NOVEL AUTOMATION FOR INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY AND REDUCED COSTS IN HOP PRODUCTION

(FIGURES AND TABLES ARE UNAVAILABLE ON THIS WEBSITE.)

I. IDENTIFICATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM

The specific problem being addressed by the proposed program is the tremendous amount of manual labor required in hop production and the resulting high costs and less than optimum productivity. Hop producers' reliance upon slow but highly skilled manual labor at a time when rising production costs, falling prices, and inadequate productivity are forcing thousands of the country's farms and ranches out of business represents one important element of a serious national challenge. In this particular agricultural niche, the use of manual labor to string hop-growing latticework brings with it the shortcomings and flaws inherent in the use of humans to perform highly repetitive and physically exhausting work: a significant amount of imprecision and unreliability is inherent, resulting in high costs and a hop yield that growers believe is as much as 20% to 30% below what would otherwise be possible. Each year in Washington State alone, 214,000 miles of twine, in pieces 21 feet long, are tied by hand to the trellis wires.(8) A total of 54,000,000 knots are tied by hand each year in Washington, and that number can be doubled to calculate the nation's total. To add to the difficulty, all of this must be accomplished within a relatively brief period during the spring season- -a time when high, gusty winds make it especially difficult to tie the knots, keep the lines untangled, and keep the newly placed lines anchored into the hop hills.

Given these conditions, the hop-producers' current reliance upon highly skilled manual hop-stringers creates a number of problems:

1. The stringing operation must be started earlier than would be preferred because slack time for windy or wet weather has to be anticipated. The hop stringers typically won't work unless conditions are "just right." This early start forces early hiring and also creates a situation in which the lines that are put in early are exposed to weeks of spring weather that can pull anchored lines out of the ground and cause the need for additional work and expense.
2. When the conditions are favorable, as much work as possible has to be attempted, and 10- or 12-hour days naturally lead to physical fatigue and the resulting shortcomings. The most important drawback is a reduced openness of the "V" as the workers' arms tire from the overhead tying. The less-than- optimum width of the latticework reduces growth potential by 1)restricting the amount of sunlight that can reach the interior of the "V," 2) restricting access for insect-control spray, and 3) making the even application of liquid fertilizers much more difficult. Many hop growers believe the haphazard spacing of the knots reduces potential yield by 20% to 30%.
3. The cost of labor for a 6- or 7-person crew, which can at best cover about 7 acres a day.

The manual aspect of tying presents even further problems. The twine itself- -typically a special variety obtained from Sri Lanka and other foreign countries, is very difficult to work with. Much of the twine is made from coconut husks. The coarse, 'sticky' characteristics that make it good for hop-growing make it troublesome to handle. It must first be soaked in bales to soften it enough for the hop-tiers to use, then it is cut manually into hundreds of thousands of 21-foot lengths. A method of tying that could make use of the bales of twine as-received and eliminate the need for soaking would greatly reduce labor and costs.

Regarding economic problems, the reduced yield resulting from manual knot-tying adversely affects crop economics that are already harshly impacted by the labor-intensiveness of the stringing procedure. In 1980, for example, the cost of preparing an acre of land for hop production (with about 1300 hop hills per acre) was $170. The figure is now conservatively estimated at $200 per acre by the farmers themselves. That figure represents about 13% of the current price obtained from an acre's yield (average 1800 lb/acre x $0.86/lb = $1548; $200/$1548 = 12.92%). A method of substantially reducing those labor costs would clearly be welcome, would increase margin and profitability, and would reduce or eliminate the need for government financial assistance for this agricultural group. A new generation of automation based upon sophisticated technology is long overdue within this agricultural niche.

II.B PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS TO AUTOMATE HOP-STRINGING

Several different methods of mechanically attaching the twine to the trellis have been investigated, but the basic problems have not been solved. Numerous types of knots have been tried, and several experienced research groups have attempted (and abandoned) efforts to automate the tying operation.

The knot that has proven most successful over the years has been what is called the 'rolling half-hitch' (Figure 2)- -a knot that does not easily lend itself to machine duplication. This fact is well-illustrated by unfruitful R&D expenditures over the past twenty years. These attempts have for obvious reasons not been placed in the literature or otherwise broadly publicized, but they are well-known throughout the industry, and the most notable of them are summarized below.

In the late 1960s, a group from the University of California at Davis was selected by growers to develop a machine that would tie the rolling half-hitch. U.C. Davis produced a split die that could tie the knot, but it was actually slower than the manual method. And although the device eliminated the need to take precut lengths of twine into the field (as it was able to feed twine from a continuous bale), the die had to be manually opened and closed. Moreover, although the device was patented (U.S. Patent No. 3,563,583), a practical, marketable version of the invention was never developed. In fact, it appears that growers' needs were not even addressed when the patented version was developed. In a 10/4/70 letter from the United Hop Growers of California (Box 25, Sloughhouse, CA 95683) to the University of California Regents, George W. Signorotti wrote the following:

In regard to the MACHINE FOR TIEING KNOTS- -Gentry-Giannini, the United Hop Growers of California, Inc. wish to report that no sales have been made to this date.During the past year, the organization has worked with the Dixon Y Machine Shop, Dixon, California in developing a prototype model which would hold up under field conditions. The problem was further complicated since plastic string for which the knotter was designed is unacceptable to the growers, thereby necessitating changes in the design of the scroll to handle paper twine. The model was tested in July of this year and viewed by a delegation of hop growers from Oregon as well as California growers. The test left much to be desired and it is anticipated that further testing and developing will continue in the future.

Successful development and commercialization was never achieved.

Subsequently, Vitro Engineering Company in Richland, Washington was asked by a grower in Yakima, Washington to develop a machine that would not only tie the twine, but that would also stake the ends into the ground, forming the "V" automatically. Working hardware was produced, but it was not capable of tying the needed knot. Vitro engineers consequently chose to use a machine-made loop and a hand-applied clip, but found that the proper tension could not be maintained. Moreover, the machine was restricted in its ability to adapt to changing ground levels and widths between wires. The device was deemed unworkable.

A thorough on-line literature search revealed no published information on the existence or successful development of an automated hop-stringer of the type we propose here. A single overview article on hop mechanization was found, but it does not identify any work being done with automated knot-tying.(9) However, that search did reveal that the federal government (and primarily the USDA) is currently funding 24 hop-related projects, according to the Federal Research In Progress data base. That level of interest and funding reflects the significance of the crop itself, as well as a lack of progress in the important aspect of automation.

It is clearly time to perfect a method for streamlining and improving one of the most difficult and expensive tasks in agriculture. Doing so will not only greatly strengthen the hop-growing industry, but could also provide the needed impetus to spur pursuit of the automation of other challenging areas of agriculture that have to date technically or economically foiled all attempts to mechanize or otherwise improve them.

II.C PROPOSED APPROACH

What we propose here is a novel approach to automating this important aspect of hop production. During the 6-month Phase I program we intend to demonstrate the successful use of a new generation of tying head based on an innovative design and microprocessor technology that will accomplish the tasks that have not been possible with automated machinery to date. We propose the successful development and demonstration of this tying head in Phase I, and ultimately envision a multi-head knot-tying platform that will automatically feed all types of twine and tie the required knot on the trellis wire at precise and consistent intervals, regardless of weather conditions, uneven ground, or inconsistent wire spacing. The goal of the Phase I program would be to demonstrate the feasibility and promise of developing the full-scale, multi-head prototype that would lead directly to commercialization. We estimate a doubling of acreage covered in a day, a major reduction in labor costs, a greatly shortened (delayed) hop-stringing season, and substantially increased productivity resulting from improved placement of the crucial latticework.

Using state-of-the-art components, we propose the development of a tying head that will feed a 21-foot length of twine, load the twine into an eye in the tying head, raise up 90 degrees to engage the overhead wire, tie the knot, release the wire, pivot back down out of the way, and reload- -all in approximately 6 seconds. Once the feasibility of the head itself is demonstrated under Phase I, multiple heads would then be fabricated and mounted in series- -the actual numbers of heads being dependent on the size of the hop farm and typical spacing of posts- -on a mobile, self-propelled platform under a second-phase development program. The platform would be capable of extending the heads up to the 18-foot-high wires and adjusting height and platform angle automatically to conform to uneven ground contours.

What we are proposing here is in essence a duplication of certain capabilities of the human hand- -the need for a high degree of precision in an imprecise working environment. Using a machine to consistently produce the rolling half-hitch knot will of course be a challenge, but the principal investigator for this project has successfully demonstrated his ability and ingenuity for many years in machine design and automation, and a strong team of coworkers and consultants has been assembled to ensure a high likelihood of success with this Phase I project.

II.D ANTICIPATED BENEFITS

As is discussed above, the primary benefit foreseen as the result of successful completion of this project, assuming the three-phase program is completed, is the availability of an important new piece of sophisticated farming equipment for the nation's hop producers. Our initial projections indicate a per-acre savings of more than 75% (~$40 vs. ~$200) over costs now incurred using the 6- or 7-person teams to tie and anchor hop lattices.

Furthermore, as discussed previously, the expected reliability and consistency made possible by the use of the device could increase crop yield by 20% or more.

Based upon the estimated cost per acre and a projected cost of roughly $40,000 per unit, the machine would more than pay for itself the first year (taking depreciation and tax credits into account) if it were purchased for a 250-acre hop farm (which would include virtually all U.S. growers). Manufacturing costs would be kept low by using mostly standard OEM parts. For although the design is in itself novel, the parts needed for the bulk of the tying head and the platform will be of the off-the-shelf variety.

We believe that an intensive six-month Phase I program for about $50,000 would allow us to prove the feasibility of this new tying component, and that an abbreviated 1-year Phase II program for between $100,000 and $150,000 would allow us to demonstrate a full-scale, four-head unit to potential Phase III partners and end users. We project an end-user market in the United States of about 350 units, and one of perhaps 5000 units (some of them containing only two heads) worldwide- -as many of the European hop growers are now adopting U.S. production methods. Hence, a combined Phase I and Phase II investment of $150,000 to $200,000 could result in creation of a $150 million market, based solely upon initial sales.

In summary, this program represents an opportunity to demonstrate that a relatively small amount of research and development funding can lead to a useful new product for increasing farm yield, productivity, and profit at a time when farmers are seeking much greater sums of government funding simply to maintain or survive the status quo. U.S. hop farmers currently receive no government subsidies; they want to keep it that way. This novel device and others that could follow as the result of this successful effort will serve to help keep costs under control and will benefit the farmer in a positive and self-sustaining way.

III. PHASE I TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of Phase I is to demonstrate that we can successfully duplicate (and more importantly, improve upon) the human hand in the knot-tying operation that is a key aspect of hop production. We intend to make use of a novel gear design coupled with programmable microprocessors to achieve a reproducible, efficient knot-tying action that can be completed in a 6-second cycle (about half the human tying time)- -thereby greatly reducing production costs and increasing plant productivity. The major benefit to productivity is the achievement of consistent, optimal string spacing that allows the most efficient exposure to sunlight throughout the growing season and accommodates needed access to sprayed insect-control and fertilizing agents.

III.A Technical Aspects of the Knot-Tying Operation

When human hands are used to tie the millions of knots needed annually in this industry, a fairly standard procedure is followed. One end of a pre-cut 21-foot length of twine is held securely and approximately one foot of the end is flipped over the wire (which is typically 18 feet above the ground). After the twine has been wrapped around the wire once, the remaining 'tail' is crossed over the portion that is already wrapped around the wire. After the second revolution is completed, the thumb and forefinger hook the remaining tail and thread it through under the second wrap. When the tail is pulled tight the knot is formed. The long end of the twine is then pulled tight and anchored into the hop hill with small pins.

Our objective is to duplicate and accelerate this tying action with a mechanical tier and a microprocessor controller. To accomplish the tying action mechanically, we intend to make use of a "sectioned gear"- -one that has a portion cut away. A sketch of this type of gear is shown in Figure 3. This specialized gear would allow the hop-stringing wire to be seated precisely within the center of the tying head. The full head as we now envision it is shown conceptually in Figure 4.

The "eye" of the tying head will be programmed to make the two needed revolutions around the wire. A hook will be placed in the center of the gear; this hook will move parallel to the wire to pull the short tail through at the conclusion of the knot- -this being a key aspect of the device, allowing the knot to be tied using only one short end.

Mechanical knot-tiers as such are not new. They are available for use with hay balers, grain binders, and sack tiers, among others. But none of those tiers is capable of creating the rolling half-hitch that is needed here; all available tiers require two short ends of twine or strings- -rendering them useless in hop-stringing applications. None of the existing tiers exhibit the sophistication that would allow them to feed twine from a continuous bale (eliminating the need to precut twine), tie the knot with a foot-long tail, and leave a 20-foot section on the other end.

Our objectives for this first phase must also include the identification of a practical method for sensing the presence of the tying wire, raising the head 90 degrees to engage the wire, feeding unsoaked (unsoftened) twine through the head, completing the knot while the tying platform is moving forward, disengaging the wire and leaving the 20-foot section of twine behind to be anchored, and dropping the head back down until the next wire is encountered- -all in a 6-second cycle. That entire sequence and its programming via a microprocessor will be demonstrated as part of the Phase I program.

The following task breakdown is proposed as a means of accomplishing our Phase I goals:

TASK AREA A: COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF HOP-GROWERS' NEEDS

Task 1: Conduct Assessment of Local Growers' Needs
Task 2: Evaluate Responses and Identify Optimum Solution and Alternatives

TASK AREA B: DESIGN OF TYING HEAD AND CONTROL SYSTEM INTERFACE

Task 3: Design Tying Head
Task 4: Design Control System Interface
Task 5: Review and Modification of the Design

TASK AREA C: ASSEMBLY OF TYING HEAD AND PROGRAMMABLE CONTROLS

Task 6: Assemble Tying Head
Task 7: Interface Head with Microprocessor and Complete Programming

TASK AREA D: DEMONSTRATE TYING HEAD FEASIBILITY, COMPLETE PRELIMINARY TOWER DESIGN, PERFORM TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION

Task 8: Demonstrate Tying Head Operation
Task 9: Complete Preliminary Design of Mobile Tower
Task 10: Perform Technical and Economic Evaluation
Task 11: Prepare Final Report

Details of each task are discussed in the following section.

IV. PHASE I RESEARCH PLAN

IV.A TASK AREA A: COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF HOP-GROWERS' NEEDS

Under this task area we will make use of our consultants and their personal knowledge of the area growers to assist in appraising the needs of the growers.

IV.A.l Task 1: Conduct Assessment of Local Growers' Needs

Working closely with two of our experienced research consultants, we will select a small but representative sample of Yakima Valley hop growers as an advisory group. We will then personally contact those growers to ask them about their needs and attitudes regarding hop-stringing mechanization. We will attempt to accurately assess grower interest in the new technology, grower willingness to invest in it, any institutional barriers foreseen in introducing this kind of radical change in the hop-growing procedures, and any other major concerns or suggestions the growers may have. We intend to avoid the mistakes the U.C. Davis people apparently made (see Section II.B).

IV.A.2 Task 2: Evaluate Responses and Identify Optimum Solution and Alternatives

Once again, working closely with our consultants, we will evaluate the responses obtained through the user assessment of Task 1 and will identify what we believe is the optimum technical approach. We will also work to identify any acceptable alternatives that may be needed if technical or economic concerns dictate a departure from the favored solution to the problem.

IV.B TASK AREA B: DESIGN OF TYING HEAD AND CONTROL SYSTEM INTERFACE

Under this task area, with substantial input from our agricultural engineering consultant, we will design the tying head, select the type of microprocessor we will need, and design the interface between the two components. We will also perform a full design review to identify needed modifications before undertaking any work in Task Area C.

IV.B.l Task 3: Design Tying Head

Based on the results obtained via completion of Tasks 1 and 2, we will immediately begin drafting a design of the tying head that will best meet the needs identified and that will eliminate as many technical problems as possible. The principal investigator, our engineering consultant, and an experienced draftsman will perform this task. Expected technical challenges include the design of a reliable sectioned gear-and-hook configuration that will consistently tie the knot, a head design that will allow for the knot-tying while the unit is moving into the wires and across variable terrain, and the reliability factor of tying knots on lines that have old knots left on them from previous seasons.

Specific technical considerations that we already know must be addressed under this task include the following:

• the head must be able to accommodate a wide range of wire tension- -from extremely taut to relatively loose wire;
• the head must accommodate an equally broad range of wire diameters- -from a fairly large-diameter #8 wire to a much smaller #20 wire (the older hop yards having used a larger wire than the newer operations do);
• the tying head must be designed to function reliably amid extremely dusty conditions and in wet weather;
• the precision of the head cannot be adversely affected by extreme temperature variations that can occur during the hop-stringing season;
• the head should be designed to take advantage of off-the-shelf component parts to the greatest extent possible, as this is a key concern both for economic considerations and for maintenance concerns.

IV.B.2 Task 4: Design Control System Interface

Under this task and concurrently with Task 3, we will collaborate with a microprocessor supplier in Seattle, Washington to select the best candidate microprocessor for this application and to design the needed system interface. Considerations that will be important to this selection process include the unit's sensitivity to temperature variations, the unit's susceptibility to malfunction under dusty conditions, the unit's volume capacity, and the unit's actual size and cost. We will also need a unit that has the proper input/output capabilities, sequential monitoring lights (a must for design and refinement of tying head operation) and a printed board for use in troubleshooting any malfunction of the tying head's operation. The supplier, B-W Controls of Seattle, Washington, has already agreed verbally to make a microprocessor unit available in collaboration with our project, and we will rely upon the assistance of Mr. Stan Botten for the actual programming of the control unit under Task 7.

IV.B.3 Task 5: Review and Modification of the Design

Before beginning unit fabrication, we will conduct a full staff review of the drawings to identify needed modifications in the following areas: conflicting physical hardware, excessive wear points, and feasibility of incorporating available and anticipated twine products (paper and synthetics in addition to twine variations). Plans will then be finalized and Task Area C begun.

IV.C TASK AREA C: ASSEMBLY OF TYING HEAD AND PROGRAMMABLE CONTROLS

Under this task area we will fabricate the tying head to the design specifications, interface the device w ith the controller, and work with B-W Controls to program the unit's operation.

IV.C.l; Task 6: Assemble Tying Head

The tying head will be assembled on the premises at the principal investigator's place of business. The principal investigator operates a fully equipped machine shop, and all of the needed parts and machining equipment are likely to be readily available.

IV.C.2 Task 7: Interface Head with Microprocessor and Complete Programming

With the assistance of Stan Botten, we will connect the microprocessor to the assembled tying head and begin the programming operation.

IV.D TASK AREA D: DEMONSTRATE TYING HEAD FEASIBILITY, COMPLETE PRELIMINARY TOWER DESIGN, PERFORM TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION

This final task area includes the all-important demonstration of the feasibility of the tying head. Assuming that such feasibility is shown, we will also perform the preliminary design work and the technical and economic evaluations needed as a basis for establishing Phase II potential.

IV.D.1 Task 8: Demonstrate Tying Head Operation

We will conduct one or more demonstrations, depending upon circumstances and time remaining, during which we will show our own consultants and local growers how this device will work under various conditions that we expect will be encountered in the field. The head and controller will be mounted in a stationary position, and lengths of wire will be fed into the tying head by hand, using about a 6-foot length of wire and two people- -one holding each end. We will use the various diameters of wire discussed above, we will vary the tension on the wire, and we will vary the angle that the wire is fed into the machine. We will also subject the unit to substantial amounts of dust and dirt, to water, and to temperature extremes by using heating or chilling units nearby, as appropriate. Observer responses will be carefully monitored.

IV.D.2 Task 9: CompIete Preliminary Design of Mobile Tower

Assuming a successful demonstration of the tying head during Task 8, we will proceed to perform a rough preliminary design of the mobile tower that will be needed to make a full-scale demonstration possible under a Phase II program. The basic design of the tower will also be useful in performing the needed technical and economic evaluation, as discussed below. A conceptual sketch of a likely tower design is offered as Figure 5. The tower's characteristics will be a key factor in the ultimate success of this program, as a good deal of the system's adaptability (e.g., for angle variations, wire height changes, or speed adjustments) will necessarily rely upon the capabilities that are built into the mobile tower assembly.

IV.D.3 Task 10, Perform Technical and Economic Evaluation

Working with our two consultants, we will conduct a technical and economic evaluation of the tying-head system- -including the self-propelled tower and its hydraulic and compressed-air control systems. We will consider all relevant information obtained from observers during the demonstration in Task 8, as well as pertinent information collected during Tasks 1 and 9.

IV.D.4 Task 11: Prepare Final Report

A final report will be prepared at the end of the Phase I program that will fully summarize all results obtained, the approaches adopted and discarded during the program, and the outcome of the analysis from Task 10. The report will include conclusions and recommendations for further work.

V. RELATED RESEARCH

The principal investigator, Frank Miller, brings three key areas of expertise to the program: 1) he has had many years of experience and success in mechanical innovation, 2) he works well with the hop growers and understands their needs, and 3) he has previous experience in successfully developing a related prototype device for the hop-stringing application. In 1975 Miller was hired by the Washington State Hop Growers to design and fabricate a prototype automated clipmaker for use in continuously anchoring the trelliswork into the ground. The device included an automated twine-delivery system that fed anchored lines up to the workers tying the lines. The machine successfully met the requirements set forth by the sponsor, but the benefits were not deemed substantial enough to warrantcommercialization. Miller's expertise is well-suited as background for the projected success of this project.

The consultants who have agreed to contribute to the program complement the practical background of the principal investigator with knowledge of the growers and their problems, with knowledge in agricultural engineering, and with research experience gained in conducting numerous R&D programs for the USDA and other government and private sponsors. Their abilities and expertise play a major role in conducting the research and in analyzing and reporting the results.

Specific research experience brought to the project by the consultants is highlighted in Section VIII: Consultants. To our knowledge, no work of this type has been successfully completed in the past or is currently being conducted. As is explained in Section II.B., previous unsuccessful attempts have been made to produce similar technologies, but the needed degree of sophistication and automation expertise has not been employed.

VI. KEY PERSONNEL

It is anticipated that Franklin W. Miller will be the principal investigator, with key contributions being made by three experienced agricultural research consultants (see Section VIII: Consultants) . Mr. Miller currently owns Miller's Machine and Metal Works, a three-person operation that specializes in repair, rebuild, and redesign of farm machinery and all equipment for local food-processing plants. Miller and his staff attract business from throughout the region, drawing clientele from surrounding towns that have their own machine shops because of the superior quality of workmanship and design ingenuity that is characteristic of Miller's work. His abbreviated resume follows.

Resume: Franklin W. Miller

Education:

• Mabton High School, Mabton, Washington, 1955
• U.S. Army, Heavy Equipment Mechanics School, 1957

Relevant Employment:

• March 1982-present--Owner, Miller's Machine and Metal Works, Prosser, Washington. Has established reputation in the area for high-quality, innovative work. The firm maintains a steady 3- to 4-week backlog for three employees while other machine firms in the region are laying workers off.
• 1975-1980 Owner, dairy farm, Prosser, Washington, while working for EPCO Inc., Prosser, Washington. Conducted a successful R&D program for the Washington State Hop Growers in a related application of automated hop-stringing during this time.
• 1973-1975 Mechanic, farm equipment, K Farms Inc., Walla Walla, Washington. Maintained and serviced equipment for large wheat ranch.
• 1970-1973 Production foreman, EPCO Inc., Prosser, Washington. Directed and supervised production crew; developed, refined, and constructed production equipment for manufacture of motorcycle accessory manufacturer.
• 1968-1970 Farming, contract farming, custom fabrication, Prosser, Washington.
• 1966-1968 Heavy equipment mechanic, operating Engineer, Local 701, Portland, Oregon. Employed by various contractors and equipment companies in the construction of roads and dams. Special assignment as factory representative for Letourneau-Westinghouse, construction equipment, Fray Equipment, Seattle, Washington.
• 1963-1965 Mechanic, Bunting Tractor Co., Portland, Oregon. military training in heavy equipment repair provided qualifications for career in civilian heavy equipment maintenance and general machine repair and design.

VII. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Miller's Machine and Metal Works maintains a 3,600-ft facility. The shop is fully equipped for the type of custom machining work being proposed here. Key pieces of equipment include four lathes (ranging from 11-inch x 40-inch to 30-inch x 13-foot); TIG, MIG, stick and gas welding equipment; two milling machines; all necessary shop tools; and in-house drafting equipment. No new major pieces of equipment will be needed for this project, and the tying head unit itself will be fabricated from materials available in-house.

VIII. CONSULTANTS (Three Total)

Two experienced researchers who are based at Washington State University's Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center in Prosser, Washington will bring to this project valuable expertise for conducting a research and development program. Their backgrounds in science and agricultural research ideally complement the principal investigator's expertise in mechanics and automation. Their knowledge of agronomy and entomology also allow them to better appreciate the contribution toward higher productivity (greater growth potential via optimum spacing and the corresponding insect control and fertilizing opportunities) that the proposed technology promises to make possible. Moreover, these two professionals, Drs. Wyatt Cone and Stephen Kenny, have been selected because of their knowledge of hop-growing and, especially, their familiarity with the growers in the area.

Equally important will be the contributions made by Dr. Gary Hyde, an agricultural engineer at Washington State University. Specializing in field equipment and controls, Dr. Hyde will round out the R&D team by participating throughout the program in the allimportant machine design tasks. The combination of his experience with that of Frank Miller represents a very strong mechanical design component. Dr. Hyde is thoroughly familiar with this proposal and with Mr. Miller's proposed design. He has offered his enthusiastic endorsement of the machine design and the overall objectives of the project.

An abbreviated resume for each consultant follows.

Resume: Wyatt W. Cone

Education:

• A.B.- - -San Diego State College (Zoology-Botany) 1956
• Ph.D.- -Washington State University (Entomology-Plant Ecology) 1962

Employment:

• July 1, 1972-present, Entomologist, Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center.
• July 1, 1967-July 1, 1972, Assistant Entomologist, Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center.
• June 1, 1961-May 18, 1962, Jr. Entomologist, Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center.
• September 1959-June 1961, Teaching Assistant, Department of Entomology, Washington State University.
• June 1956-July 1959, Research Assistant, Department of Entomology, Washington State University.
• April-September 1955, Laboratory Assistant, Department of Biological Control, University of California.

Professional Memberships:

• Entomological Society of America

Related Research Grants and Contracts:

• National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc. ($3,350 - 1964-66, $2,750 - 1971-72, $2,000 - 1973-75).
• Washington Hop Commission ($49,650 - 1965-75, $8,000 - 1976, $8,000 - 1977, $8,000 - 1978, $12,240 - 1979, $14,000 - 1980, $15,000 - 1981, $16,000 - 1982).
• United States Brewer's Association ($13,000 annually starting 1969, $13,500 - 1977, $13,500 - 1978).
• U.S. Department of Agriculture ($11,000 - 1965-67, $5,000 - 1976, 1977, $1,000 - 1978, $12,000 - 1981, $12,000 - 1982.
• Washington State Potato Commission ($5,000 - 1970-73, $6,000 1973-74, $7,500 - 1974-75).
• Washington Asparagus Growers Association, Inc. ($1,000 - 1973, $3,000 - 1974, $3,500 - 1975, $3,000 - 1976-77, $3,000 - 1978, $3,000 - 1979, $6,000 - 1980, $15,800 - 1981, $18,000 - 1982, $15,700 - 1983.
• Washington State Concord Grape Research Council ($2,000 - 1974, $3,000 - 1975, $3,000 - 1976, 1977, $3,000 - 1978, $3,000 - 1979, $4,000 - 1980, $4,000 - 1981, $4,000 - 1982, $4,350).
• IR-4 - Western Region, ($2,400 - 1977, $4,610 - 1978, $3,130 1979, $1,950 - 1981).
• Columbia River Orchards Foundation ($2,000 - 1978, $2,000 1979, $2,000 - 1980, $9,200 - 1981, $10,800 - 1982).
• NORAM ($500 - 1978).
• Hop Research Council ($11,700 - 1980, $13,000 - 1981, $13,700 1982, $14,000 - 1983).
• Green Giant ($4,000 - 1980).
• Miller Brewing Co. ($1,500 - 1979, $3,100 - 1980, $3,500 1981, $3,800 - 1982, $4,000 - 1983).
• ICI Americas ($250 - 1980, $600 - 1981, $1,000 - 1982).

Relevant Publications (of 62 total):

Cone, W.W., and S. Burdajewicz. 1971. Control of Tetranychus urticae Koch. on hops with experimental acaracides. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych 1972, Seria E. Tom, 2,Z.2.51-56.

Burdajewicz, S., and W.W. Cone. 1972. Distribution and pattern of infestation of Tetranychus urticae Koch. on hops. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych 1972, Seria E. Tom, 2,Z.2.51-56.

Cone, W.W. 1975. Crown-applied systemic acaricides for control of the twospotted spider mite and hope aphid on hops. J. Econ. Entomol. 68 (5) : 6 84-6 86.

Cone, W.W., and J.C. Maitlen. 1976. Systemic activity of Aldicarb against twospotted spider mites on hops and Aldicarb residues in hops cones. Econ. Entomol. 69(4):533-534.

Cone, W.W. 1966. Control of insects on hops. Wash. State Univ. EM 1905.

Cone, W.W., and D.A. Chaplin. 1975. Aphid and mite control on hops. Wash. State Univ. EM 3938.

W.S.U. Chemical Insect Control Handbook. Recommendations for control of insects and mites on hops, grapes, asparagus and currants. 1971-present.

Cone, W.W., and R.S. Stark. Twospotted spider mite control on hops using aldicarb. Submitted paper, Entomological Society of America, Washington, D.C. November 27-December 1, 1977.

Hop pest control. Annual meeting, Washington Hop Commission, Yakima, Washington, December 7, 1977.

Control of hop pests and the future of pesticides. Annual meeting of Washington Hop Commission, Yakima, Washington, December 5, 1979.

Resume: Stephen T. Kenny

Education:

• B.S.- - -Frostburg State College, Frostburg, Maryland. 1970-1974
• M.S.- - -North Carolina State University, Raleigh. 1974-1976. Genetics.
• Ph.D.- -Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 1976-1980. Plant Genetics.

Research Experience:

April 1981-present, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension

Center, Washington State University, Prosser, Washington.

Responsibilities include planning hop-breeding program goals, initiating research to achieve goals, supervising project employees, managing grant funds (over $100,000 in 1984), communicating with brewery and grower representatives, developing and participating in a Pacific Northwest (Washington, Idaho and Oregon) hop research program, publishing research results.

Accomplishments include establishing the foundation for future research by purchasing necessary laboratory and field equipment; making crosses to furnish materials for selection, recombination and advancement; supervising final testing and release of two hop cultivars, Olympic and Chinook; participating in cooperative research with scientists in Washington and Oregon; and establishing good working relations with brewery representatives and hop grower groups in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

February 1980-January 1981, Research Associate, Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University.

Responsibilities included planning research methodology and performing the research to determine the influence of source-sink manipulations and genotype on rates of assimilate transport from the soybean leaf.

June 1976-January 1980, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agronomy, Colorado State University.

Responsibilities included planning research methodology and selecting areas for investigation to determine whether native lupines can be used in revegetation. Planning revegetation field tours and workshops with mining and skiing industry representatives.

September 1974-December 1975, Research Assistant, Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University.

Responsibility to perform research on the relationship between photosynthetic activity and chloroplast protein content..

Professional Memberships:

• American Society of Agronomy
• Crop Science Society of America
• American Society of Brewing Chemists

Relevant Publications (of 7 total):

Kenny, S.T., and J.H. O'Bannon. 1983. Growth response of hop to five species of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae. Agron. Abstr. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 157.

Kenny, S.T., and C.E. Zimmermann. 1984. Registration of Olympic hop. Crop Sci. 24:618-619.

Haunold, A., S.T. Likens, G.B. Nickerson, and S.T. Kenny. 1984. Nugget, a new hop cultivar with high alpha-acids potential. J. Amer. Soc. Brew. Chem. 42:62-64.

Resume: Gary M. Hyde

Education:

• B.S.A.E.- - -Washington State University, 1964.
• M.S.A.E.- - -Washington State University, 1969.
• Ph.D - - - - - -University of Illinois (Engineering), 1975.

Research Experience:

September 1975-present, Associate Agricultural Engineer/Associate Professor, Washington State University, Agricultural Engineering Department, Pullman, Washington.

February 1966-September 1975, Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, Pullman, Washington, and Urbana, Illinois.

June 1964-February 1966, Machine Design Engineer, Hyster Company, Portland, Oregon.

Professional Memberships:

• American Society of Agricultural Engineers
• National Society of Professional Engineers
• American Association for the Advancement of Science

Relevant Publications (of 49 total):

Hyde, G.M., J.E. George, K.E. Saxton, and J.B. Simpson. In press. "A slot-mulch implement design." Trans, of the ASAE.

Payton, D.M., G.M. Hyde, and J.B. Simpson. In press. "Equipment and methods for no-tillage wheat planting." Trans, of the ASAE.

Babowicz, R.J., G.M. Hyde, and J.B. Simpson. 1985. "Fertilizer effects under simulated no-tillage conditions." Trans. of the ASAE, 28(4):1003-1006, July-Aug.

Mason, N.B., G.M. Hyde, and H. Waelti. 1985. "Fruit pomace as a fuel." Trans. of the ASAE, 28(2):588-590.

Woodruff, D.W., G.M. Hyde, and R.E. Thornton, 1984. "A preliminary analysis of a high-frequency soil riddling device for use on potato harvesters." Trans. of the ASAE, 27(6):1638-1642.

Hyde, G.M., R.E. Thornton, and G.K. Cuillier. 1983. "Automatic load control system for potato conveyors." Trans, of the ASAE, 26(1):14-18.

Hyde, G.M., R. E. Thornton, and D.W. Woodruff. 1983. "Potato harvester performance with automatic chain load control." Trans, of the ASAE, 26(1):14-18.

Hyde, G.M., H.B. Puckett, E.F. Olver, and K.E. Harshbarger. 1981. "A step toward dairy herd management by exception." Trans, of the ASAE, 24(1):202-207.

IX. POTENTIAL POST-APPLICATIONS

As discussed previously, the research and development proposed here is focused specifically upon the Phase III commercialization of a novel, automated hop-tying tower. All indications lead us to believe that the nation's and, moreover, the world's hop growers represent a ready and waiting market for this new technology. Moreover, successful automation of this one sophisticated agricultural task may well lead to fruitful attempts to develop and commercialize automated machinery for other difficult, labor-intensive tasks. Examples include a modification of the hop-stringer for use with string bean crops and hybrid banana crops (the new, weightier varieties of bananas are breaking their own stems and need to be supported with twine) . Also, successful introduction of novel automation in this area- -one that has been essentially written-off as a realistic mechanization candidate- -may open minds and imaginations toward opportunities to automate other labor-intensive farming tasks, such as asparagus harvesting.

X. CURRENT AND PENDING SUPPORT

No proposal substantially the same as this one has been submitted for funding to any other federal agency. An earlier version of this proposal was submitted to the USDA's SBIR program last year, and we were encouraged by USDA personnel to resubmit this revised proposal.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Hop Administrative Committee, "Hop Market News," Vol. 64, No. 8, August 31, 1984.
2. Kumai, A., and R. Okamoto, "Extraction of the Hormonal Substance from Hop Humulus-Lupulus," Toxical, Lett.(AMST), 21:2(1984)203-208.
3. Wohlfart, R., R. Haensel, and H. Schmidt, "The Sedative Hypnotic Principle of Hops 4. Pharmacology of 2 Methyl-3 Buten-2-ol," Plant Med., 48:2(1983)120-123.
4. Wu, T.-S., H. Furukawa, and C.-S. Kuoh, "Tri Terpenoids from Humata-Pectinata," J. Nat. Prod., 45:6(1982)721-724.
5. Haensel, R., R. Wohlfart, and H. Schmidt, "The Sedative Hypnotic Principle of Hops Humulus-Lupulus 3. Contents of 2 Methyl-3 Buten-2-ol in Hops and Hop Preparations," Planta Med., 45:4(1982)224-228.
6. Itokawa, H., N. Ebata, K. Takeya, and A. Ikuta, 'Studies on the Tissue Culture of Humulus-Lupulus and the Chemical Constituents,' Shoyakagaku Zasshi, 34:3(1980)196-199.
7. Haensel, R., R. Wohlfart, and H. Coper, "Narcotic Action of 2 Methyl-3 Buten-2-ol Contained in the Exhalation of Hops," Z. Naturforsch, Sict, C. Biosci., 35:11-12(1980)1096-1097.
8. "The Kiss of the Hops," Washington Hop Commission Publication, Yakima, Washington, 1975.
9. Shea, M.W., "Aspects of Mechanisation of the Hop Crop," The Agric, Enqr., 36:2(1981)42.