How do you know what’s written on the label is what’s in the box? It’s something that exists on the fringe of the hop industry. If you’re a brewer, maybe you’re not even aware it happens. The payoff is big for those who gamble and win.
BLENDING
In 2024, the U.S. is swimming in a mountain of hops. Meanwhile, several European varieties are short while excess production of similar varieties exist. The answer for some is to blend their problems away. Now is the time of year when varieties that were blended to cover shortfalls are either discovered or slip quietly by. There are quite a few ways to blend. Here a few of the more common[1].
In the past, blending was common among merchants. If you had some old Willamettes, for example, a merchant might run them together with the fresh ones. This eliminated old inventory nobody wanted and didn’t cause any harm. If a merchant blended one- or two-year-old Willamettes at a 10% ratio with the fresh hops during the pelleting process, nobody knew and there was no excess inventory buildup. Given the 100-200 million pounds of older hops languishing in warehouses worldwide, this is a practice merchants would be smart to revisit.
Another example of blending that was common in the past also occurred in the pellet mill but was done for good reason. Farmers producing aroma varieties with above average alpha acid could always sell their hops easily. They were in high demand to offset hops of the same variety that yielded below average alpha. In this case, both lots would be from the same crop year. When blended, they would make a pellet with a typical alpha content for the variety in question.
The pellet mill isn’t the only place where two varieties can be blended. It can happen on the farm. If a farmer is a little short of one variety, he might consider blending a little of one with another on the cooling room floor before bailing. The farmer might label them the short variety and deliver them. In this case, the merchant may be unaware of the situation. He’s happy to be working with such great farmers who deliver on their contracts even in years when the variety is short.
I once met a farmer in Europe who took blending to the next level. He planted German Magnum and Herkules in the same field to boost the alpha acid content of his Magnums. It was obvious to anybody who knew anything about hops what he had done since the two varieties look different in the field. Once they’re in the bale, it’s difficult to tell. This was not in Germany so add patent violation to the blending that occured[2]. With the new unitary patent in the EU, producing Herkules outside of Germany could become a violation with serious consequences[3].
In some cases, blending can get out of control. Some merchants understood long ago that while pelleting you can blend five to 10 percent of almost any variety together with another and the difference would be difficult to detect to the average brewer. The greater the difference between the varieties, or the lower the quality of the hops being blended, the lower the percentage blended. If you could get some hops for a very low price from somewhere that produces an unknown variety with similar characteristics to a popular variety, by blending this way you could lower the cost of goods sold.
A farmer once asked me a hypothetical question. He asked, “Let’s say you produce a crop in one year and pellet them the next. What year are the pellets when you sell them?” It’s not a bad question. There’s no law requiring the crop year to be labeled and there’s nobody checking. While this is not blending per sé, I include it because it reveals the degree of creativity when money is involved.
There is no other source of information about the hop industry like what you’ll read in this Substack. If you find it interesting or entertaining and would like to see it continue, please consider sharing it with somebody else who might feel the same. Thank you.
There is no industry-wide standard to objectively verify quality or variety integrity. When nobody is checking, when there are few, if any, consequences, and when the payoff is high, human nature dictates cheating will occur[4][5]. The current system relies on trusting farmers about what they produced. If you’re a brewer and you don’t know the players, you don’t know who can be trusted. Even if you’ve been in the industry a while, you may not anticipate which of your “hop friends” will betray you.
The examples of blending I mentioned are things I have seen or that I was told about by the person with firsthand knowledge. I don’t know the extent to which it happens in 2024. I’m not buying or selling hops, and people don’t often share such things. I would bet money that it is happening somewhere in the world. If anybody is interested, there is a way to check.
VARIABILITY
In my November 16, 2022 article, “Did you Get the Hops You Paid For?” I wrote about the wide range of characteristics assigned to most varieties.
https://mackinnonreport.substack.com/p/did-you-get-the-hops-you-paid-for
In the article, I noted how Centennial variety alpha acid can be anywhere between seven and 12 percent. The same variety can also produce a wide range of oils. These differences can be from terroir, growing practices and weather fluctuations from year to year. With such variability from lot to lot within a single variety, it’s difficult to know if an off type is present without testing. The traditional methods, like a gas chromatograph (GC) test for example, can be expensive. It’s why some brewers prefer to buy their hops from the same farmer each year. Not everybody (i.e., smaller breweries) has that option.
THE BEST HOPS:
Speaking of getting the “best” hops. Merchants all claim they have the best hops even though most buy them from the same farmers. I have always thought selection during and after harvest is theater. I once hired an olfactory consultant to discuss the value of hop selection. He said that hop selection by smell is a valid practice if a person is properly trained so long as they are not drinking beer during the process. He said after the fourth of fifth sample, a brewer’s nose would be contaminated, and he would lose their ability to discern subtle smells. The selection process is great marketing. It makes for fun posts on Instagram. Everybody leaves happy, convinced they’ve selected the best hops. It makes sense that the breweries that go first, who know somebody on the inside or who spend the most money get the best hops. The others get the best from what’s left. Since the word “best” is subjective, however, everybody can leave Yakima believing the illusion they’re getting the best. It’s in the merchants’ interest to keep brewers in a state of suspended disbelief. In a way, this is related to the topic of blending because hops of the same variety may be blended during the pelleting process. If the size of your order is smaller than the mixer at the pellet mill, can you be sure you’re getting only the lot you selected? The brewers that go last may not even know their position in the hierarchy … but brewers always have fun during the selection process, so it’s not a total loss.
VARIETY CERTIFICATION
In July, 2001, as director of Hop Growers of America, I reported on the industry’s efforts toward variety certification (Figure 1). Some merchants claimed at the time that brewers demanded certification and they were just responding to their needs. I’ve reprinted much of that article below.
Figure 1. Excerpt from July 2001 Hop Growers of America Newsletter
On June 27th, the U.S. hop industry met in an open meeting to discuss the idea of creating an industry wide variety certification program that would rely upon voluntary participation by growers and merchants. Two U.S. merchants brought the issue to the attention of the industry leading to the meeting. In essence, their proposal is to create a program in which a neutral third party will verify the identity of hop varieties being delivered to the brewery. The current system relies upon the honesty and integrity of the parties involved to delivery what is promised. Proponents of the program suggest random samples could be taken from existing quality samples noting that this would significantly reduce the cost of implementing such a program. Under the proposal, varieties could then be certified as accurate using modern scientific testing methods and if found to be accurate could receive an industry seal of approval that would confirm the variety being delivered is true to type. At this point, the details of such a program remain open although any proposal must allow for the growing demand for generic alpha acid on the world market.
The purpose of the meeting of July 27 was not to create a certification program but to inform interested members of the industry about an issue that is being considered to give those on both sides of the issue an opportunity to air their opinions. The outcome of the meeting was the formation of a working group composed of growers and representatives from the three American hop merchants. The group will investigate the details involved in any potential program and report to the industry at a later date on their findings. Some in the industry have expressed concern that any such program would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to a struggling industry. Overwhelming concern by growers surfaced regarding the cost of a certification program and who will bear those costs. Proponents of the program say that costs can be kept at a minimum by using existing records and record keeping techniques already in place due to ISO certification, a program in which all three merchants already participate. Those who remain skeptical of the proposal predict the expense involved with such a program would be ominous and would inevitably be passed on to the grower, an idea even growers in favor of the program do not support. Another point in question among growers is the demand for such a program among the world’s breweries. At this time, growers are caught between merchants claiming their customers regularly ask for variety certification and merchants who claim there is no demand for such a program among the world’s brewers, a case of one merchant’s word against another.
Brewers concerned with variety integrity obviously have the most to gain by the implementation of any such program. While any program would require growers to be more diligent about their rouging and picking efforts, they too stand to benefit through the increased awareness among the world’s brewers regarding the natural efficiencies of certain varieties and the costs associated with producing those varieties.
In the European Union, varieties are certified. The certifications are not based on scientific testing methods so they may not be worth the paper they’re printed on despite their official stamps and seals.
SOLUTIONS
I wrote that Hop Growers of America article nearly a quarter of a century ago. Since there is no industry-wide variety certification program today, it is safe to assume the program failed. Maybe brewers are no longer interested in knowing if they get what they pay for. If they are, there are affordable options that weren’t available when I wrote that original article. A properly designed program could detect fraud with 100% certainty by implementing two technologies that weren’t available to the average person in 2001.
BLOCKCHAIN
A European friend who sells hops and I recently discussed the idea of a blockchain to record and track hop production from one end of the supply chain to the other. A blockchain would enable perfect tracking of every pound of hops produced from the farm to the brewery. A buyer would know from whom they purchased hops and to whom they sold them. Neither would know the identity of any parties beyond that. Everybody’s identity would be open and visible on a blockchain but without knowing which wallet belongs to which entity there would be no way to decipher who sold to whom, like today … but a blockchain alone would not be a solution to the on-farm blending I mentioned in number three above.
DNA
According to the National Human Genome Research Institute, the cost of DNA analysis has dropped by multiple orders of magnitude over the past 20 years (Figure 2)[6].
Figure 2. Decreasing cost of DNA sequencing 2001-2022
The typical human genome has about three billion base pairs of DNA[7]. Plants are different. Some plants are simple[8]. Many plants genomes are much longer and more complicated than human genomes. The longest, Paris japonica, has 50 times more base pairs than the human genome[9]. In addition to technological advancements, scientists have developed ways to further reduce the cost of DNA analyses[10][11]. Whole genome sequencing costs have decreased[12]. More importantly, it’s not necessary to sequence an entire genome to know whether a batch of hops is true to type. Molecular markers make it easier to match sample DNA to a known standard to determine if the sample is true to type[13]. That’s simpler and much more affordable. Today, portable equipment is available that enables partial gene sequencing in the field[14].
CONCLUSION
Complete traceability would be easy to implement using 2024 technology. A system combining a blockchain and DNA analyses would eliminate all blending. A black market could exist, but buyers of black-market hops would risk a lot to gain a little. An effective system would cost less than $0.01 per pound of hops. It would solve the issue with the mystery pellets mentioned above and it would reveal off-types. It would guarantee transparency and variety integrity and could be in place before the 2025 harvest.
Merchants and farmers aren’t talking about variety certification anymore. Did brewers change their mind and decide ignorance is bliss? If asked, merchants would claim they maintain variety integrity. Yakima Chief Hops™ has their Green Chief® program for just this purpose[15]. I would also want to control the certification process if I was a merchant. Depending on the circumstances, people are divided on the merits of corporate self-regulation[16][17]. In a world where everybody from politicians to priests lie, should brewers really trust the hop industry? If that sounds ridiculous, consider this … Is changing the system possible given the cartel-like structure in control?
“Quis Custodiet Ipsos custodes?”
(Who is watching the watchers)
- Juvenal (Satire VI lines 347-348)
A blockchain/DNA system would provide total transparency and traceability. These are things the industry says they favor. For some reason, they stop short of implementing a fool proof system or anything resembling objective quality standards.
A real Hop quality program like the one proposed here, if it existed, could only be demanded by brewers immune from merchant consequences. That means breweries too big to threaten (i.e., anybody from a big craft brewery up to the largest brewers in the world). Smaller breweries risk having their supply cut.
At the end of the conversation, we agreed the whole variety integrity idea was a great, but the industry has more to gain by not having a certification program than it does by creating one.
… Caveat Emptor!
[1] I’m not accusing anybody of blending in 2024 or suggesting that the practice is widespread. From my experience, I have seen that the opportunity to profit causes people to do things they wouldn’t normally do. I am suggesting is that in a year where there are shortfalls in some varieties there is a higher likelihood that unsanctioned blending will occur, and that merchants and brewers might should be more vigilant.
[2] Herkules are only supposed to be produced in Germany according to current patent laws. I know of Herkules production in several other countries. The new unitary patent laws could change that.
[3] https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent
[4] https://www.npr.org/2012/06/04/154287476/honest-truth-about-why-we-lie-cheat-and-steal
[5] https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2016/01/23/why-cheating-is-prevalent-and-we-cant-stop-it/
[6] https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/DNA-Sequencing-Costs-Data
[7] https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Base-Pair
[8] https://phys.org/news/2014-12-pocket-sized-genomes.html
[9] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101007120641.htm
https://www.pacb.com
[11] Bhérer, C., Eveleigh, R., Trajanoska, K. et al. A cost-effective sequencing method for genetic studies combining high-depth whole exome and low-depth whole genome. npj Genom. Med. 9, 8 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41525-024-00390-3
[12] Caulfield T, Evans J, McGuire A, McCabe C, Bubela T, Cook-Deegan R, Fishman J, Hogarth S, Miller FA, Ravitsky V, Biesecker B, Borry P, Cho MK, Carroll JC, Etchegary H, Joly Y, Kato K, Lee SS, Rothenberg K, Sankar P, Szego MJ, Ossorio P, Pullman D, Rousseau F, Ungar WJ, Wilson B. Reflections on the cost of "low-cost" whole genome sequencing: framing the health policy debate. PLoS Biol. 2013 Nov;11(11):e1001699. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001699. Epub 2013 Nov 5. PMID: 24223516; PMCID: PMC3818164.
[13] Zhou, H., Li, S., Liu, J. et al. Identification and analysis of the genetic integrity of different types of rice resources through SSR markers. Sci Rep 13, 2428 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29514-y
[14]https://nanoporetech.com/platform/?utm_campaign=Search+brand+sequence+terms+24&utm_campaign=DG+Categories+-+Sequencing+General+Terms+-+North+America++-+Target+CPA&utm_source=digital_gearbox&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=bing_search&utm_medium=ppc&utm_content=platform+page&utm_term=dna+sequencing+method&hsa_acc=1905654280&hsa_cam=14425433506&hsa_grp=1172081150715376&hsa_ad=&hsa_src=o&hsa_tgt=kwd-73255359336103:loc-4085&hsa_kw=dna+sequencing+method&hsa_mt=p&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&msclkid=d5b3ed468e2215c35b868a5d7c282674
[15] https://www.yakimachief.com/green-chief
[16] https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/14/corporate-self-regulation-global-crisis
[17] https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilmalhotra/2019/03/04/why-self-regulation-can-pay-off/