL=split leaf: 0 (best)
pickability based on cone shatter and vine cleanup: 1=best, to 5.
Virus:
Remarks
a/13,
3-4
3-4
0
0
0
0
0
6773-01
13
1.78
1.93- early, Prosser
2.92 early
1.20 early
5180
5260
0
SL1
mg
a
3.4
4.7
2.9
4.9
28
9/3
17
26
0
SL1
0
0
cone
6.0
9.0
8.5
5.9
0
0
6772-17
-24
0
Quality
Seed
3.35
2.56
2.53
4.12
0
0
SL1
%
Seed
3.58
3.07
2.91
3.09
10.8
15.8
20.9
11.7
7/5
16
24
26
wt.
dry
330
345
240
295
4900
7160
9460
5300
-19
-21
-23
abil.
bales
26
21
21
21
6771-17
Pick-1/ Cone
4.3
3.8
early
early
early
- 39 -
(rating of five). Many genotypes, however, had very good pickability
ratings.
Dry cone weights based on a 200 cone sample varied from a low
of 135 mg per cone (selection No. 6761-77), to a high of 385 mg per cone
(6773-04), with an overall mean of about 228 mg per cone. This compares
to 220 mg per cone for the tetraploid Fuggle (Accession No. 21003) and
about 190 mg per cone for seedless diploid Fuggle (Accession No. 19209,
Table 12). Seed content of triploids under open pollinated conditions
averaged 2.8% on a weight basis, corresponding to about two seeds per
cone.
This contrasts to a seed set of nearly 18% (12.25 seeds per cone)
for diploid hop on identical field conditions. Under commercial conditions (2-3 males per acre), seed set of triploids can be expected to be
considerably less than the 2.8% found in our hop yard, where ample
pollen from a large number of males was available throughout the flowering period.
Quality data were obtained initially en a five-cone sample and the
data were later varified by analysis of a one-pound bale sample.
In
general, data from the five-cone sample and the one pound bale sample
agreed very well.
Alpha acid values varied from a low of 3.3% (selection
No. 6765-02) to a high of 10.9% (selection No. 6769-28 and 6761-61). Only
12 out of 75 genotypes in Table 12 had alpha acid values below the cutoff
point of 5%.
A surprisingly large number of genotypes had alpha acid values
in the 7, 8, and 9% range.
The ratio of alpha/beta varied from a low of
0.52 (selection 6769-10) to a high of 3.14 (selection 6761-47).
Morphologically most of the triploids were similar to diploid Fuggle
in such traits as leaf size, leaf shape, shoot morphology, cone size and
shape, cone weight, and maturity; but many had considerably longer side
arms and showed more branching and cone set. In many cases the aroma was
distinctly "European". It should be pointed out, however, that these
data are from a single hill (on two-year old, physiologically mature
plants).
All genotypes in Table 12 will be grown in four-hill or larger
plots in 1970 for further evaluation.
A total of 26 genotypes marked
"Prosser" (under remarks) will be grown both at Prosser, Washington and
in a 10-hill plot in our seedless yard at Corvallis.
They will also undergo a 20-plant mildew test in the greenhouse in 1970.
Another group of 50 triploid genotypes is listed in Table 13. These
were selected initially due to their good yield potential, but were later
eliminated, primarily because of a high degree of Verticillium wilt
infection. They will be maintained in a two-hill plot for another two
years, primarily to obtain additional information on Verticillium wilt
infection. Again, a range of maturity classes, pickabilities, cone
weights, and seed set was found in this material similar to the genotypes
listed in Table 12. Quality data were similar to those in the first group
of triploid selections (Table 12), except that slightly more types with
lower alpha acid content were found. Whether this is related to Verticillium
wilt infection is unknown.
Table 13.
Sel.
No.
6753-09
Summary of triploid selections with good yield potential, but high susceptibility
to Verticillium wilt.
Corvallis, 1969.
Pedigree
FuT x FuS
-18
-20
-21
-22
-23
-35
6755-04
6757-03
6759-01
6760-05
9
6
6
4
6
FuT x EG-XS
FuT x OP
FuT x FuS
7/3
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
3
0
2
25
7/1
Aug.
3
9/2
2
2
26
29
26
2
19
2
26
9/2
3
21
2
25
SL1
2
9/3
2
27
0
2
7
20
26
25
SL1
3
0
2
22
21
21
0
2
9/3
28
7/7
20
SL1
SL2
2
22
2
28
0
0
0
3
15
2
SL1
2
9/3
28
9/3
0
0
3
15
3
SL1
0
3
3
28
22
SL1
2
6
4
2
4
4
8
2
6
3
4
10
9
2
2
P4T x FuS
0
0
hare.
7
7
FuTxEKG-BavS
7/1
7/3
Date
7/6
7/6
7/5
7/6
7/4
28
7/1
2
-07
-11
-24
-28
-29
-44
-52
-58
-61
-65
-72
-75
-87
-104
6761-06
Cross 25%
Diseases
wire flow- Virus:Vert
ering
wilt
June June
6
-11
9
-23
6
7/1
7/5
7/6
7/6
26
7/6
7/14
26
0
2
SL1
3
0
0
0
2
26
2
28
2
9/4
9/4
14
15
Yield
Plant:Acre
g
4760
5550
5350
5020
4580
5280
7150
4760
4950
6070
5573
5360
5080
6860
5180
5700
4600
4710
6400
4920
4980
5450
5120
5820
5000
3936
4060
5010
Pick-
Single
abil.
cone wt.
bales
10.5
12.2
%
Seed
Seed
cone
mg.
3-4
3.23
3.06
3.53
3.69
2.55
3.61
2.89
3.35
1.53
3.12
1.67
2.75
2.70
2.49
2.56
1.28
2.77
1.62
2.61
2.95
0.95
2.74
1.29
1.64
0.49
4.41
2-3
165
180
185
245
150
155
140
175
240
240
255
275
225
180
285
260
195
180
190
275
205
195
220
185
170
145
110
2
165
1.04
3
11.8
3
11.1
10.1
4-5
11.6
15.8
10.5
10.9
13.4
12.3
11.8
11.2
15.1
11.4
12.6
10.1
10.4
14.1
10.8
11.0
12.0
11.3
12.8
11.0
8.7
9.0
11.0
3-4
3-4
2-3
2-3
2
3
2
3-4
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
1-2
4-5
2
3-4
3
3
3
1.33
1.94
1.41
1.98
1.39
2.44
1.50
1.76
1.12
2.50
1.25
3.02
1.46
1.57
2.36
0.87
1.31
1.08
1.62
1.94
0.50
1.38
0.71
1.32
0.23
2.88
0.76
Quality
a
B
%
%
7.4
7.9
5.4
4.8
2.5
3.8
2.9
2.9
3.5
2.8
6.2
3.3
3.7
3.2
4.4
4.1
6.7
2.3
5.0
4.9
4.3
6.5
5.6
6.5
7.5
7.9
4.8
6.9
7.0
7.8
6.7
7.3
5.8
7.6
6.7
5.8
3.5
8.0
6.5
5.2
9.3
3.1
4.4
4.3
4.7
3.7
5.8
5.9
5.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
5.8
2.4
2.2
4.0
V
a/B
1.54
3.17
1.44
2.35
0.79
1.43
1.78
0.70
1.98
1.54
2.01
1.72
1.91
1.56
1.55
1.61
1.67
1.82
1.27
1.00
1.51
1.65
1.48
0.86
1.50
2.73
2.42
2.34
C
B
B
C
C
B
C
B
C
B
B
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
Table 13.
Sel.
No.
6761-28
Cont.
Pedigree
FuT x FuS
-41
-50
-122
6763-05
5
5
FuT x FuS
2
2
FuT x RV-FuS
Fu x FuS
-16
-17
-25
-40
-47
6770-13
6772-25
2
2
-18
6769-14
5
7
-16
-18
-26
6765-10
Cross 25%
Diseases
wire flow- Virus:Vert
ering
wilt
June June
4
4
3
5
3
9
4
2
FuT x RV-FuS
FuT x RV-FuS
5
8
-32
6774-02
FuT x EG-XS
2
6775-19
FuTxEKG-BavS
8
-33
1/
4
11
28
29
26
27
7/4
7/3
22
16
26
24
20
25
21
25
20
20
7/5
21
Date
Yield
harv. Plant:Acre
Aug
2
0
0
3
3
3
22
29
SL1
3
19
0
SL1
2
2
0
2
26
26
29
SL1
SL1
2
14
3
26
0
3
19
0
2
9/4
SL1
2
28
0
3
14
21
SL1
3
9/2
0
2
19
SL2
2
9/2
0
2
22
7/7
7/3
SL1
2
2
9/3
20
7/6
SL1
SL2
0
abil.
cone wt.
Seed
%
seed
Quality'
cone
a
8
0.88
1.04
2.14
6.3
6.8
4.4
3.7
3.1
1.21
1.27
1.65
2.22
1.67
1.62
2.46
0.20
1.01
0.55
0.50
0.54
1.54
2.68
7.8
3.2
5.4
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.9
9.0
5.2
5.1
7.5
7.4
7.6
7.4
1.76
1.46
1.93
2.99
2.56
5.3
6.7
4.0
6.2
a/8
1/
SL1
SL1
Pick- Single
2
22
14
0
28
g
4850
6160
5333
4750
4780
5660
4750
5360
6810
5000
5600
4980
4770
5760
5540
4500
5500
7010
6533
4900
5440
6413
bales
10.7
13.6
11.8
10.5
10.5
12.5
10.5
11.8
15.0
11.0
12.3
11.0
10.5
11.4
12.2
9.9
12.1
15.5
14.4
10.8
12.0
14.1
mg
4-5
3-4
3-4
2-3
140
185
145
180
185
160
190
245
185
185
215
205
215
220
4
240
3
3
4-5
2-3
3
5
2
2
3
2
2
185
2-3
2-3
275
275
220
220
3
3-4
3-4
3-4
No seed sample for genotype 6761-11.
Quality data: B = from 1 pound bale sample; C = from 5 cone sample.
No quality data for genotype 6772-25.
145
265
1.75
2.01
3.04
2.22
2.16
3.86
5.26
3.86
2.40
4.03
0.37
1.89
1.03
0.80
1.10
2.42
3.20
2.58
2.20
2.14
4.30
2.73
7.2
2.9
3.9
4.1
5.4
3.2
2.9
1.42
1.82
2.33
1.81
1.53
1.45
1.32
1.66
1.99
1.52
1.93
1.82
1.31
1.83
1.37
2.39
2.58
C
B
C
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
C
C
C
2.4
3.3
2.4
5.3
2.24
2.02
1.70
1.19
B
C
C
C
4.3
2.1
3.7
3.1
2.5
2.0
3.2
4.7
-42-
Hop Genetics
Additional data were also obtained from the triploid seedling
population, which are primarily of interest from a genetic standpoint:
Cytological analysis of seedlings from a tetraploid x diploid cross
Out of 778 seedlings analyzed cytologically, 594 or 76% were triploids
with a chromosome number of 2n=30. However, 7.5% had one chromosome
missing (2n=29), 13% had 31 chromosomes, one plant had 28, one each had
33 and 39 chromosomes, respectively, 7 plants had 32 chromosomes, and 9
plants had 40 chromosomes.
Cytologically, the origin of most of these genotypes can be readily
One can occassionally expect to lose one or more chromosomes
during meiosis in the tetraploid, and conversely one can also expect
gametes with one or two extra chromosomes which can account for these
aneu-polyploids. The tetraploids could have originated from a 30 chromosome gamete fertilized by a 10-chromosome pollen grain.
Somewhat
unexpected were the individuals with more than 40 and the one with 20
chromosomes (Table 14). Again the 20-chromosome diploid genotype could
have arisen from unequal reduction at meiosis which gave gametes with
30 and 10 chromosomes, respectively. The 10-chromosome egg fertilized
by a 10-chromosome pollen grain could have resulted in a diploid plant.
Phenotypically, this plant looked very much like the Fuggle parent.
The genotypes with chromosome numbers in excess of 40 could have arisen
from a female gamete with 31 chromosomes from unequal segregation at
meiosis I, pollinated with a 10-chromosome male gamete.
explained.
Sex expression of seedlings from a tetraploid x diploid cross
From a total of 733 plants that survived from the 778 after transplanting to the field in 1968, 575 or 79% were true triploids.
Of these,
71% were true females, and only 2% were true males (Table 15).
Eighteen
percent were predominately males with not more than 10% female flowers.
The rest were either predominately female, or plants with half male and
half female flowers.
In the whole nursery, including all aneuploids
and polyploids, the situation was similar: 68% true females versus only
3% true males.
Two percent of all genotypes did not show any sex
expression.
The majority of these plants were dwarfs that grew to about
four feet in height.
Cytologically, most of these dwarfs were triploids.
Comparison of growth rates of triploid and tetraploid hop plants
It was observed already in 1968, that the colchicine-induced
tetraploid Fuggle (Accession No. 21003) grew considerably slower in the
field than the diploid parental clone. A group of 20 female triploids
whose sex had been determined the year before, was chosen at random and
their daily growth was monitored in the spring of 1969 (Figure 1).
Table 14. Cytological analysis of the progeny from seven tetraploid x diploid crosses in hop.
Chromosome Number 2n=
Total
20
No. of plants
Percent
0.1
28
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
42
1
58
594
103
7
1
1
9
2
1
0.1
7.5
76.3
13.3
0.9
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.3
0.1
778
100%
Table 15.
Sex distribution in the progeny from seven tetraploid x diploid crosses in hop.
Total No.
plants
_ no
Sex
Total population
incl. "aneu-polyploids"
733
68%
2 %
7 %
18 %
3 %
2 %
True triploids
575
71 %
2%
6 %
18 %
2 %
1 %
=
Predominantly females,
= 9: eflowers
1.=
= 1
:
Predominantly males,
flowers < 10 %
1
flowers < 10 %
S
58'
gm
16.4'
4m
Triploid: 2 n r.30
3m
Tefrapoid :2nr.4o
2n
3:loily growl!: Tripl:
7'
Tdrapt 411.°
Days
Figure I.
4
6
8
10
I2
14-
16
18
20 22. 24 26 28 3o
32.
Growth of triploid Q.nd tetra.ploid. hop :
May 7 - Jun& 1, 1919
-46-
Each triploid was a single hill and the upper curve is the average
of 20 genotypes. Four hills of the tetraploid parent were available and
All plants were
the lower curve is the mean of four measurements each.
in their second year of growth in the field and, therefore, physiologically at a comparable age.
The triploids were by far the most vigorous growers and on June 2
(the 27th day of note taking) the mean difference between the two groups
was 6.1 feet in favor of the triploids.
This compares to a starting
difference of only five inches at the beginning of the growth curve on
May 7 (day 0).
Two triploid genotypes on May 26, however, were about
16 feet tall and could not be reached any more with the ladder.
At that
date the average of the tetraploid parents was only 7.7 feet.
On the
average it took 291/2 days for the triploids to reach the cross wire with a
daily growth increment of seven inches, as compared to four and a half
inches for the tetraploid, which is a mean difference of two and a half
inches per day in favor of the triploids. The diploid Fuggle is also a
vigorous grower and its growth curve is considerably steeper than that of
the tetraploids and closer to the triploid average.
In 1969 a diploid
Fuggle of comparable physiological age was not available.
In 1970,
additional growth measurements will be obtained on diploid, triploid, and
tetraploid Fuggle of comparable physiological age (two years) in a
replicated experiment.
Yield and quality of hop as related to level of polyploidy
A yield nursery involving 23 randomly choosen triploid female genotypes plus tetraploid and diploid Fuggle was established in a four
replication (single hill) test in the seeded and seedless yard in 1969
(Table 16).
Seven of these genotypes (6756-04, 6763-10, 6765-02, 6765-12,
6769-02, 6769-05, 6777-19) are also included in the list of 75 most
promising triploids (Table 12), although they were choosen before any
of the 1969 performance data were available. All plants were started
in the greenhouse and transplanted to the field in a 71/2 by 71/2 foot
spacing in mid May 1969. Most reached the wire that year and some produced a good crop of baby hops.
A notable exception were the tetraploids,
which were low in vigor and did not reach the cross wire at all. In 1970,
daily growth of these genotypes will be monitored in order to study vigor
and growth rates at the different levels of ploidy.
Furthermore, yield
and quality data under seeded and seedless conditions will be obtained.
This will be the first replicated test of the yield potential of triploid
hop in Oregon.
Cytological studies on the seedling progeny from a cross of triploid x
diploid hop.
Several crosses were made in 1967 to study seed set of the triploid
genotype 56008 with different males. In addition, open pollinated seed of
56008 was collected (1967 report, page 47). Seed from these crosses was
germinated in 1968 and seedlings were sampled for cytological analysis
-47-
Table 16. Diploid-Triploid-Tetraploid Yield Nursery, Corvallis, 1969.
Planted May 13, 1969;
Main Yard:
Seedless Yard: Planted May 10 ? 12, 1969.
Entry
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Entry #14:
Randomization No.
Accession or
Selection No.
19209
21003
6753-20
6753-21
-23
6756-04
-28
6759-02
6762-05
6763-10
-22
-25
6765-01
-02
-12
6769-02
Pedigree
Bl
Fu. dipl.
Fu. tetrapl. T4
21003 x FuS
it
21003 x OP
21003 x RV-FuS
21003 x FuS
II
11
21003 x RV-FuS
It
yt
21003 x FuS
II
It
It
,I
fl
21003 x RV-FuS
6770-16
6771-13
6777-19
,1
,1
main yard
Entry #21 (Rep. IV):
II
III
1
22
2
12
13
16
4
25
22
18
11
3
3
7
6
15
6
14
18
21
7
11
23
8
9
16
22
5
5
2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
9
14
21
4
24
18
20
& seedless yard.
in seedless yard:
IV
4
5
21003 x Fu-FuS
-05
-16
-17
-25
-40
-47
rin
I
replace.
17
8
21
13
10
3
10
25
15
7
1
1
17
25
5
2
14
11
4
9
20
19
16
6
1
12
8
2
10
20
15
3
13
9
19
24
12
7
23
19
17
6
8
23
-48-
(1968 report, page 26). Additional cytological analyses were made in
1969 and the data from this research are summarized in Table 17.
Two
groups of seedling progenies are listed in the Table:
those from the
controlled triploid x diploid cross, and those from the triploid x OP
collection.
Since no polyploid males were known to be present in the
hop yard in 1967, these seedlings can be safely assumed to have arisen
from triploid x diploid crosses.
The frequency of aneuploids with similar karyotypes in both seedling
populations appeared to be comparable and, therefore, the data were
combined and expressed on a percentage basis (Table 17).
The largest
group of seedlings were tetraploids (nearly 31%), followed by double
trisomics (14.5%), primary trisomics (13.2%), and diploids, in that order.
Clearly, the chances of recovering a particular aneuploid decreased as
chromosome numbers deviated from the diploid complement, but seemed to
be somewhat better again for those with a chromosome number approaching
2n=30.
The large percentage of tetraploids in the present study seems to
suggest a definite mechanism for the production of tetraploid offspring.
This might be a preferential production of non-reduced eggs, or
selective viability of triploid over aneuploid gametes produced by the
female parent.
The origin of genotypes with chromosome numbers in excess of 40 is
difficult to explain, particularly since all but two of these were aneupolyploids. A partially reduced egg fertilized by a ten-chromosome
pollen grain, followed by chromosome doubling, could explain such types.
Fertilization of a non-reduced egg from the triploid parent by 20chromosome pollen could explain the two pentaploids found in the present
study.
Both plants were weak and could not be maintained in the greenhouse.
The plant with 55 chromosomes, however, is a female with surprising vigor.
A large number of aneuploids, primarily primary and double trisomics,
was identified. These genotypes are being maintained in the greenhouse
for cytological studies in future years.
Tetraploid seedling nursery
Tetraploid seedlings obtained from the triploid x diploid crosses
(Table 17) were transplanted to the main yard in the spring of 1969
(Table 18).
All of them are offspring of genotype 56008, but with
different male parents.
These genotypes may be useful for future polyploidy breeding and also for genetic and physiological studies. Data on
sex expression were obtained in 1969. Over half of all genotypes were
true females and none were found that were true males.
Many genotypes
showed various degrees of male or female sex expression and two (6751-98
and 6752-59) were used to study the viability of tetraploid pollen.
In
addition, one monoecious tetraploid from the Fuggle
triploid block
Table 17.
Somatic Chromosome Numbers in the Seedling Progeny of a Triploid Hop.
No.
Chromosome number 2n=
Cross see dl. 20
anal.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
46
48
50
55
10
2
1
0
0
1
7
5
3
0
0
0
0
1
24
1
0
1
1
1
0
3
8
14
24
18
12
2
1
3
8
16
135
10
1
0
0
1
1
8
15
31
23
15
2
1
3
8
17
159
11
1
1
1
2
1
Tripl.
x
88
13
17
Dipl.
Tripl.
x
OP
429
Total
517
0
32
45
51
68
65
75
18
20
6
7
3
8.8 13.2 14.5 3.9 1.3 0.6 1.5 2.9 6.0 4.4 2.9 0.4 0.2 0.6
1.5 3.3 30.8 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2
-50-
Table 18.
Tetraploid Seedling Nursery. Planted:
April 18 & 19, 1969.
Selection
Location
No.
Sex
Source
Pedigree
s,
23:1
6742-02
Cr6742
56008 x 63019-OP
23:2-5
6743-05 to 10
Cr6743
56008 x 19009M
2
23:6-9
6745-07 to 21
Cr6745
56008 x 19058M
2
2
23:10-18
6747-01 to 26
Cr6747
56008 x 51114M
7
1
23:19-20
6749-01 to 05
Cr6749
56008 x 60019M
1
23:21-26:18
6751-12 to 371 Cr6751
26:19-30:21
6752-01 to 256 Cr6752
56008 x OP
cr Remarks
ir
1
2
lost
1
1
32 11 18 10 0
1 lost,
1 no sex
56008 x OP
Totals
56008 = XS x
Fu x EG -ECS)]
26
5
5 17 0
70 16 27 29 0
-51-
(selection No. 6769-12) was also used to study viability of tetraploid
pollen (Table 3). Good seed set was obtained, indicating that tetraploid
pollen is fully functional. Seedlings from these crosses will be
germinated in 1970 and sampled for cytological analysis.
Most are
expected to be triploids.
Two female parents in these crosses were
commercial varieties with high alpha acid content (Brewers Gold, Northern
Brewer), one was L8 (a selection from Yakima Cluster, another one was
genotype 65011 (a high alpha female with a strong Brewers Gold background), and another female was an experimental from our female breeding
block.
Seedlings from the Brewers Gold, Northern Brewer, 65011, and L8
crosses should be useful for selection of high alpha or Cluster-type
triploids. Seedlings from these crosses will be planted in greenhouse
flats for downy mildew screening in 1970 and channelled into the hop
breeding program the following year.
Genetic block
A genetic block was established two years ago as a "holding nursery"
of genotypes potentially useful for future genetic studies (Table 19).
Material in this group is at various stages of investigation.
Inbreeding
depression through brother-sister mating will be carried out with selection
No. 6720-14, a female, which was crossed to two males (6720-22 and 6720-23)
in 1969.
The original four clones of tetraploid Fuggle (T1, T2, T3, T4) are
now pooled as Accession No. 21003. They will be maintained separately
in the genetic block as well as the original diploid Fuggle (Bl = Accession
No. 19209) from which the tetraploids were derived by colchicine treatment.
Other genotypes in this nursery are either monoecious plants, or they
possess certain phenotypic traits such as peculiar cone types, leaf color,
stem color, etc.
Additional genotypes will be added to the genetic block
as they become available in future years.
-52-
Table 19.
Genotypes Grown in the Genetic Block.
Location
Acc. or
Sel. No.
22:10
6720-10
22:14
II
22:22
v,
22:23
Source
Pedigree
Cr6720
19209 x 19173M
el
Corvallis, 1969.
Remarks
einbreeding; no seed set
it
9
u
tl
cle
11
CP
It
It
;good seed set
28:3-6
6754-01 to 05
Cr6754
21003 x 19010M
28:7-10
21003
Smith
Tetrapl. Fu.T1
28:11-14
21003
28:15-18
21003
28:19-22
19209
28:23-25
21003
29:1
6533-01
Cr6533
63019 x OP
2n=21, lanc. leaf
29:5-8
6659-17
Cr6659
63020 x 63025M
triploid V
29:9-12
6668-01
Cr6668
56008 x OP
tetraploid V!
29:13
6527-01
Cr6527
60007 x 19173M
9, y. lvs, dw.?
29:14
6530-01
Cr6530
63003 x OP
9, lo, rh.
29:15
6667-25
Cr6667
19113 x OP
d', 2n=20, red stem
29:16
6622-01
Cr6622
64100 x 19043M
VP, la lvs,v. little seed
29:17
6630-01
Cr6630
52043 x OP
V
29:18
6220-01
Cr6220
19209 x 60026M
Iri,
29:19
6211-01
Cr6211
56002 x 19062M
ir sm. round cones
29:20
5859-01
Cr5859
19208 x OP
9, v. sm. red cones &strig.
29:21
21003
Smith
Tetrapl. Fu. Tl
29:22-25
21003
triploid
" T2
It
" T3
Diploid Fu.
'I
Tetrapl. Fu. T4
"
T4
v. long cones
-53-
Commercial Evaluation
Five experimental hop lines grown in Oregon, Washington or Idaho
were picked for samples to submit to the U. S. Brewers Association's
Hop Research Sub-Committee for hand evaluation. Also, samples of
"Cluster" varieties grown and handled under similar conditions were
submitted as controls (called standards in Tables 20, 21 and 22).
Samples were assigned code numbers and were sent to each of 12
Evaluators were also coded by letters.
evaluators listed below.
U. S. Brewers Association Hop Research Subcommittee
members who evaluated 1969 samples:
Code
Evaluator
B
Mr. Peter Stroh, President
The Stroh Brewery Company
909 E. Elizabeth Street
Detroit, Michigan 48226
L
Dr. Vincent Bavisotto
Technical Director
Theo. Hamm Brewing Co.
720 Payne Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55118
K
Dr. John B. Bockelman
Technical Director
The F. & M Schaefer Brewing Co.
430 Kent Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11211
Dr. Paul Glenister
J. E. Siebel Sons' Co., Inc.
4055 S. Peterson Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60646
H
J
Mr. Frederick J. Haas
John I. Haas, Inc.
815 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D. C.
20011
Mr. L. S. Gimbel, III
President
S. S. Steiner, Inc.
655 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Code
G
Evaluator
Mr. Rodney S. Hansen
Olympia Brewing Company
P. 0. Box 947
Olympia, Washington 98501
Mr. Willard Hays
Adolph Coors Company
Golden, Colorado 80401
Dr. Paul H. Hoskins
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
721 Pestalozzi Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63118
D
C
Mr. Len Saletan
Wallerstein Company
125 Lake Avenue
Mariners Harbor
Staten Island, N. Y.
10303
Mr. John B. Segal
The George Segal Co., Inc.
50 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
L. H. Bradee
(for G. C. Viota)
Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co.
235 West Galena Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201
Table 20.
Summary of USBA Evaluation, 1969 Samples
Potential
Hop type
r--4
4.'
TS
4-4
0
Sample Identification
Indicated yield
Bales/Acre
Alpha
Beta
Oil
Desirability
score (0-15)
ri
o
Ci.)
g
co
$.4
g
0
4-e
.1-1
z
X
4-,
0
u
4->
o
g
0
W-Std = Yakima Cluster
9-10
6.8
4.8
0.7
7.0
2
7
2
3
1
7
= 65043-14
9-10
5.2
4.1
0.7
7.3
2
6
3
1
4
5
9-10
7.1
5.7
-
9.3
7
3
1
4
1
9
6.5*
5.3
-
9.2
6
4
1
3
2
8
W-1
I-Std = Late Cluster
I-1
= Idaho Sel. 40
10-12
1
ul
-p.
0 -Std = Yakima Cluster
9-12
1
10.3
6.2
1.0
11.7
6
5
0
9
1
4
0-1
= Sel. 21001
6
5.4
5.2
0.8
9.6
2
9
0
3
6
3
0-2
= Sel. 62013
12-14
13.3
5.5
2.8
9.5
3
6
2
8
1
3
0-3
= Sel. 64007
10-12
5.1
4.3
0.9
8.5
3
5
3
3
8
2
*
An average of six other samples was 5.3 alpha and 5.4 beta.
Table 21.
USBA Hop Research Committee Evaluation, 1969 Samples
Sample W-Std - This sample represents a commercial 'Cluster' variety which was grown in Washington and
should be considered as a standard; 6.8% alpha, 4.8% beta, 0.7 oil.
Evaluator
Hop type
Desirability
Potential
Remarks
(0-15)
H
Continental
C
Other
K
Other
10
limited
downy mildew?
5
none
poor quality hop; small cones; typical.
9
unlimited
pleasant, sweet floral fragrance; better hop, but not
the best.
I
Extract &
Other
7
limited
over-dried? russet discoloration; wind damage? lup.
lemon-yellow, plentiful, aromatic, estery, sticky.
unlimited
good kettle hop; good aroma.
F
Other
14
J
Other
5
limited
heavy discoloration; little breakage; aroma unpleasant,
sharp, pungent; lup. fair color and adequate quantity.
G
none
0
none
not typical and cannot be considered standard - suspect
spider infestation.
A
Extract
6
limited
appearance poor; wind burnt and brittle.
L
Other
10
limited
weathered, dry pleasant aroma.
B
Extract
6.3
limited
badly picked, stained, greenish-brown; aromatic with
slight medicinal character.
5
limited
coarse cones, aroma fair with some sharpness.
Other
Table 21 cont.
Sample W-1 = Variety is high yielding and late maturing.
The sample was obtained from a planting
established in 1969.
5.2% alpha, 4.1% beta, 0.7 oil.
Desirability
Evaluator
Hop type
(0-15)
H
Continental
9
limited
C
Other
9
unlimited
nice hop except low alpha; not typical Yakima Cluster;
nice aroma, perhaps too sharp, but low alpha detracts.
K
Other
9
unlimited
bulk aroma not attractive, but rub-up was sweet-floral
I
Other
7
limited
some wind damage; color dark green with red and russet
discoloration; lupulin pale lemon yellow, not plentiful,
mod. sticky, mild aroma, v. sl. musty
F
Continental
10
limited
similar to Tettnang of Germany; delicate aroma
J
Continental
6
none
medium-size, unbroken, compact cones; aroma mild,
almost neutral, slightly unpleasant, lup. scarce and
immature, dull luster.
none
nice, but reddish coloration; aroma ok; low alpha.
G
Potential
Remarks
A
Other
6
none
very little character
L
Continental
7
limited
more pungent aroma than W-Std.
B
Extract
7.5
limited
poorly picked, discolored; mod. lup., mild aroma,strawlike, poor.
E
Other
5
limited
poor, bitter aroma, slightly cheesy.
Table 21 cont.
Sample I-Std - This sample represents a commercial 'Cluster' variety which was grown in Idaho and should
be considered as a standard; 7.1% alpha, 5.7% beta.
Desirability
Evaluator
Hop type
(0-15)
Potential
Remarks
H
Other
13
unlimited
very suitable hop for almost any purpose.
C
Other
9
unlimited
ordinary cluster; over-dried; good all-around hop.
K
Other
0
none
aroma sour, not pleasant, no good, poor standard,
earth-decay note.
I
Extract & Other
unlimited
cones broken, small to med. size; lup. lemon yellow,
plentiful, quite sticky, aromatic, pleasant, wellbalanced.
F
Other
11
11
unlimited
cones compact and small; lup. dark, fair quantity;
aroma neutral, lacking character and bouquet, fair
luster.
G
Extract &
Other (Kettle)
12
unlimited
not typical or standard of Idaho hop in appearance.
7
limited
powdery, lacks character
A
Extract
L
Other
12
limited
pleasant aroma
B
Extract &
Continental
10.7
unlimited
rather dry, med. size cone, yellowish-green; lup.
plentiful - deep yellow to orange, fairly aromatic
and pleasant.
limited
flavor off, strong aroma.
E
Other
5
I
cri
4 1
Table 21 cont.
Sample I-1 = Variety is high yielding and medium maturing.
6.5% alpha, 5.3% beta.
Hop would probably have good storageability;
Desirability
Evaluator
Hop type
(0-15)
Potential
Remarks
H
Other
8
limited
v. mild flavor, good yield.
C
Other
9
unlimited
ordinary cluster, over-dried.
K
Other
0
none
sourish, earth-decay, not good.
I
Extract &
Other
12
unlimited
cones partly broken, med. size, pale olive green,
glossy; lupulin lemon yellow, plentiful, sticky,
aromatic, estery; continental aroma.
F
Other
12
unlimited
acceptable kettle hop, aroma good.
J
Other
11
unlimited
med. size, bold cones; lup. plentiful, dark;
pleasant aroma, good bouquet.
G
Extract &
Other (Kettle)
13
unlimited
nice hop, alpha slightly low for extract purposes.
A
Extract
9
limited
a fair hop
L.
Continental
9
limited
pleasant aroma, sticky
B
Continental
9.7
unlimited
med. to small cone, light green, lup. fairly plentiful,
aromatic, slightly low in alpha.
E
Other
limited
aroma slightly off, some Fuggle characteristics.
8
Table 21 cont.
Sample O-Std - This sample represents a commercial 'Cluster' variety which was grown in Oregon and
should be considered as a standard; 10.3% alpha, 6.2% beta, 1.0 oil.
Desirability
Evaluator
Hop type
(0-15)
Potential
Remarks
H
Extract
11
limited
very nice strong but smooth flavor
C
Other
15
unlimited
beautiful hop, nice aroma, excellent flavor
K
Extract
limited
strong sulfury notes, bulk odor, rub-up not too
exciting
I
Extract (v. good)
13
unlimited
cones well compressed, unbroken, glossy, medium size,
color pale green, quite uniform
F
Extract & Other
14
unlimited
good kettle as well as extract hop
J
Extract
13
limited
med-sized, whole cones; lup. plentiful, good color
aroma powerful but pleasant; good luster
G
Extract & Other
(Raw Kettle)
15
unlimited
excellent hop
A
Extract
10
unlimited
a good hop
L
Extract
12
limited
pleasant aroma
B
Extract &
Continental
13
unlimited
med. to large cones, slightly stained, lup. fairly
plentiful, quite aromatic, pleasant
limited
strong, sharp aroma, slightly cheese
Other
8
5
Table 21 cont.
Sample 0-1 - Variety is very early maturing and consistently yields 6 to 7 bale/acre.
In 1969 this variety
was harvested on August 1, which was two weeks earlier than previous years. This hop would
require minimal storage conditions; 5.4% alpha, 5.2% beta, 0.8 oil.
Desirability
Evaluator
Hop type
H
Continental
10
unlimited
continental gloss, nice color; very useful hop for
good lager beers, but not suitable for extracting
C
Other
12
limited
very nice hop, too bad alpha is low
K
Other
12
unlimited
pleasant flowery aroma; continental aroma
I
Extract (limited)
limited
cones sl. broken, dry, some wind damage; lup. dark
yellow, plentiful, sticky; aroma pungent, spicy
(0-15)
9
Potential
Remarks
F
Continental
12
limited
acceptable kettle hop in combination with higher
alpha hops; flavor like European varieties
J
Continental
9
limited
cones small, but whole & discrete, formation compact;
lup. plentiful, color poor; aroma mild; dull luster
G
Continental
12
limited
uniform cones, good color; low alpha & continental
character limits hop to those who use continental type.
A
Extract
8
limited
a fair hop
L
Continental
6
limited
less pleasant aroma than 0-Std.
B
Extract ?
Continental
limited
small to med. cones, stained, dry; lup. normal amount,
more than analysis indicates; aroma mild, pleasant
E
Other
limited
aroma similar to Fu., but slightly less desirable
10.3
5
I
a\
c)
Table 21 cont.
Sample 0-2 - A vigorous late maturing variety with good yield and quality. Variety does not perform
satisfactorily when grown under seeded conditions. Hop would probably require cold storage
conditions; 13.3% alpha, 5.5% beta, 2.8 oil.
Evaluator
Hop type
Desirability
Potential
Remarks
H
Extract
13
limited
very nice for extract - milder flavor than Bullion
and Brewers Gold; good quality
C
Extract
12
unlimited
nice hop; alpha & yields excellent
K
Other
10
limited
sweet fragrance, almost too sweet; too good for just
extract to produce bitterness.
I
Extract & other
12
unlimited
cones well compressed, large, sl. broken, quite glossy,
pale green, some discoloration; lup. lemon yellow,
abundant; sticky; richly aromatic, pleasant.
F
Extract
5
limited
high alpha; aroma not desirable
J
Extract
14
limited
cone size med to large; aroma good; lup. plentiful, but
orange-yellow; good luster
G
Extract
10
limited
nice sample
typical
none
a trace of foreign non-hop character resembling strawiness or woodiness
A
5
ok for extract; peculiar estery aroma - not
L
Extract
14
unlimited
more intensly aromatic than 0-Std.
B
Extract E
Continental
9.7
limited
large cones; lup. plentiful; slight unpleasant aroma;
limited because possible off-flavor imparted to beer
none
aroma very poor, cheesy characteristic
Other
0
Table 21 cont.
Sample 0-3
This variety is late maturing and high yielding. The sample was obtained from a planting
established in the spring of 1969; 5.1% alpha, 4.3% beta, 0.9 oil.
Desirability
Evaluator
Hop type
(0-15)
Potential
Remarks
H
Other
7
none
immature; difficult to rate
Cq
Continental
5
limited
beautiful looking, no flavor
K
Continental
11
unlimited
very interesting, high pitched note, trace of
continental type
I
Extract (limited)
& Continental
12
unlimited
cones well compressed, mostly small, some med.,
blue-green, glossy; lup. pale lemon yellow, not
plentiful; sticky; fine mild aroma, pleasant
F
Continental
10
limited
could be used as kettle hops in combination with
regular clusters; rather delicate aroma
J
Continental
8
none
small cones, whole & compact; lup. scarce, immature;
aroma grassy, unpleasant; dull luster
G
Continental
13
limited
nice appearing-uniform cones of good color
A
Extract
11
unlimited
a good hop
L
Continental
9
limited
less pleasant aroma than 0 -Std
B
Extract E1
8
limited
small cones, not mature; aroma mild, pleasant; alpha
acid too low for gen. use; resembles European Hops -
0
none
green-weedy aroma, unsatisfactory quality
Continental
Saaz
E
Other
-63-
Table 22.
Summary of 1969 Brewers Inspection Samples and Other Advanced
Hop Lines Evaluated in 1967-1968.
Identification
Agronomic
Pickability
Acc. or
Sel. No.
Pedigree
Previous evaluations:
19110
3/8 Belgian
Location
Ore
II
It
56013
it
Wash
11
Ore
11
Wash
3/8 Fuggle
Ore
11
It
It
Wash
Ore
11
111
It
tt
1/
111
11
11
Ida
Ore
11
63018
Brewers Gold 3/4
11
It
63019
It
3/4 Brewers Gold
tI
II
North. Brew.
tl
II
Wash
11
Bram. Cross
It
It
1969 USBA Samples:
21001
Unknown
62013
it
It
'Utah WA, 4Su
11
It
If
/I
II
64007
E-2
Ida-40
Ore
11
14EG,3/16Fu,1/8LGp
Early C1.-Sel.
1/2 Cluster
It
Wash
Ore
Ore
Ida
Ida
Late Cluster
6443-14
L-1
11 Late Cluster
Late Cluster-Sel
Wash
Year Maturity
1965
1967
1968
1968
1969
1969
1965
1967
1967
1968
1968
1968
1969
1969
1968
1969
1968
1969
1967
1968
1967
1968
1968
1969
1967
1968
1969
1969
1969
1969
1968
1969
1969
1969
1969
9/14 L
-
L
9/17 L
9/15 L
9/5
-
L
L
L
-
L
-
8/31 L
9/8 ML
9/12 L
-
10
10
8-9
8-9
12-14
9-10
9-10
10
10
9
10-12
L
8/30 ML
9/5
9/5
Yield
B/A
L
L
10-12
12-14
10-12
Cone
type
Cone
Vine
G
G
G
G
G
P
G
G
G
1-2
2
1-2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
2
M
2
3
G
G
G
G
2
2
G
2
2
-
-
2
2
1
2
2
2
-- vines slipped down string -9/17 VL
10
3
M
4
--possible virus & weak sidearms,
8/29 M
6
G
3
2
ME
6-7
G
8/29 M
4
G
2
2
ME
5-6
G
8/21 E
8/1
VE
-
L
9/10 L
9/11 L
-
-
G
G
10
10-12
12-14
G
10-12
9-10
10-12
10-12
9-10
9-10
9-10
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
2
3
1-2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
L
9/15 L
8/15 E
9/5 ML
ML
-
6-7
5-6
L
L
L
2
-64--
Chemical
ml.
%a
%
Oil
7.0
5.5
6.2
4.5
5.4
3.9
6.2
7.4
5.2
6.0
6.1
6.2
7.2
8.2
1.0
1.0
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.3
2.4
2.2
0.8
1.2
1.9
1.7
1.4
8.8
5.9
7.8
5.8
6.1
4.3
8.1
6.1
5.4
5.4
6.2
5.4
6.4
7.5
2.5
MC
11.1
10.6
11.3
7.4
Aroma
pl. spice
pl. good
mild, estery
off, smokey
mild, acetate
off, mild
pl. cont.
mild, floral
4.8
5.2
4.0
5.5
5.5
5.1
4.3
6.2
7.0
5.3
5.7
4.1
4.8
10.3
5.4
6.5
7.1
5.2
6.8
Comments
Fair USBA eval.
Good USBA eval.
sv. cone DM
slip-down
Variable cone
V. Good USBA eval.
Storage test
Good USBA eval.
floral
sl. yellow fl.
Off- Station,l2 %seed
Storage test
Fair baby vigor
12.8
floral
mild, pl.
-- wilted, poor agronomically
5.6
5.2
0.9
10.8
bl. atypical
poor agronomically
13.5
3.7
1.8
7.5
pleasant
10.0
1.2
3.6
str., good
7.3
2.7
1.0
8.0
aromatic, good
6.6
2.5
0.8
mild
6.5
5.4
12.3
13.2
13.3
Disease
sl. crown DM
Off-Station, 2% seed
slip-down
Good USBA
Discarded
Good USBA
Discarded
Good USBA
Good USBA
Good USBA
Good USBA
yellow fleck
eval.
eval.
eval.
eval.
eval.
eval.
mild, pl.
estery, mild
sl. cone DM
sl. crown DM
Good USBA eval.
Good USBA eval.
11.7
10.9
pl. WA
str., WA
mod. crown DM
V. Good USBA eval.
0.9
1.0
0.6
13.2
8.9
estery
mild-floral-WA
mild-frag.
0.7
0.7
10.3
6.8
1.0
0.8
2.3
2.9
2.8
12.7
11.3
-
6.3
6.5
7.7
mild, cont.
off-WA
cone 4 crown DM
Good USBA eval.
USBA-Standard
Fair USBA eval.
Good USBA eval.
USBA-Standard
Fair USBA eval.
USBA-Standard
-65-
Evaluators were asked to score samples for desirability for their
brewing process on a scale of 0=none to 15=highly desirable. They
were asked to identify the hops as to type, that is, Continental type,
Extract type, or Other type. They were asked to judge whether the hops
had unlimited, limited or no commercial potential.
Table 20 shows a summary of the evaluation.
Because different
brewers have different preferences for hops, average "desirability"
scores have little meaning. For example, sample 0-2 was given a
desirability rating of 14 by Theo. Hamm Brewing Company and 0 by
Anheuser-Busch (Table 21). Sample 0-2 (accession no. 62013) produces
very high alpha acid hops suitable for extract. Such hops are desired
by brewers who use extract but usually not desired by brewers using
hop in the conventional manner.
Sample 0-2 (62013) was picked by most evaluators as a potential
extract hop; sample 0-3 (64007) was identified as a continental type
by most evaluators (Table 20).
Table 21 shows the individual evaluations of each hop sample, and
lists comments by evaluators.
For our records, a summary table of all U. S. Brewers Association
evaluations for 1967, 1968 and 1969 was prepared (Table 22).
Off-station production for brewing trials
Three advanced selections (56008, 56013, 58112) were grown commercially in blocks of two acres each to produce hops for brewing trials.
The pertinent data and observations on these selections are as follows:
Variety 56008. This selection, grown by Stauffer Brothers, Hubbard,
Oregon, was discarded in July, 1969 because of its extreme susceptibility
to downy mildew infection of flowers and cones. The variety is resistant
to rootstock infection and could be grown in Washington or Idaho without
problems from mildew; however, it does not produce well in those areas.
Selection 56008 has been dug out and removed from our program.
Variety 56013. This selection now appears to be the best of the
three "Off-Station" varieties, all things considered.
Selection 56013
is midseason in maturity (about September 1) and was grown by Mission
Bottom Farms, Salem, Oregon.
It has a strong Fuggle background in its
parentage.
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.
Selection 56013 requires refrigeration during storage.
Brewers using continental-type hops should be considered for test brews.
This variety performs exceptionally well grown seedless.
It has darker
green color in sample which does not 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.
It has downy
mildew and Verticillium wilt resistance.
-66-
Variety 56013 performed well in both 1968 and 1969.
In 1969 it
was exposed to both a severe downy mildew situation and a heavy spider
mite infestation. The cones were not damaged from mildew or mites to
the extent other varieties were. This ability to hold cone color for
a long period in spite of adverse conditions is characteristic of the
variety. The grower considered 56013 "a very good hop to grow; it is
easy to train and manage and it produces well and picks easily."
Harvest date
Acres harvested
Yield per acre
Seed content (%)
Leaf E stem (%)
Alpha acid (%)
Beta acid (%)
Oil (m1/100g)
1968
8 Sept.
1.6
1,760 lbs.
12
1969
30 Aug.
2
2,100 lbs
4
2
1
6
7.2
5.4
6.4
1.2
1.4
Twenty-two bales of the 1969 crop of 56013 are in cold storage at
the Washington State Hop Producers Warehouse, Yakima.
The following information sheet on 56013 was prepared and distributed
to interested growers, dealers, and brewers.
Information Sheet for USDA Experimental
Hop Variety 56013 (February 1, 1970)
The information provided here has been obtained from numerous
small plot tests in Oregon and Washington and from one two-acre
commercial production test for three years in Oregon.
This hop
will be released as a new variety if sufficient interest by
brewers is indicated.
Pedigree:
5/16 Fuggle; 1/8 Serebrianka; 9/16 unknown.
(Serebrianka is a Russian Variety)
Maturity:
Midseason
Yield:
2000 to 2500 pounds per acre, seedless; no advantage
by growing it seeded.
Growth Habit:
Produces abundant, erect, slender, easily trained
shoots.
The vines twine closely to the string and
do not tend to slip down or fall away.
56013 forms
an even growth up and over the wire without a dense
"head". Hops are well-distributed up and down the
vine in definite "clusters".
The cones "hang well",
that is they hold quality and color for 10 to 20 days
after reaching adequate maturity for harvest. 56013
withstands adverse weather conditions without discoloration better than other varieties.
-67-
Propagation:
Produces rhizome cuttings abundantly when properly
managed.
Care must be taken to adequately prune the
hill because it tends to spread out unless cut back
closely.
Disease Reaction:
Has resistance to downy mildew better than Bullion
but not as good as Fuggle. Has tolerance to strains
of Verticillium wilt found in Pacific Northwest hopproducing areas. No serious virus diseases have been
observed in 56013.
Picking:
CompactYpick easily, resulting in very little shatter.
Drying:
Dries easily when seedless; care should be taken not
to overdry.
When dried to 8 to 9% moisture, it bales
well and produces very attractive inspection sample.
Cone size:
Medium
Cone color:
Usually darker green than present commercial varieties.
This is often mistaken for immaturity, but is a
variety characteristic.
Cone condition:
Cones are very dense and pick easily, resulting in
mostly whole cones.
Excessive shattered or broken
cones would indicate poor handling.
Lupulin:
Plentiful, of yellow to orange color.
The deeper
yellow-orange color of the lupulin is natural and
should not be attributed to overdrying.
Analysis:
Alpha-acid - 6 to 7%; Beta-acid - 5 to 6%; Ratio of
a/0 - usually slightly more than one; Ml. oil per 100
grams - 1-2; Cohumulone content of a-acid - 15-25%;
Oil composition - similar to Fuggle, Styrian, Spalt,
or Tettnang in farnesene content, no unusual features.
Aroma:
Characteristic, pleasant.
Storage stability:
Similar to that of Bullion. Should be refrigerated
within a week after harvest.
26° F. appears to be
adequate for practical storage.
Acreage:
Two acres mature in 1970, 4-5 additional acres anticipated for baby crop in 1970.
Cooperating growers:
Don Weathers
Mission Bottom Farms
9775 Wheatland Road, North
Salem, Oregon 97303
Tele: 503-363-6154
one.
-68-
Wayne Hoag
1120 Budd Street
Prosser, Washington
Robert Coleman Sr.
Coleman Ranch
Route 1, Box 290
Gervais, Oregon 97026
Tele:
503-633-2461
99350
John B. Segal
The Geo. Segal Co., Inc.
50 East 42 Street
New York, N. Y. 10017
Tele: 212-687-8990
Stauffer Brothers
Route 1, Box 55
Hubbard, Oregon 97032
Tele:
503-982-9393
Cooperating brewers:
1968 Crop:
1969 Crop:
USDA contact:
Dr. C. E. Horner
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Tele:
503-754-1507
Carling,Olympia, Schlitz and Stroh
Anheuser-Busch, Coors, F. E M. Schaefer
and Rheingold
Variety 58112. This is a late-maturing hop grown by Coleman Ranch,
St. Paul, Oregon. Its analysis is similar to Cluster varieties with a
medium-high alpha acid content with relatively high cohumulone ratio.
It has excellent storage characteristics and is resistant to downy mildew
and tolerant to Verticillium wilt. Selection 58112 has several shortcomings that might seriously limit its success as a variety.
Spring
growth is delayed and sometimes uneven; some years male flowers are produced abundantly.
In 1969 a virus disease greatly damaged 58112 in our
OSU test plots; however, it was not damaged in the commercial trial.
Harvest date
Acres harvested
Yield per acre
Seeds (%)
Leaf & stem (%)
Alpha acid (%)
Beta acid (%)
Oil (m1/100g)
1968
14 Sept.
1.7
1969
1 Sept.
1,720 lbs.
2,200 lbs.
2
3
0
3
8.9
3.5
8.3
3.6
1.1
0.8
2
Twenty-one bales of the 1969 crop of 58112 are in cold storage at
Washington State Hop Producers Warehouse, Yakima.
Recommendations for disposition of "off-station" varieties
Selection 56008 has been discarded from our tests and has been
removed from off-station plots.
1.
2.
Selection 58112 will be discarded unless one or more brewers show
special interest.
We have better selections coming along.
-69-
Selection 56013 is recommended for release as a new variety
provided one or more brewers or extractors become interested in it.
If a brewer could substitute hops of 56013 for Fuggle or other European
types, it has several advantages: Its yield potential is about double
that of Fuggle; it produces exceptionally well as a seedless hop; it
has good disease resistance; its ability to produce is not affected by
adverse weather to the extent that Fuggle is.
3.
Plans for Selection 56013. The three Oregon growers of off-station
varieties are all interested in growing 56013 and promoting it as a new
variety. Their intention is to each grow a small acreage and provide
dealers, brewers, and extractors with test and promotional samples.
One Washington grower will begin commercial testing in 1970 and another
grower made a planting in March, 1970.
Other advanced selections
Selection 62013 is a new and promising high analysis hop which we
have been evaluating for three years. It is a vigorous, high-yielding,
late-maturing hop with a characteristic golden-green foliage which
distinguishes it from all other commercial varieties.
Some analytical
data are as follows:
Location
Corvallis
Prosser
1967
Alpha Beta
Alpha
Beta
Alpha
Beta
12.3
13.2
4.7
13.3
11.6
5.5
4.4
4.0
1968
1969
Selection 62013 appeared to us to be of special interest to extractors.
Therefore, we provided major extractors with samples and have received
very favorable response.
One extractor wishes us to proceed with commercialization of the hop as rapidly as possible. Another describes 62013 as
a remarkable hop with very good extract properties.
Selection 62013 was included in Brewer Inspection Samples submitted
in 1969 to the USBA Sub-Committee on Hop Research. We have additional
small quantities for persons especially interested in testing it.
Presently we have moved 62013 into a rapid propagation plan and
expect to have planting stock for commercial trials available by 1971.
In 1970 we will have 20 mature plants at Corvallis from which we expect
about 60 pounds of hops for further evaluation. Selection 62013 will
again be grown in Washington in 1970.
Agronomic evaluation of 62013 is far from complete.
We have inadequate
information on its resistance to downy mildew; however, it appears to have
good resistance in our test plots. We have no information on its reaction
to Verticillium wilt or virus diseases. Selection 62013 should be grown
seedless.
Its indicated yield potential is 2,000 - 2,600 pounds per acre.
-70-
Selection 19110, a European type with good yield potential, has been
evaluated for several years.
Selection 19110 received consistently favorable evaluation by the USBA Sub-Committee. The 1968 sample planned for
brewer inspection was damaged by a dryer fire at Prosser and the 1969 sample
showed an abnormally low alpha acid which we believe is not characteristic
of the variety.
Thus our evaluation of 19110 has been delayed, but will
continue.
It has less tolerance to Verticillium wilt than Fuggle, Bullion
or Clusters.
Table 22 shows a summary of agronomic and chemical evaluations of
advanced lines.
-71-
Hop Diseases
Hop downy mildew
Advanced selections must be thoroughly tested for resistance to downy
mildew before release as new varieties. This is an on- going program as
new selections are advanced in the breeding program.
Table 1, below,
shows mildew reaction of most of our advanced selections to both the crown
rot and foliage blight phases of downy mildew.
Table 1.
Summary of reaction of advanced hop lines to downy mildew
inoculation.
Genotype
Crown aj
Infection
(%)
Yakima Cluster (Susc.)
Fuggle (resistant)
56013
56008
58112
19110
21001
62013
Foliage J
Infection
92
19
28
41
4.0
0.8
1.8
0
0.7
3.3
20
0
Classification
(0-5)
3.9
-
Susc.
Res.
Res.
Susc.
Res.
Intermed.
Res.
20
1/
Percent infection based on a minimum of 20 plants.
12/
Foliage infection scored on a scale of 0 to 5 meaning severe
infection.
About 20 plants each of 17 other hop genotypes were tested in the
greenhouse for resistance to downy mildew (Table 2).
These were mostly
selections in the intermediate stages of advancement.
Several were
rejected from further consideration because of susceptibility to downy
mildew.
Some data was obtained on 26 triploid genotypes (Triploids,
Table 2), but this must be considered preliminary because of insufficient
numbers of plants.
Another 250 plants of Early Cluster (strain E-2) were tested for
mildew resistance. These were the survivors of previous material which
has been treated with the mutagenic agents, ultra violet radiation and
ethylene methane sulfonate, for the purpose of inducing a resistant
mutation in the mildew-susceptible Early Cluster type hops. Among the
250 plants, 33 either were resistant or escaped infection and will be
retested in 1970 (EMS and UV, Table 2). The normal "escape" percentage
for Early Clusters is about 10%; therefore, most of the survivors were
probably escapes, but if there is only one resistant plant, the UV and
EMS experiments will have been successful.
-72-
Table 2.
1969 Results of Greenhouse Assay of Hop Genotypes for Downy
Mildew Crown Infection
No.
Genotype
Tested
No.
Infected
Infection
Remarks
17 severe, 2 light infection
11 severe, 2 light infection
2 severe, 3 light infection
All 7 light infection
Yak. Cluster
Brewers Gold
Fuggle T4
Fuggle Bl
22
19
20
24
19
13
7
68
25
29
21001
62013
63020
20
20
21
0
4
20
10
48
6616-11
6619-12
6619-01
6619-08
6619-08
20
21
20
20
19
9
45
14
4
5
67
20
25
2
11
6618-19
6618-05
6618-20
21
21
15
0
0
9
2
43
13
Some vascular brown; not DM
Severe rot development
One severe; one in pith only
6620-10
6620-21
6620-06
20
19
20
8
40
Rot development as in B.G.
0
0
0
0
6616-02
6616-04
6616-23
6616-24
6659-03
EMS-0.75%
EMS-0.50%
UV-10
UV-5
UV-2
24
16
19
3
13
44
16
Triploids
6769-16
6765-12
6759-2
6763-10
6756-4
6771-13
6753-20
6753-23
6763-25
6769-47
21
17
56
38
63
70
23
3
9
3
3
5
7
3
0
17
34
31
59
62
21
1
1
3
2
4
6
4
4
4
2
3
3
0
2
2
2
86
0
No evidence of spreading infection
Light infection as in Fuggle B1
Infection type comparable to B.G.
7 severe, 2 light; comp. to B.G.
Severe, rapid rotting
Incidence low but rot severe
Rot progress similar to B.G.
Too small for good test
Too small for good test
Only 1 severe; test ok
0
100
63
Very bad
Noninf. propagules stored; retest
82
94
89
91
Kept 4 for retest
Kept 8 for retest
None kept
Numbers tested too small
for decision making
-73-
Table 2 cont.
Genotype
6753-21
6762-05
6769-05
6763-10
6769-05
6765-02
6770-16
6769-25
6769-17
6763-22
6769-40
6765-01
6756-28
6769-02
6769-08
6777-19
No.
No.
Tested
Infected
3
4
2
5
2
3
1
Infection
Numbers tested too small for
decision making
0
3
1
3
0
13
2
3
3
2
1
0
Remarks
1
7
6
9
1
3
2
4
5
0
4
3
2
Seedlings from crosses are given a preliminary screening in the greenhouse to eliminate most of those highly susceptible to downy mildew crown
infection.
In 1969, 1,217 seedlings were tested (Table 3). On the average,
80% of the seedlings were susceptible and were discarded. The seedling
test eliminates much material that would otherwise require space and time
in agronomic tests.
Further evaluation is required; however, because a
portion of the susceptible plants in a seedling population always "escape"
infection.
These are eliminated in our evaluation of advanced selection at
a later date.
Table 3.
Reaction of Seedlings from 1968 Crosses to Downy Mildew Inoculation
Cross
Purpose
No.
of cross
6811
6812
6814
6815
6816
6824
DM Res.
6817
6818
6819
6820
Eur. type
No. plants
tested
No. plants
infected
63
46
54
39
74
10
8
6
86
85
96
77
75
34
25
73
44
420
252
260
1,217
33
274
211
239
965
65
84
92
79
77
13
Totals
Percent
infection
75
-74-
Verticillium wilt
Our techniques for testing hops for resistance to Verticillium wilt
have been improved to the extent we feel we can place confidence in the
results.
In 1969 the advanced selections 19110, 21001, 63018 and
Hallertau-S were compared in our wilt nursery with Fuggle and Bullion
varieties.
In these tests a minimum of 10 plants each are planted in
plots separately infested with five different strains of the wilt fungus.
Testing for resistance to Verticillium wilt is complicated by the
fact that various strains of the wilt fungus are present in most potential
hop-growing soils of the Pacific Northwest. Table 4 shows a summary
reaction of the varieties and lines tested in 1969 to five strains of the
wilt fungus.
Table 4.
Summary of Verticillium Infection - 1969
Genotype
Average infection (%) J
Average IV
by all 5 Vert. strains
Propagules per
gram stem
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
21001
63018
36
15
41
57
55
18
3,048
1,007
16,460
22,781
19,840
1,960
Average symptom !/
severity (0-4)
0.68
0.13
0.73
0.71
0.49
0.31
Based on direct laboratory recovery of the wilt fungus from a
minimum of 50 assays per genotype.
121
c/
Based on quantitative recovery of spores of the wilt fungus within
the stem tissue; minimum of 8 assays per genotype.
Symptoms based on:
0=none, 1=light, 2=moderate, 3=severe, and 4=dead.
We have found that one of the most reliable indicators of susceptibility to Verticillium wilt is the degree of proliferation by the fungus
in the vascular system of the stems.
In 1969, all genotypes in the
Verticillium nursery were assayed by cutting sections from the main stem
6-10 inches above the ground, grinding the samples with water in a high
speed blendor (Servall Omni - mixer), then plating out the resultant
material in a series of dilutions on agar plates.
The number of Verticillium colonies that develop on the plates are counted.
Calculations
can then be made to determine the number of viable propagules of
Verticillium per gram of hop stem tissue. Table 5 shows data from the
1969 assays. Two things are clear:
Hop genotypes vary in their reaction
to different strains of the fungus and there is extreme variability froth
plant to plant in the interaction of any hop genotype - Verticillium strain.
In 1970 we will work on methods to reduce this variability.
Table 5.
Verticillium Propagule Counts in Hop Stems from 1969 Verticillium Nursery, September, 1969.
Propagules per gram (in thousands) per replication
Isolate
138
(Hop)
148
(Hop)
146
(Hop)
95
(Mint)
119
(Potato)
Variety
Fuggie
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
21001
63018
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
21001
63018
2
1
32.0
12.5
4
3
2.5
21.0
0
6
5
2.0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
45.0
0
.1
.9
3.0
0
3.5
500.0
187.5
6.5
109.0
18.0
2.5
.7
43.0
4.5
0
0
2.0
14.0
7.5
98.5
89.0
23.5
1.6
0
0
47.0
.1
0
3.0
0
3.0
0
-
-
-
0
0
0
.6
0
0
-
-
.9
2.0
3.0
25.5
2.0
9.0
0
-
63.5
121.0
14.0
3.5
2.6
0
0
0
0
.1
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
21001
63018
2.5
3.1
1.0
0
-
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
21001
63018
0
0
.4
-
0
-
-
1.5
1.0
0
0
0
1.4
0
0
0
1.0
3.5
5.0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
Mean
Total
10
9
4.5
0
1.1
3.3
2.0
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
21001
63018
8
7
61.9
12.5
49.0
1,009.5
253.6
82.7
12.4
3.1
5.4
101.0
28.1
9.2
3.6
2.0
6.9
47.6
22.5
3.6
.7
.5
.8
4.8
2.5
.4
1
6.6
1.3
.6
.1
0
22.8
42.6
553.6
2.5
6.1
55.4
0
1.0
.1
.8
0
.4
.2
0
0
.5
4.0
5.7
0
0
.1
5.9
7.5
0
0
0
400.0
.5
.5
84.5
0
0
.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.0
0
-
-
-
4.0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.4
2.9
0
-
.6
0
2.5
0
0
62.0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
7.6
0
.1
.1
0
.5
0
2.5
-
0
0
-
0
-
-
0
6.0
0
.5
-
0
0
0
0
0
5.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
-
0
.2
0
0
0
.5
6.0
81.0
0
0
-
3.0
500.0
-
0
-
3.0
1.5
0
0
.1
-
7.5
-
0
-
-
1.0
32.0
3.7
19.5
55.0
5.3
2.5
68.5
0
-
-
6.0
4.0
14.0
-
0
-
-
-
-
-
.9
0
0
-
0
0
0
-
.2
-
6.5
584.5
10.6
39.6
1.3
73.0
1.8
5.7
0
0
0
0
5.2
0
0
.4
<
.1
--A
l
U
1
-76-
Table 6.
Verticillium Wilt Symptoms in 1969 Vert. Nursery, Pathology
Farm, September 8, 1969
Symptom severity in replication a/
Isolate
Variety
119
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
63018
21001
95
146
148
138
21
Total
Mean
0
2
0
0
.40
.00
.50
.13
.00
.44
1
2
3
4
5
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
6
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
10
0
4
0
0
4
1
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
63018
21001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
63018
21001
1
2
1
1
0
0
2
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
5
1.00
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
7
.00
.70
3
0
0
1
0
12
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
63018
21001
2
0
0
0
Fuggle
Bullion
Hall.-S
19110
63018
21001
1
1
Based on:
1
2
1
0
1
1,
0
0
0
0
0
5
.00
.00
.33
.50
'.00
.55
0
5
1.00
0
2
.40
12
9
1.33
1.13
2
5
.25
.50
0
5
1.00
0
1
.25
.78
.60
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
7
0
6
4
4
1
1
0
0
.50
.44
7
1.20
.78
4
.50
0=none, 1=light, 2=moderate, 3=severe, and 4=dead.
-77-
Virus diseases
Collections of plants with virus-like symptoms were made 1964 to 1966,
and subsequently a replicated test was established in which virus-infected
and virus -free plants of the same genotypes were grown side-by-side. In
1969 observations were made on the symptoms on infected plants in these
plots and are recorded below:
Bullion-Yellow Fleck: Early symptoms of yellow fleck appear first in
lower leaves. Extreme stunting and failure of side arms to develop.
Upper leaves without distinct fleck but chlorotic, leathery, small
and dull.
Fleck symptoms gradually progress upward. Plants remain
extremely stunted, often not reaching the wire.
Fuggle-Yellow Fleck: Yellow flecks develop first on lower leaves and
gradually progress upward. Plants are not stunted.
Side arms are well
developed; better than on controls.
Split leaf symptoms also present on
a few leaves.
Fuggle-Rusty Mottle: Symptoms do not appear until about flowering time.
Lower leaves first develop reddish-brown interveinal islands which
gradually turn brown and die giving bottom portion of plant a rusty
appearance.
No stunting evident and side arm development is normal.
Clone with symptoms may not be true Fuggle.
Fuggle-Severe Mosaic: First symptoms appear in tips and young leaves
when plant is two to three feet high.
Leaves are severely distorted,
downcurled and dark green.
Lightly affected leaves show split leaf
blotch symptoms.
Growing tips frequently die. Side arm development
almost totally absent.
Fuggle-Yellows:
Apparently this is not a virus disease.
Hallertau-Split-Leaf: Yellow fleck develops on lower leaves. Plants
are extremely stunted. No side arm development.
Leaves are small,
dull and leathery but only slightly chlorotic. Split leaf symptoms in
some upper leaves.
Hallertau-Leaf Crinkle: Plant growth normal except leaf surface tends
to be more wrinkled than normal; probably not a virus.
Clone may be a
variant of Hallertau with normally crinkled leaves.
56008-Yellow Fleck: Bright yellow flecks appear first in lower leaves
and progress upward.
Side arms short.
Plant stunted. Most prominent
symptoms are bright yellow fleck and stunting. Dr. Skotland identified
this virus as a strain of prunus necrotic ringspot virus. This is the
only positively identified virus in the whole group of genotypes listed
above.
-78-
Table
7.
1969 Hop Virus Observations
Date:
August 14, 1969
-
Virus Nursery
Observed Symptoms
by Hill Number (E to W)
Virus Study
Group
Symptom Type
G-2071-3
Sev. mosaic
Hallertau
Split leaf
B
M
Fuggle
Sev. mosaic
+++
+++
Fuggle
Yellow fleck
+++
+++
Fuggle
Sev. mosaic
++
128 -I
Split leaf
++
56-08
Yellow fleck
+
Hallertau
Healthy
L. Cluster
Virus
Fuggle
Rusty mottle
Fuggle
Early yellow
Hallertau
Leaf curl
144 -I
Sev. mosaic
++
Bullion
Yellow fleck
Fuggle
Sev. mosaic
Rep 1
Control
Yellow fleck
Rep 2
Control
Yellow fleck
+++
+++
Rep 3
Control
Yellow fleck
+++
Rep 4
Control
Yellow fleck
+++
1
2
3
4
++
-
B
+++
M
++
+++
++
+++
M
++
+++
5
M
++
++
++
4.4.
+
+
B
B
-
-
B
+
++
+
Remarks
Yellow fleck
Split leaf symptomsno typical mosaic
+
Split leaf
B
M
Yellow fleck
-
B
B
Split leaf
++
++
++
++
Yellow fleck
B
+++
+++
B
B
+++
+++
+++
B
+++
-
+
-
++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
+++
-79-
Table 7 cont.
Virus Study
Group
U
W
a
;1-.
8
a
a
114
w
a
Observed Symptoms
by Hill Number (E to W)
Symptom Type
1
Rep 1
Control
Yellow fleck
Rep 2
Control
Yellow fleck
Rep 3
Control
Yellow fleck
Rep 4
Control
Yellow fleck
Rep 1
Control
Severe mosaic
Rep 2
Control
Severe mosaic
Rep 3
Control
Severe mosaic +++
Rep 4
Control
Severe mosaic
2
3
4
5
++
++
++
++
++
-
M
-
++
++
++
+
++
-
+
-
+
++
++
-
+
++
++
M
-
++
++
co
++
+++
++
++
co
8
t9
S
=
P.
w
-a
H
H
o
Rep 1
Control
Rusty mottle
of lower leaf
Rep 2
Control
it
Rep 3
Control
,I
=
ra.
Rep 4
Control
II
w
am
Rep 1
Control
.,.
>-.
+
+
++
+
-
-
B
++
-
+++
+++
-
-
+++
+++
+++
-
-
+
-
-
E.-
m
o
p4
w
a
-
co
C..D
Early leaf
chlorosis
-
-
-
-
-
-
c..D o
co a
o.i., a
L.L1
}'
Rep 2
Control
II
-
Remarks
-80-
Table 7 cont.
Observed Symptoms
by Hill Number (E to W)
Virus Study
Group
Symptom Type
Rep 1
Control
Split leaf
and curl
Rep 2
Control
Rep 1
Control
II
II
Leaf curl
and stunt
1
2
3
4
5
+++
+++
+++
+
++
-
-
-
-
-
++
B
+++
++
++
+
+
+ = Split leaf
E-
as
Rept 2
Control
x a
oo
03
0
in 0
aa
Rep 1
Control
Yellow fleck
and stunt
++
+++
Remarks
++
Rep 2
Control
B = baby replant
+ to +++ = increasing symptom severity
++
++
++
-81--
In August, 1969, detailed observations of symptom severity were
recorded (Table 6). A condition in Bullion variety called "Yellow Fleck"
is the most severe. Also severe are conditions called "Severe Mosaic"
in Fuggle variety and "Yellow Fleck" in genotype 56008.
Five-hill plots (four reps each) of infected and adjacent healthy
hills were harvested and yields of green hops recorded (Table 7).
Table 8.
Yields from virus-infected and adjacent healthy plants in
5-hill, replicated plots, August, 1969.
Variety and Virus-like
condition
Yield in replicationl/
Mean a/
yield
2
3
4
7.5
14.8
5.7
14.4
12.8
15.0
20.3
10.3
2.0
24.6
2.8
28.1
4.5
32.3
2.9
28.1
1
Fuggle - Severe Mosaic:
Infected
Normal
15.5
16.2
Bullion - Yellow Fleck:
Infected
Normal
2.2
27.3
56008 - Yellow Fleck:
Infected
Normal
estimated yield
it
25
15
Yield expressed as pounds of green hops per plot.
Clearly, all three virus-like conditions reduced yields. yellow fleck
disease in Bullion hops caused drastic (about 90%) reduction in yield.
Reduction of yield in 56008 by yellow fleck was about 40%. The yellow
fleck condition in 56008 was shown by Dr. C. B. Skotland, Prosser, Washington
to be caused by a strain of prunus necrotic ringspot virus.
-82-
Hop Physiology and Propagation
Propagation of advanced lines:
Forty-five hop selections were increased to provide planting stock
for future testing.
Based on the eight-year testing plan, hop root stock
is required in the third year for evaluating reaction to downy mildew,
Verticillium wilt, and viruses.
Approximately 50 to 300 roots are available from each of the 45 hop
lines.
Twenty-five of the lines were planted to 10-hill observation plots
in 1969. These lines were evaluated for quality and vigor this year and
will be tested for disease reaction in 1970.
The other 19 lines, which
were increased, are high quality selections used as a model for advancing
new hop lines. This program is in the third year of the 8-year testing
plan as follows:
Year
Evaluation
Stock
1966
Make cross
3000 seed
1967
Vigor, visual analysis,
remove males, reject
abnormal lines and
selected 106 lines
1 hill each of
1000 genotypes
1968
Yield, lab analysis,
commercial potential,
cultural, storage, and
selected 19 lines for
propagation.
1 hill each of
106 genotypes
1969
Yield, lab analysis
commercial potential
cultural, downy mildew,
virus
1 hill each of
106 genotypes plus
100 roots each of
the 19 lines
1970
10-hill observation
for yield, quality, Vert.
wilt and USBA hand eval.
10 hills each of
selected lines
plus 300 roots
1971
Yield, quality, virus
indexing
1000 roots
1972
Yield trial, off-sta.
5,000 roots
1973
Yield trial, off-sta.
test brew.
50,000 roots
-83-
Evaluation of new lines
Twenty-five selections were evaluated in a 10-hill seedless observation
block (Table 1).
Data was obtained on maturity, vigor, yield, cone type,
pickability, chemical analysis, aroma, disease reaction and hop type
(European extract). Fourteen lines were selected as worthy of additional
evaluation.
These 14 lines are listed in Table 6 in the section of this
report on Breeding and Evaluation.
Thirty-one selections grown in observation plots at Prosser, Washington
were evaluated (Table 2). Also, a single-hill nursery of 130 genotypes was
established at Prosser from material in the 1966 Corvallis nursery (Table 3).
Nineteen lines were selected for vigor and harvested for preliminary chemical
evaluation.
From these, the following 10 lines were selected for further
advancement at Prosser:
6502-06
6503-22
6503-25
6512-11
6517-24
6527-21
6530-12
6532-03
6532-04
6532-14
Table Sa lists in the Breeding and Evaluation section the lines from the
1968 nursery at Corvallis which will be planted at Prosser in 1970. A large
number of selections going to Prosser, especially from the 1968 nursery, are
from crosses with "Cluster" varieties. The crosses were made in 1966 and 1967
and reflect our emphasis on improving the "Cluster" type.
As part of breeding and evaluation, data on maturity, yield, cone size,
quality, and disease reaction was obtained on 126 female triploids. Table 4
shows the data which will be used to select genotypes to be grown at Prosser,
Washington. Selections to be grown at Corvallis are listed in Tables 11 and
12 under Breeding and Evaluation.
Evaluation of hops in seedling year.
Techniques for evaluating and propagating hop plants established in the
field from seed has been successful. The success is reflected in different
areas of research, but my enthusiasm (CEZ) rests with the fact of working
with larger populations in the field.
Large populations in the field are
reduced by removing males, hermaphrodites, dwarfs-abberrations, virus and
other disease-like types. The remaining population can then be evaluated
for selecting germ plasm to be incorporated into a breeding program, for
determining the inheritance of the factor(s) used in making the cross, and
for selecting genotypes with commercial potential.
This type of program was initiated in 1966 and repeated in 1969.
Results are reported under Hop Chemistry: Trial crosses for high analysis.
Correlation of plant morphology and yield
The following parents were used in a yield-quality study:
-84-
Genotype
Female Parents
Vigor
Hallertau
Fuggle
Lcw
MEd.
19105
High
ahs
Genotype
1.2
1.8
0.2
19170
19173
19058
Male Parents
Vigor
Low
Med.
High
a/f3
0.6
0.6
0.6
A combinaticn of nine possible crosses was obtained and the progeny
evaluated. Data were obtained on:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Maturity
Percentage of a and (3-acid in lupulin
Sidearm length
Nodes per sidearm
Flowers per node
Floral branching pattern/node
These data were collected on 106 different male and female genotypes
from the nine different crosses. The information has not been evaluated
at this time, but preliminary observations indicate that this type of
genetic study would provide useful information for studying the inheritance
of yield.
Relationship of floral initiation, growth factors and supplemental
lighting
Wye College in England has recently confirmed an earlier Japanese
report that hop is a short-day plant. Research workers believe that a
critical day length of 14 hours is necessary for floral initiation in hop.
It is also known that hop remains vegetative under long days and
goes dormant in 8-hour days. Hop plants, like many other flowering
plants, must attain a definite stage of growth prior to floral initiation;
therefore, this growth stage and critical day length occur during early
June with most hop varieties. Late flowering hop varieties may reach the
necessary growth stage near June 21 and require the shorter day lengths in
early July for floral initiation.
An application of gibberellin-A3 to hop, when vines are 5 to eight
feet in length, increases the number of hop cones (flowers) similar to
the effect of supplemental illumination at the same stage of growth. The
supplemental lighting provides the same effect as a long day, hence, when
hop plants reach the stage of growth necessary to develop the "flowering
stimulus", floral development is halted until the plant is subjected to
short days.
This flowering behavior of hop may be related to the effect of
training on yield, as noted by Mr. C. E. Nelson.
Studies of the physiological aspects of hop yield will be continued.
-85-
['able 1.
Evaluation of 25 hop selections grown in a 10-hill seedless block,
Corvallis, 1969.
zee 21.5e..
N.
fOc&'15ff.
?mon_
PSALM-
6519-01
6310
sv
(5E001 x 19179'0
6310-1'
631))
Ix
(
61132
"
x
Nome(
toll
111111
'68
'69
3 Se M
G
21
(ammo
PI
M
M
LCOSE
'68
9 9F8 8.
YEPO
1/2 HA. 1/4 SrsP. 1/8 IC, 1/13 x
1.2 ,/.. 0.6
"
)
'm
6213
Pir
1/2 Se..... 1/2 Itrxm MB
1/4 STEP. 3/16 Fu. 1/6 LG. 1/8 LL5/169'68
'69
6312
sv
(19105 x 111711)
52013
6322
sv
1
11.2 Jo 1.6
I
"
'EA
2410
1/2 Ht. 1/4 El. 1/4 x
(5E01 x nosn
6311
NM
6321
Sr
119115 x Mgt
81111
6026
(IP
(197118 x 12
1/4 El. 3/16 RI. 1/8 16, 7/16 x
94174
6307
6307
14126
6368
6476
Mrt
I '/112
6401
EQ12
It
-
M
4
"
(192119 x 1905911
117 LC. 1/4 El. 1/4 x
'68
R 0.6
1/1 LC. 1/4 OM. 1/8 axv. 1/8 x
(19318 x 11101)
1,5, /1R 0.7
,,ronn
907
d..
(11111 x 1905911
63011
64117
ekx.
(
,Ltoti
7 8c(
6412
Pk
6503
114-3i.
11001 x (5E111 x 1991113/4 Ht. 3/16 hl. 1/16 V
/2 Fu. 1/4 STSP, 1/9 LC, 1/8 x
119209 x 191791)
1.7 0.0.6
&OM x (5001 x 191043/4 HA, 3/16 Fu. 1/16 x
6517
BC
6657_4,,
6517
BC
"127 11
697
1111-SeL
(E007x1917311)
6527
LII-SEL
(
[" x(
"
x
9177 '1
6537-14
6532
(V
x
"
0.6
.71
"
"
L69219 x (P
i
1/4 STSP
1/8
sn
LC. 3/8 x
)
1
3/8 Pk, 1/8 EKG. 9/16 x
1,1 VR-6511-01
6538
BC
G
[59101 x (5E001 x 1918213 3/4 HA, 1/8 Bu. 3/32 BEL, 1/32 x
7.1
3.9
4.5
1.1
6
G
Lem
6.2
___
5.1
4.3
0.9
ESKER
21-11
9
1
7.2
6.7
1.0
es. serf
___
4.4
2.2
1.3
G
7,1
3.6
2.5
7.0
7.2
8.0
6.8
5,9
3.8
mew (m) 39)
13.1
9.5
Telex 46
12.1
7.9
7.9
4.3
G
orma
G
G
M
n.
6
'59
L
6
'EA
L
FA. DETIAMMIE
ow. offs
an
UX6E
G
ea
1.3
LOOSE
1
L.,
v.m2LL
P
M
P
6
LL
1
COE,KT
G
9
G
t
G
2.3
MX,
COVACT
r,
swr.
0.9
'59
'69
P
1-100ECT
7.0
3.1
3.1
0.9
9.9
G
G
st, LIMPOPO',
11
P
6-1001113
5.1
6.1
4.2
4.7
9.4
0.6
6.3
6.1
4.0
4.6
0.5
1.9
FOR
5.7
5,5
4.6
4.9
0.8
1.1
tax
6.9
7.5
3.5
4.1
1.3
1.2
9.8
4.5
4.4
1,5
13.0
5.8
6.2
2.7
3.7
1.2
1.8
10.2
'G9
9 Se 21
911
M
'EA
29 km E
'69
21
'69
29 Pm F
G
M
Co.?.
'EA
M
G
6
6-92243.
'68
'69
3 SEP M
M
P
G
Fr
M
G
G
'68
'69
3 Se 9
'68
'69
'68
20 AA
'EA
Se. 1L4. PIM
..--
aroma
1/4 EKG. 1/8 LG. 1/8 Bmv. 1/16 Ri. 3/W69
'69
1/16 Fu
(19213 x 190E01)
P
6.5
mm Cart.
m
'6)
NO,
P
11.8
STEW MU
SMILL
'FA
KAM
0.5
1.0
can LOOSE
'fa
"
x
3.2
1.2
P
"
6.1
3.2
P
2.0 4.2 0,6
4.5
ItamL
7.2
VG
R
'68
1/7 129. 1/4 El. 1/4 x
0.7
0.7
5.0
2.7
L,LE
-
18111.
3.2
G
L
'6)
le
3.9
4.2
(Ft:0+ra
mefc
1
0(
G
cm.
91
'68
'69
16
8.1
4.4
....
EMMET
-
G
21.E 22661
LLG
G. lMliORI
Last, SOFT
n
M
(1(01. vrp x (V)
cemma
1
'69
9-
G
G
ammo
M
11
'68
'69
WI PIC"IllaU.
corra
P
6
,68
12 E. 1/4 Bo, 3/16 BEL. 3/16 x
,(
L
15 SEP It
-
1,5
1939
1
'68
'59
x
Eaf.-1.121
m
x (19311 x 1906291 3/4 FIG. 1/8 619, 1/16 8tv. 1/16 x
"
P
G
L
9
"
P
G
-
(19:01 x 1918'1)
2.0
1.8
RC
L
15 Se L
'69
'61
2.0 ,
BC
- PI
15 Se It
1/2 LC, 1/2 x
I
1.5 2 -BC
'Eti
'69
0.2 ..(2 0.6
1/3V
11
G
'68
'69
1.2 ./1 0,6
[19131
22
9
'FA
64i12
x
-
'68
cow x 5E0191)
0.8 .1.--
'
GOMM leosis V
#001(MIC CHPACIEMISTICS
Irerrif Rum(
'1
G
P
G
M
P
P
G
79 Pus E
G
6
G
21
G
G
VG
M
G
M
P
m
G
P
P
2E
81
ri
G
P
---
POOR
(00, 'nye
tem
___
POOR OEEZI. OVER
MK
- --
TWICE/
Era.,
Cow. EVE
Loo PITCH
3,1
a1
A
IA
1
n
I: ,I
P
li V
t
p
sLt
11
;
el el
111
564
0
n mA n h h
t"
!i
2
.e34-1
AA
JAA12.2e2.245-a.-5
e. e! e
Z
m ,n S,
,.;
'!15
=
g
A
i
0
h
1
el el
-
go.
A
el
'11
7:E:
L:
el
il
4
iL
7
el el.
1
gt
3g
21
MA MA $$ MA AM AM MA
I
S
E
8,
AM
Table
2.
Evaluation of Hop Selections Grown in a Five-Hill Observation Block at Prosser, Washington, 1969
Agronomic
Cone
4.)
Acc. or
Sel. No.
21001
21002
61021
62013
63002
63004
63006
63009
63018
63019
63020
63021
6302-02
6307-23
6308-25
6314-22
6337-11
6337-13
6337-14
6338-16
6338-19
6339-13
6340-15
6344-30
6345-35
6401-17
6402-39
$.4
g
Pedigree
Cross
Hallertau type
Fuggle type
Hallertau type
6185
Su-S x Utah WA
6223
Fu x Colo WA
BG x[Bul x(Bel-S xBel)] 6210
BG x Utah WA
6205
BG x (Fu x Fu-S)
6204
BG x[BG x(EKG x Bav-S)] 6206
11
>
It
It
t
a)
Cf)
tn
r-I
3.7
0.4
G OB
P Disc.
-
-
P Disc.
5.1
1.4
-
7
4
1
1
1
5
7
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
5
4
5
4
4
2
2
4
BG x[Bulx(Bel-SxBel) ]
Backa x(EKG x Bav-S)
Bul? x (EKG x Bav-S)
BC
5
3
5
BC
5
4
6237
3
5
7
2
2
2
3
3
3
7
2
1
3
3
3
3
5
3
2
9
2
6
4
6
3
8
6
9
3
7
7
4
a
1.1
7-11
7-16 11.6
7-21
5.5
7-14
7-18 9.2
7-21
7-18
7-18 4.2
7-21
7-9
7-14
7-21
7-18 7.9
7-18 4.6
7-7
7-25
7-21
7-2
6-30
7-5
7-11
7-16 6.4
7-7
4.2
7-18
7-16
7.7
5
7
4
a
4.4
6
8
4
2
6220
6202
6205
6213
M Disc.
5
BC1
Fu x Colo WA
LC x Utah WA
BG x Utah WA
Backa x Utah WA
LC x (EG x X-S)
LC x (EKG x Bav-S)
M OB
-
3
7
BG x[BG x(EKG x Bav-S) ]
6236
-
-
7-5
5
3
sition
-
7-7
7
2
ml.
-
6
7
4
6
Dispo-..3/
%i3
5
7
Oil
%a
3
6204
BC
Bul? x Utah WA
Burr
Date
Quality 3,/
2
BG x(Fu x Fu-S)
LC x(Fu x Fu-S)
I/
1/
-
-
3.4
0.6
-
-
-
-
5.3
4.7
1.5
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.0
2.6
0.9
0.6
4.2
0.8
-
P Disc.
M
OB
- Disc.
P Disc.
Comments
similar Corvallis
bronze leaf,
poor yield
earlier than Corvallis
10-15 nodes, poor cone, late
Virus
15-20 nodes, WA, good lup
discarded at Corvallis
Virus - Corvallis
M
YF, var. cone, rich
M OB
YF
Rich
OB
M OB
P Disc.
P Disc.
poor yield
-
10 nodes, shatter, rich
P-M OB
8-15 nodes, var. size
poor yield
P Disc.
P Disc.
med-early
P Disc.
poor yield
early?
M Disc.
M-P Disc. early?
P Disc. poor lup, hermaph.
P Disc. poor yield
10-15 nodes, poor lup & aroma
M OB
M-P Disc. shatter, 10-15 nodes
med. maturity, v. rich
M OB
15 nodes, fair branching
M OB
M OB
Table
2.
cont.
Agronomic
Quality -2-/
Cone
Acc. or
Sel. No.
C)4
to
Pedigree
6407-02
6428-07
BG x (EG x X-S)
Bul? x (EKG x X-S)
6440-07
6443-14
Density x Colo 3-2
LC x OP
11
Cross
a.>
o
N
tr)
rla
()
c
cr)
Burr
Date
%a
5.3
3.4
1.0
5.2
5.2
6.3
4.1
0.6
0.7
a
6
7
R&a
8
8
7-21
7-7
8
8
4
7-18
6
6
7
7-9
Oil
%13
-
Data obtained by C. E. Nelson.
Ratings from 0 to 9.
Data provided by S. T. Likens.
Calculated to 8% moisture.
ml.
-
Disposition
P OB
M-P OB
Comments
g. cone & branching (65011)
lo lup,15-20 nodes, g. open
cone, g. branching
M-PDisc. 15 nodes, WA, angels
M-G OB
BIS-1967, 10-15 nodes,
good cone
Y Overall evaluations determine whether genotypes will be discarded or continued in the observation block.
Table
3.
Evaluation of Hop Selections Grown in a Single-Hill Nursery at Prosser, Washington, 1969.
Quality a/
Agronomic
Cone
$-+
Sel.
No.
6502-01
-03
-05
-06
6503-06
-11
-22
-25
-27
6512-01
-03
-04
-05
-06
-07
-11
-13
-24
-27
-28
6513-06
-07
-10
-12
-18
-19
-20
Pedigree
19209 x 19172M
Fu x [Cats x (Fu-Fu-S)]
19209 x 19173M
Fu x[Stries x(LC-S)]
64100 x 19060M
Bul x[EKG x(Bav-S)]
56001 x(56001 x 19062M)BC-1
BG x[BG x(EKG x Bav-S)]
Cross
LL-Sel
LH-Sel
a
C a
v-4
a.>
cn
En
7
7
6
1
5
8
2
2
2
7
5
7
2
N14
7
6
3
7
4
6
3
7
5
3
6
3
3
4
4
6
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
5
6
5
4
6
4
7
7
7
7
5
1
1
1
4
6
7
3
5
5
4
3
5
6
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
Burr
Date
7-7
7-11
7-9
7-14
7-9
7-18
7-18
7-16
7-9
7-18
7-11
7-18
7-21
7-18
7-18
7-16
7-19
7-18
7-11
7-16
7-28
7-25
7-11
7-7
7-16
7-18
7-14
%a
%a
-
-
-
-
5.7
6.1
Disposition
Oil
mis
-
1.2
Comments
M Nur
-
-
M-P
-
G OB-Nur
sm cone, fair branch.
8-10 nodes/cone
Nur
-
4.6
7.4
2.2
3.2
0.8
0.7
M-P
-
M.GOB-Nur
10 nodes/cone, p. yld.
good yield
M Nur
--
- Nur
M-P
P
8.2
3.1
1.1
M OB-Nur
late, g. lup
g. lup, wh. hops
p. yield, g. cone
p. set, 10-12 nodes
M Nur
M-P Nur
g. lup
P
var. cone
P
VP
VP
VP
-
sm. cone
virus, sm. cone
-
var. cone
Table
3.
cont.
Quality
Agronomic LI
Cone
Sel.
No.
6516-01
-02
-03
-06
-15
-17
-18
-19
-20
-24
-26
-27
-30
6517-01
-02
-05
-07
-11
-14
-15
-16
-17
-19
-21
-22
-24
-25
-27
-28
-29
g
Pedigree
56001 x(56001 x 19040M)
BG x[BG x (Fu x Fu-S)]
56001 x(56001 x19040M)
BG x [BC x (Fu x Fu-S)]
Cross
BC-1
BC-1
ri
a
o
H
P-1
m
v.)
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
3
3
6
3
3
dead
-
-
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
5
3
3
2
dead
-
-
2
2
2
3
3
5
7
3
4
1
1
1
5
3
1
3
3
5
1
1
1
Burr
Date
%a
%8
Oil
mis
7-16
7-7
7-18
7-11
7-21
7-16
7-7
7-11
7-7
7-25
7-11
7-15
7-14
7-16
7-16
7-25
Disposition
Comments
-
Virus
P
inter sex
P
p
M-P
VP
-
P
-
-
-
-
early, p. cone
co
c)
M-P
cone
VP
-
var.
P
-
YF - Mosaic
P
-
7-14
7-18
7-16
7-14
7-23
-
VP
VP
-
var. cone
P
-
7-14
7-14
7-14
7-18
7-11
7-9
7-7
var. cone
VP
4.6
3.5
0.6
-
-
VP
-
P
-
M-G OB Nur green, var. cone, 8-10
-
-
P
-
VP
VP
-
nodes
Table
3.
cont.
Quality
Agronomic
Cone
Sel.
No.
Pedigree
6517-31
-34
-35
-37
-39
-40
-42
-45
-46
-47
-50
-56
-59
6519-02
-04
-06
-08
-09
-10
6524-01
-03
6527-01
-02
-06
-09
-16
-17
-21
56001 x(56001 x 19040M)
BG x[BG x(Fu x Fu-S)]
56002 x(56002 x 58015M)
(Backa)x(Ba x Utah WA)
19115 x 19058M
19115 x (EG x X-S)
60007 x 19173M
Cross
BC-1
BC-1
a
HH-Sel
(SuS x EG x X-S) (Stries x LC- S)
g
2
a.>
tn
cn
1
1
1
5
2
1
4
3
5
1
1
1
5
4
2
2
5
2
4
4
2
1
1
1
4
2
3
5
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
7
2
2
2
3
5
2
2
3
5
3
6
4
5
7
1
1
1
8
8
4
8
4
5
3
4
6
4
4
4
7
5
5
Burr
Date
7-7
7-28
7-9
7-7
7-14
7-9
7-7
7-28
7-23
7-14
7-7
7-28
7-18
7-21
7-21
7-5
7-18
7-21
7-21
7-7
7-21
7-16
7-18
7-9
7-21
7-18
7-16
7-21
Oil
mls
%a
Disposition
M
-
M-P
-
P
-
Comments
poor set
poor set
P
P
M-G Nur
Nur
-
1
var. cone, good cluster
V. late
-
var. cone
-
v. late
-
poor set
VP
-
virus
M-P Nur
3.9
4.3
0.4
3.7
3.5
0.7 M-P Nur
g. cone, lo lup, med. matur.
vg cone, 10 lup, dense
3.1
1.4
0 .2
5.1
2.8
0.9
M-P Nur
P
,-.,
1
-
M-P
co
g. yield, lo lup, med. matur.
g. cone, brown core
Table
3
.
Cont.
Agronomic 1/
Cone
Quality3-/
4-JF-1
Sel.
No.
6530-06
-09
-12
6531-02
-04
-15
-16
-17
6532-03
-04
-06
-07
-10
-14
-15
-18
-19
-22
6533-03
-07
-18
-21
-22
6535-07
-08
-09
a)
cbb
Pedigree
63003 x OP
(BG x Utah WA)x OP
63006 x OP
(BG x Utah WA) x OP
63018 x OP
BG x(BG x EKG x Bav-S)x OP
63019 x OP
BG x[BG x(EKG x Bav -S)]x OP
63021 x OP
BG x(Fu x Fu-S) x OP
Cross
N
cd
r--1
a>.
(/)
4
4
4
8
2
1
5
6
4
4
6
3
4
5
6
4
5
2
3
3
4
8
4
4
8
8
2
6
5
5
6
4
7
7
7
6
4
5
2
4
6
6
6
5
4
4
2
2
2
5
1
2
2
2
4
4
7
3
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
7
2
7
2
2
2
-15
-16
1
1
1
3
2
2
-18
2
2
2
Burr
Date
7-18
7-21
7-7
7-18
7-25
7-11
7-21
7-21
7-14
7-23
7-7
7-25
7-18
7-11
7-21
7-18
7-18
7-23
7-7
7-23
7-23
7-11
7-21
7-25
7-21
7-21
7-5
7-25
7-7
%a
(3/4(3
Oil
mls
Disposition
4.3
4.3
0.5
M Nur
v. late
g. yield
v. late
3.1
6.2
2.8
2.1
0.5
0.4
P
lo lup, shatter
5.9
7.7
6.9
6.7
4.8
4.0
1.6
1.7
1.6
4.0
10.4
4.3
4.2
0.9
1.6
5.5
2.8
0.7
P
P
str. WA, shatter, lo yld.
-
M OB-Nur
G OB-Nur
M-P Nur
P
P
-
G OB-Nur
Nur
M-P -
P
Comments
-
M-P -
g. c one, 15-20 nodes, g. lup
var. white hop, med. matur.
shatter, 10 nodes, g. yld.
YF - fair lup
lo lup, 12 nodes
late, g. cone-set, g. lup, 12
nodes
white hop, fair lup
var. cone.
sour, over ripe?
YF - Ha type
poor lup
poor branching
-
Nur
P
-
v. late
Table
3.
Cont.
Agronomic
1
Quality 31
Cone
4-)
Sel.
No.
6536-02
-05
-06
-10
6537-02
6538-06
-07
-08
-09
-15
-17
-26
-28
-32
-33
-35
go
Pedigree
63010 x OP (same as 36)
56001 x(56001 x 19182M)
Hax[Ha x(Bu xBe131-S-
BC-1
Be131)]
Data obtained by C. E. Nelson.
31
m
Cross
63008 x OP
BG x (Fu x Fu-S)x OP
t.)
N
0.,
as
m
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
7
5
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
2
4
3
3
5
3
3
4
2
1
Burr
Date
7-14
7-14
7-14
7-18
7-28
7-7
7-25
7-7
7-14
7-14
7-16
7-18
7-23
7-18
7-18
7-18
%a
Oil
mis
sition
0.6
P
v. good branching
lo lup., over ripe
poor branching
M-P -
var. cone
Dispo --'
- Nur
4.5
2.8
Comments
P
-
-
M-P Nur
var. cone
g. lup
P
M-P Nur
g. lup
late
Cone si ze, shape and vigor rated 0 to 9.
Quality data obtained by S. T. Likens.
Calculated to 8% moisture.
Overall evaluation of poor, medium, or good.
Selections designated Nur will remain as a one-hill
planting in 1970, those indicated as OB -Nur will be further increased to a five-hill plot. All
others will be discarded.
Table
4.
Evaluation of Fuggle Triploid Hops for a Nursery Planting at Prosser, Washington, 1969.
Agronomic
Cross
Sel.
No.
6753-09
-18
-20
-21
-22
-23
-35
6755-04
6756-04
-25
6959-03
6759-01
-03
6760-02
-04
-05
-09
-11
-16
-20
-24
-28
-29
-41
-43
-44
-47
-52
-58
-61
-65
-68
-71
Yield
Fuggle Tx
Fu 1-1
it
Harv.
B/Ac.
Sep 2
Aug 26
9.0
11.2
10.2
9.9
8.5
ft
"
If
"
tt
It
tl
19062M
19040M
II
19058M
OP
It
Fu 1-1
t,
It
ft
II
II
II
It
"
"
Sep 2
"
4
Aug
Sep
Sep
Aug
Aug
"
29
2
4
26
29
28
28
28
"
21
"
"
Sep 3
"
3
"
3
Aug 22
tt
"
It
"
ly
It
ft
ft
ft
ft
It
II
11
It
29
26
19
26
"
21
21
28
Sep 3
"
3
Aug 28
"
22
"
28
"
15
Sep 3
Aug 22
"
22
9.8
13.0
9.0
9.7
10.4
9.2
11.3
9.4
9.8
10.3
10.6
10.2
10.1
8.9
7.9
12.2
8.9
10.3
14.4
8.3
8.7
11.3
9.8
11.9
11.7
10.1
9.8
12.0
Quality
No. cones/
wt mg
hill
%a
Diseases
cone
%DM
22.2
23.5
22.2
23.0
21.6
21.7
21.2
22.0
22.0
21.7
21.6
21.7
22.2
22.0
22.8
22.3
22.2
23.2
23.2
20.5
20.7
20.1
21.1
21.9
20.9
22.2
23.2
24.2
21.7
26.6
23.6
24.8
19.0
165
180
185
245
150
155
140
175
165
250
240
240
240
235
185
255
275
225
285
170
180
285
260
220
225
195
235
180
190
275
205
290
160
6400
7200
6400
4700
6600
7400
11000
6600
6900
4900
4500
5500
4600
4900
6500
4900
4300
5200
3700
5400
7900
3700
4600
7600
4300
5200
5600
6300
7300
4800
5700
3900
8800
Sp. L
%S
a/3
5.4
2.5
3.8
3.2
1.4
-
-
-
2.3
5.8
2,9
3.5
0.8
-
-
4.3
4.7
8.3
6.2
3.8
3.7
-
5.6
5.7
7.5
4.8
6.5
Vert.
0
-
3-5
-
0
-
2
-
2/4
2/3
3
-
2-5
-
1.4
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
2/4
2
-
-
0
-
2-5
-
0.7
0
1.2
SL1
SL1
SL1
2/4
0
-
1-5
0
-
2
2.3
-
3.7
4.8
4.0
4.2
3.2
-
1.5
1.2
1.9
1.1
2.0
-
SL1
SL1
-
2-5
-
-
1
-
0
-
2
1.6
0
0
-
SL1
-
0
0.6
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.8
SL1
5.8
5.9
-
-
6.9
6.7
3.4
3.7
1.0
3
-
-
-
2
-
0
-
0
-
1
-
0
-
2
-
1
-
-
2
-
-
2
-
3
-
-
2-5
-
0
0
-
0
SL1
SL2
0
0
2.0
0
1.8
SL1
Vert
Vert
Vert
Vert
lo a, Vert
Vert
hi cone no.,Vert
lo a
lo a
Vert
Vert
good strig
Vert, shatter
goodstrig,loa
-
1.8
-
-
1
3
3.1
-
1
Comments
Vert, poor strig
Wn Nur
-
-
6.7
0
-
1.5
3.8
3.7
3
2
-
5.7
5.4
4.7
-
-
5.7
3.3
3.7
8.9
7.8
7.1
2
0
0
-
-
2
SL1
SL1
SL1
8.4
5.8
4.8
Disposition
DM
-
7.9
Virus
Wn Nur
Vert
Vert
good strig, Vert
lo cone no.
lo yield
poor strig, Vert
Vert
Vert
good strig, lo a
Vert, lo yield
Vert, lo yield
Vert, poor cone
Vert
Vert
Vert
Sy. Vert
lo cone no.
no roots, immature
2'yines
i
co
Table
4.
cont.
Agronomic
Cross
Sel.
No.
6760-72
Yield
Fuggle Tx
Fu 1-1
-75
-87
-104
-106
-119
6761-04
-06
-11
-12
-16
-23
-28
-35
-41
-42
-47
-50
-61
-77
-100
-111
-112
,,
I,
Fu 2-4
B/Ac.
Aug 28
Sep 3
Aug 15
10.6
9.0
10.9
9.9
12.3
9.5
10.6
"
"
Sep
Aug
Aug
Aug
Sep
Aug
"
"
,,
28
Sep 3
Aug 28
Aug 28
"
-117
-120
11
-122
6763 02 Fu 1-1
-05
-09
-10
-16
-18
Harv.
"
"
22
14
3
28
15
28
3
28
28
28
22
29
Sep 3
"
4
Aug 29
Sep 4
Aug 29
"
"
14
29
Sep 4
Aug 19
It
"
"
"
26
26
26
26
7.1
5.6
11.9
14.1
9.6
10.2
10.0
11.9
9.6
10.0
10.9
9.9
9.8
12.7
8.7
10.2
10.3
8.3
9.8
12.2
7.6
14.3
13.1
10.4
8.9
Quality
Diseases
No. cones/
%a
wt mg
hill
%8
a/a
6.7
4.1
1.7
0
-
2
-
-
SL1
-
2
-
-
0
-
3
-
0
-
3-5
-
0
-
-
1
-
-
3
-
cone
%DM
22.7
20.6
21.9
23.1
22.3
23.1
25.7
21.2
16.1
25.5
22.6
22.3
24.6
23.7
22.6
24.8
22.1
23.8
22.8
24.1
22.2
22.4
22.8
24.3
20.9
24.0
22.6
18.8
22.8
21.0
21.5
21.8
195
220
185
170
245
155
220
145
110
265
210
165
140
160
185
200
220
145
190
135
205
175
185
230
255
180
225
185
260
225
160
190
6300
4900
6900
6800
5900
7300
5600
5600
5900
5200
7900
6800
8500
7300
7500
5600
5300
8800
6100
8500
7200
5820
6420
5200
3800
6300
6300
4900
6400
6800
7600
5800
Sp. L.
-
-
-
-
6.4
4.6
6.8
3.4
2.5
2.8
-
1.9
1.8
2.5
Virus
-
0
SL1
SL1
SL1
DM
Vert
Disposition
1
-
-
-
0
-
3
9.5
7.9
5.6
3.1
1.7
2.5
SL1
-
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
6.8
9.5
9.4
3.2
3.7
3.7
3.0
1.9
1.8
2.6
3.1
-
-
-
SL1
3.7
3:4
3.9
2.8
3.9
4.3
5.4
2.9
2.1
2.1
2.9
2.7
2.0
1.4
0
-
-
0
-
0
0
0
3-5
6.2
4.8
1.3
0
-
1
-
-
-
SL1
-
3
9.5
7.7
5.1
3.3
1.9
2.3
0
0
0
3/6
0
-
2
-
1.8
SL1
-
0
-
10.9
7.2
8.2
7.9
10.5
8.6
7.8
-
-
6.8
3.7
0
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
SL1
SL1
-
2
-
-
2-5
-
0
-
0
3
SL1
-
1
0
-
-
0
3
0
-
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
Vert
29+1 Chr., Vert
Vert
sv. Vert
shatter, poor cone
poorstrig,31 chr.
Vert
Vert, lo yield
Vert, lo yield
large cone, hi a
hi yield
Vert
to
sv. Vert.
tn
poor crown, no roots'
Vert
Vert, hi a
hi a, good cone
Vert, 30/31 chr.
hi a
small cone
1
0
SL1
SL1
Comments
-
SL1
0
Wn Nur
-
Wn Nur
-
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
-
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
hi a&yield,no roots
Vert
-
hi a
hi a
large cone
Vert
Vert
-
Vert
-
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
hi a & yield
hi yield
Vert
Vert, sv. shatter
Table
4.
cont.
Agronomic
Cross
Sel.
No.
6763-19
-20
-26
-26
6765-02
-04
-06
-10
-12
-18
-31
-33
-34
6769-02
Yield
Fuggle Tx
Fu 1-1
14.4
9.2
6.1
14.2
9.0
12.2
9.7
11.3
11.4
9.6
12.9
9.0
11.2
17.0
15.6
14.5
11.2
10.8
12.9
11.7
8.9
8.3
9.5
9.5
14.1
10.6
11.1
9.9
8.3
10.1
9.6
10.9
8.6
26
II
"
8
,,
"
29
"
19
I,
"
14
It
Sep
Aug
Sep
Aug
2
14
2
26
"
14
"
8
19010M
It
II
II
,,
Fu 1-1
Sep 2
Aug 26
"
26
Sep 2
Aug 26
-16
-17
-25
-28
-31
-35
-40
-45
-49
-21
-25
Aug 29
"
-11
-14
-18
B/Ac.
It
-03
-05
-08
-10
6770-13
Harv.
"
21
Sep
Aug
Sep
Aug
4
19
4
14
"
21
26
19
19
"
"
"
Sep 2
"
19010M
4
Aug 19
Sep 2
Aug 14
"
"
19
21
Quality
No.cones/
wt mg
hill
%a
Diseases
cone
%DM
19.9
21.4
23.4
21.5
20.6
21.4
19.4
19.4
21.5
22.4
22.9
22.4
22.3
20.0
22.3
26.3
21.4
20.7
21.3
24.3
20.9
20.3
21.6
22.2
22.7
22.3
23.4
22.4
21.6
21.5
21.5
19.9
22.5
170
215
245
185
225
210
235
185
320
185
235
205
165
200
165
180
195
220
255
215
205
215
220
220
250
125
240
225
185
275
200
250
245
9950
5000
1400
4500
4700
6800
4800
7100
3600
6100
6400
5100
6300
10000
11000
10000
6700
5800
5900
6300
5100
4500
5100
5000
6600
9900
5400
5200
5300
4300
5600
5100
4100
5.9
5.6
3.5
2.6
-
-
-
3.3
6.6
7.2
4.0
5.9
8.3
4.3
6.1
7.8
8.4
9.1
7.6
4.4
5.5
9.0
3.1
2.4
3.0
2.0
2.6
a/(3.
Sp.L.
Virus
1.8
2.1
SL1
SL1
-
0
0
-
2
-5
-
0
-
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL1
0/3
2.7
2.4
2.0
2.3
2.8
1.7
1.8
3.1
2.5
3.3
4.1
3.7
4.5
3.8
8.5
1.9
0
2.3
2.0
2.0
0.5
5.8
4.7
1.0
1.9
SL1
SL2
SL1
SL1
SL1
3.9
4.1
6.5
1.3
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.9
SL1
-
SL1
2.2
0
-
0
3.7
4.5
-
8.5
3.8
-
4.0
7.7
0
Disposition
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
1/9
0
3
-
SL1
0
0
0
2/4
0
0
3/8
0/5
0
0
0
0
0
-
3
0
2
0
1/3
1/3
2/3
0
-
1
0
6/7
3/3
hi yield
-
Vert-early,1 vine
sv. Vert, 1 vine
-
lo a
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
-
Wn Nur
Vert, lo a
large cone, shatter
Vert
good cone & a
lo a
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
Wn Nur
-
hi yield
hi yield
poor cone, 31 chr.
Wn Nur
poorcrown,noroot,cpen
cone
lo a
Wn Nur
0
-
3-5
-
good cone
Vert
Vert
Vert
Vert
poor strig, hi a
hi yield
31 chr., sm. cone
Vert
1
-
31 chr., cone morph.
2
-
30/31 chr., Vert
2
-
Vert
-
2
-
3
-
0
0
Comments
-
'2
SL2
6.7
0
0
0
0
Vert
0
1.1
-
5.1
7.5
10.9
7.1
8.6
DM
-
Wn Nur
2.8
1.8
2.3
2.3
0
-
0
-
v. poor strig
0
-
0
-
3.5
2.2
0
0
-
lo a
lg. strig, lo yield
in
oN
Table
4.
cont.
Agronomic
Cross
Sel.
No.
6771-01
Yield
Marv.
B/Ac.
%DM
Aug 22
Sep 3
Aug 22
Sep 3
11.7
18.4
10.2
10.0
14.6
16.2
9.5
10.3
9.2
13.9
12.3
21.6
21.7
21.2
23.7
22.5
20.0
20.9
23.2
20.5
23.2
22.1
260
325
195
330
345
240
295
345
225
275
220
Aug 22
11.4
270
"
"
"
8.4
8.7
9.2
21.7
22.8
20.9
170
21
21
21
21
22
Sep
Aug
Sep
Sep
Aug
3
22
4
4
14
el
"
,,
"
21
14
9.3
12.2
14.6
8.9
7.5
8.7
9.7
12.0
8.4
8.5
8.8
Fuggle Tx
19010M
"
-04
-05
-17
-19
-21
-23
6772-17
Sep 2
Aug 26
Aug 21
-02
-04
-14
-19
6774-02
-06
-14
6775-01
"
21
21
"
28
"
19040M
-24
-25
-32
6773-01
28
19058M
"
II
It
II
19058M
II
11
19062M
-03
-17
-18
-19
-33
1,
6777-16
OP
-18
-33
II
II
II
,1
"
"
"
"
"
28
14
14
14
9.7
8.9
Quality
No. cones
hill
wt mg
Diseases
cone
18.4
18.5
21.3
21.3
22.0
21.8
20.7
18.3
20.2
20.7
22.0
18.7
19.3
21.2
385
235
140
220
250
245
210
265
210
220
145
265
185
190
295
Sp. L.
%a
%B
a/B
Virus
5200
4800
6100
3500
4700
7900
3800
3500
4800
5900
6600
6.9
5.2
5.6
6.0
9.0
3.1
1.8
1.8
2.2
2.8
3.1
1.8
1.9
2.9
1.2
2.4
4.1
SL1
7800
3600
2600
4600
8100
4700
4300
5800
8100
3900
4300
4600
7800
5300
5300
5200
3500
3.4
4.7
2.9
4.9
DM
0
-
SL1
SL1
-
Vert
0
0
0
0
Disposition
-
-
Wn Nur
Comments
poor strig
poor strig, cone#
poor strig
poor strig
large strig
SL1
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
0
-
2
-
5.3
2.4
2.2
SL1
-
2
-
8.5
7.8
6.2
7.6
3.5
3.7
4.2
4.3
3.8
2.1
2.3
0
-
0
1.9
1.4
2.0
1.6
SL1
-
0
-
0
-
0
-
lo cone no.
lo cone no.
0
0
-
0
-
poor strig
-
-
-
0
-
0
2
1.9
SL1
SL1
-
1
-
0
-
0
-
0
0
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
SL1
SL2
SL1
-
2
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
-
1
-
-
0
-
lo a
Vert
Vert
lo a
Vert, poor strig
lo cone no.
lo yield
lo yield
Vert
good strig, Sp L.
lo a, poor strig.
lo a, poor strig.
lo cone no.
8.5
5.9
3.7
4.9
7.7
4.1
6.5
1.52
1.20
7.0
5.2
5.9
4.0
4.1
5.5
4.1
3.5
2.4
3.4
2.4
-
-
-
3.8
4.2
5.3
1.8
1.4
2.3
2.1
3.0
2.3
0.7
1.6
2.0
2.2
1.7
1.7
0
0
-
SL1
-
0
-
poor s trig, shatter
-
Wn Nur
-
1
-
lo cone no.
lo a, herm.
lo a, herm.
Vert
Vert
poor crown, no
roo ts
-98-
Hop Chemistry
Storage stability
Evaluation of commercial varieties and developing lines:
The
6-month, room-temperature storage stability trials described in the last
USDA report were completed and the results are given in Table 1. Although
several more lines were tested, they have since been discontinued in the
program and are not reported.
Table 1.
Very Good
L-1(2)
C19110
Relative Storage Stability of Several Hop Varieties by Groups
Good
E-2 (3)
Talisman (1)
C58112 (2)
C21001
Fair
Alliance
Fuggle (2)
Idaho 40
Talisman (1)
C63020
166030 (2)
L-1 (1)
Poor
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)
6620-06
1.
Storage Conditions: 6 months, dark, 72°F. in 1/2 lb. bales
(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
the storage period:
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very bad
fraction of a-acid remaining after
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 and I are experimental lines.
7.
All varieties except Idaho 40 were grown at Corvallis.
-99-
Development of techniques for screening populations including
male lines: Storage evaluations such as summarized above are satisfactory
for the evaluation of commercial varieties and developing lines, but are
wholly inadequate for screening large populations of female hops, and
obviously unsuitable for evaluating male lines. In order to prepare for
future genetic studies involving the heritability of storage stability, it
will be necessary to develop a relatively simple test which will apply
equally to males or females.
Storage stability must be associated with some property of lupulin,
and since lupulin is common to both male and female plants, we decided to
work with that botanical unit.
It was necessary to establish at the outset that isolated lupulin
deteriorates similarly to whole cones. Lupulin was dry-sieved through
60-mesh and collected on 100 -mesh, from Brewers Gold and Yakima Cluster.
Cubes from baled samples of intact cones and 50-mg. samples of isolated
lupulin from each of the varieties were exposed to 60°C and analyzed
periodically. The ratio A2751325 was used as the index of stability ...
a low ratio indicating good storage. Results of this test (Fig. 1) showed
that lupulin from Brewers Gold deteriorated more rapidly than that from
Yakima Cluster and indicated that lupulin could probably be used for a
"quick-test" of large numbers of both males and females.
Whole
0.8-
----Lupulin
Brewers Gold
o Yakima Cluster
0.6-
0.2_
0.0
I
0
I
48
24
hours at 60° C
FIGURE 1.
Comparison of A275/325 between whole cones and
lupulin after 600 C storage.
72
-100-
On the chance that a simpler test could be found, several more
experiments were conducted to answer the more fundamental question of what
is responsible for the difference in the stability of a and B.-acids in
different varieties. These disclosed that the pellicle or "shell" of the
gland is not involved; the content or type of oil associated with the
variety is not responsible; that the characteristic stability of a variety
is lost upon solution into a solvent and cannot be reliably regained after
removal of that solvent.
In short, it appears that the fundamental and
biologically controlled structural status of the a and P.-acid molecules may
be responsible for the array of storage-stabilities of different varieties.
It is interesting to note that, while Bullion and Brewers Gold
appear to have poor storage properties, some genotypes are far worse.
Three from the 1968 crop were so bad that they completely deteriorated
before an analysis could be made when handled in the usual routine. They
were given special handling this year and will be used in additional storage studies, as well as added to our germ plasm block.
Survey of existing germ plasm: A simple technique was developed
for isolation of 20 to 100 mg of clean lupulin from either male or female
flowers based on water flotation and screening. Using this technique, lupulin was collected from 900 to 1000 different genotypes, including both male
and female (Tables in appendix).
Analyses revealed that relatively few had
the necessary analytical values (at least 40% a-acid or a/8 =1.5 or more) to
make them suitable for commercial acceptance and, therefore, suitable for
breeding material. These, however, will be further tested for storage stability and the good and poor will be used for genetic crosses at some future date.
Plans: The 6-months sample-bale test of storage stability will be
applied to 7 commercial lines, 10 advanced lines, 22 high analysis selections
( 10% a-acid), and approximately 36 continental types. The results, which
will be available in June, will be used as a guide in advancing lines from
the 1970 crop.
Lupulin will be tested for storage-stability from about 200 male
and female hybrid lines. A range of storage from good to poor can be expected.
The best can be considered for inclusion into the breeding block and a small
number of the poorest will be retained for genetic studies.
In addition, many
will also be tested by the r.t. bale storage method to verify validity of the
lupulin method.
Trial crosses for high analysis
Seven test crosses involving high-analysis males and females were
made in 1966.
Seeds from these were planted in the field and analyses on
cones from selected females* were made in 1967. The selected plants were
transplanted and treated with Simazine for weed control.
Chemical damage
occurred in the spring of 1968 but the planting produced a relatively heavy
crop that year and chemical data were again collected. The plants were
left in place and measurement of yield, vigor, chemical analyses, etc. were
made again in 1969.
*
Selection was based on visual examination of the cones for lupulin.
other property of the plants was taken into consideration.
No
-101-
Table 2.
Parents involved in the crosses.
Cross No.
Female
6616-00
6617-00
6618-00
6619-00
6620-00
6659-00
Table 3.
B.G.
B.G.
B.G.
B.G.
B.G.
63020
x
x
x
x
x
x
Male
Abridged Pedigree of Progeny
6339-09
63013M
63023M
63025M
60013M
63025M
1/2
3/4
7/8
3/4
1/2
5/8
BG,
BG,
BG,
BG,
BG,
BG,
1/4 Fu, 1/4 WA (Colo 2-1)
1/4 WA (Utah 526-4)
1/16 EKG, 1/8 Bay-S
3/16 Fu
1/2 WA (Ariz. 1-2)
3/16 Fu, 1/16 EKG, 1/16 Bav-S
Analysis of parents (1965 and 1966 data)
Identity
Sex
%a (lup.)
%B (lup.)
a/B
%a (cone)
%B (cone)
Brewers Gold
63020
6339-09
63013M
63023M
63025M
Fem.
Fem.
46
46
23
2.0
2.4
9.1
11.4
5.6
4.8
53
15
51
47
28
30
Table 4.
3.7
1.8
1.6
Summary of selection for high analysis lines.
No. seeds
planted
Cross No.
6616-00
6617-00
6618-00
6619-00
6620-00
6659-00
La
Male
Male
Male
Male
19
714
102
765
408
587
510
3,086
No. Nurs.
plants
254
53
234
253
132
142
1,068
No. select.
for "hi lup"
No. Contain.
10% a (69)
No. to /a
advance
25
3
3
2
2
1
23
16
25
15
7
6
2
1
16
107
1
1
30
17
5
After discarding lines with disease or unfavorable agronomic
characteristics.
Results:
The major objective of the crosses was to determine whether
the a-acid content of female progeny could be improved by using males selected
on the basis of the a-acid content of their lupulin.
The results indicate:
1.
2.
The a-acid content of the female parent can be improved,
The overall rate of improvement is about 1% of the seeds planted,
-102-
Some males appear to be better than others,
Physical evaluation for lupulin content of cones in the
seedling year appears to be a satisfactory criterion for reduction of the
nursery population.
3.
4.
Several incidental observation's are worth noting:
1.
19 genotypes looked good in 1968 and were subjected to a
20-plant test for susceptibility to crown infection by downy mildew.
Only
2 were worse than the female parent and a few were superior.
2.
A few (of the 19 examined in more detail in 1968) were
subjected to room temperature storage tests. Most were worse than the
female parent (BG). However, one appears to be much better.
3.
Second year analyses (1968) were generally much lower
than either 1967 or 1969.
This fact may have been the result of delayed
initial growth due to chemical damage from simazine (soil sterilizer).
4.
Nearly all of the 107 plants produced cones of higher
density than Brewers Gold.
Summary: It is probably useful to select male parents of highanalysis crosses on the basis of chemical analyses in addition to agronomic
features.
We can expect up to 1% of the seeds planted to result in a suitable
selection for advancement from the Nursery. Since three additional requirements must be met (mildew resistance, Verticillium wilt resistance, and
storage stability), there should be 10 or 20 plants to advance from the
nursery.
If a cross is to be expected to produce one to five commercially
potential high analysis genotypes, 1000 - 2000 seeds should be planted.
While physical evaluation of the seedlings appears to be suitable
for selecting potentially high analysis material, explicit evaluation for
yield, quality etc. should await the second year of production after the
seedling year.
If the parents have relatively good mildew resistance we can
probably expect a fair number of the progeny to retain this feature.
It may be much more difficult to retain good storage stability.
Experimental investigation of the inheritance of storage stability should be undertaken to clarify the requirements of parents.
Plans: Sixteen selections will be advanced from the trial into a
high-quality reserve block. One will be entered into an observation block
in Oregon and 8 into a similar block in Washington.
Five will go into a
nursery in Washington. Two will go into the germ plasm bank. The
remainder will be discarded and the trial will be terminated.
-103-
Development of a pool of high analysis lines
Plans for developing a large pool of high a-acid genotypes were
begun in 1961 at which time we had only few lines over 6% (Table 5). During
the interim until 1965, crosses were made by Dr. Brooks and additional information regarding potential parents was accumulated.
The two years 1965 and
1966 saw a twofold increase in number of lines in our program containing more
than 6% a-acid.
In 1967 we increased the a-acid content required for labeling
as "high-analysis" from 6% to 8% and measured a few lines with 13%,while still
maintaining a pool of over 25 lines.
In 1968 and 1969 the pool increased
substantially and the required a-acid content was raised to 10% (Table 6).
Two genotypes were noted which contained approximately 30% lupulin which is
necessary for development of a variety containing 18% a-acid (a long term goal).
One of these presently contains over 16% a-acid but is unsuitable for commercial development.
Both are to be used in future breeding.
Plans:
We probably have an adequate pool of high analysis lines.
The weakness of these, from a quality standpoint, will very likely appear as
a deficiency in storage stability. Consequently, we feel attainment of higher
concentrations of a-acid should be de-emphasized and our major effort should
be development of similar lines with superior stability.
Table 5.
Year
1961
1964
1965
1966
1967
1969
Progress in incorporating high analysis lines into the breeding
program.
No. genotypes available
Exptl.
Named
varieties
varieties
Min. value
to qualify
Max. a-acid
content found
6%
10%
2
6
10
12
11
13
16
2
6
6
8
10
2
2
5
7
12
12
29
28
26
31
-104-
Table 6.
Updated list of high analysis lines at OSU potentially suitable for
extract hops (December, 1969).
Hop Analysis (.08% mc)
Identification
19001
65101
65102
65103
66030
62013
(B.G.)
(Ta.)
(Y.C.)
(E2)
(Bu.)
(Ore.)
(Wn.)
63020
65009*
65011*
6532-14*
6616-03
6616-19
6616-23
6617-02*
6618-01*
6618-03*
6618-08*
6618-10*
6618-11*
6618-12*
6618-22*
6619-01*
6619-05*
6619-13*
6619-15*
6620-04*
6659-11*
6761-12
6761-61*
6769-05*
ml. oil
%a
10.9
9.8
11.3
10.3
12.3
13.3
11.6
9.8
12.8
12.2
13.0
10.4
10.4
10.4
11.4
11.9
11.2
11.6
11.5
11.3
11.0
10.9
11.7
11.7
11.1
11.2
13.3
13.6
10.4
11.9
10.8
%13
a +g
6.1
5.3
6.2
6.2
6.6
5.5
4.4
17.0
15.1
17.5
16.5
18.9
18.8
16.0
14.5
22.1
20.0
17.7
15.9
18.0
16.4
16.2
17.4
17.7
18.5
16.7
17.5
16.8
18.9
16.2
16.9
17.4
15.7
20.1
18.3
15.0
16.0
17.3
4.7
9.3
7.8
4.7
5.5
7.6
6.0
4.8
5.5
6.5
6.9
5.2
6.2
5.8
8.0
4.5
5.2
6.3
4.5
5.8
4.7
4.6
4.1
6.5
100 g.
2.5
1.5
1.2
1.0
2.2
2.8
1.1
2.0
3.9
2.3
2.6
1.8
1.9
2.4
4.4
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.4
1.8
1.7
1.9
2.5
2.6
3.6
2.7
1.7
%Tot.
Ext.
21.8
18.9
21.3
20.2
23.3
24.4
19.9
19.4
27.8
24.0
21.5
19.1
%a in
Ext.
50
52
53
51
53
54
58
50
50
51
60
54
48
52
53
49
51
51
55
52
53
48
58
56
52
54
55
61
Yield
1/
2/
/
B/A
#a/A- Disposition
10
15
10
10
12
14
220
294
225
206
292
372
14
275
------260
270
230
226
215
264
234
234
320
176
231
272
310
225
284
260
baby
baby
baby
12
21.6
19.7
21.4
24.1
22.1
22.6
20.8
21.8
20.9
22.5
20.1
20.8
21.3
20.6
24.3
22.3
18(est.)58
13
11
10
19.9
21.0
11
60
51
Other high-analysis lines and their dispositions
64100 (Bu.)
12.6 6.4 19.0
2.5
24.3
52
Bullion 6-A* 13.7 4.7 18.4
2.9
24.1
57
9
12
10
10
14
8
11
12
13
10
13
10
14
17
381
250
262
370
10
252
12
HQRB
HQRB
HQRB
HQRB
HQRB
HQRB
WOB
HQRB
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB
HQRB
HQRB
HQRB,
HQRB
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB,
HQRB
HQRB
HQRB
OOB
OOB, BB
OOB
WOB
WOB
WN
WN
WN
WOB
OOB, WOB
WOB
WOB
WOB
WN
OOB, WOB
13.2
6.0
19.2
2.3
24.6
54
6618-05*
11.5
5.6 17.1
2.6
21.1
55
8
183
WN (sev. DM)
6617-01*
12.9 7.8 20.7
1.9
25.8
50
5
124
GP-a
6618-06*
11.2 5.0 16.2
1.1
20.3
55
8
185
Discard-virus
6618-13*
13.9
6.2 20.1
2.1
23.8
58
8
234
Discard-virus
6618-20*
11.0
3.6 14.6
2.4
19.0
58
7
149
Discard16.3 5.2 21.5
6619-04*
1.8
24.2
67
5
160
GP-a(hermaph.)
6619-12
11.6 4.4 16.0
2.4
20.0
58
11
256
WN (sev. DM)
63030*
12.0
6.8 18.8
2.4
23.2
52
baby --BB
* Indicates analysis has been verified by re-run and average is reported.
1/ Rounded to nearest bale.
2/ Calculated from actual yield per plant.
3/ HQRB = High Quality Reserve Block; OOB = Oregon Observation Block; WOB =
Wash. Observation Block; WN = Wash. Nursery; GP = Germ Plasm Block; BB =
Breeding Block.
Bullion 10-A*
r
-105-
"Preliminary" crosses for genetic study of alpha acid inheritance
This trial was initiated for four purposes:
To determine if the a-acid content (or a/0) of the lupulin of
male hops is indicative of their ability to transmit high quality to the
lupulin of their progeny.
1.
To develop and test techniques for the isolation and evaluation of lupulin from large numbers of male and female plants of the progenies.
2.
To evaluate the reciprocal-cross technique for study of
inheritance of characterisitcs in hops.
3.
To evaluate and refine propagation techniques necessary to
evaluate genetic crosses most efficiently.
4.
Results:
Contribution of the male: The high female x high male (a-acid)
resulted in a progeny whose lupulin averaged 45% a-acid and 26% 0-acid (a/0=1.8)
as shown in Figure 2 and Table 7. Unfortunately, the male parent was much
lower than the female parent.
When the high female was crossed with the low male, a-acid in the
lupulin of the progeny dropped slightly and 0-acid was raised, to decrease
the a/0 to 1.4.
The low female crossed with the high male yielded a progeny whose a
and 0-acid content were similar, as in the high x low cross. (a/0 = 1.2)
Using both low females and low males gave a progeny with lupulin whose
a-acid content was low and whose 8-acid was high. ((1/13 = 0.6)
An independent high x high cross was also evaluated. This cross
(6806) employed a male with a higher a/S and the progeny contained a superior
relationship of a-acid and 8-acid with a/8 = 2.3.
From a practical standpoint, it would appear that our best chance
of producing varieties with particular a/0would be to select both the female
and male parents which were in the desired range.
Isolation of lupulin: A water flotation technique based on lowspeed blending of dried inflorescences, followed by wet sieving was found to
be fast, simple, economical (from the standpoint of sample size required), and
fairly reproducible.
Some maturity studies were made and these are being evaluated.
It appears that maturity of male flowers presents no difficulties.
The fractions to be collected may be of consequence, with the larger
lupulin having higher quality lupulin than the smaller lupulin. The a +1 was
-106-
found to range from 60% to 80% of the lupulin. This may reflect either
impure lupulin (debris) or variable dilution by essential oils or other
chemical components of the lupulin.
The method developed produced spectral curves in alkaline methanol
which were normal and without evidence of deterioration of a or 8-acids.
The method should require very little (if any) modification for
application to future studies.
Evaluation of the reciprocal-cross technique: This technique is
subject to the criticism that the results apply only to the parents
involved in the crosses and general statements regarding hop varieties in
general are questionable. Techniques for future trials are under consideration by Dr. Haunold.
Evaluation of propagation techniques: Hop seedlings grown from
seed provide a means to test large progenies in the field. Seedlings with
1 or 2 true leaves can be transplanted to the field in April and produce
a pound of hops on an eighteen foot vine by August.
Potted seedlings are
transplanted in rows, covered with black plastic, and spaced at 10 inches.
Lower axillary buds are removed as they elongate to provide the plant with
maximum apical dominance. Three to four weeks after planting it is
possible
to note and remove dwarfs and other abnormal plants in the progeny.
This technique of seedling planting provides an opportunity to
study large populations or progenies and to observe the growth of both normal
and abnormal plants. The technique also provides a method to collect data
on a large number of plants in a small area.
An acre would support
approximately 7,000 plants, whereas at normal spacing, the same number of
plants would require 10 acres.
Plans:
Data from this trial will be examined thoroughly and if
they are found to be sufficient, the trial may be terminated.
However, if
if appears a second year's data would be useful, the trial will be
continued
through 1970.
-107-
Figure 2.
Distribution of a and a-acids
in lupulin of progenies from
several crosses.
Table
Data resulting in curve
shown in Figure 2.
7.
Hi x Hi
a
30
40
50
Cross
Obs.
6801
38
Fem.
oo a
0
54
24
Male
41
35
45
26
Prog.
range (27-56) (12-39)
60
% a or a-acid
Hi x Low
Cross
Obs.
6802
131
%a
Fem.
54
Male
10
42
Prog.
range (25-53)
0
10
20
30
40
% a or 8 -acid
50
24
57
32
(18-44)
60
C)
z
Low x Hi
30
Cross
Obs.
6803
74
%a
Fem.
Male
6
41
Prog.
38
range (23-54)
20
10
20
30
40
% a or 8 -acid
SO
45
34
36
(26-48)
-108::igure 2 cont.
Table
cont.
Low x Low
Cross
6804
a
0
10
20
30
40
50
Obs.
% a
Fem.
9
6
Male
10
Prog.
23
range (9-41)
"
%a
45
56
46
(26-62)
60
% a or a-acid
Hi x Hi
Cross
Obs.
6806
73
Fem.
%a
%a
SO
20
22
Male
40
Prog.
47
range (37-61)
.
.
.
..
%.t..
20
30
40
% a or a-acid
50
60
21
(12-35)
-109-
Summary of selection of genotypes suitable for consideration as
parents in crosses for high quality and high analysis
This summary is predicated upon the concept that both high quality
and high analysis are properties of lupulin. While this concept is not
universally accepted, those quality factors which can be measured at present
are in lupulin.
Until more elusive factors can be demonstrated in the bracts,
bracteoles, or strigs, our attention will be focused upon lupulin.
The important known characteristics of lupulin are:
1.
of anthers.
Its density along the low edge of bracteoles and along furrows
This density determines the yield of lupulin in the inflores-
cence.
2.
Its alpha-acid content which ranges from 10 to 60%.
(The alpha
and beta-acids usually total near 70% of lupulin and, therefore, the ratio of
alpha to beta (a/0 is useful as a guide to bittering potential).
3.
The cohumulone content of its alpha-acid. The highest quality
hops (in the view of many brewers) are varieties having low cohumulone in
their alpha-acid.
Conversely, the "roughness" associated with American
hops (and varieties whose pedigrees contain American background)is associated
with high cohumulone by many. Experimental evidience for the contribution of
cohumulone is lacking, but brewers, nevertheless, agree that they prefer the
low value if a choice exists. Cohumulone content of alpha-acids exhibits a
wide range (20-50%) in lupulin from both male and female hops.
4.
Its storage stability.
This is a factor of definite importance
which exhibits a range in the lupulin of both females and males.
We currently
believe two protective mechanisms exist:
One of a physical nature based on
permeability of the cuticular layer; and the second of a chemical nature,
such as a natural antioxidant contained within the lupulin.
5.
Its essential oils. While their contribution to beer flavor
(either positive or negative) is doubtful, neither brewers nor extractors
advocate a high content of essential oils. It would, therefore, seem
logical to select parents low in essential oils when possible.
Lupulin from
males often (possibly always) is devoid of myrcene... which constitutes some
50-80% of the oil from female lupulin. This may complicate bringing
essential oils under control of plant breeders.
Preparation for such a program has been underway for several years
in developing techniques for isolating and analyzing lupulin. A general
survey of the quality of lupulin was initiated in 1969 with the collection
of approximately 1000 lupulin samples from both male and female genotypes
in all phases of our program.
Detailed data appear in the appendix.
-110-
Males
Alpha-acid content: An a/f3 ratio of 1.5 was arbitrarily set as a
This reduced the
minimum limit for classification of "good or better".
list to 102 males.
Storage stability: StoTage stability was determined on these
using the crushed-lupulin test. 11 (In this test, lupulin of Brewers Gold
deteriorates in two hours or less, while lupulin from Yakima Cluster
resists oxidation for five to six hours.) Fifty of the 102 males withstood
Thus four
three hours accelerated storage and 39 withstood four hours.
hours (nearly as good as Yakima Cluster) were arbitrarily set as required
for classification as "good or better".
Growth habit of male: Notes were taken during the growing
Ratings from one to five
season on the "growth habit" of the male plants.
were made on the multiple subjective basis of vigor, branching, and profuseness of flowers with five being the best.
Quantity of lupulin: The amount of lupulin collected for anlysis
was estimated for each of the better lupulin samples and this value is
It may reflect a combination of the number of flowers and their
recorded.
lupulin density, but there is no evidence to support this possibility.
Cohumulone:
The cohumulone content of the best of the 39 male
lines will be determined in late April or early May, 1970.
Discussion of males
Table 1 summarizes the "good and better" males upon which "growth
habit" notes were taken. A few values are included which do not qualify
as outlined above but are included because:
6616-53
DM=Intermediate, a/5 =1.5
6618-26
Lupulin Impure, a/B=high
Several observations in Table 7 are of interest:
A relatively wide range of germ plasm is represented,
Brewers Gold pedigree occurs frequently although, itself, it is
storage-unstable,
19182M has been used in many crosses in the past,
3.
4.
63015M is the male parent of several 1967 crosses that show an
excessive number of abnormal plants in their progenies.
I60013M, likewise,
is a parent of 1967 crosses showing abnormal progeny but produced excellent,
uniform plants in the 6620 cross with Brewers Gold, indicating it may not be
safe to hold the males responsible for observations of their progeny from
1967 crosses.
1.
2.
Crushed lupulin only demonstrates the chemical protection offered by the
contents of glands and does not indicate the physical protection offered
by the cuticular layer.
Methods to measure this are being developed and
39 males and 35 females will be evaluated by this additional test.
5.
63015M showed storage stability in excess of Yakima Cluster
and will be tested at longer times,
6.
Lupulin was collected from flowers of male hops from 19 June
until 19 August but all entries in Table 7 were collected in July, indicating
they were neither very early nor very late.
Table 8 lists the "good or better" alpha-acid males having "good
or better" storage properties (again, crushed lupulin) from the 1967 and
1968 crosses. Most were seedlings and vigor, etc. notes were not taken.
The data is entered here for record.
Table 9 lists 10 male genotypes with varied pedigrees, each with
one or more features which are exceptionally good as indicated by asterisks.
These should be placed into an observation block where their analytical
values and growth habits could be verified.
In addition, disease data
could be established.
The survivors of such observations should provide
reliable male parents for breeding for high-quality.
Females
Alpha-acid content of lupulin:
had 413 greater than 1.5.
One hundred and three (103) females
Storage stability: The crushed lupulin test for storage stability
reduced the list of high quality females to 33 which could qualify as
"good or better" (Table 10).
Tests on whole lupulin may alter the ranking.
Discussion of females
Obviously, observations on lupulin only is insufficient for
complete evaluation of the potential value of a female plant.
The list of
35 females with good quality lupulin with indications of good storage
stability (Table IV) may be useful in locating germ plasm which may not
have been recognized by the conventional methods of analysis.
The high
analysis lines listed elsewhere in this report must also be considered as
potential germ plasm, although the approach to recognition was different,
i.e., by conventional analysis, yield observations, etc.
Plans
1970 crop year
1.
Establish an accelerated storage test for whole-lupulin and
apply it to lupulin from the best males and females. Try to clarify the
contribution of contents and cuticular layer to retardation of oxidation
of alpha and beta-acids, all on lupulin collected in 1969.
2.
Determine the cohumulone content of the alpha-acids from lupulin
of the best males and females.
This may be 50-75 genotypes ... again using
lupulin collected in 1969.
3.
Tabulate the best males and females (based on lupulin analyses
and any other available data) and encourage initiation of an intensive
observation block for these with intent of establishing a nucleus for a
breeding block for high analysis crosses.
During their residence in this
OB all types of data would be collected.
-112-
4.
Tabulate the best males and females (based on lupulin analyses
and any other available data) and encourage initiation of an intensive
observation block for these with the intent of establishing a nucleus for
a breeding block for high analysis crosses. During their residence in this
OB all types of data would be collected.
5.
Identify and keep a few of both males and females having
lupulin with poor storage properties in preparation for a possible
genetic study. An attempt will be made to hold all other properties of
this group at "good or better" in order to maximize the probability of
producing useful new varieties as by-products of a genetic study.
The five foregoing points can be initiated with data and notes
collected in 1969.
Plans - 1971-75
1.
Verify all data from 1969 and 1970 using replicated plots from
the sepecial observation block mentioned in Plans -1970.
2.
Assist other members of the project in selecting genotypes
for a high-analysis breeding block.
3.
Continually locate and evaluate new &potentially improved
genotype for this program.
-113-
Table 7.
Summary of Superior Male Genotypes (19), 1 April 1970.
I/
Identity
1/
Growth
Habit
3/
% in lup.
Stor- DM-a
age notes
Pedigree
Mat.
19182M
1/213u, 3/8Bel-31
7/28
5
-
42
23
>4
I60013M
Ariz.l -2(Big Springs)
7/22
3
-
46
32
3<4
63015M
3/4BG, EKG, Bav-S
7/16
4
30
54
22
>6
63016M
1/2BG, lilltah(Logan Co.)
7/16
3
-
46
29
>4
64035M
Zattler-S (Wye)
7/11
3
20
57
23
>4
6616-43
11BG, Vu, 14Colo 1-2
7/03
3
20
53
16
>4
S
7/15
4
20
36
21
>4
I
7/15
5
20
46
27
>4
S
7/21
4
20
29
10
>4
-53
II
It
-54
6618-26
7/8BG, EKG, Bav-S
Lup.
a
13
-30
II
7/21
4
30
55
21
4<5
-31
tt
7/18
3
40
52
20
4<5
7/09
3
35
47
20
4<5
7/15
4
15
42
9
4
7/22
3
15
53
18
>4
7/11
3
10
40
25
>4
VS
7/07
3
30
45
27
>4
S
7/03
3
20
48
31
>4
S
7/03
3
20
53
23
>4
S
7/21
4
50
49
30
>4
VS
II
-37
-43
1,
tt
-46
6620-28
II
11-BG, IlAriz.1-2
-40
-52
-54
-62
It
t,
Il
t,
Lupulin was collected from male genotypes from 19 June through 19 August.
1/ Judgement based on vigor, branching & No. flowers; 3=fair, 4=good, 5=v.good
Number of mg collected - may indicate No. flowers x lupulin density.
Number of hours crushed lupulin resists oxidation; 4=good, 6-very good
(Cluster=5).
Downy mildew notes taken by A. Haunold, 1968.
intermed.
Leaf only. S=susc., I=
-114--
Table 8.
Male genotypes from 1967 and 1968 crosses with "good or better"
alpha-acid in lupulin and "good or better" storage (15).
in lupulin
Identity
Maturity
ot
3
a/13
a+13
Storage
(hours)
Est. amount
lupulin
(mg)
6753-38
7/22
37
22
1.7
60
>4
<10
6771-25
7/22
45
17
2.6
62
>4
10
6801-06
7/31
46
21
2.2
67
>4
15
6801-20
7/31
56
24
2.4
80
>6
30
6801-35H
7/31
55
12
4.5
68
>4
<10
6801-38
8/07
47
22
2.2
69
>4
15
6801-40H
8/15
49
20
2.5
68
>4
40
6802-61H
7/25
35
23
1.6
59
>4
20
6802-103H
8/15
47
31
1.5
78
>4
30
6802-149H
7/30
49
25
2.0
74
>4
20
6803-53
8/12
51
34
1.5
85
>4
40
6803-90
8/12
46
26
1.8
73
>4
<10
6806-35H
7/31
47
22
2.2
69
>4
20
6806-45H
8/07
59
25
2.4
84
>4
20
6806-70
8/07
52
24
2.2
76
>4
15
6806-92
8/15
49
27
1.8
76
>4
60
6806-115H
7/30
50
27
1.8
77
>4
50
-115-
Table 9.
Male genotypes highest in certain features (asterisked).
rity
growth
mg.
lup.
-
Mat u-
Pedigree
Identify
a
a
a/a
ai-f3
42
23
1.8
65
Store
19182M
11,Bu, 3/88e1-31
7/28
5*
63015Mli
3/4BG, EKG, Bay-S
7/16
4
30
54* 22
2.5* 77
>6*
64035M
Zattler-S (Wye)
7/11
3
20
57* 23
2.5* 80*
>4
6616-43
118G, 1/4Fu, 4Colo1-2
7/03
3
20
53* 16
3.3* 69
>4
-44
6/23
4
<5
55* 24
2.3
79*
<3
-54
7/15
5*
20
46
1.7
73
>4
27
6618-27
7/8BG, EKG, Bay-S
6/30
2
20
60* 21
2.9* 81*
>4
6620-58
1/28G, liAriz.1-2
7/03
2
20
56* 25
2.2
81*
>4
7/21
4
50*
49
30
1.6
78
>4
7/31
-
30
56* 24
2.4
80
>6*
8/15
?
60*
49
1.8
76
>4
-62
6801-20
1-2-BG,
6806-92
4Su-S, 4Utah524-2
1/2Utah 526-4
148G, 1/8Fu,
1/8Colo2-1
1965 analysis:
a=58, B=24, a/13 =2.5, a+8=82
27
-116-
Table 10. Female genotypes with a/8 ratio over 2.0 and A275/A325 ratio less
than 0.5 after 4 hours at 85° C. (crushed).
Identification
19093
19120
19137
19185
19209(SL)
50024
52018
58112
60032
61020
63020
64100
65103
1/
Pedigree
9/2
8/12
8/15
9/2
Fuggle
Fuggle SY(07:77)
Fuggle SY(03:77)
Bullion
E2
It
It
Maturity
66030
66050 (S)
66051
SY 207
SY 219
No. Brewer
6512-24
6619-01
6761-07
6806-18
-20
-38
-42
-50
-43
-63
-67
-80
-81
-97
8/15
8/8
8/26
9/2
8/28
9/2
8/12
8/7
9/2
8/15
8/21
ft
8/25
8/19
8/19
8/26
8/26
9/12
8/19
9/2
8/12
9/12
9/17
9/10
8/26
9/12
9/10
9/10
8/26
8/26
9/10
9/16
Ji
3_,/
Yield
%
Lup.
In Lupulin
%a
%8
49.5
52.9
47.6
54.8
55.4 23.3
44.3 21.9
45.7 22.8
59.7 22.0
51.8 20.7
50.5 22.4
60.0 16.6
46.4 20.4
52.9 23.0
48.2 23.0
55.7 27.1
52.7 25.8
49.8 20.9
55.2
16.9
52.3 23.0
53.7 19.3
53.3 18.0
48.7 23.0
50.7 22.0
52.5 19.9
46.0 22.9
43.9 17.8
54.9 20.7
47.1 19.3
53.9 18.3
52.6 18.8
49.3 17.8
53.4 14.6
50.6 22.7
56.7 16.1
44.9 20.8
50.4 19.4
Harvest Date (ranged from Aug. 8 to Sept. 17).
1
Calculated from % a hops.
Crushed at 85° C.
21.7
17.7
21.0
26.7
Storage
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
'4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
DM
Notes
Lab
Ser.No.
9657
9423
9448
9660
9449
9391
9535
9662
9588
9665
9425
9389
9673
9461
9510
9511
9540
9500
9501
9541
9544
9845
9505
9690
9430
9876
9891
9741
9582
9880
9829
9832
9583
9584
9837
9890
-117-
APPENDIX
-118-
Table I.
FEMALE LUPULIN ANALYSIS (1969)
Breeding Block and Germ Plasm
Accession Number
Location
%a
19001
19001
19001
19001
19004
19021
19027
19028
19032
19093
19094
19105
19110
19110
19110
19110
19120
19137
19144
19151
19185
19200
19208
19209
19209
19209
19209
39:9-12
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
37:5-8
54:19-20
48:19-20
49:19-20
38:19-20
41:19-20
43:19-20
35:19-20
35:1-4
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
43:1-4
44:1-4
39:19-20
33:5-8
34:1-4
38:1-4
34:9-12
SMITH
35:9-12
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
41:1-4
SMITH
33:9-12
51:19-20
42:19-20
33:19-20
34:19-20
53:19-20
50:19-20
45:1-4
44:19-20
52:19-20
47:19-20
40:19-20
39:1-4
36:9-12
SMITH
48.5
43.6
40.4
44.3
31.5
38.8
27.3
20.8
47.8
49.5
29.5
6.4
37.3
34.5
35.9
35.7
52.9
47.6
26.5
18.4
54.8
46.6
48.9
36.6
38.4
(B.G.)
(GA3)
(Light-exp.)
(Unknown-S)
(Verte-S x L.C.-s)
(Fu x Fu-S)
(E.G. x EC-s)
(R.V x OP)
(1/2 Fu)
(1/28u)
(L.G. x Fu-S)
Unk. x Belg.
(Light exp.)
(G A exp.)
(Sunshine-S)
(Sunshine-S)
(Saml. x 19059)
(1/2 Fu)
(L. C.)
(GA3 exp.)
(Fuggle)
(Light exp.)
(Fuggle)
(Fuggle-S)
48209 (Fuggle-H)
48209
50024
50040
50054
50075
50091
51104 (3/4 19085M)
52013
52018
52020
53023
53037
53050 (19028 x OP)
54029
56001
56001 (Hallertau)
41.3
55.4
38.4
43.1
38.7
59.7
27.1
37.8
40.5
19.2
40.9
28.0
51.8
49.4
24.2
32.9
21.2
45.9
27.7
40.6
%13.
22.3
20.6
20.2
19.2
33.4
39.3
41.8
49.9
23.8
21.7
34.0
45.0
42.2
37.9
37.5
37.3
17.7
21.0
40.5
42.1
26.7
35.2
33.5
22.3
22.1
18.8
23.3
22.4
22.6
20.9
22.0
44.8
31.9
28.4
46.0
29.8
44.0
20.7
26.3
52.2
36.3
43.4
25.1
32.4
32.4
a/P,
a +s
2.18
2.12
2.00
2.30
0.94
0.99
0.65
0.42
2.01
2.29
0.87
0.14
0.88
0.91
0.96
0.96
2.98
2.27
0.65
0.44
2.05
1.33
1.46
70.8
64.2
60.6
63.6
64.9
78.2
69.1
70.7
71.6
71.2
63.5
51.3
79.5
72.4
73.3
73.0
70.6
68.6
66.9
60.5
81.5
81.8
82.4
58.9
60.6
60.1
78.7
60.8
65.7
59.6
81.7
71.9
69.7
68.8
65.2
70.6
72.0
72.5
75.8
76.6
69.2
64.6
71.0
60.1
73.0
1.64
1.74
2.20
2.38
1.72
1.91
1.86
2.72
0.61
1.18
1.43
0.42
1.37
0.64
2.51
1.88
0.46
0.91
0.49
1.83
0.86
1.25
Ser. No.
9481
9743
9744
9745
9586
9654
9704
9655
9656
9657
9658
9757
9482
9756
9838
9755
9423
9448
9705
9659
9660
9661
9587
9750
9368
9749
9449
9747
9450
9748
9662
9483
9706
9484
9707
9629
9708
9588
9663
9709
9710
9711
9589
9369
9451
-119-
Table I cont.
Accession Number
56001 (Light Exp.)
56001 (G A Exp.)
56002 (Backa)
56008
56012
56013
56013
56013 (Light Exp.)
56013 (GA Exp.)
57011
58001 (WA)
58004 (WA)
58006
58112
59008 (E.C.)
60014* (WA)
60015 (WA)
60016 (WA)
60017 (WA)
60018 (WA)
60020 (WA)
60021 (WA)
60024 (WA)
60025 (WA)
60027 (WA)
60029
60032 (H)
60033 (WA)
60034 (WA)
60035 (WA)
60037 (WA)
60038 (WA)
60039 (WA)
60040 (WA)
60041 (WA)
60042 (Shinshuwase)
60043 (WA)
61008 (Poland)
61011 (Poland)
61014 (Poland)
61016
61017 (USSR)
61018 (USSR)
61019
61020
61021 (Swiss)
Location
SMITH
SMITH
37:9-12
54:1-4
41:5-8
33:1-4
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
35:5-8
53:9-12
54:9-12
52:9-12
42:1-4
38:9-12
47:1-4
48:1-4
49:1-4
50:1-4
51:1-4
52:1-4
53:1-4
46:5-8
47:5-8
48:5-8
49:5-8
50:57-58
51:5-8
52:5-8
53:5-8
46:9-12
47:9-12
48:0-12
49:9-12
50:9-12
43:5-8
46:1-4
37:27-28
38:27-28
40:27-28
41:27-28
42:27-28
43:27-28
45:19-20
46:19-20
36:5-8
%a
32.4
27.4
37.3
44.7
43.4
42.0
39.4
38.1
34.8
33.7
35.2
36.4
43.3
50.5
48.2
40.9
46.1
48.7
41.1
47.6
28.1
55.0
41.6
40.5
20.3
48.6
60.0
28.7
31.4
34.2
45.7
21.5
47.5
52.9
48.3
42.4
32.9
36.9
33.7
42.7
18.7
39.9
42.9
44.5
46.4
45.0
%(3.
25.7
33.9
45.9
27.7
32.4
32.6
27.8
28.0
28.9
37.1
38.3
41.7
32.4
22.4
33.7
40.4
40.2
32.1
35.5
23.4
38.2
22.0
28.3
28.8
37.5
27.9
16.6
39.1
27.5
30.9
33.5
38.5
32.3
31.2
32.5
33.6
40.7
38.8
32.9
27.1
15.0
37.0
34.1
27.4
20.4
34.1
*In Accession Number book 60014 is a male plant
a/(3
a+B.
1.26
0.81
0.81
1.61
1.34
1.29
1.42
1.36
1.20
0.91
0.92
0.87
1.34
2.25
1.43
1.01
1.15
1.52
1.16
2.03
0.74
2.51
1.47
1.41
58.1
61.3
83.1
72.4
75.8
74.6
67.2
66.1
63.7
70.8
73.5
78.1
75.7
72.9
81.9
81.3
86.3
80.8
76.4
71.1
66.3
77.0
70.0
69.3
57.7
76.5
76.7
67.9
58.8
65.2
79.2
60.0
79.8
84.1
80.8
76.0
73.5
75.3
66.6
69.8
33.7
76.9
77.0
71.9
0.54
1.74
3.61
0.73
1.14
1.11
1.36
0.56
1.47
1.69
1.49
1.26
0.81
0.96
1.02
1.57
1.25
1.08
1.26
1.63
2.28
1.32
66.8
79.1
Ser. No.
9753
9754
9452
9485
9664
9487
9760
9758
9759
9486
9590
9591
9488
9665
9592
9666
9667
9457
9593
9594
9489
9595
9490
9453
9491
9424
9425
9454
9668
9669
9596
9455
9492
9597
9598
9670
9671
9672
9712
9456
9387
9458
9459
9388
9389
9599
-120-
Table I cont.
Accession Number
62013
62013
62051
62052
63001
63004
63006
(19120 x 58006M)
(Density)
(1/2 Ha)
(1/2 BG)
6300 8 (1/2 BG)
63018 (3/4 BG)
63019 (3/4 BG)
63029 (3/4 BG)
63021 (1/2 BG)
63026 (1/2 BG)
64008 (Zattler)
64009 (Zattler)
64010 (Zattler)
64020 (Backa x 19062M)
64026 (1/2 BG)
64100
64100 (Bullion)
64100 (GA3 exp.)
64100 (Light)
64106 (Wye)
64107 (Wye)
65003 (1/2 L.C)
65008 H (1/2 Poland)
65026 (LC x OP)
65101 (Talisman)
65101
65101 (Light exp.)
65102 (Light)
65102 (YC)
65102 (GA3 exp.)
65102 (YC)
65103 (E2 Light)
65153 (E2)
65103 (E2)
Location
%a
37:1-4
SMITH
31:19-20
40:1-4
44:5-8
54:5-8
31:1-4
43:9-12
41:9-12
42:9-12
45:9-12
44:9-12
45:5-8
31:5-8
31:9-12
32:9-12
49:27-28
50:27-28
SMITH
40:9-12
SMITH
SMITH
44:27-28
32:5-8
51:27-28
52:27-28
53:27-28
36:1-4
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
34:5-8
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
38:5-8
SMITH
52.9
50.0
51.3
46.5
41.4
32.7
54.4
39.4
34.8
53.1
52.9
36.6
49.6
45.4
45.7
35.9
51.4
41.1
48.2
48.2
45.4
47.0
40.9
51.0
46.3
42.0
41.9
52.8
48.3
49.5
50.0
48.0
52.5
49.7
45.9
45.7
55.7
(48.7)
65104 (L8)
65104 (Light exp.)
(E21)
En (Light)
(L16)
66030
66050
66051
66052
66052
(Alliance)
(Progress)
(Pride of R.)
(Normal)
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
SMITH
35:27-28
32:19-20
32:1-4
SMITH
47.7
48.1
52.7
51.1
50.8
49.8
55.2
52.3
48.0
44.9
ot/
23.0
20.0
19.8
29.1
33.7
39.5
24.0
32.6
30.5
27.0
23.0
39.6
36.6
32.3
30.2
37.1
21.5
36.3
21.5
23.0
22.8
20.3
30.7
19.2
28.1
29.1
35.7
27.7
25.6
25.1
25.7
33.6
27.1
29.4
30.3
32.7
27.1
(29.7)
31.1
30.7
25.8
27.3
29.8
20.9
16.9
23.0
29.2
31.1
2.31
2.50
2.59
1.60
1.23
0.83
2.26
1.21
1.14
1.97
2.30
0.92
1.35
1.41
1.51
0.97
2.39
1.13
2.24
2.10
1.99
2.32
1.33
2.65
1.65
1.44
1.17
1.90
1.89
1.97
1.95
1.43
1.93
1.69
1.52
1.40
2.06
(1.64)
1.53
1.57
2.04
1.87
1.70
2.39
3.27
2.27
1.64
1.44
a+13
75.9
70.0
71.1
75.6
75.1
72.2
78.5
72.1
65.3
80.1
75.9
76.2
86.2
77.7
76.0
73.0
72.9
77.4
69.7
71.2
68.2
67.3
71.6
70.2
74.4
71.1
77.6
80.6
73.8
74.6
75.7
81.6
79.6
79.1
76.2
78.4
82.8
(78.4)
78.7
78.9
78.5
78.4
/ 80.6
70.7
72.1
75.3
77.1
76.0
Ser. No.
9493
9841
9390
9600
9601
9460
9494
9602
9495
9603
9673
9604
9605
9496
9606
9497
9761
9674
9538
9461
9539
9746
9462
9498
9675
9631
9676
9607
9839
9840
9537
9463
9536
9499
9751
9608
9510
rerun
9843
9844
9511
9752
9842
9540
9500
9501
9677
9894
-121-
Table I concluded.
Accession Number
Location
%a
o6
a/B
a+B
66052 (Abnormal)
66052 (Light exp.)
66053 (Ringwood SP)
66054 (Calicross)
66055 (First Ch.)
66056 (Smoothcone)
68052
Northern Brewer
21002
SMITH
SMITH
36:27-28
32:27-28
33:27-28
34:27-28
31:27-28
SMITH
42:5-8
42.2
50.6
40.7
43.1
43.5
46.0
58.4
48.7
34.6
31.6
26.3
29.8
33.9
31.4
28.6
1.34
1.93
1.36
1.27
1.39
1.61
3.33
2.12
1.02
73.8
76.9
70.5
77.0
74.9
74.6
75.9
71.7
68.6
17.5
23.0
34.0
Ser. No.
9895
9896
9678
9762
9464
9679
9426
9845
9376
-122-
Table II.
FEMALE LUPULIN ANALYSES (1969)
Nursery & Triploid
Identification
Lab.
Ser. No.
6022-01
6028-01
6185-01
6220-03
6220-04
6220-06
6221-01
6228-01
6230-01
6305-01
6305-03
6306-04
6305-05
6512-24
6516-24
9681
9802
9680
9466
9467
9504
9630
9682
9465
9503
9683
9684
9713
9505
9685
6517-56
9686
6524-01
6527-09
6535-17
6536-05
6538-17
6735-04
6735-05
6756-26
6760-13
6760-93
6761-07
6763-13
6763-15
6769-33
6772-02
6772-05
6775-15
6777-14
9468
9687
9688
9689
9763
9692
9693
9427
9428
9429
9430
9431
9432
9433
9434
9435
9436
9437
1/
4
Maturity
9/2
8/19
9/2
8/15
II
8/19
8/29
9/2
8/15
8/19
9/2
It
8/19
9/2
8/15
9/2
,,
8/12
,,
t,
It
I,
,,
,-i
(:),.0
$-4 cd
=
%a
(1,t3,
Storage
CoH
Remarks
40.4
48.3
29.6
37.0
36.8
35.1
30.9
41.9
32.0
44.9
44.5
42.6
50.1
50.7
42.2
32.9
26.5
39.3
37.8
40.5
41.2
41.5
29.9
43.6
Ariz1-4 x Ariz1-1M
NM2-2 x 58010 M
28.3
28.0
19209 x 19173M
44.1
31.6
46.6
37.9
16.6
32.7
23.9
26.3
47.8
35.4
21.6
23.9
28.5
28.0
22.9
41.0
24.3
28.5
23.1
25.3
28.6
22.0
32.1
45.7
23.0
31.0
51.0
49.6
46.2
46.3
46.0
31.2
48.1
42.7
47.0
43.4
38.4
47.1
37.2
24.4
22.0
22.4
19120 x 58006M
19209 x Colo2-1M
>4
3<4
4
<3
64100 x 19060M
56001 x(cross 60028)
53-6 M 3/
56001 x(cross 59037)
57-50 M 3/
SA 101-1,2 x 19058M
60007 x 19173 M
63021 x OP
63008 x OP
? (37 crosses in '65)
Ti x 19040 M
T2 x Fu 1-1
II
>4
12 x Fu 2-4
T3 x Fu 1-1
II
4
T4 x Fu 1-1
T4 x 19040 M
T4 x 19062
T4 x OP
Accelerated storage test on crushed lupulin at 85° C.
Value represents
number of hours before rapid deterioration began (BG=1.5 and YC=4 5).
This represents chemical protection mechanism only.
CoH = cohumulone content of alpha-acids.
on varieties with best storage.
Determinations will be made
56-6 M and 57-50 M were nursery row numbers and plant numbers within
the row.
-123-
Table III.
FEMALE LUPULIN ANALYSES (1969)
1968 crosses for a, and 6806 for high a
Ser. No.
a
S
a/f3
a+13
42.5
39.3
51.7
29.9
44.1
38.9
46.3
50.8
33.6
38.8
47.9
52.2
44.2
40.3
49.7
39.5
45.8
29.4
52.9
47.9
35.8
46.5
26.7
46.9
43.8
42.0
51.6
42.9
55.9
29.6
28.9
20.3
38.7
27.7
26.3
27.7
20.9
30.6
23.4
24.2
24.5
34.0
28.9
22.3
23.5
25.9
47.7
19.0
27.1
31.9
20.8
37.8
21.8
24.3
1.44
1.36
2.54
0.77
1.59
1.48
1.67
2.44
1.10
1.66
1.98
2.13
1.30
1.39
2.23
1.68
1.77
0.62
2.78
1.76
1.12
2.23
0.71
2.16
1.80
1.40
2.54
1.23
2.61
72.1
68.2
72.0
68.6
71.8
65.3
73.9
71.6
64.2
62.1
72.1
76.7
78.2
69.2
72.0
63.0
71.7
77.1
71.9
75.1
67.7
67.3
64.4
68.7
68.1
72.1
71.9
77.8
77.3
9632
9633
9794
9886
9795
9796
9555
9798
9799
9800
9846
9801
9556
9512
9802
9803
9815
9609
9715
9816
9848
9714
9764
9804
9716
9849
9634
9850
9635
-26H
-27
46.3
44.2
37.7
37.1
31.1
34.4
31.3
34.1
31.8
40.9
30.9
39.8
22.8
33.0
34.0
0.99
1.02
-05
-06H
-12H
-13
-15
-18
-20
-24H
-25
37.5
37.7
47.3
35.8
39.9
43.9
34.8
34.2
49.1
39.2
48.4
75.2
74.7
78.3
70.2
71.2
78.0
66.6
75.1
80.0
79.0
71.2
79.3
78.2
9717
9718
9610
9616
9557
9612
9817
9851
9613
9614
9636
9615
9556
Identification
6801-01
-02
-03
-05
-08
-09H
-13
-17H
-21
-22
-24
-25
-27
-28
-30
-31
-32
-39
-42
-43
-46
-47
-50
-52
-54
-55
-57
-58
-60
6802-03
-04H
30.1
20.3
34.9
21.4
1.52
1.04
1.28
1.29
1.09
0.84
1.59
0.98
2.13
1.40
1.30
-124-
Table III cont.
Identification
6802-28
-29
-32
-33
-34
-35
-36
-39H
-41
-42
-43
-44
-45
-48
-49
-54H
-58
-59
-60
-62
-64
-65
-66H
-67
-68
-71
-73
-74
-75
-76
-77
-82
-83
-85
-86
-87
-88
-89
-91
-92
-94
-95
-96
-97
-98
a
41.8
46.6
38.9
356
45.8
45.4
44.0
38.9
48.5
41.3
42.1
48.1
45.2
47.3
45.0
49.5
34.6
38.0
49.8
44.1
43.2
46.5
46.0
46.2
46.9
45.5
46.9
49.3
33.4
42.1
42.4
46.8
42.2
38.9
47.8
45.9
44.6
46.8
46.2
41.9
47.3
42.7
44.7
52.8
48.5
R
26.2
31.2
39.3
29.4
25.3
32.9
25.2
35.2
28.6
31.0
34.9
32.5
31.6
26.6
24.8
30.1
41.1
35.5
28.1
34.4
32.9
27.6
35.1
30.4
32.0
32.6
32.1
28.0
41.7
30.5
34.8
24.4
32.6
31.8
31.8
27.1
32.1
17.7
20.7
30.5
31.1
30.6
25.8
22.8
27.6
a/
1.59
1.49
0.98
1.21
1.81
1.38
1.75
1.11
1.69
1.33
1.21
1.48
1.43
1.78
1.82
1.65
0.84
1.07
1.77
1.28
1.31
1.68
1.31
1.52
1.46
1.39
1.46
1.76
0.80
1.38
1.22
1.91
1.29
1.23
1.50
1.69
1.39
2.65
2.23
1.37
1.52
1.40
1.73
2.31
1.75
a+R
68.0
77.8
77.7
65.0
71.0
78.2
69.2
74.2
77.1
72.3
76.9
80.6
76.8
74.0
69.8
79.6
75.6
73.4
77.9
78.5
76.1
74.1
81.1
76.7
78.9
78.1
79.0
77.3
75.1
72.6
77.2
71.2
74.8
70.7
79.7
72.9
76.7
64.5
66.9
72.3
78.4
73.3
70.5
75.6
76.1
Ser. No.
9513
9514
9852
9516
9517
9637
9827
9616
9558
9818
9617
9719
9518
9765
9805
9618
9619
9720
9853
9579
9520
9521
9522
9638
9559
9523
9620
9524
9854
9525
9526
9527
9528
9639
9640
9806
9807
9766
9641
9855
9721
9642
9819
9722
9856
-125-
Table III cont.
Identification
6802-99
-100
-102
-104H
-105
-106
-107
-108
-109
-110
-111
-112
-115
-116
-118
-119
-120
-122
-123
-125H
-126H
-127
-129
-131
-132
-133
-134
-137
-138
-139
-140
-142
-144
-146
-148
-150
-151
-152
-153
-154
-156
-157
-162H
-163
-164
-166
-167
a
39.6
47.7
39.8
41.8
40.5
31.3
44.5
46.6
41.5
31.3
41.8
42.9
36.0
44.6
44.2
37.5
41.2
37.8
38.7
42.9
40.7
46.6
46.3
44.3
45.9
37.7
40.0
46.1
47.4
31.1
43.4
47.6
40.5
39.7
50.0
36.6
38.4
49.6
48.1
44.8
38.4
36.7
40.0
43.0
39.0
49.3
41.5
S
38.1
27.1
30.8
31.6
30.6
30.1
35.0
31.9
37.0
41.2
35.5
32.8
35.5
28.7
34.6
37.8
21.7
28.7
34.2
30.2
38.4
29.3
26.1
30.5
30.8
32.3
30.2
26.2
27.7
44.1
28.0
30.4
33.3
33.5
19.4
25.2
35.4
26.6
29.2
34.3
36.6
36.9
26.9
31.9
31.2
30.9
35.9
a/(3
a+13
1.04
1.76
1.30
1.32
1.32
1.04
1.27
1.46
1.12
0.76
1.18
1.31
1.01
1.56
1.28
0.99
1.90
1.32
1.13
1.42
1.06
1.59
1.78
1.45
1.49
1.17
1.32
1.76
1.71
0.70
1.55
1.56
1.22
1.18
2.58
1.46
1.08
1.87
1.64
1.31
1.05
0.99
1.49
1.35
1.25
1.60
1.16
77.7
74.9
70.7
73.4
71.1
61.4
79.5
78.4
78.5
72.5
77.2
75.7
71.5
73.3
78.8
75.3
62.9
66.5
72.9
73.1
79.1
76.0
72.4
74.8
76.7
69.9
70.1
72.3
75.1
75.2
71.4
78.0
73.7
73.2
69.4
61.8
73.8
76.2
77.3
79.1
75.0
73.6
67.0
74.9
70.2
80.2
77.3
Ser. No.
9723
9724
9643
9644
9621
9808
9645
9622
9560
9646
9857
9647
9561
9858
9767
9820
9859
9860
9725
9529
9530
9821
9768
9726
9861
9822
9727
9809
9823
9824
9810
9562
9623
9563
9811
9728
9812
9813
9729
9730
9862
9825
9532
9649
9814
9564
9560
-126-
Table III cont.
Identification
6803-01
-02
-05
-06
-07
-08H
-10
-11
-14
-15H
-16
-18
-22
-23
-24
-25
-26
-27
-28
-30
-32
-33
-34
-36
-38
-39
-41
-42
-43
-45
-46
-49
-50
-54
-59
-62
-63
-64
-65H
-68
-69
-70
-71
-73
-74
a
34.1
32.1
32.8
33.6
27.8
41.1
39.2
48.6
37.3
36.0
31.0
41.2
36.1
31.5
34.5
37.8
33.6
34.4
33.6
28.5
40.2
35.5
22.7
29.8
42.8
39.9
41.2
39.4
35.0
40.5
48.9
42.8
35.4
47.2
46.2
43.2
42.4
36.6
41.2
36.8
35.1
30.4
33.9
35.1
40.0
R
36.7
43.0
32.5
38.4
32.1
28.6
32.4
29.0
33.6
34.5
32.1
31.1
33.6
44.0
37.8
31.3
38.0
40.1
39.2
41.1
37.5
46.6
48.2
40.0
26.8
28.6
33.3
33.1
39.2
32.6
26.6
24.6
32.1
29.2
29.4
28.1
29.4
36.0
33.5
34.5
33.7
41.1
34.0
35.0
32.4
a/R
a+(i
0.93
0.75
70.8
75.1
65.4
72.0
59.8
69.7
71.6
77.5
70.9
70.5
63.2
72.3
69.7
75.5
72.4
69.1
71.6
74.4
72.8
69.6
77.8
82.1
70.8
69.8
69.7
68.5
74.5
72.5
74.2
73.0
75.5
67.4
67.5
76.4
75.6
71.3
71.8
72.6
74.7
71.3
68.8
71.5
67.9
70.2
72.5
1.01
0.87
0.87
1.44
1.21
1.68
1.11
1.04
0.97
1.32
1.08
0.72
0.91
1.21
0.88
0.86
0.86
0.69
1.07
0.76
0.47
0.75
1.60
1.39
1.24
1.19
0.89
1.24
1.84
1.74
1.10
1.62
1.57
1.54
1.44
1.02
1.23
1.07
1.04
0.74
1.00
1.00
1.23
Ser. No.
9565
9566
9696
9769
9697
9698
9731
9863
9770
9864
9699
9771
9700
9732
9865
9567
9866
9651
9568
9733
9772
9867
9860
9773
9734
9533
9569
9735
9869
9736
9570
9870
9737
9571
9572
9534
9774
9871
9573
9574
9575
9576
9694
-
9739
-127-
Table III cont.
Identification
6803-75
-78
-79
-84
-89
6804-01
-03
-04
-05
-06
-08
-09
-11
-13
6806-01
-03
-05
-08
-09
-12
-13
-15
-17H
-18
-20
-22
-23
-25
-26
-30
-32H
-37
-38
-39
-40
-42
-43
-45H
-47
-48
-50
-51
-52
-53
-56
Ser. No.
a/I3
a+13
44.1
38.6
36.9
33.9
46.9
0.74
0.90
1.06
1.09
0.72
76.9
73.3
75.9
71.0
80.5
9577
9578
9701
9775
9702
30.2
27.7
26.2
20.7
24.4
13.7
8.9
18.5
40.7
40.7
49.7
48.1
59.3
61.9
50.5
28.4
0.74
0.87
0.56
0.42
0.51
0.23
0.14
0.37
1.43
70.8
59.4
72.9
70.4
72.5
73.7
70.7
69.0
69.1
9703
9872
9579
9887
9652
9888
9740
9873
9624
49.7
47.9
37.7
51.7
48.2
49.4
44.9
51.0
47.0
43.9
54.9
46.4
45.5
43.3
49.3
41.5
54.9
55.4
47.1
48.4
53.7
53.9
49.3
52.7
43.4
48.1
52.6
37.8
51.7
46.6
41.2
18.7
23.8
28.8
20.6
17.9
23.0
24.6
12.6
20.2
17.8
20.7
19.6
18.0
24.7
19.4
30.2
21.5
16.5
19.3
17.4
18.2
18.3
17.8
24.2
18.2
19.1
18.8
18.3
13.4
24.2
23.4
2.65
2.01
1.31
2.51
2.69
2.15
1.82
4.04
2.32
2.47
2.65
2.37
2.53
1.76
2.55
1.37
2.56
3.35
2.45
2.78
2.95
2.95
2.77
2.18
2.39
2.52
2.80
2.07
3.84
1.92
1.76
68.4
71.7
66.5
72.3
9776
9874
9777
9875
9778
9580
9779
9581
9780
9876
9891
9826
9781
9782
9783
9784
9515
9877
9741
9828
9889
9582
9829
9625
9878
9879
9880
9881
9882
9883
9830
32.8
34.8
39.0
37.1
33.6
31.7
46.7
66.1
72.3
69.6
63.7
67.2
61.7
75.6
65.9
63.5
68.0
68.6
71.8
76.3
71.9
66.4
65.8
71.8
72.2
67.2
76.9
61.6
67.2
71.3
56.0
65.1
70.8
64.7
-128-
Table III cont.
Identification
6806-57
-59
-63
-66
-67
-68
-71
-73
-75
-77
-78
-80
-81
-82
-83
-84
-86
-88
-90
-94
-96
-97
-98
-99
-103
-106
-108
-112
43.1
46.3
53.4
36.8
50.6
44.0
39.6
48.8
51.6
45.5
48.4
56.7
44.9
45.6
41.5
50.0
48.6
49.7
41.1
50.7
45.6
50.4
49.0
53.1
44.4
61.0
38.7
47.2
21.8
28.3
14.6
21.6
22.7
21.4
15.0
21.9
23.3
27.2
21.3
16.1
20.8
24.4
25.9
18.8
21.8
17.0
21.5
20.0
25.1
19.4
17.2
18.2
19.3
11.9
32.6
23.2
a/13
a+13,
1.98
1.64
3.66
1.70
2.23
2.06
2.64
2.22
2.21
1.67
2.27
3.52
2.16
1.87
1.60
2.66
2.23
2.92
1.91
2.53
1.82
2.60
2.84
2.91
2.30
5.15
1.19
2.03
65.0
74.6
68.0
58.4
73.3
65.4
54.5
70.7
74.9
72.7
69.7
72.8
65.7
70.0
67.4
68.8
70.4
66.7
62.5
70.7
70.7
69.9
66.2
71.3
63.7
72.9
71.2
70.4
Ser. No.
9831
9626
9832
9833
9583
9884
9834
9835
9627
9836
9892
9584
9837
9785
9885
9786
9628
9787
9788
9742
9695
9890
9893
9584
9789
9790
9791
9792
-129-
Table IV.
FEMALE LUPULIN ANALYSIS (1969)
Segregation for yield
%a
%3
07:77
44.3
03:69
Ser No.
a/13
a+3
21.9
2.02
66.3
9391 (8/8)
33.9
27.6
1.23
61.5
9392 (8/8)
14:66b
14:68a
15:70b
16:68a
16:70b
16:72a
17:68a
15:74b
30.8
25.4
29.9
30.8
51.1
32.8
45.3
0.79
0.68
1.08
0.89
1.82
1.00
1.93
0.91
69.8
26.6
57.6
65.2
33.6
38.9
37.2
27.7
34.4
28.1
32.8
23.5
36.9
9343
9394
9395
9396
9397
9398
9399
9417
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/11)
13:90b
13:92a
14:86b
14:90b
53:7
38.6
49.0
53.3
19.3
23.1
18.4
18.0
2.78
1.67
2.66
2.97
73.0
61.7
67.5
71.3
9541
9542
9543
9544
(8/26)
(8/26)
(8/26)
(8/26)
04:80a
04:84a
43.3
40.8
28.4
1.52
39.5
1.03
71.7
80.2
9400 (8/8)
9545 (8/26)
43.2
38.5
38.7
38.8
34.4
47.0
45.3
0.52
0.94
0.85
0.81
0.94
0.62
0.57
65.7
74.6
11:94b
12:90b
9:92a
9:94b
12:92a
22.5
36.1
32.8
30.8
32.2
29.1
25.9
76.2
71.2
9402
9401
9403
9405
9418
9419
9420
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/11)
(8/11)
(8/11
Hallertau x 110-S(19173)
04:92a
521
97:86b
550
06:94b
548
03:86b
502
04:88a
516
38.6
40.7
26.7
31.5
45.5
38.0
33.6
33.9
31.6
26.6
1.02
1.21
0.79
1.00
1.71
76.7
74.3
60.6
63.2
72.1
9406
9407
9421
9546
9547
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/11)
(8/26)
(8/26)
Hallertau x 119-1(19058)
03:66b
602
04:68a
616
32.0
33.2
34.1
29.4
0.94
1.13
66.1
62.6
9409 (8/8)
9409 (8/8)
Identification
Location
Fuggle
Hallertau
10-S (19105)
Fuggle x 106-S(19170)
114
116
131
140
143
145
152
136
79.2
65.6
68.8
70.5
Fuggle x 110-S(19173)
207
209
214
219
Fuggle x 119-1(19058)
318
323
Hallertau x 106-S(19170
08:94b
412
09:866
414
448
445
421
424
457
71.5
68.8
66.6
-130-
Table IV cont.
Identification
Location
619
631
660
04:70b
05:70b
07:74b
%a
%8
31.7
48.8
37.3
Ser No.
a/13
a+13
28.0
19.0
34.5
1.13
2.57
1.08
59.7
67.8
31.1
18.4
11.6
36.5
40.4
51.3
62.4
71.5
69.7
74.0
77.6
9548 (8/26)
9549 (8/26
9550 (8/26)
41.1
0.77
0.36
0.19
0.89
15.0
38.8
21.4
46.6
37.3
50.5
0.32
1.04
0.42
61.5
76.2
71.9
9552 (8/26)
9553 (8/26)
9554 (8/26)
31.2
33.1
20.3
17.6
21.2
35.7
36.8
50.3
49.8
59.4
0.87
0.90
0.40
0.35
0.36
66.9
69.9
70.6
67.4
9413
9414
9415
9416
9422
71.9
9410 (8/8)
9411 (8/8)
9412 (8/8)
10-S (19105 x 119-1 (19058)
712
719
743
745
08.74b
09:70b
11:70b
11:72a
9551
(8/26)
10-S (19105) x 110-S (19173)
804
806
840
10 -S
906
911
954
959
952
08:78b
08:80a
11:78b
(19105) x 106 -S
(19170)
13:80a
13:84a
17:80a
17:84a
17:78b
80.5
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/8)
(8/11)
-131
Table V.
MALE LUPULIN ANALYSIS (1969)
Breeding Block and Germ Plasm
Identification
19005
19006
19007
19008
19009
19010
19036
19037
19039
19040
19041
19043
19044
19046
19047
19048
19050
19051
19054
19058
19060
19061
19062
19085
19170
19172
19173
19182
19183
51060
51061
51101
51114
52040
52042
52044
52045
52046
52047
52048
Location
33:13-14
34:15-16
44:13-14
rerun
40:15-16
45:15-16
48:15-16
54:13-14
36:15-16
38:15-16
39:15-16
47:13-14
48:13-14
49:13-14
50:13-14
rerun
51:13-14
52:13-14
38:13-14
40:13-14
43:13-14
34:13-14
rerun
35:13-14
37:13-14
36:13-14
39:13-14
54:15-16
rerun
33:17-18
34:17-18
35:17-18
36:17-18
42:13-14
41:13-14
46:13-14
45:13-14
42:15-16
43:15-16
46:15-16
47:15-16
33:15-16
rerun
35:15-16
37:15-16
Over-a111/
rating
%a
9.7
16.2
15.3
17.4
40.5
18.7
29.8
12.9
23.1
35.2
38.8
30.8
20.1
41.9
11.8
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
5
3-4
3-4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
3
1
4
4
5
2
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
5.3
37.8
45.0
19.8
17.9
40.8
10.8
33.4
32.6
11.9
37.5
28.9
29.8
36.4
32.0
23.9
42.5
38.4
9.3
34.3
16.6
17.9
23.3
22.3
22.2
18.6
22.4
27.6
35.2
14.1
%13
56.7
52.4
36.1
31.3
23.1
52.1
28.0
64.4
50.0
24.3
29.7
51.9
29.6
32.0
59.6
64.7
33.1
30.3
57.3
59.0
30.5
29.0
49.3
45.2
60.6
35.9
53.4
46.2
39.9
26.9
46.0
23.3
32.9
60.7
45.8
44.8
50.5
50.7
27.2
41.3
28.9
48.0
47.1
34.2
39.2
a/6
a443
Ser. No.
0.17
0.31
0.42
0.56
66.3
68.6
51.4
48.7
63.6
70.8
57.8
77.3
9262
9180
9084
9161
9112
9113
9181 (9263)
9264
9246
9132
9232 (9314)
9207
9233
9114
9234
9265
9235
9115
9162
9163
9266
9182
9315
9116
9183
9184
9164
9048
9075
1.75
0.36
1.06
0.20
0.46
1.45
1.30
0.59
0.68
1.31
0.20
0.08
1.14
1.48
0.35
0.30
1.34
0.37
0.68
0.72
0.20
1.05
0.54
0.65
0.91
1.19
0.57
1.82
1.17
0.15
0.75
0.37
0.35
0.46
0.82
0.54
0.64
0.57
0.59
1.03
0.36
73.1
59.5
68.5
82.7
49.7
73.0
71.4
69.9
70.9
75.3
77.2
76.9
71.3
39.8
82.7
77.8
72.5
73.4
82.4
76.0
76.3
58.9
69.9
65.7
71.2
70.0
80.1
61.4
68.4
74.0
49.5
63.4
47.5
73.3
74.7
69.4
53.3
9133
9134
9316
9032
9236
9237
9317
9117
9238
9208 (9318)
9209
9210
9033
9097
9135
9136
-132-
Table V cont.
Identification
54066
58111
60013
60019
60023
60026
60028
60030
60031
63011
63012
63013
63014
63015
63016
63017
63033
63034
64027
64028
64029
64030
64031
64032
64033
64034
64035
64036
64037
64101
64102
64103
64104
64105
65034
65035
65036
65037
Prosser 5
Prosser 6
Prosser 7
6321-01
(SY 712)
Location
Over-all1/
rating
41:15-16
53:13-14
38:17-18
39:17-18
40:17-18
41:17-18
42:17-18
43:17-18
not collected
37:17-18
45:17-18
46:17-18
47:17-18
48:17-18
49:17-18
50:17-18
42:25-26
43:25-26
37:25-26
38:25-26
39:25-26
40:25-26
41:25-26
44:25-26
45:25-26
46:25-26
47:25-26
48:25-26
49:25-26
53:15-16
49:15-16
52:15-16
51:15-16
50:15-16
33:25-26
34:25-26
35:25-26
36:25-26
37:23-24
38:23-24
39:23-24
3
4
3
2
2
2
1
3
4
3
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
%a
41.5
28.2
45.6
39.8
30.6
41.7
43.6
30.8
31.1
49.2
32.0
28.9
45.8
31.1
37.4
34.7
16.6
54.5
40.6
63.0
53.6
50.9
46.5
46.6
46.0
55.2
50.8
47.3
47.4
49.6
29.3
37.3
42.8
24.5
33.8
17.1
22.0
23.3
28.6
33.9
28.4
27.9
25.3
30.9
33.8
29.9
44.9
30.3
a/P,
a+R
Ser. No.
1.33
0.57
1.43
1.38
0.67
72.6
77.4
77.5
81.1
65.5
9137
9211
9267
9138
9319
9139
9034
9140
59.4
9141
78.9
74.4
80.1
75.6
74.2
75.1
80.5
74.9
83.2
76.1
78.2
81.2
79.6
74.2
90 85
1.31
1.17
0.88
0.39
2.23
1.20
3.68
2.44
2.18
1.63
1.38
1.62
1.98
2.01
1.53
1.40
1.66
0.71
1.23
60.7
76.4
73.4
67.6
9147
9268
92 39
9240
9049
9212
9269
9320
9165
9185
9186
92 70
9086
9321
1
3
3
56.8
49.3
1
32.6
3
3
47.7
49.3
47.1
42.7
37.7
18.3
50.4
29.0
45.6
17.9
27.5
29.2
40:23-24
2
41:23-24
1
3
3
3
2
3
1
4
3
3
23.5
25.6
23.4
23.0
31.0
38.1
42.3
2.42
1.93
1.39
2.07
1.59
1.24
2.49
1.16
0.64
1.73
0.70
1.62
0.40
0.71
0.69
80.2
85.2
59.8
70.3
46.8
79.4
70.5
73.7
62.3
66.1
71.5
22.1
52.0
0.43
74.2
9290
13.4
35.1
0.38
48.5
9250
17.1
32.6
28.5
29.1
41.5
28.1
44.5
38.6
80.3
74.9
56.1
70.7
9148
9241
9213
9060
9061
9045
9046
9088
9118 (9218)
9322
90 76
9272
92 80
90 74
9202
6322-01
(SY 812)
1/
Over-all ratings were made by CEZ and STL on the basis of vigor,
branching, freedom from disease symptoms, etc.
1=poor, 5=very good.
-133-
Table VI.
MALE LUPULIN ANALYSES (1969)
Nursery & Triploid
Identification
6321-01
6322-01
6611-02
-02
-02
-07
6622-01
-02
-04
-04
-07
-08
-08
-22
-23
6623-01
-06
6626-02
6628-02
-02
6629-03
-03
6635-09
-10
-24
-36
-36
6645-01
-03
-05
6648-01
6649-02
-04
-06
6650-01
-02
-07
-09
-11
-12
6669-02
-02
-02
-05
Ser. No.
9290
9250
9151
9082
9083
9152
9193
9194
9245
9332
9044
9333
9260
9077
9078
9261
9195
9246
9173
9301
9174
9104
9149
9150
9095
9045
9073
9096
9197
9198
9196
9125
9046
9079
9023
9158
9080
9159
9024
9025
9176
9177
9178
9081
Collection
Date
7/21
7/16
7/10
7/3
7/3
7/11
7/15
7/15
7/18
7/29
6/23
7/29
7/21
7/1
7/1
7/21
7/15
7/18
7/15
7/23
7/14
7/7
7/11
7/11
7/3
6/24
7/1
7/3
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
6/24
7/1
6/20
7/11
7/3
7/11
6/20
6/20
7/14
7/14
7/14
7/1
%a
22.1
13.4
8.0
11.8
15.7
23.5
22.5
38.1
32.2
39.5
13.0
47.1
46.9
36.6
28.4
31.3
39.3
38.5
18.5
%13
52.0
35.1
49.6
43.7
55.1
33.6
43.8
26.5
40.4
38.0
65.4
25.1
25.4
43.2
52.5
35.1
29.6
40.8
50.5
Storage
Remarks
19105 x 19058M
19208 x OP
64100 x 19043M
<3
<3
64100 x 19043M
64100 x 19037M
19038 x 51101M
19038 x 54066M
see #9104
46.3
25.1
35.5
28.1
39.0
CoH
19038 x OP
39.1
34.6
37.2
59008 x OP
39.9
49.9
31.7
45.3
29.1
15.0
24.0
41.6
43.0
44.9
42.3
29,1
39.2
37.7
51.4
56.1
59.6
42.9
39.5
32.9
37.4
29.0
40.6
<3
3
47.8
52.2
33.2
32.8
15.0
>4
34.2
30.0
40.4
36.5
24.0
19.9
4
22.7
21.3
<3
19164 x OP
19164 x OP
19200 x 19043M
19200 x 19037M
19200 x 54066M
-134-
Table VI cont.
Identification
6669-05
-06
-09
-17
-18
-19
-29
-30
-30
6735-02
6753-10
-28
-32
-38
6756-26
Ser. No.
Collection
Date
9012
9199
9013
9160
9047
9200
9282
9103
9026
9284
9110
9179
9111
9285
9121
7/15
7/22
7/7
6/20
7/22
7/7
7/14
7/7
7/22
7/7
9122
9123
9124
9283
9126
9337
9281
9125
9286
9127
9128
9287
9129
9288
9130
7/8
7/8
7/8
7/22
7/8
7/29
7/22
7/7
7/22
7/8
7/8
7/22
7/8
7/22
7/8
6/18
7/14
6/19
7/10
6/23
-26
6760-13
-93
6761-07
6763-06
-13
-15
6769-12
-33
6771-25
6772-02
-05
-19
6775-05
6777-07
-14
Storage
54.7
23.2
50.3
39.5
44.7
29.1
47.6
33.0
33.1
33.4
42.4
35.6
36.5
37.4
32.7
34.3
22.3
27.7
28.5
36.1
30.8
46.6
30.6
39.9
44.6
47.3
35.0
30.2
42.0
45.5
46.8
24.9
34.0
30.0
24.7
35.2
30.1
19.9
34.3
36.7
18.5
21.9
31.0
25.7
22.1
24.6
23.3
24.4
22.7
23.5
26.7
41.1
27.9
23.1
24.9
17.4
24.4
27.3
24.0
33.8
21.3
20.7
CoH
Remarks
66030 x OP
<3
<3
66030 x OP
4
<3
used up
Ti x Fu 1-1
>4
Ti x 19040M
T2 x Fu 1-1
T2 x Fu 2-4
T3 x Fu 1-1
4
14 x Fu 1-1
>4
<3
T 4 x 19040M
T4 x 19062
3
<3
T4 x OP
-135-
Table VII.
MALE LUPULIN ANALYSES (1969)
1968 crosses for a/(3 and 6806 for high a
Identification
6801-06
-15
-20
-26
-35H
-36
-38
-40
-49
6802-04H
-06H
-08H
-17H
-31H
-37H
-40H
-46H
-57
-61H
-66H
-69
-72
-78H
-84H
rerun
-103H
-114H
-124
-125H
-126H
-136
-143
-149H
-158
-165H
6803-03
-08H
-09
-12
-20
-21
-29
%a
%a
a/a
a+13
46.5
42.6
56.4
44.3
55.5
47.8
47.3
48.9
54.3
20.9
24.9
23.6
35.4
2.23
67.3
67.5
80.0
12.2
4.54
2.04
2.17
2.50
2.16
47.0
32.7
39.4
34.8
37.2
34.7
37.7
33.8
36.2
37.0
31.5
35.6
23.0
34.2
35.3
36.2
39.1
29.8
29.5
32.4
30.0
35.4
38.3
31.6
35.3
32.3
35.7
25.0
29.0
37.6
39.9
45.8
45.5
26.0
35.2
31.3
35.7
48.9
35.4
41.6
39.5
28.6
28.1
46.6
47.3
41.3
27.5
39.5
46.5
34.1
25.3
48.7
23.4
37.9
41.5
48.0
50.2
35.2
42.5
38.5
41.1
23.5
21.8
19.6
25.2
38.4
32.7
32.0
42.4
42.7
41.3
41.1
1.71
2.39
1.25
79.6
67.7
71.3
69.1
68.4
79.5
Ser. No.
9350
9351
9352
9353
9354
9475
9377
9469
9476
1.55
1.43
1.00
1.15
1.01
0.96
0.95
1.44
1.58
1.17
0.72
1.25
1.32
1.05
0.71
1.95
0.81
1.01
81.8
69.9
74.1
77.6
79.5
81.7
63.0
66.7
66.9
58.7
83.2
70.7
77.8
78.5
58.4
57.6
79.0
77.3
76.6
65.9
71.2
81.8
66.4
61.0
73.8
52.4
75.4
9378
9340
9379
9356
9380
9370
9302
9303
9323
9324
9381
9506
9507
9477
9325
1.08
1.47
1.57
0.83
1.00
0.93
1.00
79.9
80.7
82.2
77.6
85.2
79.8
85.2
9374
9355
9342
9442
9358
9443
9438
1.35
0.88
1.13
1.06
1.35
1.25
0.70
1.12
0.88
9440
9470
9478
9304
9371
9372
9441
9236
9341
9373
9357
-136-
Table VII cont.
Identification
6803-31
-35
-37
-40
-47
-48
-51
-53
-55
-60
-67
-77
-81
-85
-88H
-90
-92
6806-07
-16
-19
-21
-24
-32H
-33
-35H
-36
-45H
-70
-92
-115H
-118
-119
%a
30.1
41.7
35.6
33.6
40.1
36.4
5.4
51.3
43.6
42.0
54.4
41.5
45.5
39.1
51.1
46.4
45.7
45.5
31.1
31.0
44.0
38.1
26.4
56.4
33.6
37.1
36.1
33.5
41.1
35.4
35.6
29.6
26.4
37.4
0.66
1.34
1.15
0.76
1.05
1.38
0.10
1.53
1.18
1.17
1.63
40.7
42.1
28.6
21.1
29.8
34.3
27.4
18.9
28.0
21.9
34.9
25.0
24.0
26.7
27.3
15.5
23.3
1.42
1.99
1.35
1.08
1.69
2.41
1.53
2.16
1.18
2.37
2.19
1.85
1.81
1.82
1.96
40.2
36.9
46.3
45.5
42.9
47.3
41.3
59.1
52.5
49.4
49.6
28.3
45.8
Ser. No.
a/(3
1.01
1.29
1.10
1.73
1.76
1.22
75.6
72.8
66.6
77.6
78.2
62.5
61.8
84.9
80.7
78.1
87.9
82.6
80.9
74.7
80.7
72.8
83.0
69.3
63.2
70.0
71.2
73.7
64.4
70.9
69.2
76.2
84.0
76.5
76.1
76.9
43.9
69.1
9327
9382
9508
9375
9471
9472
9479
9439
9359
9444
9360
9509
9480
9383
9343
9445
9446
9473
9361
9447
9345
9862
9363
9346
9364
9347
9384
9385
9474
9344
9348
9349
-137-
Table VIII.
HIGH QUALITY MALE FLOWER LUPULIN (1969)
1966 crosses for high a
Identification
6616-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-32
-33
-34
-35
-36
-38
-40
-41
-42
-43
-44
-45
-46
-47
-48
-51
-52
-53
-54
-55
-56
-57
Location
01:48a
01:48b
01:49
02:48a
02:48b
02:49
03:48a
03:48b
03:49
04:48a
04:48b
05:48a
05:49
06:48a
06:48b
06:49
07:48a
2nd sample
07:48b
07:49
08:48a
08:48b
09:48b
09:49
2nd sample
10:48a
10:48b
2nd
-58
-59
-60
-61
2nd
-62
-63
2nd
-64
-65
-67
2nd
10:49
11:48a
11:48b
sample
11:49
12:48a
12:48b
12:49
sample
13:48a
13:48b
sample
13:49
14:48a
14:49
sample
%a
%a
35.3
33.7
41.0
27.7
32.0
42.2
45.4
39.9
45.6
27.8
0.83
0.74
1.03
0.61
40.1
Ser. No.
a/f3
1.15
77.7
79.2
80.9
73.4
59.8
9035
9036
9087
9098
9014
32.4
1.23
72.5
9105
22.9
39.6
31.8
37.5
27.2
28.4
49.2
22.5
45.2
24.7
23.0
46.4
0.47
1.76
0.70
1.52
1.18
0.61
72.1
62.1
76.9
62.2
50.2
74.8
9062
9009
9052
9153
9063
9015
52.8
53.4
56.6
29.7
33.7
46.0
28.9
32.8
34.9
26.6
35.6
45.6
29.0
46.9
33.9
35.7
44.8
16.0
25.7
3.30
68.8
2.08
2.48
0.73
0.86
1.46
0.73
1.44
0.88
79.1
79.5
70.6
73.0
77.5
68.6
9089
9027
9099
9016
9154
9106
9100
9166
9037
9107
9188
9189
9064
9028
9001-2
9038
9108
35.1
40.5
23.7
21.1
44.3
31.3
30.7
31.3
26.9
21.9
18.8
58.3
54.9
36.2
35.4
29.2
44.6
23.4
55.2
50.0
22.8
40.9
39.3
31.5
39.7
22.8
39.7
26.2
21.0
27.2
52.6
26.3
37.5
38.8
28.0
1.01
1.70
1.68
0.54
1.79
0.90
0.92
1.60
55.7
74.7
52.8
56.6
72.8
81.6
73.2
71.5
74.5
72.8
75.7
82.1
76.0
80.5
0.87
2.46
2.60
0.82
1.13
0.95
66.7
59.8
1.42
75.9
0.87
50.3
2.52
2.66
77.2
68.9
9017
9010
9053
9029
9018
9101
9190
9019
9039
9102
-138-
Table VIII cont.
Identification
6616-69
-70
-72
-73
-75
6618-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-31
-32
-33
-35
-36
-37
-38
-39
-40
-41
-42
-43
-44
-45
-46
6620-28
-30
-32
-34
-35
-36
-37
-40
-42
-43
-44
-46
-47
-48
-49
-50
Location
%a
15:48b
15:49
16:48b
16:49
17:48b
33.0
32.2
39.4
44.6
17:49
18:48a
18:48b
19:48a
19:48b
19:49
20:48a
20:48b
%
a/8
a+8
30.3
41.3
37.4
30.8
1.09
0.78
1.05
63.3
73.5
76.8
1.45
74.2
9040
9041
9065
9011
59.9
39.2
20.9
40.6
2.87
0.97
80.8
79.8
9066
9030
33.1
50.0
0.88
4.02
1.56
1.48
2.37
1.22
0.61
1.33
2.45
1.47
4.65
0.75
1.11
0.94
70.7
62.5
82.3
69.7
67.4
72.4
78.7
82.5
80.4
79.8
51.5
75.1
78.6
67.5
9109
9067
9068
9168
9142
9169
9119
9020
9069
9070
9070
9054
9021
9042
Ser. No.
21:48a
21:48b
21:49
22:48a
22:48b
22:49
23:48a
23:48b
23:49
24:48a
24:48b
2nd sample
24:49
50.2
41.6
47.4
39.8
30.0
47.1
55.6
47.5
42.4
41.3
32.7
37.6
12.5
32.2
28.1
20.0
32.7
48.7
35.4
24.8
32.3
9.1
43.0
37.4
34.8
26:49
27:48b
28:48a
28:49
28:50a
28:50b
28:51
28:53
28:54b
29:48a
40.9
37.7
39.7
47.0
45.5
51.5
46.6
45.1
44.9
25.3
31.3
32.9
29.2
33.1
32.4
31.9
26.6
32.5
1.61
1.21
1.21
1.61
1.37
1.58
1.46
1.69
1.38
66.2
69.0
72.6
76.2
78.6
83.5
78.5
71.7
77.5
9157
9143
9090
9055
9144
9056
9057
9120
9031
29 :4.8b
38.9
40.6
44.3
50.9
50.2
40.0
33.7
35.7
24.4
33.4
78.9
29.1
26.6
0.97
1.20
1.24
2.08
1.50
1.09
9058
9043
9059
9156
9071
9145
29:50a
29:50b
29:51
29:52a
29:52b
32.1
74.3
80.0
75.3
83.6
55.7
-139-
Table VIII cont.
a+8
33.5
31.3
42.2
23.3
41.0
38.6
25.2
31.7
1.36
1.53
0.88
2.25
0.83
0.86
1.35
79.1
79.4
79.4
75.9
75.2
71.5
81.4
74.6
9072
9091
9191
9092
9022
9171
9093
9155
33.4
37.3
22.1
1.33
0.99
2.19
77.9
74.1
70.3
9172
9094
9192
Location
%a
%13
6620-51
29:53
29:54a
29:55
29:56a
29:56b
29:57
29:58b
29:60b
29:61
29:62a
29:62b
29:63
45.5
48.1
37.2
52.6
34.2
33.0
56.2
42.9
44.5
36.8
48.3
-52
-53
-54
-55
-56
-57
-60
-61
-62
-63
-64
Ser. No.
a/13
Identification
2.23
-140-
Table IX.
SY MALE FLOWER LUPULIN ANALYSES (1969)
Segregation for yield
Collection
Date
%a
9:93
3:93
4:69
7/16
7/23
7/15
29.0
26.3
27.1
13:68a
13:68a
7/15
7/31
13:86b
13:88a
13:94b
14:94b
15:88a
15:90b
16:86b
16:88a
7/25
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/25
7/15
7/25
3:78b
5:76a
6:82b
7:80a
7/23
7/15
7/15
7/15
49.7
45.7
29.3
8:86b
8:92a
9:88a
10:86b
10:88a
10:92a
11:88a
12:86b
4:90b
5:86b
5:90b
6:88a
7:88a
7:90b
7:92a
Identification
106-S (19170)
110-S (19173)
119-1 (19058)
Location
oa
a +g
44.9
43.0
51.0
0.65
0.61
0.53
73.9
69.4
78.1
9214
9291
9202
31.7
23.4
42.5
38.0
0.75
0.62
74.2
9215
9365
38.2
22.1
28.2
21.8
31.5
34.8
30.0
39.9
32.6
37.8
21.5
1.75
0.70
0.81
1.54
0.71
0.97
0.75
2.17
59.9
53.6
63.0
76.4
68.2
64.2
66.2
68.4
9305
9248
9247
9216
1.69
31.9
29.4
36.8
47.0
36.7
1.24
0.62
0.87
79.1
82.5
76.3
68.6
9292
9203
9219
9220
7/15
7/15
7/15
7/24
7/24
7/24
7/15
7/15
30.5
39.7
25.1
15.2
15.9
14.2
27.3
31.5
31.9
31.5
47.8
20.4
28.3
14.9
33.7
35.6
0.96
1.26
0.53
0.74
0.56
0.95
0.81
0.88
62.4
71.2
72.9
35.6
44.2
29.2
61.0
67.1
9221
9222
9223
9308
9309
9310
9224
9225
7/29
7/15
7/23
7/15
7/23
7/23
7/15
42.9
33.1
22.5
35.4
18.2
28.8
38.4
35.7
38.9
31.9
43.9
21.1
37.6
28.5
1.20
0.85
0.71
0.81
0.86
0.77
1.35
78.6
71.9
54.4
79.4
39.3
66.5
67.0
9338
9204
9293
9226
9294
9295
9205
Ser. No.
Fuggle x 106-S
104
104
61.4
Fuggle x 110=S
202
204
212
224
228
231
238
240
46.3
28.3
31.6
28.4
46.8
9217
9306
9218
9307
Fuggle x 119-1
304
325
345
354
Hallertau x 106-S
402
409
416
426
428
433
440
450
Hallertau x 110-S
519
526
531
540
552
555
557
-141-
Table IX cont.
Identification
Location
Hallertau x 119-1
3:68a
604
3:72a
609
3:74b
6:70b
612
643
Collection
Date
%a
7/23
7/15
7/15
7/15
25.1
22.8
36.3
16.3
7/15
7/21
%
Ser. No.
a/a
a+a
43.7
37.7
40.4
58.2
0.57
0.61
0.90
0.28
68.9
60.5
76.7
74.5
9296
9206
9227
9228
7/23
7/23
7/23
7/23
7/22
7/31
15.1
22.1
19.8
14.2
16.5
11.5
5.3
21.1
28.8
52.0
53.2
52.6
53.9
53.5
37.0
58.3
0.52
0.43
0.37
0.27
0.31
0.22
0.14
0.36
43.9
74.2
73.0
66.9
70.4
65.0
42.3
79.4
9249
9290
9297
9298
9299
9300
9289
9366
7/15
7/16
7/24
7/31
7/24
7/15
7/15
7/24
7/15
9.1
13.4
16.8
16.2
1.9
31.6
8.0
5.2
11.0
26.6
35.1
56.9
63.9
57.9
45.4
51.0
25.5
53.0
0.34
0.38
0.30
0.25
0.03
0.69
0.16
0.20
0.21
35.7
48.5
73.7
80.1
59.7
77.0
59.0
30.7
64.0
9229
9250
9311
9367
9312
9251
9230
9313
9252
7/15
7/15
7/25
7/15
16.5
28.6
28.1
33.8
51.1
36.0
42.2
45.6
0.32
0.79
0.67
0.74
67.7
64.6
70.3
79.4
9231
10-S(19105)x 119-1
704
712(6321-01)
721
724
728
731
736
738
8:68a
40:23-24
9:72a
9:74b
10:68a
10:70b
10:74b
11:66b
10-S(19105)x 110-S
801
812(6322-01)
816
823
825
833
842
854
857
8:76a
41:23-24
9:78b
9:84a
10:76a
10:82b
11:80a
12:80a
12:82a
10-S(19105)x 106-S
13:76a
901
14:78b
916
15:78b
928
15:82b
933
9253
9328
9254
-142-
Table X.
COMPARISON OF cc/f3 RATIOS DETERMINED ON MALE FLOWERS
IN 1962 (WHOLE FLOWERS) AND 1969 (LUPULIN
et/f3
Accession No.
1962
1969
19170
0.49
0.65, 0.91
19173
0.61
0.57
19009
0.44
0.36
19036
0.38
0.20
52045
0.48
0.64
19037
0.45
0.46
19048
1.34
1.48
19039
1.40
1.45
19041
0.41
0.59
19043
0.58
0.68
19046
0.17
0.20, 0.08
19044
1.42
1.31
19047
1.58
1.14
19007
0.22
0.42, 0.56
19005
0.15
0.17
51101
0.27
19058
0.64
0.37
19060
0.83
0.72
19050
0.28
0.35
19061
0.40
0.20
-143-
Table XI.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF 1965 AND 1969 MALE LUPULIN
ANALYSIS
Accession Number
Year
%a
%a
19005M
1965
1969
5.9
9.7
19007M
1965
1969
19008M
19006M
a/a
a+a
58.7
56.7
0.10
0.17
64.6
66.3
14.9
15.3
44.6
36.1
0.33
0.42
59.5
51.4
1965
1969
40.6
40.5
25.6
23.1
1.59
1.75
66.2
63.6
1965
1969
15.2
16.2
48.2
52.4
0.31
0.31
63.4
68.6
19009M
1965
1969
18.3
18.7
42.2
52.1
0.43
0.36
60.5
70.8
19010M
1965
1969
26.6
29.8
22.6
28.0
1.18
1.06
49.2
57.8
19036M
1965
1969
17.7
12.9
53.9
64.4
0.33
0.20
71.6
77.3
19037M
1965
1969
17.5
23.1
47.9
50.0
0.37
0.46
65.4
1965
1969
44.4
35.2
31.5
24.3
1.41
1.45
75.9
59.5
19040M
1965
1969
36.5
38.8
32.7
29.7
1.11
1.30
69.2
68.5
19041M
1965
1969
25.3
30.8
48.7
51.9
0.52
0.59
74.0
82.7
19043M
1965
1969
18.6
20.1
32.4
29.6
0.57
0.68
51.0
49.7
19044M
1965
1969
40.9
41.9
33.7
32.0
1.21
1.31
74.6
73.0
19046M
1965
1969
8.8
11.8
50.3
59.6
0.17
0.20
59.1
71.4
19047M
1965
1969
45.3
37.8
30.4
33.1
1.49
1.14
75.7
70.9
19039M
73.1
-144--
Table XI cont.
Accession Number
Year
%a
19050M
1965
1969
17.5
19.8
49.6
57.3
0.35
0.35
67.1
77.2
19051M
1965
1969
16.1
17.9
57.2
59.0
0.28
0.30
73.3
76.9
19054M
1965
1969
29.5
40.8
21.9
30.5
1.34
1.34
51.4
71.3
19058M
1965
1969
30.1
33.4
51.6
49.3
0.58
0.68
81.7
82.7
19060M
1965
1969
29.9
32.6
41.0
45.2
0.73
0.72
70.9
77.8
19061M
1965
1969
16.1
11.9
51.1
60.6
0.31
0.20
67.2
72.5
19062M
1965
1969
39.7
37.5
35.1
35.9
1.13
1.05
74.8
73.4
19085M
1965
1969
28.1
28.9
50.1
53.4
0.56
0.54
82.4
19170M
1965
1969
21.5
36.4
34.7
39.9
0.62
0.91
56.2
76.3
19172M
1965
1969
13.6
32.0
15.2
26.9
0.90
1.19
28.8
58.9
19173M
1965
1969
28.9
23.9
48.3
46.0
0.60
0.57
77.2
69.9
19182M
1965
1969
40.0
42.5
24.0
23.3
1.66
1.82
64.0
65.7
19183M
1965
1969
34.5
38.4
27.8
32.9
1.24
1.17
62.3
1965
1969
5.5
9.3
20.6
60.7
0.27
0.15
26.1
70.0
1965
1969
21.6
34.3
37.2
0.58
0.75
58.8
45.8
51060M
51061M
78.2
71.2
80.1
-145-
Table XI cont.
Accession Number
Year
%a
51101M
1965
1969
13.2
16.6
5114M
1965
1969
52040M
a/a
a+a
34.4
44.8
0.38
0.37
47.6
61.4
17.3
17.9
38.4
50.5
0.45
0.35
55.7
68.4
1965
1969
10.0
23.3
60.0
50.7
0.17
0.46
70.0
74.0
52042M
1965
1969
1.3
22.3
10.3
27.2
0.13
0.82
11.6
49.5
52044M
1965
1969
15.9
22.2
43.3
41.3
0.37
0.54
59.2
63.4
52045M
1965
1969
15.1
18.6
31.3
28.9
0.48
0.64
46.4
47.5
52046M
1965
1969
13.9
27.4
30.8
48.0
0.45
0.57
44.7
75.3
52047M
1965
1969
35.3
35.2
35.8
34.2
0.99
1.03
69.4
52048M
1965
1969
20.5
14.1
51.9
39.2
0.39
0.36
72.4
53.3
54066M
1965
1969
18.1
41.5
18.7
31.1
0.97
1.33
36.8
72.6
58111M
1965
1969
14.9
28.2
46.6
49.2
0.32
0.57
61.5
77.4
60013M
1965
1969
47.2
45.6
23.9
32.0
1.98
1.43
71.1
77.5
60019M
1965
1969
38.9
39.8
31.1
28.9
1.25
1.38
70.0
50.7
60023M
1965
1969
32.6
30.6
30.4
45.8
1.07
0.67
63.0
76.4
60026M
1965
1969
31.9
41.7
34.6
31.7
0.92
1.31
66.5
73.4
71.1
-146-
Table XI cont.
Accession Number
Year
%a
%f3
1965
1969
21.8
43.6
1965
1967
1969
60031M
63013M
60028
60038M
63015M
a/13
a+13
26.2
37.4
0.83
48.0
81.1
32.6
47
30.8
23.9
24
34.7
1.37
2.0
0.88
56.5
1965
1969
32.1
37.3
38.6
44.0
0.83
0.85
70.7
81.3
1967
1969
53
15
3.5
40.6
33.8
1.20
68
74.4
1967
1969
58
53.6
24
22.0
2.4
2.44
1.17
71
65.5
80
75.6
-147-
Table XII.
COMPARISON OF 1968 AND 1969 DATA ON HIGH QUALITY
MALES
Identification
6616-29
6616-34
6616-25
6616-52
6616-54
6616-57
6616-60
6616-67
6616-72
6616-73
6618-26
6618.27
6618-29
6618-39
6618-40
Year
a
a
a/i3
a+13
68
69
13.3
27.7
14.0
45.6
0.95
0.61
73.4
68
69
14.0
22.0
39.1
49.2
0.36
0.47
72.1
68
69
30.5
39.6
15.2
22.5
2.01
1.76
62.1
68
69
7.4
30.7
6.2
32.9
1.20
0.95
63.6
68
69
17.2
45.6
13.0
27.2
1.32
1.68
72.8
68
69
11.9
34.8
11.1
38.1
1.07
0.91
72.9
68
69
21.1
35.1
18.6
40.5
1.14
0.87
75.7
68
69
48.1
52.6
14.4
20.3
3.34
2.59
73.0
68
69
31.0
39.4
17.0
37.4
1.82
1.05
76.8
68
69
29.3
44.6
19.1
30.8
1.53
1.45
74.2
68
69
10.5
29.0
8.0
10.4
2.77
39.4
68
69
41.2
59.9
14.0
20.9
2.94
2.87
80.8
68
69
25.5
39.2
24.4
40.6
0.97
79.8
68
69
27.6
30.0
25.1
48.7
1.10
0.61
78.7
68
69
30.2
47.1
21.9
35.4
1.38
1.33
82.5
1.31
1.05
-148-
Table XII cont.
Identification
6620-28
6620-34
6620-35
6620-40
6620-42
6620-47
6620-49
6620-51
6620-52
Year
a
68
69
47.5
40.9
19.9
25.3
2.39
1.61
66.2
68
69
20.5
47.0
14.7
29.2
1.39
1.61
76.2
68
69
19.9
45.5
15.0
33.1
1.33
1.37
78.6
68
69
21.8
45.1
12.4
26.6
1.76
1.69
71.7
68
69
31.0
44.9
16.8
32.5
1.85
1.38
77.5
68
69
34.5
44.3
19.6
35.7
1.76
1.24
80.0
68
69
25.0
50.2
12.9
33.4
1.93
1.50
83.6
68
69
36.5
45.5
24.3
33.5
1.50
1.36
79.1
68
69
30.4
48.1
16.6
31.3
1.84
1.53
79.4
cx/
a+13
-149-
Table XIII.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS ON 1969 LUPULIN SAMPLES
* = rerun of same sample
**= two different collections
Sample
6616-52*
%a
%a
a/0
a+0
Ratio
1.01
2)
26.6
27.2
26.2
28.0
0.97
52.8
55.2
0.309
0.251
1)
2)
33.1
31.4
37.6
36.5
0.88
0.86
70.7
67.9
0.242
0.217
1)
2)
50.0
47.8
12.5
15.3
4.02
3.12
62.5
63.2
0.289
0.258
1)
55.6
36.4
24.8
15.2
2.45
2.39
80,4
51.7
.235
.271
45.4
42.7
36.2
26.6
27.8
23.0
1.71
1.54
1.57
72.0
70.5
59.2
.262
.258
.261
38.8
32.9
29.7
26.6
1.30
1.24
68.5
59.5
.238
.212
28.9
35.8
38.6
0.64
0.25
0.25
47.5
3)
18.6
9.0
9.6
44.8
48.2
.237
.245
.211
1)
14.1
2)
14.3
39.2
40.0
0.36
0.36
53.3
54.3
.204
.196
1)
2)
17.9
15.5
44.5
30.9
0.40
0.50
62.3
46.4
.212
.215
6803-67*
1)
2)
54.4
47.9
33.5
37.8
1.63
1.27
87.9
85.6
.200
.199
6802-84*
1)
28.6
28.1
29.8
29.5
0.96
0.95
58.4
57.6
0.230
0.219
34.3
32.7
23.3
24.6
1.47
1.33
57.6
57.3
.250
.233
46.9
47.1
25.4
25.1
1.85
1.88
72.3
.235
.217
6618-32**
6618-33**
6618-41**
1)
2)
6620-50*
1)
2)
3)
19040**
1)
2)
52045*
52048*
Pross 5*
1)
2)
2)
6756-26H*
1)
2)
6622-08*
1)
2)
72.2
-150-
Table XIV.
BREEDING BLOCK AND GERM PLASM MALES
Comparison of results obtained in 1964-65 with 1969 analyses
% a-acid
Accession Number
1964-65
a/13 ratio
1969
1964-65
1969
19170
21
29.8
.6
.65
19173
29
23.9
.6
.57
19009
18
18.7
.4
.36
19048
45
45.0
1.5
1.48
19039
44
35.2
1.4
1.45
19044
41
41.9
1.2
1.31
19007
15
15.3
.3
.42
-151-
Table XV.
MALE LUPULIN
Hermaphrodites (1969)
Identification
Location
%a
a/13
a+13
Ser. No.
6753-10
6:18
42.4
21.9
1.94
64.3
9110
6753-28
5:10
35.6
31.0
1.15
66.5
9179
6753-32
5:14
36.5
25.7
1.42
62.5
9111
6756-26
7:10-11
34.3
23.3
1.47
57.6
9121
6760-13
17:42
22.3
24.4
0.91
46.7
9122
6760-93
21:36
27.7
22.7
1.22
50.4
9123
6761-07
22:29
28.5
23.5
1.21
52.0
9124
6769-33
12:06
39.9
24.9
1.61
64.8
9125
6763-13
9:05
30.8
41.1
0.75
71.9
9126
6772-02
18:20
47.3
24.4
1.94
71.7
9127
6772-05
18:23
35.0
27.3
1.28
62.3
9128
6775-05
19:03
42.0
33.8
1.24
75.7
9129
6777-14
21:14
46.8
20.7
2.26
67.5
9130
-152-
MINT INVESTIGATIONS
C. E. Horner and S. T. Likens
Introduction
Oregon mint growers produced in 1969 the largest crop of peppermint oil
on record, about 2,200,000 pounds.
Acreage planted to mint was also the
highest on record with 36,000 in 1969, up from 24,000 in 1967, and 31,000 in
1968.
The 1969 crop was of excellent quality in all Oregon production areas.
Verticillium wilt, which a few years ago was removing about 2,000 acres
per year from production, has been brought under practical control in Western
Oregon, but is continuing to spread slowly in Central Oregon.
Our major
research emphasis in 1969 was on evaluation of wilt-resistant peppermint
strains. We continued with our Certified wilt-free planting stock program
and under took stubble flaming trials in Central Oregon for wilt control.
Wilt-Resistant Varieties
Five wilt-resistant strains were grown in large plots for the second
year on two different locations in 1969. At one of the locations (Chambers),
we have obtained reliable yield, maturity, and disease resistance data for
two years and oil samples for flavor evaluation have been obtained which
should be comparable to those from commercial practice.
At the other location (Hamlin), management problems with perennial weeds and irrigation have
resulted in poor oil samples and these plots have been discontinued.
Pertinent data from the 1969 Chambers plots is tabulated below.
Summary of yield, disease, and quality data from
1969 Chambers plots of wilt-resistant peppermint strains
Strain
58
3202
1229
3201
92
Mitch
/a
Wilt plants
per 1000 sq. ft.
Yield
lbs/A
Ester
29
13
63
12
78
63
6.8
6.7
4.2
6.9
7.3
76
7.8
12
9
77
88
80
/a
Quality
Alcohol
Ketone
58.2
56.6
52.5
59.6
59.5
58.1
22.7
23.6
26.0
21.4
21.3
22.4
M-Furan
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.7
2.3
1.3
Quality data supplied by A. M. Todd Company
In addition to harvesting commercial samples for oil yield and quality,
the Chambers plots were sampled weekly from July 15 through September 2 to
obtain small samples of oil to evaluate for menthofuran content in relation
to harvest date.
Earlier observations indicated that some of the resistant
-153-
strains matured earlier than Mitcham and had a slightly higher menthofuran
when harvested the same time as Mitcham. Oil samples are still being
evaluated at this writing, but preliminary indications are that higher
menthofuran content of the wilt-resistant strains is associated with their
earlier maturity.
In 1968, several hundred plants of each strain were put throught our
wilt-screening program and wilt-free plants were planted in Central Oregon.
These were increased in wilt-free field plots in Central Oregon in 1969
and replanted to provide test plots for yield and quality from that area
in 1970.
During a three-year evaluation of about 60 other strains of peppermint
supplied by Dr. Murray, one strain was noticed that decreased in wilt
incidence and severity each year and that produced a vigorous spreading
growth under severe wilt, flaming, and intense management practices.
This
strain, No. 1034, has been selected for further testing.
Rootstock has
been supplied Dr. Murray and additional stock is being propagated wiltfree by us.
This strain warrants further evaluation because of its ability
to grow and spread vigorously under the current flaming-chemical weed control
practices used in Oregon and because of its apparent high resistance to wilt.
Wilt Control by Stubble Flaming
Stubble flaming after harvest, combined with Sinbar for weed control
to eliminate plowing and cultivation, continues to be effective in stopping
the spread of wilt in Western Oregon where it is now practiced by all
growers.
In Central Oregon, we established stubble-flaming trials on two farms
On the Siegenhagen farm north of Madras, trials were established
in a field with light wilt infestation and will be continued for three years.
On the Nance farm at Metolius, trials were established in a field with
moderate wilt infestation.
These plots have been set up in a manner to
obtain wilt control, yield, and quality data from plots treated as follows:
(1) Flamed, then plowed and cultivated normally; (2) flamed, then not plowed
or cultivated; (3) not flamed, but plowed and cultivated normally.
in 1969.
Results are now available from a three-year study on flaming in rillirrigated mint near Hermiston in North-Central Oregon.
In this trial there
has been no further spread of wilt since flaming was started.
Further,
yields have not been depressed by flaming without cultivation, remaining
between 120 and 108 pounds per acre during the study.
Certified Planting Stock
This program was completed in 1969 and turned over entirely to the
Oregon State Plant and Seed Certification Service.
In 1969 we provided
about 20,000 wilt-free plants to qualified growers. The amount of Certified
Mitcham Peppermint planting stock available in October, 1969 was 350 acres.
This should be sufficient for spring planting needs in 1970.
-154-
Rust Control - Some Problems and Solutions
Many Willamette Valley growers had problems with rust in 1968 and 1969.
We made a restudy of the problem, and from checking several commercial
fields, we feel that there are two major factors contributing to poor rust
control. As I see it, these are:
1.
Flaming too early.
Success of flaming is based on catching the
rust fungus in the most vulnerable stage of its yearly life cycle.
Normally,
this occurs between April 1 and May 15. However, a cool wet spring will
delay the fungus in coming to its most vulnerable stage and an early warm
one will advance its development.
In 1969, for example, it was April 10
before rust was in its most vulnerable stage to kill by flaming.
In some
years it has been ready as early as March 20. The best advice seems to be:
Don't start flaming before April 1 except in years of early warm weather
when flaming could be started in the last half of March.
2.
Poor heat penetration in dense, matted rootstock. Here the problem
is one of getting enough heat into the lower layers in a dense mat of
runners.
There are basically two solutions to the problem: One is to run the flamer
slower and the other is to flame twice, a few days apart.
Flaming twice
is the surest, but also consumes more gas.
A non-functioning burner or lap-skips will both allow rust to survive
flaming, and given favorable weather (for rust), an epidemic will follow.
If you will remember back 10-15 years ago, when rust was really a problem,
you will have to agree that flaming has been a generally successful control.
Attention to the details of timing and thorough coverage can make it a
perfect control for rust.
Mr. John McIntyre, graduate student at OSU on the Mint Industry Research
Grant, conducted a series of laboratory and field experiments on the temperatures required to kill the wilt fungus inside mint stems.
In laboratory
experiments he found that:
50° C.
(122° F.) gave 83% kill
50° C. for 60 seconds gave 88% kill
60° C. (140° F.) gave 87% kill
60° C. for 60 seconds gave 98% kill
70° C. (158° F.) gave 96% kill
70° C. for 60 seconds gave 100% kill
We then conducted a series of flaming experiments in the field with a
standard field flamer operated at various speeds and at a constant gas
pressure of 35 psi. We measured the internal stem
temperatures obtained
at various flamer speeds with electronic temperature probes placed in the
center of the stems, then conducted lab assays to determine the kill of
Verticillium.
-155-
Kill of Verticillium in Mint Stems
Flamer speed
1.5 mph
2.0
"
2.7 "
3.6 "
Gas pressure
35 psi
35
35
35
"
"
"
Percent kill
99.0
98.7
98.0
88.0