Thanks for Stopping By!



Matt Sage dealing the green gold

San Francisco CBC. Our first show and Jim, Matt and I had a blast. Non stop fun, action, beer, laughs and food. Haven't had so much fun indoors since the time my Mom dropped me off at the State Theatre in Corvallis, Oregon on a dark, rainy day and I got to watch "Swiss Family Robinson" for 7 straight hours.

We had the pleasure of talking with brewers from Anchorage to Atlanta and from Portland, Maine to San Diego. Wherever they were from, a few common themes emerged.

Brewers understood the importance of keeping publicly owned varieties alive and well. Many a woe was expressed about the undersupply of privatized hop varieties to which the bereft brewer had become "addicted."

Brewers also understood that they could exert control over their future hop supply with reasonable and fair contracts. The days of living off the scraps that dropped from the tables of the big brewers are long gone. As one brewer put it, "Contracts have gotten a bad rap because of what happened in 2008 but they're the best bulwark against radical swings in supply and price."

We heard about one merchant offering a brewer Cascades for under $3 per pound. Three dollars a pound?!? For artisan aroma hops? Three dollars a pound is well below the costs of production and processing. It's a price so outrageously below market one is forced to ask whether the merchant is dumping hops with the goal of driving out competition.

Just a few years ago merchants were demanding $25 for Cascades. As Matt Sage wisely warned: "If you want to avoid paying $25 for hops, don't pay $3." Makes sense. Negotiate a price that is sustainable for the hop farmer, the hop processor and the brewer. Most brewers get it that quality artisan hops are going to cost more than factory-farm high-alpha varieties.

Roger and the HOP Queen

Had a wonderful time talking about all the good stuff Indie Hops is doing with hop oil maturity studies, oil extraction experiments, organic hop production, and our aroma hop breeding program at OSU. More importantly, I learned more about what keeps brewers up at night. I like to live by the old adage -- ain't no problem we can't solve.

Thanks again for dropping by the Indie Hops booth. It's great to be part of a thriving business that's equal parts inspiration, perspiration, science and spiritual awakening. The best statistic I heard all week is that while Craft is around 5% of the US beer production we produce 50% of the jobs! Very cool.

RGW
3/28/11

HopTalk with Al Haunold, Part XI

Freedom Hops: The Case for Public-Private Breeding Partnerships

Those who know me understand that I tend to fixate. I get the sandy grain of an idea, apply loads of constant pressure (with maximum compression around 3 in the morning.) and either a blood vessel bursts or out pops a pearl.

Here’s my latest pearl in process: the need for public-private hop breeding partnerships.

Here’s what started the itch. I was perusing the Strategic Plan of the Hop Research Council (1998, updated in 2007). By way of background, the HRC consists of a few larger brewers and all the usual merchants in Yakima. These are the insiders who have a tremendous influence on the direction of how public research dollars are spent. They also assess themselves certain fees and make additional money from HRC available through research grants.

Now, everybody knows that I think the world of Dr. Al Haunold, an extraordinary public servant I’ve heralded on this blog as “the People’s Hopmeister.” After escaping the Nazi War Machine and emigrating to the US, eventually my Austria-born mentor came to work at the USDA in Corvallis where from 1965 to 1996 he took the lead in releasing to the public over 20 new hop varieties.

Twenty! For Free! Al didn’t patent those inventions. He never saw a dime from any royalties because there were no royalties – not then, not now. Neither did Uncle Sam, nor anyone else on Al’s team of public breeders. Anybody can get access to rhizomes for hall-of-fame US varieties like Cascades, Willamette, Nugget, Liberty, and others – all the hopwork of our Nation’s No. 1 Hopmeister. Anyone can get ‘em, and anybody can grow ‘em.

Al retired in the late 1990s but his final collaborations were not released until the early 2000s, to wit: Newport and Mt. Rainier (both crosses made by Al in 1994), Horizon (cross made by Al in 1970), and the low-alpha Teamaker. By the way, Teamaker’s roots go all the way back to 1970. The brewers were not keen on it because it contained virtually no alpha acids. But his technicians loved it for brewing hop tea.

Since then – the early 2000s -- not a single variety has been released. What happened? Did the USDA lose its edge? Did they surrender? Or did they just in fine George W. Bush fashion hand over the keys to the candy store to private industry?

To answer that, let’s go back to that HRC “strategy” statement that has so jarred me – a statement which in truth prompted me to get into the game and to sponsor an aroma hop breeding program at Oregon State University.

Here it is, verbatim, from the HRC strategic plan (click here to read the entire text).

"While varietal development is a critical requirement for the continued success of USA hop growers, there is some concern that public breeding programs should not be involved in the development and release of varieties."

Huh? What’s so egregious about public servants serving the public? Who voiced this "concern"? Private breeders who saw an opportunity to fatten up with their snoots in the public’s trough? I asked Al whether there was any fuss about him taking his work too seriously, that is, depriving private breeders of their chance to make a buck on the public’s dime.

Al shrugged off the strange insinuation. "No, I wasn’t aware of any concerns. We didn’t start seeing any private breeders in the US until the mid 1980s when the laws for patenting agricultural products became more lenient. Before then, I actively worked with brewers, farmers and merchants, and we all got alone fine." With stellar results.

The HRC statement continues:

"Several private breeding programs actively work towards developing and releasing public and proprietary varieties grown with the support of a marketing system that helps growers sell their product on the world market." (Italics added).

Private breeders release “public” varieties? Well, that’s a new one. Al just had to laugh. “That’s an oxymoron. A private company can’t make a public release. I don’t know what they’re talking about.” Aside from this nonsense, the meaning is clear: the merchant-big grower-breeder industrial complex has set its sights on controlling the world market. That hop hegemony begins with patenting varieties and granting licenses to selected growers. An excellent strategy for controlling the price and supply of US hops.

It gets better:

“In almost all other crops, public breeding programs no longer serve as the major developer of varieties but do serve as developers of germplasm containing a specific trait… Germplasm developed by public programs is then utilized by private breeders for use in the development of superior varieties – the better the germplasm, the better the varieties that are ultimately made.”

Whoa doggies! First, the phony argument that “everybody’s doing it.” Second, no attempt to proffer evidence that the public is hurt by an aggressive, efficient and amazingly productive public breeding program. Third, the cavalier way in which the privatizers skip over any ethical issues and swinishly assert that the fruits of the public’s labors is their god-given birthright.

“I disagree,” Al offered modestly. “If the public program develops the tools that help us breed superior varieties, then the public should continue to be involved in bringing new varieties to market. In fact it’s more efficient, as the tool makers generally know best how to use those tools in the field.”

What does this mean for Al’s legacy of public service? “Well,” Al pondered, “it’s appears to have been ruined by the pursuit of profit. The private breeders smelled the money. They want the public to subsidize the creation of the tools – the germplasm, which can select for higher yields, disease resistance, etc – but not share anything in return. They want to restrict access by farmers. That goes against everything I worked for.”

The privatization model kicked in about the time Al retired (nice send off, boys!). How many aroma varieties have sprouted since then? Amarillo? Well, that’s an aroma, but it wasn’t the result of a private breeding program—the Gamaches found it on their farms and trademarked it, which means only they or their chosen few can grow it. Ahtanum? It’s relatively recent, but we don’t know much about its parentage. Citra is a recent privately developed hop, and by all accounts it’s a home run. But we don’t know much about where the germplasm came from. Was publicly owned germplasm exploited? If so, did the patent owner agree to share any royalties with the public?

And that’s the point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with private breeding. It should be encouraged. It’s risky. It’s expensive. It’s time consuming (8 – 12 years on average). As long as there is robust access to public varieties, the profit margin on any new variety is a matter of speculation. And any breeding mission will necessarily involve brewer feedback, just as Citra did with Sierra Nevada and Deschutes, to name a few.

The wicket gets sticky when private breeders utilize public germplasm, develop a “new” variety and then attempt to patent it for their own personal gain without sharing the fruits. Since patent applicants generally insist on keeping secret their formulas, recipes and designs, they jealously guard the pedigree of their plants like the proverbial rich ugly old maid and her silver spoons.

How are competitors going to know what’s off limits? And how does permanently restricting access to varieties by farmers, growers and other merchants help grow the craft beer industry anyway? And think of the potential for corporate espionage: it’s not inconceivable that breeders will raid USDA germplasm depositories before the cell-lines are publically released. (See the History of CTZ, here.)

That’s one big reason why Indie Hops funded the aroma hops breeding program at OSU. Public hop breeding, especially of aroma varieties, had essentially died not too long after Al retired. Our goal has been to empower OSU to invent, invent, invent. With inventing comes ownership. With ownership comes the right to impose reasonable conditions. With conditions comes the potential for royalties. With royalties comes a predictable revenue stream, a big chunk of which can be re-invested back into a public-private program.

The death of public hop breeding programs, we believe, is not only a shame, it’s a punch in the stomach to the work and legacy of The People’s Hopmeister, Al Haunold. Indie Hops stepped in after InBev/AB pulled out to fund a first-ever aroma hops breeding program in large part to continue Al’s pursuit of hops.

Does this mean we believe we are entitled to complete ownership of any new hop “invention?” Absolutely not. We believe in sharing. We look forward to executing on a public-private model that exacts sweat, skill, equity and labor from each stakeholder and commensurately rewards them while also serving the hop growing and hop-loving public.

Roger Worthington
8/26/10

Interview with Dr. Shaun Townsend

Breeding a Bold New World of Aroma Hops

The quest to breed more desirable aroma hops, aromas and flavor, oddly enough, has never really begun. While breeders like Dr. Al have hit home runs on crafting hop cultivars with more alpha, or higher yields, or disease resistance, few if any public breeding programs have made new and better aroma oils their holy grail.

Until now. As we’ve reported, Indie Hops has sponsored a breeding and research program at Oregon State University which, for the first time, targets aroma hops. I spoke with Dr. Shaun Townsend, hops geneticist, about the new program that he’s pioneering along, along with his colleague Dr. Tom Shellhammer, a hop chemist.

Is there a Super Aroma Hop Profile?

The short answer, according to Shaun, is no. We can talk all day about total oils and specific oil compounds. But , but nobody really knows – largely because the research investment historically has been nearly nil—the association between particular oils (e.g., farnesene, linalool, humulene. Gerianol, citral, limonene, etc) and definable and discrete flavors (e.g., floral, piney, citrusy, spicy, herbal, etc). remains naggingly unclear.

“There’s a glaring gap in our knowledge on how hop oils and their constituents interact to influence the taste and flavor of beer,” said Shaun. “There’s not a blue print or road map that tells us which oils to amp up or tamp down, or how do either of these compounds might be genetically associated.” The acids, on the other hand, are relatively simple, he said. “Just look at CZT [Columbus, Zeus, Tomahawk]. In a few decades the high water mark for alpha acids went from around 11% to around 18 to t 19%.”

In contrast, Hhop oils, Shaun muses, are a more “complex beast.” Hornbook biology teaches us that the traits of a particular plant are influenced by genetics and environment. The exact contribution, however, is not well known. We know that soil, climate, pests insect invasion, and temperature are a huge influence, he says, but there’s a “gap in our knowledge” when it comes to connecting specific DNA sequences to specific oils that wind up in beers that register in our brains as having particular qualities.

Do You Start with A List of “Super Aroma” Target Traits?

Again, the answer is no, at least for Shaun. We know from the literature that aroma hops are associated with certain traits. For example, aroma hops are generally defined as having:

* Low alpha acid content (less than 5%)
* Low myrcene oil (less than 50% of total oil)
* Low cohumulone alpha acid
* Alpha acid to beta acid ratio near 1.0
* Poor storageability
* Medium total oils content (.5 to 1.5 % of the whole hop)
* High humulene to caryophyllene ratio (above 3)

These are decent guidelines, but under OSU’s new aroma flagship program, defining worthy traits is the domain of Tom, while Shaun will attempt to breed for those selected traits.

To help identify the hops which may express desirable characteristics, Tom will be orchestrating hop sensory panels over the next few years. The panels will consist of experienced craft brewers, who will be asked to identify and describe flavor and aroma qualities of various hop brews. The data analysis from the sensory panels will be fed to Shaun, who will in turn cross targeted female and male hops for breeding, using conventional breeding techniques.

How does the Breeding Work?

Using Tom’s data, Shaun should readily identify the female plants. Choosing the male crossing partner, however, will be more difficult. Why? It boils down to who’s got the most accessible humulus lupulin. Females are teeming with it, but males – not so much. Their resin glands are much, much smaller, making it harder to harvest resin for analysis.

“We aren’t exactly shooting in the dark,” assured Shaun. “We have several decades worth of data on breeding stock. Since males don’t produce cones, it will be harder to identify the best males with an optimal oil profile, but it can be done. Basically, if the oil profile from the progeny of a particular male is desirable, we can trace the genetic contribution back to the male partner. It just takes lots of sampling and testing.” And the patience of Job.

Once seedlings are available, they are tested for Downey and Powdery Mildew and viruses. Weirdly-shaped, runty or puny “off-types” are culled out - the bad phenotypes. The vigorous chosen few are then transplanted to the field, where over a 3 to 4 year period they’ll be evaluated by the usual criteria (yield, disease resistance, appearance, size, etc).

Can New Technology Speed Up the Selection Process?

As we’ve learned from the People’s Hopmesiter, Dr. Al, the process of breeding, selecting, planting, harvesting, testing and releasing new hop cultivars can take up to a decade. Is there a short cut?

The short answer, again from Shaun, is “yes” for mega crops like corn, soybeans and wheat, but a strong “maybe” for hops. The idea is to associate genetic markers with desirable traits (e.g., citrusy aroma). Once DNA sequences are mapped and understood, scientists could simply study the sample leaf tissue of seedlings for genetic markers (without destroying the plant). They wouldn’t have to wait for the 1 to -2 years it takes for females to yield plump cones before they could run their battery of tests.

The technique, known as “Marker-Assisted Selection,” would allow breeders to plant hundreds and hundreds of female seeds, grow them into small plants, and pluck the leafs for DNA analysis. Using reliable molecular markers from seedlings to identify “home runs” would shorten the breeding program by many years, save tons of money and speed up the process of inventing new “designer” aroma hops.

Of course, all of this is years away. But the journey has begun, thanks to the work of Shaun’s colleague, Dr. John Henning, who has been working on genetic markers, mainly for yield and disease reistanceresistance, at the USDA-ARS Hop Lab in Corvallis, Oregon for the better part of the last decade.

Of course, we’ll still need to somehow associate particular DNA sequences with particular flavors and aromas, a herculean task further complicated by the changes a hop undergoes during its life and brewing cycle, depending on the terroir and brewer.

Variation is the Spice of Life

Dr. Townsend is like a kid in the candy store. “I’m very excited about the program, “ he said. “There’s so much to love about beer and hops, but there’s so much we don’t know.” Shaun is optimistic that with the data from Tom’s hop sensory panels, he can ramp up the process of selecting female and male partners for crossing, the results of which can be tested later on down the road..

Indie Hops shares Shaun’s enthusiasm. Hop science is on the cusp of harnessing the power of new technologies that have the potential for transforming how we go about breeding new hop cultivars. Consumers of craft beer want variety. They want to experience new aromas and flavors, from the big and bold to the faint and subtle. Unlike the industrials, whose mantra is “consistency,” crafties are shooting for the “new and different.”

The OSU breeding program is as big and bold as the richest pale ale. Instead of delivering one thing – more alpha acid – OSU’s finest aim to unlock the hop oils treasure chest. Tucked away in each pouch of mysterious humulus lupulin, there are as many potential flavors and aromas as there are human moods, temperaments, and personalities. This is the start of a brilliant new beer world in which brewers will be free to cook up a diverse roster of beers showcasing endless combinations of new and dazzling aromas and flavors, limited only by the imagination.

Roger Worthington
3/15/10