What's Cooking in the USDA's Hop Kitchen? A Conversation with Head Hopster Dr. John Henning



Dr. John Henning

In Part 1, we talked about a proposal for creating a royalty-sharing program that could help strengthen the public’s hop breeding and research program.

In Part 2, we’ll take a look at what’s happening down in Corvallis at the USDA-ARS hop breeding and genetics program, which is run by Dr. John Henning. Dr. Henning has been managing the hop program since 1998 (CHECK THIS!).1996.

I called up Dr. Henning who was kind enough to give me a snapshot of what’s cooking. First, and this is cool, Dr. Henning reported that despite a shrinking budget he has about 50 crosses and 40,000 seedlings for this years breeding nursery. Within that “gene pool” he has a “seedless” Perle derivative, as yet unnamed, that has shown promise. Because of a downey powdery mildew invasion in the USDA greenhouses in Corvalliswhere his material was being evaluated a few years ago, most of his genetic material has been moved to WSU greenhouses in Pullman,located in Washington.

Dr. Henning is very excited about the “in kind” support the USDA has been receiving from farmers. The partnership has allowed him to “ramp up” the intensity of his benchwork research on crossing, propagating and selecting promising hop lines, without having to manage greenhouse and field trial operations. Unlike the Indie Hops-OSU breeding program, Dr. Henning’s focus is on both aroma and super alpha development, no small order.

I was curious about the process for “checking out” public and experimental hop varieties from the USDA germplasm repository in Corvallis. The repository contains clones of about 200 public varieties and 100 experimental lines. To be sure, unlike a public library, you can’t just walk in ask for rhizomes for your backyard garden. The purpose of the repository is to collect, preserve and distribute hop material to foster research.

Here’s a few questions I posed to Dr. Henning about the “in kind” support paradigm, the inside scoop on his Perle brainchild, and the stuff that keeps him motivated and up at night.

RGW: I just want to make sure I have this down right. The USDA does not supply germplasm to farmers for testing; rather, you provide rhizomes, or plantlets to select farmers who then propagate and grow them out? Does anyone outside of the parties who sign the MTA [Material Transfer Agreement] have knowledge of what's being tested or where?

JH: The USDA-ARS breeding program provides rhizomes of experimental lines directly to a grower or growers who are under contract (Material Transfer Agreement) to grow out said experimental lines for “On-Farm trials.” These growers are chosen by the respective State Hop Commissions (OHC and WHC) and Hop Research Council (HRC) to perform this function. Funding is typically provided the grower(s) to recompense them for their costs—in most cases this is around $6000 per acre. In all cases, State Commissions and members of Hop Research Council (HRC )(FOOTNOTE1) are fully aware of what experimental lines are put into those trials.

HRC members and State Commissions have made specific requests regarding which experimental lines they would like to see sponsored in “On-Farm” trials. USDA-ARS can also suggest experimental lines if not included on the list of lines HRC or State Commissions select for advanced testing. Finally, The USDA-National Clonal Germplasm Repository does not provide any experimental lines to growers, merchants, brewers or other researchers unless specifically requested by myself. Typically, this is done in cases where researchers from different countries and breeding programs have agreed to germplasm exchanges of important material. It is in this fashion that USDA-ARS was able to obtain true dwarf hop germplasm for genetic and breeding research—by agreeing to provide pollen from USDA-ARS hop male lines that were not released as well as a few publically released hop varieties such as Teamaker and Newport.

RGW: So you don’t hand pick the farmers for testing experimental lines?

JH: Correct. I don’t pick the growers. I use both WA and OR growers and these growers are selected by their respected State Hop Commissions and the HRC.

RGW: Can you tell us more about the Triploid Perle you’re working on? Has anyone pilot brewed with it?

JH: The information on Triploid Perle is contained within the HRC yellow book reports. The triploid Perle line is a true seedless hop, which is highly desirable as Perle is normally a prolific seed producer. It has somewhat of a higher alpha at 11-12 % with beta acids around 4- 5 %. Yields for this line are tremendous—potentially on par with some of the “supers” that are out there. In addition, it’s high in essential oils that give floral and citrus notes. Finally, it has oil content exceeding 1.5 ml per 100g of dried cone. OSU’s Fermentation Science program is the only “micro brewery” to pilot brew with it. I’m sure others would love to experiment with it but I only have had hops from a single plant at the moment. After tasting the single hop brew that Tom Shellhammer (OSU) made, several breweries have expressed an interest in it. Unfortunately, I went from a single hill to multi-hill plots in 2011 and plants were in their baby year last year. There should be sufficient hop this upcoming harvest for multiple pilot brews by HRC members. It’s being grown on 40 hill plots in both Oregon and Washington. These plots are being sponsored (financially) by HRC.

RGW: You read about the number of Oregon hop farmers declining over the past few decades. What are your ideas for keeping the Oregon hop industry vibrant?

JH: My mandate from Congress is to for keep theing USA hop industry vibrant, not just Oregon. With that in mind, my best contribution would be to continue developing superior germplasm and cultivars that allow US growers to outperform other nations and make a finished beer that tastes better than beer made from hops from other regions of the world. With this said, Oregon growers have been particularly hurt by the surplus of ‘Willamette’ that was grown in the past and which was stored. This surplus has resulted in a significant drop in acreage (6000 to 3000) that has not been replaced by another line yet.

As you know, Willamette is susceptible to fungal pathogens and a replacement is needed for growers and brewers. The USDA-ARS and WSU are working closely with HRC brewery members to develop and release a disease resistant, higher yielding aroma hop as a replacement for Willamette. It is highly likely that a new public hop variety (Such as Mt. Rainier or the Triploid Perle) will be chosen to replace Willamette when inventory of Willamette is used up. If this occurs, we would most likely see a dramatic improvement and vibrancy of the Oregon Hop industry, as well as in Washington and Idaho (both of which groew Willamette).

RGW: What research topics most invigorate you? What are you most passionate about? What's your "dream legacy?"

JH: That’s a tough question!! I’m multi-faceted in what invigorates me and gets me passionate. I would love to have the legacy that Dr. Haunold obtained by developing superior hop varieties that are grown to a great extent throughout USA. At the same time, I’m striving towards developing molecular marker systems that would enable breeders to be more precise in selection as well as speed up the selection process. Finally, I’m striving towards working with other renowned hop scientists to completely sequence the hop genome. To achieve all three of these goals would be my “dream legacy.”

RGW: What's the story on Mt. Raineer, which you released in 2006?in 2008? Who's growing it? What was your target or objective in developing the cross? What was the production in Oregon on Raineer last year, if you know?

JH: Mt. Rainier is a fine hop that hasn’t taken off yet. I see it as a victim of outside circumstances—mainly issues of supply and demand in nature. Just prior to the release of Mt. Rainier, there were two years of crop failures. This was followed by a dramatic increase in planting new hops (including Willamette here in USA and Halletauer Mittelfrue in Germany). The result of this dramatic increase in hop plantings resulted in a significant oversupply of hops and hop products. Mt. Rainier was released right after this huge oversupply of hops occurred and there was very little demand for hops--new or old. The production and distribution of Mt. Rainier was also hampered by the appearance of hop stunt viroid in 2008. To make a long story short, it was entered into the Clean Plant Network as soon as possible and if I’m not mistaken, will become available this year for limited distribution of cuttings. While it was in on-farm trials at John Annen’s [FOOTNOTE 2] farm (5 AC), it was distributed to several craft brewers.

From the limited responses I received back, it was viewed as an excellent hop on par with, and similar to, true Halletauer Mittelfrue grown in Germany. Unfortunately, there was a huge oversupply of Halletauer Mittelfrue that was being sold for ~$1.50 lb and brewers saw no reason to pay $3.50/lb for Mt. Rainier when they could buy Halletauer for $1.50/lb. When Mt Rainier was growing in the 5 AC plot at John Annen, he regularly obtained 12 bales per ac. He barely had to spray for downy mildew and never had to spray for powdery mildew. My target in developing this hop variety was one of developing an aroma line that was somewhat higher in alpha acids and was disease resistant with excellent yields and good pickability.

RGW: What is your worst fear about the future of Oregon hop f harm farming -- in terms of disease or pest invasion? What are you doing to anticipate and prevent major catastrophes? (Now that's a tall order!)

JH: In some sense, it’s already occurred. The hop stunt viroid has the potential for making hop farming extremely difficult both here in OR as well as WA and ID.

Furthermore, the potential advent of hop powdery mildew races that are “male AND female” as opposed to “either male OR female” and capable of mixing up genes from several races in the Pacific Northwest may make breeding hop lines resistant to powdery mildew extremely challenging. What this means is that new races of powdery mildew can arise quickly and overcome current plant resistance in hops found in such lines as Nugget or Newport.

Currently, I’m working on identifying molecular markers that will aid in selection for experimental lines that are resistant to both powdery and downy mildews. Once identified, these markers will help speed up the selection process as well as increase the accuracy of selection. I work closely with Dr. David Gent (USDA-ARS Plant Pathologist) in screening new breeding material for experimental lines that are resistant or highly tolerant to both pathogens. This is time-consuming, labor intensive and expensive doing things the old fashioned way—inoculate with the disease and visually chose resistant lines. We’ve had some success in developing new experimental lines that appear to have better “resistance packages” than currently grown varieties. These lines are working their way through the “breeding cycle” which can take upwards of 10 years before public release.

RGW – Thanks John. You’ve got a full plate. Naturally, I’m worried that hop research is being underfunded. I’ll take a look at the public funding of table and wine grapes, as an analogue to hops. My cursory research shows that the USDA-ARS budget for grapes has actually been increasing over the past few years, and is now up to over $15 million, with $2 millon dedicated to grape breeding and genetics alone. As we discussed in the last blog, the total USDA-ARS budget for hops is around $750,000, with only a fraction of that available for actual programmatic research.

I think it’s time to apply political pressure. A hearty collection of diseases could wipe out entire crops, and we haven’t even talked about pests. To keep up with an ever-changing battery of pests and diseases, we need a strong federal hops research program. And the last thing this industry needs is a concentration of breeding, growing, and processing muscle in one place. Wine grapes, for example, are grown in dozens of states and the USDA allocates funding to research facilities in 7 states.

More to come.

RGW
May 18, 2012

FOOTNOTE 1. Hop Research Council members include two craft brewers, Boston Beer and Sierra Nevada, and “industrials” such as Anheuser-Busch-Inbev, Heineken and Miller Coors. The HRC hop dealers include: Hopunion, Haas, Steiner, and Yakima Chief.

FOOTNOTE 2. John Annen is the Chair of the Oregon Hop Commission, which was created in 1964 to protect, serve and enhance the Oregon hop industry, as well as a hop grower and owner of Annen Farms.

The USDA-ARS Hop Research Program – A Modest Proposal for Creating a Sustainable Funding Loop

Check out hops from the National
Clonal Germplasm Repository in
Corvallis, Oregon

Part 1 of a 2 part series

Public funding of hop breeding and cultivar development is hardly a political priority. The budget for the USDA-ARS hop breeding program has remained frozen since 2000, at a scant $750,000 per year. Of that, when you factor in inflation, mandated program cutbacks, cost of living adjustments, maintenance and other costs, the amount of money actually available to perform research is a paltry $25-30,000 per year.

The mission, however, remains the same. Since the 1960s, the goal of the USDA-ARS hop program has been “to develop hop germplasm and cultivars that incorporate superior pest and disease resistance, increased yields and enhanced brewing characteristics.”

That’s a mighty big challenge on any budget, let alone one that is radically shrinking with no hope in sight for a fresh infusion of new public money from a tea party inspired Congress that is hell bent on dismantling basic scientific research.

Assuming that the public even has a compelling interest in nurturing the US hop industry (we think, of course, that it does), the question arises: if we can’t count on federal money, and private money is becoming more scarce, what can we do to rebuild our once robust USDA-ARS hop breeding program? How can we insure a sustainable funding stream?

It’s time to think creatively. Let’s break it down. There are at least four major players: 1) the USDA-ARS, which creates the germplasm, 2) the farmers, who grow and test the new hop lines, 3) the brewers who analyze the experimental lines for desirable characteristics, and 4) the private breeders, whose goal is to obtain patents on new hop varieties, license their patents to select growers, and maximize profit.

Under the current model, the USDA-ARS “partners” up with trustworthy farmers to grow out it’s germ lines. Right now the USDA has about 40,000 seedlings from about 50 crosses. To save money, the USDA distributes those plants for testing among growers in Oregon and Washington. The farmers’ costs are generally reimbursed by the Oregon Hop Commission and the Hop Research Council. Instead of cash, private growers and brewers, at least in theory, are asked to pony up “in kind” support.

Under this model, the USDA at least on paper maintains control of the experimental lines. Their legal vehicle for doing that is a “Material Transfer Agreement,” basically a contract between the USDA and the farmer. The MTA is an interesting document. On the one hand, it smartly restricts the grower from transferring the new lines to third parties and from disclosing data from the testing. Parenthetically, there is no budget or staffing for monitoring, inspection, or enforcement.

On the other hand, the MTA acknowledges that new hop lines conceivably could be transferred or shared with third parties, i.e., private breeders, if the farmer negotiated a written deal with the USDA.

Hmmm. This is a new program, only a few years old, so we don’t yet have an instance we know about in which a farmer, either directly or through a proxy, sought to commercial exploit a publically owned experimental hop line. Could it happen? Possibly. Will it happen? Maybe.

So when it does happen, how is the public’s interest going to be protected? Here’s where we need to think about the same mechanisms the federal government uses to extract royalties from oil, timber, cattle and pharmaceutical companies. The idea is for the USDA to negotiate a royalty fee whenever a private breeder intends to market, sell, license or otherwise “own” a new culitvar that’s the direct result of the USDA program.

Think about it. The future of public hop funding is bleak. In the past 12 years, we’ve released two varieties (Newport in 2002 and Mt. Raineer in 2008). Meanwhile, private breeders have been churning out the big bread winners, such as Citra® and Simcoe®. I’m not saying that the breeders behind either of those “homers” had it’s snout in the public trough. They bred great hops, took a big risk, invested a lot of time and money, and won in the marketplace. They should be rewarded.

But what about the future? New and valuable cultivars will emerge from the present USDA/private farmer partnership. In my view, in order to build a sustainable funding loop, the USDA can and should negotiate a co-ownership interest that reflects the value of its contribution. Moreover, it can and should negotiate terms that will bind the private co-owner to license the hop with growers according to fair and transparent criteria.

How much money could this type of model generate? I’m just spitballing here, but the numbers look … meaningful. Take a look at the 2011 US harvest: about 65 million pounds of hops. Of that, about 14.6 million were proprietary hops (not counting Summit, Amarillo and a few others), or about 22% of all hops grown. If, and this is a big if, those proprietary hops emerged from publically owned hop germplasm, and/or were the result of some measure of public funding, and the average price per pound was set hypothetically at $5.00/lb, and we applied only a nominal 5% royalty, then the USDA would be looking at revenue of over $3.5 million per year. That’s almost 5 times more than the entire current budget.

Look, I don't know nothing about nothing, but it seems to me that the people should get a return on their investment. And, in turn, that financial return can and should be reinvested in a fortified basic and applied hop research budget. The US consumer’s appetite for new hops is growing. The demand is there, and so is the treasure. Now it’s up to the USDA to assert itself as a major stakeholder and get back at least some of what we give.

RGW
May 10, 2012

P.S. And by the way, in terms of the public’s interest, don’t forget that we’ve barely scratched the surface on the neutraceutical and cancer-fighting potential of humulus lupulus.

Competition Good for Hops, Farmers and Brewers

Attention Craft Brewers:

I hope this note finds you in a robust spirit as we settle in to the new year. Fortunately, we have much to be upbeat about – craft brewing is one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal economy. Every day it seems we’re hoisting hoppier beers and welcoming more happy converts.

As you plan your future hop needs, please consider Indie Hops.

• Our prices may not be the lowest you can find but they will be competitive enough to not have a significant effect on the hop portion of your COGS. If it's more, it will be a tiny fraction of the $10 more per lb. you were paying just recently and it's a fair price to pay to insure that everyone in the supply chain is healthy so that the hop supply stabilizes.

• After several years of selling hops at a 400% markup, the de facto hop cartel in Yakima can afford to offer new contracts virtually at cost in order to keep you dependent on them when the next price cycle comes along. Yes, there was a tight market in 2008 and it is reasonable that brewers without contracts would have to pay more that year. However, the very next year 7,000 additional acres of hops were put in and there was no longer a shortage to justify the long contracts at record high prices. Having few alternatives, you had little choice but to agree to lopsided terms.

• Do you want to reward the Yakima merchants for this behavior by giving them all of your business now that spot prices are low? Unless Indie Hops and others are around to offer competition the next time the supply tightens, you will once again have no choice.

So having said all that, I politely encourage you to continue to diversify. Buy from your current suppliers. Buy directly from farmers. Buy locally. Buy from overseas. And buy from the new guys with the lightly processed fresh pellets who believe in promoting publicly owned cultivars – Indie Hops. Spread the love, lower the risks of controversial shortages, promote hop and hop farmer diversification, and make a new friend with a fresh spirit.

Keeping competition alive will be as good for the hop industry as it has been for the brewing industry. We appreciate your support.

Cheers!

Roger

Available hops: http://www.indiehops.com/pdf/IH_Order_Form.pdf

2011 crop: http://www.indiehops.com/pdf/IH_contract_pricing.pdf

The Art and Science of Hop Substitution Charts

We are often asked how the “Hop Substitution Charts” available on the web came about. There is some variation among them, but many appear to be carbon copies of each other.

What are they based on? Hop chemistry? Parentage? Sensory Panels? Educated guesswork? Test brews? Marketing sleight of hand? I asked my friends at OSU and the consensus was anywhere between “pseudo-science” to all of the above.

If anyone has any insights on the basis (or reliability) of the hop substitution charts (e.g., see http://www.byo.com/resources/hops) please let me know.

We aren’t so bold as to assert that one hop can be “substituted” for another – at least not without accurate genetic and sensory information. We prefer to say that one might present a suitable “alternative” for another.

When the hop “shortage” struck in 2008, many brewers scrambled to find substitutes for aroma hops. Many brewers tapped higher alpha varieties and to this day have stuck with them. One macro-consequence of this recipe change has been a decrease in the production and usage of aroma hops compared to pre–shortage years.

The recent New Brewer reported substantial decreases in the US acreage of workhorses such as Cascade and Willamette, while acreage in the “dual purpose” powerhouse Centennial has actually increased since 2008.

Based on anecdotal encounters with brewers, I’ve noted a trend towards simplification of the aroma hops used. It appears that while usage of public varieties, such as Sterling, Cascade and Mt. Hood has fallen, proprietary cultivars, such as Amarillo, Palisade and dual purpose Simcoe has gone up.

Of course, when a hop is proprietary, the owner can limit which farmers can grow it. The owner stands to obtain a licensing fee or royalty from the sale of the hop from the grower to the owner/merchant.

Random Sampling of Web-based Hop Charts: Brew 365 Bitter Brewer Knight's of the Mashing Fork South Atlantic Home Brewer (Please note, this is a large .pdf file)

Since many of the hop merchants in Yakima also own patents on hop cultivars (e.g., Simcoe, Palisade, Citra, Amarillo, Warrior), it’s no secret that between public and their own varieties they’d rather push their own. That’s simply an illustration of the guiding hand of self-interest in a capitalist, laissez-faire economy.

But when each Yakima hop merchant pursues their own self-interest, is it true that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” magically makes sure that hop varieties are fairly and propitiously allocated in a way that insures the march of the craft revolution?

Is the trend towards less diversity of the hop supply good for crafties? Is the consolidation of hop acreage in Yakima good for crafties? Should crafties rely on foreign imports when suitable varieties can be grown less expensively and more reliably in the US? Do crafties benefit when each year we see fewer heritage hop farmers willing to give it another go? Is the risk of over dependence on a narrow menu of varieties acceptable?

These are big questions. I’m sure the patent owners can make a strong argument that their hop inventions are unique and superior. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with owning patents. It takes years of R & D to bring home a winning cultivar – such as Citra. The question that intrigues us is not whether a proprietary hop is unique, but how unique is it?

That’s where the “substitution” charts come in. Within the framework of the aroma hops breeding program we sponsor at OSU, we will be looking at the design of a “sub” chart that is based on science and sensory analysis.

In the meantime, when brewers ask us for an “alternative” to Simcoe, we suggest Chinook, based mainly on the grapefruity aroma and the similar alpha acid profile (Centennial’s another choice). We’re not absolutely sure on parentage of Simcoe, since it’s proprietary.

It may be best to suggest blends of hop varieties to attain a particular character. As an example, it might be useful to say, “instead of Simcoe, use 50% of Hop A, 25% of Hop B, and 25% of Hop C.” Of course, as OSU continues to develop crosses in the pursuit of unique aroma hops, perhaps the day will come soon when the choice will be simple.

As we explore these questions, we’re always learning more from you about what works. Have you on a lark or hunch swapped out one variety (or blend of varieties) to imitate or, better yet, emulate a go-to hop? How did it go? We’d love to hear about your fortuitous trials and even your not so happy errors.

Roger Worthington
12/3/10

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