The Origin of Foundation Plant Services

INTRODUCTION

Foundation Plant Services (FPS) celebrated its 50th birthday on July 1, 2008, with a luncheon attended by more than 160 stakeholders. The clean grapevine program began as a small industry-university partnership on the UC Davis campus in 1952 as a result of efforts of the Wine Institute and university scientists such as Davis Professors Harold Olmo and William Hewitt. The entity was renamed Foundation Plant Materials Service (FPMS) in 1958 and was entrusted with primary management and control of the foundation vineyards in the California Grapevine Registration & Certification Program. The university center now known as Foundation Plant Services survived decades of successes and problems to become a world class facility producing and educating on healthy grapevines and other specialty crops. At the 2008 celebration, the culmination of the many FPS accomplishments was described as its founding and leadership role in the National Clean Plant Network for Grapevines (2009-2015), the goal of which is to spread the clean plant message across the nation.

The history of the FPMS/FPS clean plant work is well documented in offical paperwork and publications. The FPS Grape Program Newsletter (1971-2012) is one of the outreach efforts produced to assist and educate the industry on the value of the program. The 2008 issue spoke optimistically of the future of FPS. This chapter of the book chronicles the early challenges and growth of FPMS, and the next chapter describes how FPS built upon those efforts to become a world class clean plant center.

CALIFORNIA GRAPE CERTIFICATION ASSOCIATION (1952)

The California Grape Certification Association (CGCA) was the precursor entity to Foundation Plant Materials Service (FPMS). Dr. Curtis Alley, who served as the Manager in both programs, referred to CGCA as the "old program" and to its successor FPMS as the "new program". 1 Letter from C.J. Alley, Viticulture Specialist, FPMS, to nurseries in the 1960's, on file in FPS collection AR-50, box 25: 40, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis. The goal of both programs was to develop healthy grapevine selections that were true to variety name for sale to growers as "certified" material. The primary difference between the old program and the new program was the corporate governance and management structure.

The CGCA (also referred to in the corporate documents as "Association") was organized in Fall of 1952 as a nonprofit corporation with Articles of Incorporation and Association By-Laws filed with the State of California. The Incorporating Directors included industry members L.K. Marshall of Lodi (Chairman of the Viticulture Research Committee of the Wine Institute), A.C. Huntsinger and Robert Mondavi from Napa. 2 Corporate documents filed in Olmo collection D:280, box 31: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis.

The University of California was a key player in the CGCA. The College of Agriculture and the California Department of Agriculture (CDA) were designated in the Articles as cooperators with industry; the "project" was approved by C.B. Hutchison, Dean of the College of Agriculture, UC Davis, as indicated in a letter to Marshall on January 31, 1952. 3 William B. Hewitt, Division of Plant Pathology, University of California, ''Certification of Grapevines as Free of Disease and True to Variety Named'', report to Wine Institute Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, March 3, 1952, filed in the Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The principal place of business of the CGCA was the Division of Viticulture building on the Davis campus. A.J. Winkler, Harold Olmo (Viticulture) and William Hewitt (Plant Pathology) represented the University at the First Annual Meeting of the CGCA on July 18, 1952. The initial set of officers elected were: Marshall, President; Mondavi, Vice President; and Winkler, Secretary Treasurer.

The CGCA by-laws provided that the management and direction would be done by 12 Directors composed of growers from around the state, two representatives from UC's Division of Viticulture and one from the Department of Plant Pathology, one from Agricultural Extension, one from the California Department of Agriculture (CDA) (renamed in 1972 as the California Department of Food & Agriculture) and one from the California Nurserymen's Association. The CGCA revenue came from dues assessments on members interested in growing certified grapevines ($1.00 per year), certification fees and contributions from interested parties. The Directors voted to request that the Wine Institute and the Wine Advisory Board be invited to cooperate and assist the CGCA with the wine and table growers.

The similarities between CGCA and FPMS related to the program goal and structure. Their common goal was production of grape material "free from disease and most nearly true to variety named". CGCA started an indexing program in 1953 on the standard commercially important wine and table varieties and rootstocks, including those that Dr. Harold Olmo retrieved from Europe in 1951. 4 C.J. Alley, ''Certified Grape Stock'', undated paper (probably around 1958-59), on file in FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 17, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis. Similar program rules were defined in by-laws (CGCA) and state regulations (FPMS). Both programs included foundation and certified vines. Foundation vines were the source material tested and isolated at UC Davis. Certified vines were propagated from foundation material and multiplied, maintained and sold by nurseries and growers in the program. Both programs were in charge of quarantine screenhouses and greenhouses for imports.

The CGCA program began to evolve into FPMS at the CGCA Board meeting on November 16, 1955. The original by laws provided for the CGCA program to be self-supporting, by grants, sales of certified vines, membership dues and other contributions. By 1955, there was no income from sales of vines as the original grape material that came to the program in 1952 was still undergoing testing for virus and growing to produce wood. Previous grants had been expended. The CGCA was unable to afford the program manager's salary, which was then a half-time position. A major change in the responsibilities of the parties to the CGCA agreement was proposed at that time.

A letter from A.J. Winkler, Department of Viticulture, to Dean F. N. Briggs, Dean of the College of Agriculture, UC Davis, dated October 27, 1955, explained the situation. Winkler's letter separated the activities of the CGCA into two phases. The role of the Division/Department of Viticulture in the grape program was to ensure correct variety names for the CGCA selections, to oversee index testing of the vines for viruses, and to establish and maintain a foundation vineyard of the qualified grapevine material.

The second phase anticipated that CGCA industry members (nurserymen and growers) would establish multiplication vineyards throughout the state, maintain correct grapevine identity, obtain certification of the vines, and sell and distribute the cuttings or rootings as certified material. Winkler in his letter urged a modification of the original clean stock program by having UC assume responsibility for the activities performed in phase one by the Departments of Viticulture and Plant Pathology, as well as to assume 100% of the manager's salary. Costs for the rest of the program (the grower and nursery certification in phase two) would be assumed by the California Department of Agriculture (CDA) and the industry. 5 Minutes of the CGCA, November 16, 1955; and Letter from A.J. Winkler to Dean F.N. Briggs, dated October 27, 1955, both filed in Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis.

Winkler's letter and proposal were discussed at the November, 1955, CGCA Board meeting. The Board ultimately approved the restructuring of the clean plant program. An important consideration for the Board and later the University was that UC Davis had a similiar involvement with several other crops including agronomic and vegetable crops, strawberries and fruit trees. The University formally approved the restructuring.

The CDA representative at the November Board meeting offered some caveats about the new structure. Dr. G.L. Stout indicated that, prior to any CDA assumption of oversight of a grapevine certification program, state regulations would be required specifying a method for certification as well as a fee schedule. The Board requested that CDA initiate the regulatory process.

CDA held public hearings in June and July 1956 to adopt regulations for "virus free" grapevines. The resulting regulations that were ultimately adopted in two phases in September 1956 and August 1958 together provided the bones for the regulatory structure that is now the California Grapevine Registration & Certification Program managed by the California Department of Food & Agriculture (CDFA). 6 California Code of Regulations, Title 3, sections 3024 et seq.; Minutes of the Board of Directors of California Grape Certification Association, Davis, California, November 16, 1955, by A.J. Winkler, Secretary-Treasurer, filed in Olmo collection D: 280, box 31: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis; C.J. Alley, “Certified Grape Stocks Available”, Wines & Vines 40(2): 28-29 (1959).

FOUNDATION PLANT MATERIALS SERVICE (1958)

On July 1, 1958, two UC Davis programs, the virus-tested grape program (CGCA) and the virus-free cherry stock program, were officially combined and given the title "Foundation Plant Materials Service (FPMS)". FPMS was created to administer the "Grapevine and Tree Certification Program" maintaining in isolation an original supply of true-to-type plant materials tested to be free from known viruses. 7 Lynn Alley and Deborah Golino, “The Origins of the Grape Program at Foundation Plant Materials Service”, page 222, Proceedings of the ASEV 50th Anniversary Meeting, Seattle, Washington, June 19-23, 2000. FPMS Club News, vol. 1 no. 1, May 1971, filed in FPS collection AR-050, box 25: 16, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis. Over the years, additional crops were added at FPMS. By 2018, FPS crops included grapes, many fruit and nut trees (including cherry, olive, peach, plum, pistachio, and almond), strawberries, sweet potatoes and roses.

Governing committee

The UC administrative structure in relation to agriculture was very complicated in the early 1950's. The College of Agriculture had been reorganized in 1920 to comprise four parts: the Department of Agriculture for academic instruction leading to university degrees, the Agricultural Experiment Station for original research, the Agricultural Extension Service for public outreach, and the University Farm School at Davis. The College had its headquarters at Berkeley. The Dean of Agriculture served as the general administrative officer, but each of the four parts had its own head. 8 Ann Foley Scheuring, Science and Service, A History of the Land-Grant University and Agriculture in California, ANR Publications, University of California, Oakland, CA (1995), p. 100.

In 1922, the Farm School at Davis was discontinued, and the University Farm became the "College of Agriculture, Northern branch". The University Farm was formally renamed the College of Agriculture at Davis in 1938. 9 Scheuring, supra, at p. 134. After Prohibition, the Division of Viticulture was officially moved from Berkeley to Davis. The Agricultural Experiment Station system continued to be headquartered at Berkeley.

The College of Agriculture was officially reorganized and renamed the Division of Agricultural Sciences in 1952, and the chief administrator was retitled University Dean of Agriculture. [after Dean Claude B. Hutchison retired]. Included under the umbrella of the Division in 1952 were the Colleges of Agriculture on three campuses, the Agriculture Experiment Station, the Agricultural Extension Service, and schools. Teaching programs in agriculture at the three campuses were headed by their own semi-autonomous deans, including Fred N. Briggs at Davis. The Deans reported to the head of the Division in Berkeley. 10 Scheuring, supra, at pp. 171-172. A more detailed explanation of the restructuring is contained in the chapter in this publication about the move of the viticulture program to Davis, California, around 1910.

The exact relationship of FPMS to the complicated and evolving University structure in 1957 was not explicitly defined. Austin Goheen wrote that, in its early days, FPMS was considered an independent organization within the Experiment Station at Davis. 11 A.C. Goheen, “Certification at Davis”, Department of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, January 23, 1962, filed in the FPS collection AR-050, box 33: 2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis. FPMS was administered at the outset by a committee headed by the Division of Viticulture (later the Department of Viticulture & Enology), whose Chairman served as the Chair of the committee that managed FPMS. 12 M. Andrew Walker, “UC Davis’ Role in Improving California’s Grape Planting Materials”, Proceedings of the ASEV 50th Anniversary Meeting, pages 209, 213, Seattle, Washington, June 19-23, 2000. Alley and Golino, 2000, supra.

It would not have been inappropriate for both the Division of Viticulture and the Experiment Station to serve as key participants in the management of FPMS, since the Division/Department of Viticulture within the College of Agriculture and the Agricultural Experiment Station had overlapping functions, interests and research issues related to grapes. Both were under the umbrella of the UC Division of Agriculture whose headquarters remained at Berkeley until 1961. Viticulture and FPMS employees performed the index testing, planting of vines in the foundation vineyard at UC Davis and distribution of grapevine material from campus vineyards. Other departments with representation on the FPMS administrative committee included Pomology (for cherries), Environmental Horticulture, and Plant Pathology.

Manager of CGCA/FPMS

Dr. Curtis Alley served for twenty years as the first Manager of the clean grape program at UC Davis. He had attended UC Davis and obtained his PhD in Genetics in 1951 studying with Harold Olmo. Alley then worked in commercial peach breeding in Red Bluff for one year. The CGCA Board of Directors voted to hire him as Manager of their new grape program at a meeting on December 29, 1952. The position was a half time one at that time, so Alley also worked half time as a junior specialist in the Experiment Station at UC Davis. 13 FPMS Club News, vol. 1, no. 1, May 1971, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: 16, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Davis.

Curtis Alley was the first FPMS Manager

In 1957, the University agreed to manage FPMS and assumed 100% of the salary of the Manager of the clean plant program at the Staff Research Associate level. However, FPMS could not afford a full-time manager during Alley's tenure, so he continued half time at FPMS and half as a viticulturist in the Experiment Station. 14 FPMS Club News, May 1971, p. 4 supra. Alley served as Manager of FPMS until 1971, when he left to do research full time in the Department of Viticulture & Enology with Cornelius Ough (grapevine propagation, grape variety-region adaptability, clonal selection and evaluation). 15 Letter from Curtis Alley to James Lider, Farm Advisor, Napa, dated June 13, 1972; Minutes of Meeting, California Grape Certification Association, December 29, 1952, Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 8; see also Walker, ASEV, 2000, p.213; Harold P. Olmo, Plant Genetics and New Grape Varieties, California Wine Oral History Project, Regional Oral History Office, University of California/Berkeley, interview conducted by Ruth Teiser, Regents of the University of California, 1976, pages 85-86.

There was a steep learning curve in the early years of the FPMS clean plant program. Scientists and staff were consumed with research and development activities for virus detection and treatment and development of the foundation vineyards. Plant pathologists settled on reliable indicator vines for the indexing process and developed heat treatment therapy for disease elimination. FPMS was eventually able to provide a healthier (heat treated) grapevine product called "superclones" to grape nurseries and growers by the early 1970's.

Grapevine material came to the new clean stock program at UC Davis from foreign and domestic (within the United States) sources. Effective clean plant programs involve governmental overseers willing to enforce established standards. Congress, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the California Legislature and State Department of Agriculture (CDA) were all motivated to protect the influential grape and wine industry within their jurisdictions. Although all grapevine material that is submitted to the UC Davis program is required to meet specific standards established by the California regulations, foreign grapevine imports are subject to special scrutiny and are held in quarantine isolation until they meet federal requirements for release to certification programs.

FOREIGN GRAPE SELECTIONS

Olmo travelled the world to collect grape germplasm that he believed would satisfy the industry demand for better varieties and clones. Importing grapevine material to the United States in the early years of the program had its challenges. National law and regulations had recently been enacted putting restrictions on Vitis imports from Europe for the protection of the grape industry in the United States. The clean plant program at Davis became a cooperator with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and California Department of Agriculture (CDA) (renamed the California Department of Food & Agriculture in 1972) to implement the new rules.

Historically grape germplasm had been moved from its center of origin or center of collection to new areas of the world without regard to diseases or pests that might be present in the materials. Sometimes disasters resulted, such as grape phylloxera to France and fanleaf virus to North America. 16 Alley and Golino, ASEV, 2000, page 226. Diseased grapevine material was imported to the United States for at least 100 years without restriction until 1948.

Uncontrolled importation of grape plant materials into the United States was ended in December 1948 by way of federal regulations known as "Quarantine 37". 17 13 Federal Regulations sections 319.37 to 319.37-25, contained in Federal Nursery Stock, Seed and Plant Quarantine No. 37. The regulations were enacted under the authority conferred by the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912 (7 USC § 160) to prevent the introduction into the country of certain plant and fruit diseases either new to or not prevalent in the United States. Importation of Vitis spp. (grapevine) from Europe was specifically prohibited, citing vine mosaic virus. The USDA could allow exceptions to the general rule and approve imports under special conditions (scientific or educational purposes) or with a USDA Departmental permit. 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 7, Section 319.37-2; A.C. Goheen, Department of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, ''Importation of Grapevines into California through Quarantine'', unpublished paper dated February 5, 1970. Any grapevine material that entered with a permit was quarantined post entry until it was determined by plant pathologists that it did not suffer from certain diseases, including viruses. 19 Golino D.A., M. Fuchs, M. Al Rwahnih, K. Farrar, A. Schmidt and G.P. Martelli, “Regulatory Aspects of Grape Viruses and Virus Diseases: Certification, Quarantine, and Harmonization”, Grapevine Viruses: Molecular Biology, Diagnostics and Management, eds. B. Meng, G.P. Martelli, D.A. Golino, and M. Fuchs (Springer International Publishing AG 2017), pp. 581-597.

1947

Olmo was a plant explorer for other crops in addition to grapevines and travelled on sabbatical leave to Europe and the Middle East in 1948 and 1949 to acquire new varieties for various crops. In 1947, he requested in advance of that trip a Departmental permit from the USDA to be issued to the U.C. Davis College of Agriculture "as a whole to take care of the ordinary needs of the College's various departments". The result was USDA Special Permit No. 42665, issued on December 10, 1947, in accordance with Regulation 14 of Quarantine No. 37 to the University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Davis, California. The permit was valid indefinitely ("until revoked"). One of the attachments to the permit indicated that "permits do not authorize the importation of grape (Vitis spp.) from European sources". 20 The following documents can be found in Shields Library, UC Davis, in the Department of Special Collections, D-280 (Olmo), box 100: United States Department of Agriculture, Import Permit No. 42665, issued December 10, 1947; Letter from George Becker, Import and Permit Section, USDA, to Purchasing Agent, University of California, College of Agriculture, Davis, dated December 12, 1947; Letter George Becker to Harold Olmo, dated December 12, 1947. See also, Code of Federal Regulations, 1949 edition, Title 7, Part 319, sections 319.37 to 319.37-25.

Olmo used the Special Permit to import grapes in 1948-49. In April 1948, CDA clarified to A.J. Winkler the procedure by which grape material could be imported to California using the Special Permit. H.M. Armitage, Chief, California Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine wrote that the USDA (Bureau of Plant Quarantine) had reached an agreement with the California Department of Agriculture (Bureau of Plant Quarantine) on the conditions for importing grape material into California. Generally, permits would be denied for direct importations of grape plants and cuttings into California from all countries due to possible virus issues. However, in the case of official agencies such as the University, an exception was approved under the following conditions: (1) imported grapevine material was retained under federal jurisdiction in Washington D.C. for one full growing season to permit observation "and elimination" of any visible disease found present; (2) subsequent retention in quarantine at Davis until released by the State Department of Agriculture; and (3) ultimate rejection or release to be based on findings during the retention period. 21 Letter from H.M. Armitage, Chief, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Department of Agriculture, State of California, to Dr. A.J. Winkler, Division of Viticulture, Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture, University of California, Davis, dated April 6, 1948, filed in Olmo collection D-280, box 100: 4, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Later correspondence between Olmo and the USDA showed that Olmo sought to import grapes using Special Permit No. 42665. 22 Letter from B.Y. Morrison, Division of Plant Exploration and Introduction, ARS, USDA, to H.P. Olmo, dated May 21, 1948, and Letter from George Becker, Import and Permit Section, ARS, USDA, dated June 30, 1948, both located at Olmo collection D-280, box 100: 2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Entries in the Olmo importation records maintained at FPS indicate that he sent grape varieties from Afghanistan and Greece during his 1948 exploration trip.

Post-entry quarantine in the late 1940's and early 1950's amounted to growing vines out in a greenhouse for two years and inspecting them for symptoms of disease. In 1950, no one knew how to make reliable tests for grape viruses. Once the new quarantine regulations were adopted, the USDA quarantine greenhouses in Glenn Dale, Maryland, were soon filled to overflowing with rooted grape cuttings. 23 A.C. Goheen, Research Plant Pathologist, “Grape Quarantine in the United States”, dated January 16, 1986, on file FPS collection AR-050, box 28: 6, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Many precious vines died. Grapes are not easy to maintain in greenhouses and the Eastern climate was not favorable for growing Vitis vinifera (the European grapevine varieties). These difficulties meant that a virtual embargo existed on the introduction of new grape clones. 24 Alley and Golino, ASEV, 2000, page 227.

1952

The Division/Department of Viticulture and Department of Plant Pathology collaborated on an ongoing basis regarding virus indexing work from the time the grape imports first came to UC Davis. Plant pathologist Dr. William Hewitt worked closely with Viticulture staff during the initial years, as no one in Viticulture had those qualifications. It was believed that Olmo had "held" the Special Import Permit for the years prior to 1951 as he was the one who initially proposed the program to the USDA. 25 The National Grapevine Importation Program at FPS; Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk, Manager, FPS Grape Program, July 21, 2014. The pre-1951 imports had come to the United States to USDA facilities in Maryland and then on to Davis after the quarantine release process.

The process changed with the grape imports collected by Olmo in Europe in 1951. Olmo was able to send back 48 potentially superior clonal selections from Spain, France, Switzerland and Germany. The grape and wine industry intervened to overcome regulatory issues for those selections. While Olmo was away, the Wine Institute in California obtained permission from the USDA and CDA for the cuttings to be flown directly to Davis for quarantine, instead of having first to go through the two-year process in Maryland. The university and industry cooperators argued that a greater percentage of imported cuttings would survive in California, and the cuttings could be indexed while in quarantine in California, making them available to California grape growers a year earlier.

Hewitt received the foreign introductions sent directly to Davis in 1951 because he was a plant pathologist as required by Quarantine 37. Viticulture and enology researchers at UC Davis approached the USDA and were issued a "Special Departmental Permit" for grapes that allowed the first grape quarantine facilities to be built at UC Davis in 1952. 26 The National Grapevine Importation Program at Foundation Plant Services, University of California, Davis, revised March 2008, page 1; brochure on file at FPS.

Staff and facilities for grape quarantine activities at UC Davis were initially provided by the Division/Department of Viticulture from 1951 until 1957, when Albert Winkler (Chair, Department of Viticulture) retired. The quarantine houses operated under index regulations prescribed by the California Bureau of Plant Quarantine. 27 Memo to D.H. Scott, Plant Industry Station, Small Fruits and Vine Section, Beltsville, MD from A.C. Goheen, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, dated March 14, 1958, FPS collection AR-050, box 28: 40, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. A screened quarantine greenhouse funded by the Wine Advisory Board (Wine Institute) was erected on the UC Davis campus in March 1952 to function "somewhat" as a substation of the USDA quarantine house in Maryland. Olmo's European clones were potted up in the screenhouses in 1952. An additional screened house for indexing work was annexed to the original structure in 1953. The screenhouses were isolated about a mile from the nearest vineyard planting on Armstrong tract in area B2 on the Davis campus. 28 Curtis Alley, Olmo collection D-280, box 19: 9-11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis; William B. Hewitt, Division of Plant Pathology, University of California, ''Certification of Grapevines as Free of Disease and True to Variety Named'', report to Wine Institute Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, March 3, 1952; H.P. Olmo, Professor of Viticulture, University of California, ''The California Grape Certification Association'', OIV Bulletin 278 (287): 11-20 (1955).

Two large binders at FPS contain the records of the grape introductions that were imported directly to Davis under the aegis of William Hewitt. The first binder is labelled "Grape Q House, import numbers 805-1305, Hewit's [sic.] Introductions" and contains grape importations from 1951-1964. The initial 40 entries show 40 clones sent by Olmo from France and Spain in 1951, including traditional winegrape varieties such as Chardonnay, Malbec, Petit Verdot, Pinot noir, Gewurz Traminer [sic.], Pinot gris and Palomino.

The binder also notes the subsequent index history for each clone and testing results. Many of the importations either died or were discarded. Unfortunately, the primitive metal screen on the quarantine screenhouse was so fine-meshed as to be opaque, and many of the valuable vines perished in the first Davis quarantine house. An extreme hot spell in the summer of 1956 in Davis also contributed to the death of many vines. 29 Alley and Golino, ASEV, 2000, page 227; C.J. Alley, “California Grape Certification Association”, January 14, 1957, FPS collection AR-050, box 19, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The second Hewitt binder contains introductions 1306 through 2116 and covers the period 1965-1969.

Page 1 of the first Hewitt Importation binder at FPS, containing Olmo's 1951 importations.
The 800 numbers were assigned at FPS as Introduction numbers for the Davis facility.

1956, the Departmental Permit

A formal arrangement regarding Hewitt's role in grape importations was made in 1956, around the time that the university assumed management of the CGCA program. The USDA Plant Introduction Office entered into a cooperative research agreement with the Agricultural Experiment Station at Davis in 1956 to study grape viruses and relieve pressure on the USDA facilities in Maryland. The USDA issued a "Departmental Permit" to William Hewitt, Department of Plant Pathology, so that the rooted grape cuttings from Glenn Dale, Maryland, could be transferred to Davis and retested under the post-entry quarantine in California. 30 A.C. Goheen, Research Plant Pathologist, ''Grape Quarantines in the United States'', January 16, 1986, on file in FPS collection AR-050, box 28: 6, Special Collections, Shields Library, University of California, Davis. 31 A.C. Goheen, “Importation of Grapevines into California through Quarantine”, unpublished paper dated February 5, 1970, on file at FPS.

The USDA's original concept for the "Departmental Permit" was to allow for movement of a limited amount of plant material (10 sticks or less) for research purposes. The Departmental Permit was originally intended for USDA use only. The permit was tied to a person (usually a plant pathologist) at a certain institution to ensure accountability and responsibility in that person, rather than to an institution in general.

The Departmental Permit was gradually modified over time by practice. The USDA allowed a greater and greater number of plant sticks to be moved over time. Gradually, permission for the "movement of sticks" was expanded from USDA personnel to include entities such as universities and such activities as qualification of imported material for certification programs through disease-testing regulations. Post-entry quarantine testing and treatment was allowed at various universities, including UC Davis.

The Department of Plant Pathology initially accepted primary responsibility for post-entry quarantine testing at UC Davis on the basis that the quarantine testing was a research function to study possible new viruses accompanying the imports and to protect the California grape industry. The indexing was funded by Department research funds. 32 A.C. Goheen, Importation of Grapevines into California, 1970, supra. Hewitt was joined in that effort by USDA scientist Austin Goheen in 1956. 33 Memo to D.H. Scott, Plant Industry Station, Small Fruits and Vine Section, Beltsville, MD from A.C. Goheen, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, dated March 14, 1958, FPS collection AR-050, box 28: 40, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. In March 1958, J.B. Kendrick, Professor of Plant Pathology, notified the California Bureau of Plant Quarantine that the facilities and duties associated with grape quarantine imports and index testing at UC Davis had been transferred from Viticulture to Plant Pathology under Hewitt and Goheen. 34 Letter to A.P. Messenger, Bureau of Plant Quarantine, Department of Agriculture, from J.B. Kendrick, Sr., Professor of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, dated March 13, 1958, FPS collection AR-050, box 28: 40, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The Bureau of Plant Quarantine agreed and centered administrative responsibility on Hewitt, requiring requests for new material to be made through him.

Indexing at the quarantine facility at UC Davis had amassed a large backlog of importations by 1964 due to limited facilities and limited help. At the time, the maximum capacity of the Davis quarantine house was 25 clones per year. James Cook, Chairman, Department of Viticulture & Enology, complained to the USDA New Crops Research Branch that, as result of the backlog, foreign grape importations suffered a "paralyzing embargo" because the UC plant pathologists restricted imports until the backlog could be tested. Cook proposed that the USDA approve the small station in Chico as a post-entry quarantine area, where foreign introductions could be planted, fruited, observed and indexed. 35 Letter from James A. Cook, Chairman, Department of Viticulture & Enology, to L.C. Cochran, Head, New Crops Research Branch, USDA, dated October 22, 1965, located in the Olmo collection D-280, box 100: 6, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The 29-acre state forestry station at Chico had been transferred from the Board of Forestry to the University's Department of Agriculture in 1893. The site was formerly part of Rancho Chico owned by John Bidwell. The Chico station was a local station that had previously been assigned to tree crops. 36 Ann Foley Scheuring, Science & Service: A History of the Land-Grant University and Agriculture in California (Regents of the University of California, Division of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Oakland, CA, 1995), page 41. The USDA-ARS revised the program to permit UC Davis to grow index-indicator plants in gardens at Chico for a period of four years while the introductions were held in quarantine at Davis. The first plantings under this plan were made on some 80 clones in 1965, followed by 295 clones in 1966 and 250 clones in 1967. Hewitt foresaw that imports might begin again in 1968 because of the relief provided by the Chico indexing. 37 Letter to Harold F. Winters, New Crops Research Branch, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD, from Wm. B. Hewitt, Professor Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, dated May 17, 1966, on file at Foundation Plant Services. Hewitt's import binder number 2 shows regular introductions resuming at Davis in 1968.

1969

William Hewitt moved from Davis to Reedley in 1969 to serve as the Station Superintendent at the University of California's Kearney Agricultural Center. By 1970, the Department of Plant Pathology was satisfied that grape imports were bringing no new viruses to California and no longer considered the quarantine index testing to be a research function but rather a service function. 38 A.C. Goheen, Importation of Grapevines into California, 1970, supra; FPMS Club News, vol. 1 no.1, May 1971, FPS collection AR-050 25: 16, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The reasoning of the Department illustrated a dilemma encountered by some scientists working at UC Davis of "commitment to two masters" - the basic sciences and the agricultural industry. "Land-grant colleges of agriculture had continually to keep in mind the twin goals of discovery and service, finding as they could a balance between the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake and the pursuit of solutions to client problems". 39 Scheuring, supra, at p. 119. The work at FPMS was to be viewed by the University as "service work" - testing and treating candidate vines for qualification in the California Grapevine Registration & Certification Program and maintaining foundation plant material for use by the industry. That conclusion had perceived negative implications for University scientists in the FPMS program, as research work was preferred by the University for professional advancement purposes.

Grape imports to the United States were regulated by permit and delivered to USDA/APHIS stations upon arrival in the country. This label from the 1970's is an example of the papers accompanying the grape imports.

The USDA Departmental Permit was transferred from Hewitt to USDA Plant Pathologist Austin Goheen, who began importations in 1969 and continued to oversee FPMS indexing procedures until his retirement in 1986. In 1988, FPMS ceased making commitments to import additional grape materials due to the loss of equipment and facilities associated with Goheen's retirement. No importation occurred at FPMS between 1988 and 1993. Potential clients were referred to the two remaining North American quarantine facilities at Geneva, New York, and Saanichton, British Columbia. 40 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 227. For a time in the 1980's, other grape facilities associated with universities were granted limited permission to process imports, including David Cameron at OSU in the 1980's and scientists at Missouri State University.

Vine importation and quarantine activity actively resumed in 1993 after the USDA issued a new Departmental Permit to FPMS in 1991-92. FPS Director, Deborah Golino, was authorized to administer the new permit. A new physical facility for processing grape imports as well as domestic accessions was funded by a federal grant and completed in 1994. The resumption of importations and the then-new FPMS facilities are discussed in greater detail in Part 2 of the story of Foundation Plant Services.

FOUNDATION VINEYARDS AT UC DAVIS

The heart of the clean plant program is the foundation vineyard. That collection of healthy vines is regularly tested and inspected and serves as the source of certified material for the grape and wine industry. The initial foundation vineyard for the California R&C Program was planted on the UC Davis campus in 1955. The founders of the clean plant program contemplated that the vineyard be isolated and planted in clean land. The original rules of the California program specified that the planting be on land which had not been planted to grapes for at least 10 years. The regulations also required that the land be isolated at least 150 (later 100) feet from non-indexed vines. 41 Memo from Curtis J. Alley, Manager CGCA to Board Members, CGCA, July 16, 1956, Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 3, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The foundation vineyards at FPS in 2018 contain most of the commercially-important grape varieties and clones from all over the world. Some of the heritage material came to California in the 19th century and was incorporated into University Experiment Station vineyards as well as the Department of Viticulture variety collection planted at Davis beginning in 1913. In the 1990's, FPMS increased efforts to collect California heritage clones. Other grape varieties were later acquired by FPS through exchange agreements with grape centers in countries such as Spain, France, Portugal, Croatia and Greece. Breeder selections from UC Davis and other important grape centers in the United States are represented in the foundation vineyard. This publication is meant to give the history of the varieties and selections in the FPS foundation vineyards.

The foundation vineyards at UC Davis have undergone several iterations between 1955 and 2018. Improvements in disease detection and disease-elimination treatment, as well as the increasingly large size of the FPS foundation grapevine collection, have been the impetus for moving to successive foundation vineyard plantings. The history of the foundation vineyards at FPS provides valuable context for the discussion on the evolution of FPS.

Overview of locations of foundation vineyards at UC Davis since 1955

Armstrong Foundation Vineyard, "Block A" (1955)

Grapevine material entering the CGCA/FPMS program in the 1950's was indexed in pots in a screenhouse on the UC Davis campus. The CGCA Board of Directors was concerned in 1953 about possible virus transmission in the soil and agreed that they should not install foundation plantings until the index process showed the vines then undergoing testing were free of virus. They knew that the delay would mean the industry could not get registered material for four to six years for planting in certified increase blocks. The Board agreed that material could be distributed in the interim but not as certified wood. 42 Minutes of the California Grapevine Certification Association, March 31, 1953, Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

On December 9, 1954, the Board voted that the foundation vineyard at UC Davis be limited to a few vines of each of the commercial varieties and rootstocks and that multiplication to produce sufficient wood for a reasonable number of certified vineyards be undertaken immediately on University land. 43 Minutes of the California Grapevine Certification Association, December 9, 1954, Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The land identified as suitable for the first foundation vineyard had been first leased (1917) and then purchased (1931) by the University south of the Davis campus. The 300-acre property was known as the Armstrong Ranch and was later referred to as Armstrong Tract. 44 Scheuring, supra, at p. 70, citing the University of California Chronicle 9-19 (1907-1917) and materials on file in the Department of Special Collections at Shields Library, UC Davis.

The vines in the first UC Davis foundation vineyard were planted in March, 1955. That 4-acre foundation vineyard was located in the Armstrong Tract and described as "at the intersection of S.P. Railroad and U.S. 40 [Highway 99] in old Agronomy Field". The foundation vineyard was designated "Block A". The initials "O.F." used in Austin Goheen's indexing binders at FPMS to refer to plantings in Block A stand for "Old Foundation".

The first proposed list of Registered vines from Block A was submitted to the then-California Department of Agriculture (CDA) in 1956. A "Registered vine" was a grapevine that tested negative for viruses at issue and was identified as true to variety. Registered foundation vines served as the source material for the varieties and clones ultimately released to nurseries and commercial growers in the certification program. The initial list in 1956 showed nine rootstock selections (5 varieties), 10 table and raisin grape selections (7 varieties) and 27 winegrape selections (23 varieties). 45 Application for Registration of Grape Foundation Block, by California Grape Certification Association, Department of Viticulture, University of California, Davis, to Nursery Service, Department of Agriculture, State of California, dated November 19, 1956. The list showed the following:

1956 List of Registered Vines page 1

1956 List of Registered Vines page 2

In the early years of the clean plant program at UC Davis, FPMS managed "an increase block" on campus, comprising about 8 acres, which was used to multiply the commercially important rootstock and scion varieties. 46 ''Foundation Plant Materials Service'', unpublished paper on file in FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 17, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The multiplication block was located in Blocks V, W and X of the Department of Viticulture vineyard at Armstrong Tract. 47 “Proposed Budget for Foundation Plant Materials Services”, ~1956-57, at page 6; on file in FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 17, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The distribution cards for 1956-1962 on file at FPS show customer orders for winegrape cuttings from that "multiplication block". FPMS also maintained an adjacent one-half acre for planting of a certified nursery.

In 1956, the first indexed wood from the new foundation vineyard was released for multiplication to cooperating nurseries and growers who had the isolated plots and clean land required to participate in the California certification program. 48 Curtis J. Alley, “Development of Virus-Free Grape Varieties”, Wines & Vines, (February, 1964), pages 22-23. Newly indexed varieties were subsequently added to the program and became available for multiplication in years following. 49 Letter from Curtis Alley to participating nurseries, dated January 2, 1958, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: 40 (1958 distribution), Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Certified grapevine stock sourced from the UC Davis foundation vineyard first became available to the public in winter 1959 from nurseries and growers, who were referred to as "[R & C] program participants". Program participants offered "certified stock" for sale from their increase blocks, which were the blocks used commercially by the nurseries and growers to multiply the registered material into many copies. "Certified stock" were vines, rootings, cuttings, buds or plants propagated from foundation/registered material and maintained by participants pursuant to program rules. The initial six cooperators that offered the first certified wood developed in the CGCA/FPMS program were: California Nursery Co. in Niles; Deer Creek Nursery Co. in Los Molinos; DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation in Delano; Leroy Anderson in Snelling; Rancho Fortuna in McFarland; and Stribling's Nurseries in Merced. 50 C.J. Alley, ''Certified Grape Stocks Available'', Wines & Vines 40(2): 28-29 (1959).

Once the certified material became available to the public through the commercial nurseries, the University cut back on its own multiplication/increase blocks on campus and maintained only an initial start of each scion variety and rootstock in the foundation vineyard. FPMS was not equipped to participate in increasing the numbers of all the varieties and rootstocks that qualified for the foundation vineyard. 51 “Foundation Plant Materials Service”, unpublished paper on file in FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 17, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

UC Davis developed more sensitive indicators for the detection of virus by 1960. The older registered grape plantings in Block A were found to be infected with strains of grapevine leafroll virus, the effects of which were poorly understood at the time. The program regulations were amended in May 1961 to permit distribution from the vines in Block A that had not yet tested leafroll positive because those vines were "free of all virus diseases other than leafroll". FPMS staff planned to replace the leafroll-infected vines as rapidly as possible with leafroll-negative selections for planting in the future foundation vineyard at Hopkins Road. 52 Austin Goheen, “Certification at Davis”, Department of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, January 23, 1962, FPS collection AR-050, box 33: 2; Minutes of the Committee Meeting of Foundation Plant Materials Service, November 22, 1961, p. 4, FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 19, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The portion of the original foundation vineyard (Block A) which included scions and rootstocks in quantities of four vines (scions) or ten vines (rootstocks) was reduced in classification to a mother block. The remainder of the planting was removed from the certification program. Once all of the varieties and selections remaining in that recharacterized mother block were established in the new Hopkins Foundation Vineyard, the mother block was phased out of the program. 53 Curtis Alley, “Foundation Plant Materials Service – Grape Registration & Certification Program”, November 6, 1963, Olmo collection D-280, box 19: 10-11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Hopkins Road Foundation Vineyard (1960)

A new FPMS foundation vineyard was planted on the UC Davis campus west of Hopkins Road beginning in 1960 after better virus indicators improved disease detection and plant selection. Hopkins Road and Hopkins Tract were named after the Hopkins family who had owned the property. The first varieties were distributed to program participants from the new foundation vineyard in 1963. 54 C.J. Alley, A.C. Goheen, and W.B. Hewitt, “Indexed Grape Varieties for Spring Planting 1963”, December 1962, FPS Collection AR-050, box 1: 19, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. At that time, there were 6 rootstock varieties, 16 table and raisin grapes and 40 winegrape varieties in the Hopkins Foundation Vineyard. 55 Curtis J. Alley, ''Development of Virus-Free Grape Varieties'', reprinted from Wines & Vines, February (1964), on file Olmo collection D-280, box 59: 24, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Olmo numbering system for vineyards

The Armstrong (Block A) and Hopkins Foundation Vineyards at UC Davis were numbered using a system created by Harold Olmo. He numbered the Davis vineyards using alphabetical letters for blocks and numbering of rows within the blocks. Olmo explained the origin of that system when he sat in 1973 for an oral history of his career at the University:

That numbering system or a variation thereof was used for the foundation vineyards from 1955 to 2018. The Hopkins Foundation Vineyard contained blocks A through L and was four blocks wide (A-D) and three blocks deep (A-D, E-H, I-L). Blocks A-D were set back parallel to Hopkins Road and were planted with rootstocks. The remaining blocks contained grape scion varieties.

The new Hopkins Foundation Vineyard was planted with both Registered and Non-registered clones/selections. The intermixture was allowed in part because plant pathologists at the time did not believe that most viruses could spread from plant to plant. Former FPS Production Supervisor Mike Cunningham recalls that "Goheen swore that viruses did not move plant to plant" and that the old foundation vineyard was a conglomeration of known virused plants and virus-tested plants. FPMS would sell a popular selection like Cabernet Sauvignon 08, which might be planted next to a vine that showed symptoms of leafroll virus. 57 Interview with Mike Cunningham, former FPMS/FPS Production Supervisor, February 24, 2015. Meticulous care is taken today to ensure that only vines that have been thoroughly tested and qualified for the Grapevine R&C Program are allowed in foundation plantings. While that high standard is accepted as a matter of course in 2018, such was not always the case.

As time went on, vines that were included on the List of Registered Vines for the Grapevine R&C Program were qualified in vineyards other than the Hopkins Foundation Vineyard. The Division/Department of Viticulture maintained vineyards at Davis beginning in 1908 when it was known as the University Farm. Those vineyards were maintained by faculty for such things as research, variety collection, breeding and clonal trials - often without regard to disease status of the vines. The Department of Viticulture distributed materials upon request to growers all over the world since the 1920's. 58 Minutes of Meeting of the California Grape Certification Association, at Lodi CA, December 19, 1952; in Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The Department of Viticulture blocks were located at Armstrong Vineyard adjacent to Block A, the first foundation vineyard. Later on, they were located on Hopkins Road south of the FPMS foundation vineyard.

The status of the vineyards of the Department of Viticulture was at times ambiguous. In the 1970's and 1980's, the Department of Viticulture had "indexed" grapevine material in their vineyards that were situated south of the FPMS Hopkins Foundation Vineyard. When a customer called FPMS and requested a variety that was not then part of the FPMS Hopkins Foundation Vineyard collection, Goheen would index a vine of that variety that was planted in the Department of Viticulture vineyard. If the test was negative, that vine would become one of the vines in the Grapevine R&C Program. The procedure was used by Goheen because he did not believe at the time that virus diseases spread from vine to vine in the vineyard.

CDFA included the Department of Viticulture vineyards east of the reservoir in the annual inspections of "Registered vines" as recently as the 1980's when CDFA came to inspect the FPMS Hopkins Foundation Vineyard. Mike Cunningham remembers that Goheen, Cunningham and 4 or 5 CDFA staff would walk the vineyards for two days every spring and fall. Goheen would begin the first morning and talk for three hours in the first row, would say "oh, it's almost lunch time" and say they should walk a few more blocks. FPMS staff collected and distributed grapevine cuttings for orders from the "M-O", R, S and T blocks and Tyree vineyard of those Viticulture vineyards until the leafroll crisis in 1992-93 (discussed in Part 2 of the FPS story). Cunningham and FPS Grape Program Manager Susan Nelson-Kluk recall that FPMS planted two of its own mother blocks near the reservoir in the Viticulture area on Hopkins Road.

FPMS staff had a synergistic and close working relationship with staff from the Department of Viticulture. One of the side effects of that working relationship in the early days of FPMS was that FPMS distributed to customers both their own indexed ("certified") grapevine material as well as "non-certified" material to satisfy requests made to the Department of Viticulture. 59 Minutes of the Committee Meeting of Foundation Plant Materials Service, November 22, 1961, FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 19; Memo to Dean Briggs from Nyland, Brooks, and Amerine, dated April 22, 1958, FPS collection AR-050, box 33: 2 and box 26: 17, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Goheen expressed concern about that practice to Maynard Amerine (Chair, Department of Viticulture) by letter in March of 1959, reasoning that the use of the word "Foundation" in the FPMS name implied that all material distributed by the service was tested and found to be free of serious virus trouble. Goheen felt that the misrepresentation might endanger the program. 60 Letter A.C. Goheen to Maynard Amerine, dated March 9, 1959, on file FPS collection AR-050, box 33: 2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. FPMS continued to distribute non-registered ("not certified") grapevine material until as late as 1990. 61 Memo to Susan Nelson-Kluk and Burt Ray from Cornelius Ough and Mark Kliewer, dated October 21, 1981, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10 (Tyree and Armstrong vineyards), Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

FPMS moved to a new foundation vineyard again beginning in 1983, in part to isolate Registered (R) vines from Non-registered (N) vines. At a meeting of the FPMS Technical Advisory Committee on April 17, 1990, FPMS decided to phase out the vines in the Hopkins Foundation Vineyard over a 5-year period because that vineyard did not meet isolation requirements in the Grapevine R&C Program regulations. The vines would continue to be tested for fanleaf virus every other year until all the selections could be repropagated to the new Brooks vineyard. Collection of foundation wood from the Hopkins Foundation Vineyard and Tyree block belonging to Viticulture would be allowed on a vine by vine basis in the interim. CDFA later agreed to that plan. 62 Minutes, FPMS Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, April 17, 1990, on file AR-050, box 23: 12; Minutes FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, April 23, 1990, AR-050, box 23: 13; Minutes FPMS Grape Committee Meeting, November 5, 1991, attached to 1992 FPMS Annual Report, AR-050, box 29: 49, all on file Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

At that Technical Committee meeting, the suggestion was made that FPMS also consider phasing out distribution of all Non-Registered vine material. Production Superintendent Mike Cunningham estimated that about 1% of grape material distributed by FPMS at that time was Non-Registered and indicated that customers agreed to purchase Non-Registered stock on an "as is basis". Today, only grapevine material that has qualified by regulations is allowed to be planted in the FPS foundation vineyards. FPS no longer distributes Non-Registered grapevine materials.

Charbono and Petit Sirah in the "Hopkins Foundation Vineyard" in early 1990's

The old foundation vineyard west of Hopkins Road, most of which was planted in the 1960's, was abandoned as a source of foundation stock by 1993. Many of the vines were more than 25 years old at that time and were starting to show decline from eutypa. The vineyard was completely removed in spring of 1999. Most of the commercially important selections had been retested, qualified and planted in the new Brooks Foundation Vineyard. The material not qualified for transfer to the Brooks Foundation Vineyard was transferred to the UCD Viticulture & Enology Department or the USDA National Clonal Germplasm Repository (NCGR) at Davis. 63 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 1998, page 2; FPMS Newsletter, October 1983, pp. 3-4.

Classic Foundation Vineyard (Brooks Farm) (1983)

A new foundation vineyard was planted beginning in 1983 on University land assigned to FPMS in the Brooks Farm area one mile east of the old Hopkins Foundation Vineyard. The initial foundation blocks were known as Brooks South and Brooks North. Brooks South block was established in 1983 with rootstock and scion selections propagated directly from the Hopkins Foundation Vineyard. Brooks North block was established in 1992 with scion selections only. 64 Memo to FPMS Technical Advisory Committee from Susan Nelson-Kluk, dated August 17, 1987, filed FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis; FPMS 1984 Newsletter, no. 4, October 1984, p. 4. Mike Cunningham stated that relocation of the vineyard permitted a better organization of the blocks used to produce rootstock by wider spacing between the varieties. 65 Minutes from FPMS Annual Meeting 1982, attached to FPMS Annual Report 1983, FPS collection AR-050, box 29: 50, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. After the crisis involving the rootstock AXR1, FPS developed St. George rootstock on which to graft the scions in the new vineyard. 66 Minutes FPMS Grape Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, November 26, 1990, AR-050, box 23: 13; Minutes, FPMS Grape Technical Advisory Committee, dated January 22, 1991, AR-050, box 23: 13, both filed in FPS collection AR-50, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The vineyard was cordon trained and trellised with funds provided by Grapevine R&C Program participants. 67 Minutes, FPMS Grape Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, November 5, 1991, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 13, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The vineyard became known as the "Classic Foundation Vineyard" once the new foundation at Russell Ranch was developed in 2010.

Goheen guided the FPMS grape program in the early 1980's and did not believe that clonal variation was an important quality factor within varieties. 68 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 227. For that reason, when the selections were initially propagated for the new Brooks South Foundation Vineyard in 1983, Goheen instructed the FPMS staff to plant only one clone of each variety. He chose the clone (selection) with the most heat treatment days, and therefore, the highest likelihood of being free of virus. Cunningham remembers that staff was careful to select only healthy-looking clonal material.

Goheen's criterion meant that popular selections did not necessarily make the cut; for example, the first Chardonnay in Brooks South was not Chardonnay 04 (the most popular Chardonnay at FPMS) but rather Chardonnay 07. Two or three years later, nurserymen such as Rich Kunde, Glen Stoller, Luther Khachigian and Ray Tonella told FPMS that they wanted more selections in the new foundation vineyard because other clones were doing better than the single clones that had been selected for the Brooks Vineyard. The remaining FPMS clones with commercial potential were thereafter moved into the Brooks collection. 69 Interview with Mike Cunningham, former FPMS/FPS Production Supervisor, February 24, 2015.

The grape and wine industry developed an interest in clones in the 1980's. Around 1992, the nurseries saw that growers and winemakers favored certain FPMS clones such as Chardonnay 04, Cabernet Sauvignon 07/08/11, Merlot 15 and the Dijon Chardonnay clones. Rich Kunde asked FPMS to plant more Registered vines of the popular clones that the industry wanted and provided a list to Susan Nelson-Kluk. This caused FPMS to develop the Nyland block in the Brooks Farm Foundation Vineyard to avoid having to sell Non-registered material of the popular selections when there were insufficient Registered vines.

Cunningham relates that they treated Nyland like an "increase block", in the sense of planting many more vines than usual of particular selections at the request of industry. Up to 20 vines of 58 established popular selections were planted in 1995. By the time those vines were mature and ready for harvest, however, newly imported clones had become popular. FPMS had moved away from the established FPMS clones to French, Italian and other foreign grape varieties. The Nyland increase block did not work out as originally envisioned, although it was useful to researchers.

The final selections that were moved from the old Hopkins Foundation Vineyard to the Brooks Foundation Vineyard were planted at the Brooks Farm site in spring of 1992. The future goal was to collect Registered material for customers exclusively from the new Brooks vineyard by the 1994-95 season. 70 FPMS Newsletter, no. 12, November 1992.

Another special block in the Brooks (Classic) Foundation Vineyard was developed in response to a particular pathogen. Grape growers from the regions such as the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington), New York and Canada constantly battle Agrobacterium vitis (A. vitis), a bacterium that causes crown gall disease. The disease is endemic in areas where cold weather or mechanical injury causes cracking on the roots, trunk and limbs allowing the bacterium to enter the vine. The presumptive treatment for A. vitis is shoot tip culture therapy.

There are two types of shoot tip culture used to generate new plantlets: (1) microshoot (the tip cut is 0.5 mm or less), used to eliminate many pathogens including viruses; and (2) macroshoot (the tip cut is greater than 0.5 mm), which is known to eliminate A. vitis. Microshoot tip therapy is more difficult and requires much longer than macroshoot tip culture. Beginning in the early 2000's, FPS generated vines from 19 major rootstock varieties and 23 scion varieties using macroshoot tip culture therapy for what FPS called the "Next Generation" Foundation Vineyard. 71 Susan T. Sim and Deborah Golino, “Micro- vs. Macroshoot Tip Tissue Culture Therapy for Disease Elimination in Grapevines”, FPS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2010, pp. 12-15. Permission to use land near the Nyland and Brooks North blocks was obtained in 2002, and the new area was named the Goheen block. 72 Minutes, FPMS Grape Advisory Committee Meeting, November 13, 2002, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 15, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The nineteen rootstock selections were planted in 2005, and 23 wine and table grape selections were planted in 2008. 73 FPS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2008, p. 5.

FPS partnered with crown gall researcher Thomas Burr at Cornell University to develop a reliable screening test for crown gall using the new selections. The rootstock varieties all tested negative for crown gall in 2007. 74 FPS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2008, page 5. For a time, FPS marketed and sold the selections in the Goheen block as "Next Generation" material.

The Next Generation Vineyard was put on hold after the National Clean Plant Network (NCPN) was formed in 2007 and was eventually subsumed by the Russell Ranch Vineyard project. The vines created for the Next Generation vineyard using macroshoot tip tissue culture therapy were not eligible for the Russell Ranch vineyard, which requires vines produced by microshoot tip therapy. The words "Next Generation" are now more closely associated with high-throughput sequence testing for grapevine disease detection.

Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard (2010)

FPS has been the lead clean plant center for grapes since the National Clean Plant Network (NCPN) was formed in 2007. The NCPN is a voluntary association of grapevine plant centers that seeks to spread the message of the benefit of healthy grapevine materials and to develop state-of-the-art protocols for testing and treatment. The NCPN for Grapes made an important decision in February, 2009, to set a rigorous new standard for grapevine foundation material in the United States.

The old barn at Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard

The NCPN standard is much more rigorous than the testing and treatment required to qualify for the California Grapevine Registration & Certification Program. In 2010, the NCPN for Grapes approved a protocol (known as "2010 Protocol") specifying the requirements for qualification under the NCPN standard for foundation grapevines. The 2010 Protocol requires that all vines be created by way of microshoot tip tissue culture therapy (smaller tips) and test negative for a lengthy list of pathogens known to infect grapevine materials.

In response to the decision of the NCPN for Grapes, FPS created a foundation vineyard to house grapevines that meet the qualifications set forth in the 2010 Protocol. In 1990, UC Davis acquired a 1600-acre parcel of farmland known as Russell Ranch, located 4 miles west of the UCD campus. The property surrounds the Hamm House, which was built in the late 1860's and inhabited until 2002 by the Russell family, who were early developers of the City of Davis.

The approximate 1000 acres of the Russell Ranch farmland contiguous to the Hamm House property has been leased as prime farmland since 2003. FPS petitioned the University and obtained permission to use 100 acres of the Russell Ranch parcel primarily for a new foundation vineyard. The site is remote from other vineyards to reduce the risk of pathogen vector incursion.

The vineyard infrastructure was installed beginning in 2009. Planting began at Russell Ranch in 2011 with the rootstock varieties and some of the scions. All grapevines used to populate the Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard were generated using microshoot tip tissue culture therapy. In 2010, selections from the Classic Foundation Vineyard that had already undergone microshoot tip tissue culture treatment began the rigorous testing required by the 2010 Protocol. Commercially desirable scion selections that had not undergone treatment were immediately prioritized and earmarked for microshoot tip culture therapy.

Once qualified for the Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard, selections from the Classic Foundation Vineyard were assigned a new selection number that both preserved the prior identity of the selection and indicated that the selection had successfully completed testing to qualify under the 2010 Protocol. For example, Chardonnay 04 from the Classic Foundation Vineyard was renamed Chardonnay 04.1 in the Russell Ranch Vineyard. The goal was to move almost all of the selections from the Classic Foundation Vineyard to the Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard.

The Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard (RRV) has been seriously impacted by the Red Blotch epidemic in California. As discussed in some detail in the following chapter (FPS into the 21st Century), Grapevine Red Blotch Disease is caused by the Grapevine red blotch virus (GRBV) and spread by various leafhopper vectors. FPS began a testing regimen for GRBV for the grapevines in its foundation vineyards in 2013.

Red Blotch virus was first detected in the Russell Ranch foundation vineyard in 2017. Five of the 4,132 vines (0.1%) in RRV tested positive in 2017. Those vines were immediately removed and destroyed. Since then, despite significant efforts to prevent the occurrence of the disease, the infection rate in the Russell Ranch vineyard has increased to 0.5% (24 or 4,406) in 2018, 7.1% (339 of 4,761) in 2019, and 18% (788 of 4,367) in 2020.

In contrast, Red Blotch infection rates have remained extremely low in the Classic Foundation Vineyard, ranging from 0% to 0.21% since 2013. None of the 4,270 vines in the Classic vineyard were infected in 2020.

In October of 2020, FPS advised its customers that the best course of action was to discontinue distributing material from the Russell Ranch vineyard. Grapevine material from the Classic Foundation vineyard (which represents the majority of clonal families from RRV) continues to be available for distribution to customers as of 2021. FPS tests all grapevine material for GRBV as dormant canes prior to shipping.

FPS and UC Davis planners are currently working on plans for a large greenhouse that will protect approximately 4,000 of FPS' most valued foundation grapevines. The greenhouse solution is viewed as essential to protect the material from vectors and continue to guarantee immediate access to clean plant material in case of field infection. In the interim, FPS is currently renting two greenhouses from the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences to temporarily house valuable clonal selections as mother vines in a protected environment.

GRAPEVINE TESTING AT FPS

Testing of grapevines for virus and virus-like conditions is complicated. Some of the biological testing methods have been used for decades and have endured the test of time in terms of producing reliable results. Molecular testing methods have improved over time and are sensitive and specific in targeting particular diseases. FPMS/FPS has employed a combination of testing protocols on the grapevine collection to detect problems at the earliest stage possible and maintain a "clean" foundation collection.

The federal government USDA/APHIS protects against the entry of grape viruses into the country and dictates the requisite testing that allows an imported grapevine to be released from quarantine into the U.S. Post entry quarantine testing is conducted at dedicated grape importation and quarantine facilities such as FPS. Once a grapevine is in the United States and is not in quarantine, there are no national restrictions on the movement of plant material between the states. Each state addresses the issue for itself. A few states such as Washington and Oregon have enacted state quarantine regulations for grapes entering from other states.

Clean plant programs are administered at the state level and are monitored by a state regulatory agency such as a Department of Agriculture. The goal of a state certification program is to produce healthy, disease-tested plant material to commercial growers of that crop. A state that wishes to create a program offering certified grape material establishes the rules by law and/or regulations and sets up a system for creation of the certified vines. The key components of a clean plant program are testing and/or treatment of grapevine material, an isolated foundation vineyard that serves as a source of the grape selections, a nursery industry to multiply the grapevine material and distribute them to growers, an oversight agency to monitor compliance and, for California, a trueness to type evaluation of program vines. The diseases for which testing is required, usually viruses and some bacteria, may include many of the same testing and disease elimination procedures as the federal importation program.

California Grapevine Registration & Certification Program

The clean plant program in California is known as the California Grapevine Registration & Certification (R &C) Program and is regulated by the Department of Food & Agriculture (known as the Department of Agriculture until 1972). Program regulations applicable to FPMS/FPS have from the outset specified that all grapevine material destined for eventual sale as certified vines be "free of certain diseases", mostly viruses. The specific diseases for which testing is required by the regulations have changed over the decades since the program began in 1958. A review of the significant provisions for testing will provide context for the later discussion about key events in FPMS/FPS history. 75 D.A.Golino, M. Fuchs, M. Al Rwahnih, K. Farrar, A. Schmidt and G.P. Martelli, ''Regulatory Aspects of Grape Viruses and Virus Diseases: Certification, Quarantine, and Harmonization'', Grapevine Viruses: Molecular Biology, Diagnostics and Management, p.p. 581-587, edited by Baozhong Meng, Giovanni P. Martelli, Deborah A. Golino and Marc Fuchs (Springer International Publishing AG 2017).

First, some preliminary words about nomenclature. Many papers and articles in support of the clean plant program in the early years used the words "virus free" in reference to the grape material tested and released at UC Davis. In the 1970's, the words "virus free" appeared in conjunction with advertisements for nursery stock produced under the California Grapevine R & C Program.

The use of "virus free" in advertisements was eventually prohibited in California because it was considered misleading. 76 Memo from CDFA to Grapevine R&C Program Participants, dated October 17, 1972, filed in FPS collection AR-040, box 25: 37, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. No disease elimination treatment or virus test is considered to be infallible. New viruses are periodically identified, and virus can spread into non-isolated virus-tested vines by way of vectors. FPS uses the words "virus tested" to describe its foundation grapevines, which continue to be inspected and tested regularly after installation in the foundation vineyard.

CDFA adopted the original regulations for the California Grapevine Registration & Certification Program in two phases. Phase one defined the rules for "Registered vines" on September 8, 1956 (Regulations for Registration of Grapevines Inspected and Tested for Virus Diseases). A "Registered vine" was defined as one that has tested negative for specific diseases and is eligible for planting in the foundation vineyard at UC Davis or in grower mother blocks. 77 Title 3, California Administrative Code sections 3024 et. seq. (effective September 8, 1956). The regulations required that the foundation vineyard be isolated from non-registered grapevines, regularly retested and regularly inspected by CDFA.

Phase two of the original regulations became effective in August, 1958, adding provisions for "certification" of grape nursery stock, establishing mother or multiplication vineyards from which propagating wood for certified nursery stocks could be taken, and fee setting. 78 C.J. Alley, ''Certified Grape Stock'', 1958-59, unpublished paper on file FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 17, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The progeny of the foundation material is presumed to be negative for the same viruses as vines at FPMS/FPS because they are also isolated, inspected and [now tested] regularly by CDFA. 79 C.J. Alley, ''Certified Grape Stocks Available'', Wines & Vines 40(2): 28-29 (1959). Nursery stock for sale to customers is "certified" by CDFA if it is produced in accordance with the rules for the program.

The first wood qualifying for sale out of the California clean plant program came to UC Davis as part of the CGCA program starting in 1952. The first foundation vineyard was planted at Davis in 1955 with grape material that had tested free of three known viruses. At the same time, the first rootstock and scions became available from UC Davis for multiplication by cooperating nurseries and growers. Nurserymen and growers developed blocks known as either Mother, Increase or Certified blocks on land that had been free of grapevines for at least ten years. Such vines were isolated at least 100 feet away from any untested grapevines and were inspected by CDFA. Six commercial nurseries participated in the release of first wood to the public in 1959 from their certified blocks. 80 C.J. Alley, ''Certified Grape Stocks Available'', Wines & Vines 40(2): 28-29 (1959).

Color coded tags accompanied registered plant material until 2008, when the system was replaced by packing slips.

The clean plant program maintains integrity through the ability to track material back to a particular source vine from the foundation vineyard. That chain of custody was established in California until recently by way of colored tags. 81 Susan Nelson-Kluk, FPMS Information Pamphlet and Slide Show (1987-1993), FPS collection AR-050, box 26: 3, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. In 2008, the tag system was abandoned by FPS and CDFA and FPS resorted to the use of packing slips that contained order and source information for the customers.

A critical component of all clean plant programs is testing grapevines for the presence of specified diseases, primarily viruses. A vine may not be added to the clean plant (foundation) vineyard if it is infected with virus. Distinguishing healthy from diseased grapevines on the basis of symptom expression alone is not reliable. A grapevine may suffer from a virus but not exhibit clear symptoms. Serious virus diseases cause progressive weakening of the vine and then death. Most of the grape diseases proscribed by the California Grapevine R&C Program over the years were viruses or virus-like pathogens. The scientists at UC Davis pioneered the development of effective methods for discovery and detection of those diseases.

Development of virus testing at UC Davis

In the 1930's and 1940's, very little was known about plant viruses, and information was just beginning to appear in the scientific literature. Prior to that time, many virus-related problems with grapevines were attributed to sloppy viticultural techniques and poor growing conditions. 82 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 223.

The first reported work on virus diseases in California was in 1943 on a table grape named Emperor, normally a red variety. Growers often had problems with color development and sugar levels in the so-called "White Emperor" variety. Olmo suggested that a virus might be implicated and determined that the problem was perpetuated by vegetative propagation. 83 Olmo, H.P. and A.D. Rizzi, ''Selection for fruit color in the Emperor grape'', Proc.Am.Soc. Hortic. Sci. 42: 395-400 (1943). Additional work validated the symptoms, distribution and transmission method of "White Emperor disease". White Emperor disease was already known as leafroll virus in Germany.

The White Emperor case was a landmark in the history of grapevine virology, establishing a virus disease as the cause of poor vineyard performance. Hewitt included leafroll virus on a list of serious threats to California vineyards in 1951. 84 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra. Leafroll has been the most widely distributed of the virus diseases in California vineyards and causes reduced yields and delayed maturity. Sugars are affected and ripening is delayed. The overall quality of the fruit is lowered. 85 Goheen, ''Development of Selected Grapevine Clones Free from Known Virus Diseases'', undated and unpublished paper on file at FPS.

Leafroll symptoms

Goheen, Hewitt and Curtis Alley authored a paper analyzing a compilation of surveys from the 1950's and concluded that on the basis of leafroll symptomology the incidence of leafroll was 80% or more in many California vineyards, particularly wine-grape vineyards in the coastal counties. They further observed that not all vineyards in California were as seriously affected and some were completely free of the disease. 86 Goheen, A.C., Hewitt W.B. and Alley C.J., ''Studies of Grape Leafroll in California'', Am.J.Enol. Vitic. 10(2): 78-84 (1959).

Although Goheen, Hewitt and Alley knew that leafroll could spread from rootstock to scion when direct contact was made in grafting or budding Mission to Emperor, they found in 1959 that there was no indication of vector spread of the virus from vine to vine in California. The scientists concluded that vegetative propagation from old vines and successive grafting or budding accelerated the spread of leafroll. 87 Goheen A.C., W. B. Hewitt, and C.J. Alley, ''Studies of Grape Leafroll in California'', Am. J. Enol. Vit. 10(2): 78-84 (1959).

Fanleaf symptoms

Plant pathologist William Hewitt, who became known as the father of modern grapevine virology, discovered fanleaf degeneration in California vineyards in 1948 or 1949. He identified it in a table grape variety Calmeria in 1954. Fanleaf is a virulent disease that is spread slowly in the soil by nematodes. Yellow mosaic and veinbanding are related diseases. These diseases reduce fruit set, delay fruit ripening and lower fruit quality. Affected vines may also be stunted and short-lived. 88 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 223.

Plant pathologists at Davis in the 1950's accumulated knowledge of grape virus diseases at a rapid rate. Staff from the Department of Plant Pathology assumed formal responsibility for the index testing and inspection of foundation vines at FPMS in May, 1958. 89 Letters from A.P. Messenger, Chief, Bureau of Plant Quarantine, Department of Agriculture, State of California, to M.A. Amerine, Professor, Dept. Viticulture & Enology and J.B. Kendrick, Professor of Plant Pathology, dated May 27, 1958, FPS collection AR-50, box 28: 40, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Hewitt and Austin Goheen felt that grape indexing was still a research responsibility in 1958 as they were not yet sure that they knew all of the best indicators for the detection of the diseases that were then recognized. 90 Memo to D.H. Scott, Plant Industry Station, Small Fruits and Vine Section, Beltsville, MD from A.C. Goheen, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, dated March 14, 1958, FPS collections AR-050, box 28: 40, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Index testing using indicator vines planted in the field was the traditional method used for detection of viruses in grapevines starting in the 1950's. Hewitt supervised the process at FPMS but it was developed primarily by Austin Goheen. Field index testing is still used at FPS in 2018 to test grapevines for the California Grapevine Registration & Certification Program.

-Photo courtesy of the Department of Plant Pathology
Dr. Austin Goheen

Austin Goheen

Goheen was a research plant pathologist with the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS). He received his PhD from Washington State University (Pullman) in the 1950's and went to work with the USDA/ARS in New Jersey and then Beltsville, Maryland. Goheen was sent to a USDA field station in Fresno in 1955, where he first came into contact with grapevines and grape virus diseases. The control of such diseases became his major research effort in 1956 through a cooperative project with the Department of Plant Pathology, UC Davis. He began the association by collaborating with Hewitt on infectious degeneration caused by fanleaf virus. 91 Letter from Austin C. Goheen, Department of Plant Pathology, UC Davis to Robert P. Hartzell, California Association of Winegrape Growers, Sacramento, CA, dated February 18, 1986, on file at Foundation Plant Services; Austin C. Goheen, Honorary Research Lecture presented at ASEV Annual Meeting in June 1988, ''Virus Diseases and Grapevine Selection'', Am.J.Enol.Vitic., vol. 40(1): 67-72 (1989).

Goheen's principal role at UC Davis was to serve as the scientific advisor at FPMS from the mid 1950's through 1986. He developed the index testing techniques and heat treatment therapy for the grapevine material in the FPMS foundation vineyard. Goheen had a lath house in the Plant Pathology field facilities at location B6 in the Armstrong Tract and held the mother vines there until they finished testing. The clean vines were then planted in the foundation vineyard. The large binders documenting Goheen's work are the only records that remain for the history of that testing for selections entering the FPS collection prior to Goheen's retirement.

Index testing

Field index testing is performed by graft inoculation of sensitive indicator plants to check for the presence of virus disease. A "candidate vine" is the imported or domestic grapevine vying for inclusion in the clean plant program. A candidate vine is united (by grafting or budding) with an indicator host vine, which reacts in a specific and visible fashion if brought into contact with a specific disease. The "indicator grapevine" is selected for its sensitivity to one or more virus diseases.

There are many different grafting or budding techniques used to unify the candidate vine with the indicator vine. Plant pathologists experimented with alternate methods and decided that the most robust approach under Davis conditions would be to insert a dormant bud of a candidate vine onto a rooting of a susceptible indicator host plant. The rooting is then planted and observed for two years for signs of the viruses at issue.

Bud is inserted into indicator vine and wrapped with tape and budding rubber

The known virus diseases in 1953 when the CGCA program began were degeneration caused by fanleaf virus, yellow mosaic, and "White-fruited Emperor disease" (later identified as leafroll virus).

The initial indicator varieties used to test the vines for disease at UC Davis were Thompson Seedless (yellow mosaic disease), French Colombard (fanleaf disease), and "clean" Emperor (White Emperor disease). Ribier was also used for rootstocks. 92 Curtis Alley, ''Notice to Nurserymen Concerning the Availability of Certified Grape Stock'', California Grape Certification Association, University of California Davis, Olmo collection D-280, box 31: 5; C.J. Alley, ''Grape virus diseases tackled'', Western Fruit Grower, April 1954, p. 30, on file in Olmo collection D-280, box 3: 4, both documents on file Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The language in the original 1956 Grapevine R&C Program regulations provided for index testing for "a virus disease". "Virus disease" was not defined in the regulations by specifying names of viruses but rather by specifying certain indicator varieties, e.g., Thompson Seedless, Emperor and Mission. Those varieties were known to detect fanleaf degeneration and White Emperor disease (leafroll virus). Entries in the Goheen indexing binder for Pinot noir selections were made at FPS in 1958 to document test results show that he was regularly testing for fanleaf, leafroll and fleck at that time.

Goheen was able to develop better indicator varieties to detect leafroll virus at an earlier stage by 1960. CDFA allowed FPMS to substitute indicators other than those listed in the regulations. Goheen experimented with new indicator vines and added Mission, St. George and Baco 22A for fanleaf and leafroll. The change to more sensitive indicators revealed that 3% of the foundation blocks already established at UC Davis were carrying strains of "mild leafroll". 93 Curtis J. Alley, “Development of Virus-Free Grape Varieties”, Wines & Vines (February, 1964), pp 22-23.

The presence of leafroll virus in the Old Foundation Vineyard in Armstrong Tract caused concern at a meeting of scientists, regulators, nurseries and growers at CDA in December 1959. The consensus was to save the California Grapevine R&C Program if possible. A plan was made to rogue symptomatic vines (scions being self-indexing) and sample index the rootstocks in Block A. The program regulations would permit distribution from the remaining vines in Block A because they were "free of all virus diseases other than leafroll". FPMS staff planned to replace the leafroll-infected selections as rapidly as possible with new selections in the "new" Hopkins Foundation Vineyard. 94 Summary of CDA Meeting in Sacramento December 17, 1959, to Evaluate Grape Registration and Certification, California, prepared by E.H. McEachern, Bureau of Nursery Service, Department of Agriculture; Austin Goheen, “Certification at Davis”, Department of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, January 23, 1962, FPS collection AR-050, box 33: 2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis; Minutes of the Committee Meeting of Foundation Plant Materials Service, November 22, 1961, p. 4, FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 19, Department of Special Collections, UC Davis.

In 1964, amended regulations were issued that defined a prohibited virus in the California R & C Program as "a serious virus, except leafroll virus". It is believed that that definition was meant to be a temporary amendment to accommodate the situation with the Block A (Armstrong Tract) foundation vines, distribution of which was allowed for a brief time absent symptoms of leafroll virus.

In 1970, leafroll virus was again included in the R&C Program regulations as a "prohibited virus" when "virus-infected" was defined as a "serious virus" but the exception for leafroll was deleted. By that time, testing of the new Hopkins Foundation Vineyard for leafroll virus was completed. The indicator vines specified in the 1970 regulations were Mission, St. George, and Baco 22A for leafroll and fanleaf and LN-33 for corky bark. Goheen developed the test for corky bark using the indicator LN-33 when he saw that corky bark virus caused a severe disease reaction at some graft unions as well as slow vine decline. 95 Austin C. Goheen, Honorary Research Lecture, Am.J. Enol.Vitic., supra, at page 71; Curtis J. Alley, ''Development of Virus-Free Grape Varieties'', Wines & Vines (February, 1964) pp 22-23; Minutes, Meeting at FPMS on January 27, 1981, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections.

LN33 indicator showing symptoms of Grapevine virus B
(corky bark) in field index testing

Goheen advised the FPMS Technical Committee in December 1980 of two new advancements made in indexing testing: (1) the use of Cabernet franc as an indicator to detect "mild strains of leafroll" virus; and (2) peeling the bark off the trunk of St. George and LN33-innoculated rootstocks to look for stem pitting and grooving symptoms. 96 Minutes, FPMS Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, December 1980, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Cabernet franc as an indicator

Goheen considered Cabernet franc to be particularly well suited for index testing in Davis. In Director Deborah Golino's first year at UC Davis, Goheen described a good leafroll indicator as a black-fruited cultivar from which the juice runs clear when one squeezes the fruit. If the juice is red, there is too much pigment and a danger of false positives because the leaves might turn red for other reasons. Goheen believed that Cabernet franc was more sensitive to leafroll virus and showed symptoms better than Mission.

The binders Goheen and his research assistant Carl Luhn maintained show index test results for FPMS selections on Cabernet franc indicator vines beginning around 1977 or 1978. FPS continues to use Cabernet franc as the primary indicator vine for field index testing in 2018. Golino states that "after much trial and error, Cabernet franc has been settled on as the best indicator for the Davis climate". 97 Personal communication by Deborah Golino to author, October 30, 2014; Austin C. Goheen, Honorary Research Lecture ''Virus Diseases and Grapevine Selection'', Am. J. Enol. Vitic., vol. 40 (1): 68 (1989); Minutes of the Grape Growers Meeting held April 27, 1982, at UC Davis, attached to FPMS Grape Growers' Newsletter, no. 2 August 1982.

Leafroll symptoms on Cabernet franc indicator plant

Goheen reindexed for leafroll virus 87 selected clones of the 25 most important commercial grape varieties in California from the Hopkins Foundation Vineyard in 1981. Four scion selections tested positive for leafroll virus, which had not been detected earlier by indexing on Mission. Unfortunately, some of the clones that tested positive were single clone sources for important varieties, such as Ruby Cabernet 01 and Sauvignon blanc 01. 98 Minutes, Meeting between FPMS and CDFA, January 27, 1981, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Forty-three (43) rootstocks were also indexed, none of which tested positive for leafroll virus on Cabernet franc. Goheen proceeded with additional scion selections in 1982-83. 99 Minutes from the Industry Advisory Committee, November 1, 1982, contained in the 1983 FPMS Annual Report, filed in FPS collection AR-050, box 29: 50, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Rupestris stem pitting virus

Rupestris stem pitting (RSP) virus was first recognized in the United States in 1976 by Goheen during testing of imported European grapevines. He named the disease "Rupestris stem pitting" because its symptoms (small pits on wood cylinder of the indicator) showed best only in grape rootstock lines with some Vitis rupestris parentage. He said that the slow decline caused by the virus became noticeable only after diseased and healthy vines grew side by side for a few years. 100 Goheen, Honorary Research Lecture, Am.J. Enol.Vitic., supra at page 71.

Indexing tests conducted at FPMS on materials coming from Western Europe from the late 1960's through the 1980's showed that over 60% of foreign germplasm lines were affected by either RSP or other grape virus disease. The materials that came to the United States before the late 1960's did not contain the stem pitting; Goheen suspected that RSP had been distributed around Europe during the 1970's in the rootstocks, particularly the widely used Kober 5BB. 101 A.C. Goheen, Research Plant Pathologist, ''Grape Quarantine in the United States'', January 16, 1986, FPS Collection AR-050, box 28: 6; Letter from Austin Goheen dated November 10, 1981, FPS collection AR-050, box 28: 6, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis; FPMS Grape Growers' Newsletter no. 2 August 1982.

Goheen re-indexed all the registered clones in the FPMS foundation vineyard on St. George rootstock during the 1980-81 season. It was then that he described to the FPMS Technical Committee peeling the bark to observe pitting and grooving symptoms. From a total of 821 lines (selections) in the blocks, he found that 83 or 9.2% carried the disease. 102 Foundation Plant Materials Service Grape Growers' Newsletter, no.1 August 1981 and no. 2 August 1982; Minutes of the Grape Subcommittee/Notes from FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, October 26, 1981, AR-050, box 23: 10; Minutes from Meeting of FPMS, CDFA and Grape R&C participants, March 18, 1981, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, all on file in Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Rupestris St. George was used as an indicator vine in the California R&C Program since 1964, but the Rupestris stem pitting virus was not defined by Goheen until around 1980. "Stem pitting" was first named as a prohibited virus in the California R&C Program in the 1984 regulations, which meant that stem-pitting-positive vines no longer qualified for the FPMS foundation vineyard and were removed. 103 Goheen, Honorary Research Lecture, Am.J. Enol.Vitic., supra at page 71; Minutes, FPMS Viticulture Advisory Committee Meeting, October 5, 1981, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Those vines were thereafter maintained in an "RSP block" in the Department of Viticulture & Enology's Tyree vineyard, which was loaned to FPMS for that purpose. 104 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2000, page 6.

By the early 1990's, the grape quarantine collection at FPMS was swamped with selections that had tested positive for the RSP virus; most of those vines were the ones imported from Europe, as well as the Dijon clones from OSU. In December 1992, CDFA approved release of 80 important new foreign varieties that had tested positive for Rupestris stem pitting. CDFA had assigned RSP to its "low pest rating category" - "C rated pest" - because it was not believed to be a serious disease and was not known to spread other than by propagation. The low pest rating resulted in RSP being removed from the federal quarantine list for California. 105 Ed Weber and Deborah Golino, “Rupestris Stem Pitting: Understanding the disease (and its regulation)”, Practical Winery& Vineyard, September/October 1994, pp. 28-31.

Tyree block - RSP positive selections

The field planting of the RSP-positive selections remained in place for years in the Department of Viticulture and Enology Tyree VII block. The name Tyree Vineyard appeared regularly in FPMS/FPS documents from the 1980's forward, mostly in connection with desirable European grape imports that were installed there after testing positive for the RSP-virus. The FPMS RSP-positive selections were propagated and distributed for a time as "Nonregistered (N)" stock from the Tyree Vineyard on the theory that stem pitting virus was not commercially harmful to grapes. 106 FPMS 1993 Newsletter, no. 13, October 1993, p. 3. Most of the selections in the Tyree Vineyard were eventually subjected to microshoot tip tissue culture therapy to qualify them for the foundation vineyard.

Concern arose in 1997 when a scientist in New York detected that the FPMS indicator variety St. George was infected with RSP virus. The FPMS St. George vines were put on "hold" status. 107 Minutes, FPMS Grape Advisory Committee Meeting, January 15, 1997, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 14, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. In 1998, FPMS plant pathologist Adib Rowhani developed a new type of molecular test (PCR) that reliably detected a virus associated with RSP, which became known as Grapevine Rupestris stem pitting associated virus (GRSPaV). Subsequent PCR testing on the FPMS St. George mother vines and a high percentage (25-30%) of other mother vines in the foundation vineyard revealed them to be positive for the RSP virus. Those findings suggested that a significant amount of California-certified grape material may have been positive for RSP virus for years. 108 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2000, page 7; Minutes, FPMS Grape Advisory Committee Meeting, November 3, 1999, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 14, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

By January 1999, there was enough data to cause FPMS Director Golino to petition CDFA requesting they drop RSP from the California Grapevine R&C Program regulations. 109 Letter from FPMS Director Deborah Golino, to Kathleen Harvey, Program Supervisor, Nursery Seed and Cotton Program, CDFA, dated January 5, 1999, FPS collection AR-050, box 26: 12, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The stated reasons were uncertainties related to index test results of the foundation vineyard, the imminence of a more accurate lab test (PCR), and the fact that many other programs in the world did not certify against RSP. FPMS was permitted to continue to distribute the RSP-positive selections from the foundation vineyard while more information was developed about RSP virus.

RSP-positive selections were considered to be a special category of Provisional materials for the California R&C Program and were distributed to customers only after they signed an acknowledgment of the uncertain status of the plant material. CDFA deleted RSP virus from the list of diseases targeted by California R&C Program effective January 1, 2001, and RSP-positive selections became eligible for the FPMS/FPS foundation vineyard. 110 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2001, page 5; FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2000, pages 7.

Index testing in the 1980's

After decades of experimentation, by 1980 Goheen had settled on the use of the indicators St. George, Cabernet franc and LN-33 for the FPMS grape index testing and on the herbaceous test plant Chenopodium quinoa for grape decline (yellow vein), fanleaf degeneration, and yellow vein. He believed that those indicators identified all the serious virus diseases found in grapevines by the 1980's. 111 Bill Callison (CDFA) and Austin Goheen (UCD), ''California's Clean Stock Program for Grapevine Nursery Stock'', VINIFERA WINE GROWERS JOURNAL, vol X, no. 4 (Winter 1983).

The positive leafroll and RSP findings in the FPMS registered vines in 1981 highlighted an ambiguity in the CDFA regulations. In 1980-81, the names of indicator varieties were specified in the regulations but not the diseases of issue to the program. At the same time, CDFA allowed FPMS to experiment with new more sensitive indicators as they were discovered. However, the regulations were silent on the appropriate course of action to be taken if positive results appeared in registered foundation selections that were re-indexed using new indicators. One of the concerns was the potential responsibility to the industry that was already using the selections. CDFA and FPMS agreed that Goheen should notify FPMS immediately of positive results on registered material using new indicators, and FPMS should in turn notify CDFA. All virus-positive vines were to be dropped from the program at once. 112 Minutes, FPMS Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, December 1980, and Minutes, Meeting between FPMS and CDFA, January 27, 1981, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The Grapevine R&C Program regulations were amended in 1984 in two important ways. First, in response to the 1981 re-indexing issue, new language was added stating that the "university shall notify all current participants in the ... . program when foundation stock which participants are using is found to be disease infected". 113 California Administrative Code Section 3024.2 (a) [1984].

Secondly, the 1984 version of the regulations was the first time the specific virus diseases that were prohibited by the Grapevine R&C Program were listed by name in the regulations. The 1984 definition of "virus-infected" was amended to read "infected by a graft transmissible disease", specifically defined as: fan leaf degeneration, grape decline (yellow vein), asteroid mosaic, fleck, stem pitting, corky bark, and leafroll. At the time, Goheen did not consider fleck to be a major virus disease of grapevines and recommended further testing on its effects. The specified indicators were St. George, Cabernet franc, LN-33 or Mission for leafroll, and Chenopodium sp for herbaceous testing. The California R&C Program regulations would not undergo major amendment again until 2010. 114 FPMS Newsletter, no. 4, October 1984, p. 2.

Although the California R&C Program regulations underwent a major and thorough review in 2010, the provisions affecting index testing and indicator vines remained unchanged. In 2018, FPS continues to administer the woody field index using St. George (fanleaf, fleck, and corky bark), LN-33 (corky bark and leafroll) and Cabernet franc (leafroll) as indicators for various viruses. Deborah Golino states that "after much trial and error, Cabernet franc has been settled on as the best indicator for the Davis climate". 115 Personal communication Deborah Golino to author, October 30, 2014. The Kober 5BB field test for GVA (Rupestris stem pitting) has been discontinued at FPS in favor of the molecular tests for GVA.

The woody index has proved to be a valuable tool for assessing vine health because of its broad detection range, including both known and as-yet unknown viruses. Index testing most likely ensured that the FPS foundation collection largely escaped the Red Blotch crisis that has plagued the winegrape growing industry in California since 2012. The Red Blotch virus was unidentified prior to that time but most likely showed up as a potential problem on earlier index testing. Vines with the unknown but potential problem would not have been advanced to the foundation vineyard. The drawbacks of indexing are that it is time-consuming (up to three years to read results), has a low specificity, is costly in terms of greenhouse and field space, and is labor intensive.

At its peak at FPS in 2011-2012, FPS staff grafted almost 19,000 buds onto 9,000 indicator plants over a period of months to process all the incoming imports and domestic selections. Growers and winemakers eager to try new imports have been frustrated with the 2-3 year period required to process the results.

Grape index vines hardening off before planting

Some of the drawbacks of index testing are eliminated by the molecular tests that have been developed by scientists since 1988. Dr. Adib Rowhani assumed management of the FPMS disease testing laboratory in 1988 and implemented many new testing protocols over the years. Rowhani's career at FPMS/FPS is discussed in more detail in Part 2 of the story of Foundation Plant Services.

Traditional molecular testing

FPS plant pathologist Rowhani developed a laboratory program at then-FPMS in the 1990's to implement more sensitive, faster, and cheaper testing methods for screening plants for grape diseases. 116 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2000, page 7. Molecular tests screen for a range of suspected "known" viruses and virus strains using a panel of specific tests such as ELISA and PCR (RT-PCR and qRT-PCR).

The enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA) is a rapid, cost effective serological test for detecting viruses in woody plants. It has limitations in that the test lacks the sensitivity to reliably detect viruses when they occur in low titers. Additionally, the highly purified virus preparations required to produce antisera needed for the test are sometimes difficult to obtain. 117 Adib Rowhani, “PCR for the Future”, FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 1999, page 9.

Rowhani began developing ELISA tests for fanleaf and leafroll viruses at FPMS in 1988. ELISA testing can be an effective diagnostic tool for certain diseases such as fanleaf degeneration where a single virus or bacterium is responsible for causing disease.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a sophisticated and sensitive lab test used to detect known viruses and virus-like diseases. Reverse-transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an extremely sensitive alternative to ELISA, providing the ability to detect viruses in woody plants throughout the year, even during periods of low titer. Primers are purchased or developed for specific viruses or a specific strain of a virus. Large numbers of samples may be run. Rowhani began using RT-PCR to test foundation vines in 1999. There is one advantage of index testing over the more specific PCR tests: index testing reveals the presence of all diseases in the vine, whether known or not known. PCR tests are targeted to particular viruses. 118 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 1999, page 9-10.

The drawback of traditional molecular testing is that the tests require prior knowledge or suspicion of the pathogen that is the object of the test. Traditional methods are incapable of detecting variants, such as new strains or unknown agents. For those reasons, FPS continues to employ index testing in conjunction with molecular testing.

High Throughput Sequencing (HTS)

The use of a cutting-edge laboratory procedure named High Throughput Sequencing (HTS) allows FPS scientists in 2018 to diagnose all possible pathogens and irregularities in the cells of the grape plant material, to the highest level of sensitivity and specificity. 119 Saldarelli P., A. Giampetruzzi, H.J. Maree, and M. Al Rwahnih, “High-Throughput Sequencing: Advantages Beyond Virus Identification”, Grapevine Viruses: Molecular Biology, Diagnostics and Management, eds. Baozhong Meng, Giovanni P. Martelli, Deborah A. Golino, and Marc Fuchs (Springer International Publishing AG, 2017), pp. 625-642; Al Rwahnih et al., Deep Sequencing analysis of RNAs from a grapevine showing Syrah decline symptoms reveals a multiple virus infection that includes a novel virus, Virology 387: 395-401 (2009). HTS alone cannot explain the etiology of complex diseases and is used to complement biological assays specifically designed to define disease etiology. Additional details about the evolution of disease testing of grapevines at FPMS/FPS and the state-of-the-art testing methods are explained in Part 2 of the story of Foundation Plant Services.

TREATMENT AND THERAPY (NOT REFERENCED IN REGULATIONS BUT INEXTRICABLY BOUND TO TESTING)

In 1951, Harold Olmo defined the problem with grapevine viruses in simple terms as follows: "Once a vine is infected, no practical way has yet been found of killing the virus without at the same time killing the vine. There is no medicine and no cure". 120 H.P. Olmo, “A Proposed Program for Introduction, Improvement and Certification of Healthy Grape Varieties”, Wines and Vines 32(7): 7-9 (1951).

Only vines that test free of specified viruses are eligible for planting in the foundation vineyard. For a time, Goheen was able to develop a collection of "clean vines" at UC Davis by way of plant indexing, selection and rigorous screening alone. He was challenged in the 1950's when it was found that all available materials of certain grape varieties became affected by virus disease. He had no healthy plants from which to select from those varieties.

Heat treatment and/or shoot tip tissue culture therapy are the only methods available to reclaim cultivars where all of the material is affected by virus disease. 121 Austin C. Goheen, ''The California clean grape stock program'', California Agriculture 34 (7): 15-16 (July 1980) ; Bill Callison (CDFA) and Austin Goheen (UCD), ''California's Clean Stock Program for Grapevine Nursery Stock'', VINIFERA WINE GROWERS JOURNAL, vol X, no. 4 (Winter 1983). Goheen began to experiment with a heat treatment procedure in 1958 to do what he described as "inactivate" the virus in vines using a hot air treatment of plants in a closed growth chamber. 122 A.C.Goheen and C.F. Luhn, “Heat Inactivation of Viruses in Grapevines”, presented at 5º Convegno Internazionale sui Virus e le Virosi della Vite (I.C.V.G) Salice Terme, 17-19 settembre 1973, Rivista di Patologia Vegetale, serie IV-vol. IX, Fasc 3 Luglio, September 1973; Golino, D.A., M. Fuchs, S. Sim, K. Farrar, and G.P. Marelli. “Improvement of Grapevine Planting Stock Through Sanitary Selection and Pathogen Elimination”, in Baozhong Meng, Giovanni P. Martelli, Deborah A. Golino, and Marc Fuchs, editors, Grapevine Viruses: Molecular Biology, Diagnostics and Management (Springer International Publishing, AG 2017), pp. 561, 579.

Goheen developed his heat treatment for grapevines after studying how heat was used to eliminate viruses in other crops such as sugar cane and tulips. He began to make headway in eliminating virus diseases from grapevines around 1969 once he acquired the chambers with adequate capacity to treat grapevines. 123 Golino et al., “Improvement of Grapevine Planting Stock Through Sanitary Selection and Pathogen Elimination”, Grapevine Viruses, supra, at p. 565. Grapevine material was placed into a chamber and pushed to the edge of its heat tolerance to develop the new vine material. The theory was that the viruses would be slowed or inactivated but the plants would not be killed.

Goheen described to grape nurseryman Jim Duarte the apparatus constructed at UC Davis to apply the heat to the grapevines. He obtained 5 or 6 thick-walled old truck bodies each with the dimension 6 feet x 8 feet x 7 feet, inside of which he installed a heater, humidifier and grow light. He placed them at the Plant Pathology field facility on Old Davis Road in Armstrong tract. The growth chambers were converted metal refrigerator boxes that had been used to bring bodies back to the United States in World War II. 124 Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk, former Manager of FPMS and Grape Program Manager of FPS, July 21, 2014.

Goheen used converted refrigerator boxes at the Plant Pathology Fieldhouse to perform heat treatment therapy

Goheen's technician Carl Luhn reported that Goheen eventually settled on an optimum treatment temperature of 100 degrees F. (37.8 degrees C). Goheen told Duarte that he preferred to keep the temperature at a steady 100 degrees, because a steady 102 or 103 degrees would kill the plant over time. Vines in pots were placed into the chamber and exposed to the heat for varying periods of 60 to 317 days.

Two methods (called "A" heat therapy and "B" heat therapy) were used to harvest the "clean" new growth. "A" heat therapy involved harvesting a cutting from the tip of a plant growing well in heat therapy and rooting it. Although he experimented with alternate lengths of the tip, Goheen needed at least 3/16 of an inch of new growth from the tip for propagation of a new vine. In "B" heat therapy, a dormant bud was removed from a plant in heat therapy before the plant died and budded into LN33 rootstock (healthy nurse vine) and pushed to grow. 125 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 226. The new plantlets were created when the heat-treated bud or tip cuttings were grown out on mist benches in the greenhouse and then re-indexed. 126 Austin C. Goheen, “Virus Diseases and Grapevine Selection”, Honorary Research Lecture presented in Reno, Nevada in June 1988, Am.J.Enol. Vitic., 40(1): 67-72; A.C. Goheen and C.F. Luhn, Rivista di Patologia Vegetale, 1973, supra.; A.C. Goheen, C.F. Luhn, and Wm. B. Hewitt, “Inactivation of Grapevine Viruses in Vivo”, Proc. Internat. Conf. on Virus and Vector on Perennial Hosts, University of California, Davis, 1965, pp. 255-257; Interview with Jim Duarte; Interview with Mike Cunningham.

Goheen had success with inactivating fanleaf virus, but leafroll proved to be more difficult to manage. Heat treatment was used by Goheen to eliminate fanleaf virus in 100% of the cases, with less success with corky bark (42%), leafroll (25%), and RSP (14%). 127 Goheen, Honorary Research Lecture, Am.J. Enol.Vitic., supra, at page 71. Most of the important rootstock and scion varieties used in California were heat treated by 1965 and planted in the foundation vineyard at UC Davis. 128 A.C. Goheen, C.F. Luhn, and Wm. B. Hewitt, “Inactivation of Grapevine Viruses in Vivo, Proc. Intern. Conf. on Virus and Vector on Perennial Hosts, University of California, Davis, 1965, p. 255-265; A.C. Goheen and C.F. Luhn, “Heat Inactivation of Viruses in Grapevines”, Revista di Patologia Vegetale, Series iv – vol. IX, Fasc 3 Luglio- Settembre (1973).

Heat-treated "superclones" provided FPMS revenue

The University contemplated at the outset that the FPMS clean plant program would eventually be self-supporting from sales of foundation vines. The clean plant program had been subsidized to some degree by general funds in the 10 years since the University assumed responsibility for FPMS, in part because the University considered initial experimentation with disease testing and treatment to be research activities. The University's willingness to participate in funding the program decreased over time.

By the late 1960's, the clean plant program was well on its way with virus testing and heat treatment therapy. The University deemed FPMS to be a service program that should be completely self-sufficient and supported by those who received the services. University directives relayed to the FPMS Administrative Committee in 1967 revived the long-standing goals to that effect. 129 C.J. Alley, unpublished paper, dated October 9, 1967, FPS collection AR-050, box 33: 1-2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

In 1968, there were only six acres of grapes in the FPMS foundation vineyard and, in most cases, only two or three vines of each variety. FPMS did not wish to assume the effort of large-scale propagation and increase of materials for direct sale to supply the nursery blocks and had discontinued its own early multiplication blocks on campus. Registered vines were distributed to program participant nurserymen and growers, who in turn increased the material for sale to the public.

Direct sales from FPMS to the nurseries and growers were expected to decrease in the future as the participants established their own mother and increase blocks. By the late 1960's, it was clear that sales revenue from the limited amount of foundation material to nurseries and growers would not alone be adequate to fully fund the FPMS operation. 130 C.J. Alley, undated paper, with attached Model Growers Agreement, FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 23, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The commercial grapevine industry that participated in the California Grapevine R&C Program grew up alongside the FPMS clean plant program. The FPMS heat-treated vines were an attractive development that brought many nurseries into the certification program. Agreements to pay what at the time were referred to at FPMS meetings as "royalties" on those vines provided FPMS with much needed funding at a critical time. The payments were not technically "royalties" since there was no patent on the heat-treated vines. Additional details about the evolution of the nursery industry and its relationship to FPMS/FPS are revealed in the chapter following the story of FPS.

Nurseries or individual growers in the R&C Program were more suited to taking a limited amount of foundation material and propagating it many fold into certified stock in the form of cuttings, rootings, scions, buds or plants. FPMS began to develop the idea of grower agreements with "royalties" paid by purchasers of foundation material to ensure a reliable and continuing income stream. The plan was to enter into contracts asking for a "royalty" or premium of 2 cents per cutting, rooting or budstick made into propagative units and sold to the public (by a nursery) or used by the grower for planting in his own vineyard. A voluntary contribution (now referred to at FPS as a "user fee") for that same amount was solicited for cuttings, rootings or budsticks sold prior to the date of the contracts. 131 Letter to Ernest P. Peninou from George Nyland, Department of Plant Pathology, Chair of FPMS Administrative Committee, dated January 26, 1970, FPS collection AR-050, box 33: 1; Memo from Curtis Alley, dated September 9, 1970, AR-050, box 33: 1, both on file at Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The FPMS Administrative Committee at that time consisted of Chair George Nyland (Plant Pathology), J.A. Cook (Viticulture), Goheen (Plant Pathology), Dale Kester (Pomology), Leiser (Environmental Horticulture) and Alley (FPMS Manager). The Administrative Committee initially raised the Grower Agreement concept with the FPMS Industry Advisory Committee on August 1, 1969. Nyland and Alley further vetted the proposal to R&C Program participants by letters in December, 1969, and September, 1970. Most of the participants eventually favored the proposal, and there were substantial voluntary contributions in 1969. The primary objection was that 2 cents was too high per propagated plant for sale. 132 FPMS Club News, vol. 1, no. 1, May 1971, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: 16; Letter from Curtis Alley, Manager, FPMS, dated September 9, 1970, and letter from George Nyland, Chairman, FPMS Committee, dated December 10, 1969, AR-050, box 26: 17, all on file in Department of Special collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

FPMS implemented the Grower Agreement policy effective November 1, 1970, imposing a 2-cent royalty (5 cents for heat treated clones) on sales by nurseries and growers of foundation material received from FPMS. The term specified for the agreements was 8 years. 133 Memo from George Nyland to FPMS Industry Advisory Committee, Summary of Activities 1968-69, dated December 10, 1969, FPS collection AR-050, box 1: 24; Memo from George Nyland, Chairman, FPMS Committee to Industry Advisory Committee, dated November 11, 1970, box 26: 19, 24; Minutes, FPMS Committee Meeting, October 21, 1970, AR-050, box 24: 25, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The heat-treated material developed by Goheen served as inducement to the growers to agree to the Grower Agreement scheme. The higher royalty (5 cents) for heat-treated grape material was justified on the basis that those were "superior clones that promise to outperform the stock now available". 134 Memo from George Nyland to FPMS Industry Advisory Committee, Summary of Activities 1968-69, dated December 10, 1969, FPS collections AR-050, box 1: 24, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Manager Curtis Alley coined the term "superclone" for the initial heat-treated material. The idea behind the "superclone" designation was two-fold. First, all of the vines in that category had undergone heat treatment therapy at FPMS and were presumed to be healthier and more productive as a result. Goheen and Alley believed that heat treatment would rid the vines of as-yet unknown diseases. Secondly, the belief was that vines undergoing heat treatment for the same length of time all received the same effect from that treatment and could, therefore, be grouped together into one selection.

FPMS Manager Susan Nelson-Kluk recalled that "superclones" were defined by Alley as vines with the same heat treatment period but from different source vines. Chardonnay provides a good example. Chardonnay 04 and 05 (selected by Olmo from different mother vine sources in the Martini vineyard at Carneros) both underwent heat treatment for 90 days; they were combined into one selection for distribution as "superclone Chardonnay 108". Unfortunately, in later years the grouping provided confusion when the superclone designation was abandoned and FPMS reverted to separate selection numbers Chardonnay 04 and Chardonnay 05.

FPMS initially planned to release 20 heat-treated wine and table grape clones sometime between 1970 and 1973. Thirty-five superclones of rootstocks and winegrape scions were eventually planted in the foundation vineyard in 1970 and 1971. Those clones appeared to those who saw them, including many of the nurserymen, to be superior to and healthier than non-heat-treated vines. Rich Kunde (who would go on to own Sonoma Grapevine Nursery) saw the Chardonnay 108 superclone when he was in school at Davis, thought it was phenomenal compared to material he had seen at home and took some to plant at the family vineyards at Hopland. Jim Duarte (founder of Duarte Nursery in Hughson, CA) visited Goheen at UC Davis and saw the heat-treated vines. Duarte was so impressed with what he saw he decided to start a nursery and sell them.

A commonly held belief among wine-grape growers was that heat treatment produced high-yielding clones that were excessively vigorous. It has been stated that little scientific evidence exists for that theory. At the time the "superclones" were added to the FPMS collection, some of the selections had been deliberately chosen by UC Davis viticulturists such as Harold Olmo for qualities such as high yield, cluster size and vigor. 135 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 226.

Additionally, not all the FPMS "superclones" had undergone formal clonal selection prior to heat treatment. FPMS selections such as Zinfandel 01A never received heat treatment therapy but was reported to be as vigorous and productive as the heat-treated Zinfandel 06. Growers who saw the heat-treated vines were impressed with the results, generating demand for the product.

The first three agreements for Grapevine R&C Program participant increase blocks for heat-treated material were made in March 1970 between FPMS and Dave Wilson Nursery (Hughson), Mirassou Vineyards (San Jose) and Clemente-Nyland (Davis). 136 Letters from D.E. Kester, Chairman, FPMS Administrative Committee, to Dave Wilson Nursery, Mirassou Vineyards and Clemente-Nyland, all dated August 4, 1972, FPS collection AR-050, box 26: 34, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Demand from nurseries and growers for heat treated clones to establish additional increase blocks was very high in 1971-72; order cards at FPMS for that year show many initial requests were filled through Sacramento Nursery Company (Oki Nursery), who at the time cooperated with UC Davis in a mother block of foundation material. 137 Letter from Leon Corey to Roy Matsumoto, CDFA, dated August 25, 1980, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: folders 36 and 37, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The University also entered cooperative agreements with participant growers and nurseries for establishment of "UC Registered Field Mother Blocks", which were recognized in R&C Program regulations and controlled by the University. A mother block consisted of a grapevine planting that was registered as a block to serve as a source of registered stock and to increase the supply of material for the more popular varieties and clones. FPMS provided the cuttings and plants for a grower to establish a block, and FPMS registered the block with CDFA. The property belonged to FPMS during term of agreement or to the growers if allowed by FPMS. A document from 1974 shows UC field mother blocks throughout the state: Mother block #45 (December Pacific Nurseries, Soledad); #41 (Sacramento Nursery Growers, Sacramento); and #42 (Golden State Vine Growers, Bakersfield). 138 FPMS Industry Advisory Board Meeting, December 10, 1974, FPS collection AR-050, box 26: 2 and box 30: 11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The numbered superclones were so popular that FPMS was unable to satisfy demand by nurseries and growers from the foundation vineyard and FPMS mother blocks. In 1970 and 1971, the FPMS Advisory Committee and CDFA approved an amendment to the R&C Program to allow nurseries and growers to produce vines in containers in greenhouses by way of mist propagation techniques. The "Greenhouse growers" used this rapid propagation method for creating own-rooted vines for sale to commercial growers as well as to replenish nursery and growers field increase blocks. Seven (7) greenhouse growers of mist propagated grapevines took advantage of this feature of the program. There was considerable increase in the number of grapevine plantings in the Grapevine R&C Program by June, 1972. 139 FPMS Club News, volume 2 (1), June 1972, page 13, FPS collection AR 050, box 25: 16, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

"Greenhouse increase blocks" allowing green propagation of the heat-treated clones by nurseries appear for the first time on the 1973 CDFA list of certified blocks. 140 Letter from Leon Corey to Roy Matsumoto, CDFA, dated August 25, 1980, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: folders 36 and 37, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The greenhouse mother blocks lasted for only about ten years. The California Grapevine R&C Program regulations were amended in 1984 to eliminate entirely both field and greenhouse mother blocks due to difficulties CDFA was having in monitoring the greenhouse mother blocks as well as the fact that FPMS did not receive user fees on certified plants produced out of the nursery mother blocks. 141 FPMS Newsletter, no. 4, October, 1984.

FPMS in the 1970's

The early years of the 1970's were a successful time for the new heat-treated clones, coinciding with a surge of growth for the grape and wine industry. FPMS also experienced major administrative changes in the 1970's, as well as a move to its own new facility west of the main campus at UC Davis.

Plant boom and increased sales

The wine industry in the United States, and particularly in California, experienced a boom that first became apparent in the years 1968-1972. The quality of table wines improved beginning at that time, and many newcomers entered the winemaking business.

Along with the wine boom came a planting boom for grapevines. Vineyards were expanded and upgraded in the counties around the San Francisco Bay Area and in areas such as the Central Coast, Monterey, Lake County, and the Delta region around Clarksburg. Wine grape acreage increased dramatically between 1966 and 1976 in the San Joaquin Valley of California, for grapes such as Barbera, Ruby Cabernet, Chenin blanc and French Colombard. 142 Thomas Pinney, A History of Wine in America, From Prohibition to the Present, volume 2 (University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, 2005), pp. 231-243; see also, Daniel Sumner, Helene Bombrun, Julian M. Alston, and Dale Heien, “An Economic Survey of the Wine and Winegrape Industry in the United States and Canada”, University of California, Davis, Revised draft December 2, 2001, pp. 5-6.

Thanks in part to the royalties provided by the grower agreement system begun in 1970, FPMS was able to move from operating in the red and receipt of University subsidies to the black (self-sufficiency) by 1973. 143 Minutes, Grapevine R&C Participants Meeting, Putah Creek Lodge, November 30, 1973, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: 27, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. FPMS was able to cover its annual budget, including a needed increase in staff to a full-time manager and a full-time administrative assistant.

At the participants meeting for the California Grapevine R&C Program held at Davis on November 30, 1973, Chair Dale Kester presented a positive report to the industry on FPMS finances. The stated goal was always that the FPMS program would be self-supporting. Direct sales of grapevines alone did not cover the costs to operate FPMS. Relatively large commercial plantings were developed between 1970 and 1974. Kester reported that rapid expansion of grapevine plantings saw an increase in nurseries and growers participating in the California Grapevine R&C Program (and paying "royalties") from 13 participants in 1969 to 79 in 1973. 144 Leon Corey, “FPMS Present and Future”, talk given at meeting on November 30, 1973, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: 27.

The release of the Goheen "superclones" to the nurseries and growers that supplied commercial vineyards came during that period of demand for quality grape material. Income from direct sales of FPMS foundation material was substantially higher in 1974 than it was in 1970. Interest in the heat-treated clones remained high for the first half decade of the 1970's, although FPMS distributed fewer propagative units in 1973-74 than it had the previous year.

Grower agreements containing royalties for sale of foundation material provided a steady source of income to FPMS beginning in 1970. The FPMS Administrative and Industry Advisory Committees agreed in 1973 to a reduction of the royalty to 2¢ per unit for the heat-treated clones. Royalty fees were paid to FPMS on 7,420,000 grapevine units in 1973-74, an increase of 2,787,000 units over the prior fiscal year. There were uncollected royalty fees of $97,270 due on an additional 4,863,512 at the time of the financial report. 145 FPMS Club News, vol. 3(1), July 1973, page 2; “FPMS 1973-74 Operations”, FPS collection AR-050, box 26: 2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library. Despite the increase in number of propagative units on which the royalties were based, the overall income to FPMS from royalty fees and voluntary contributions decreased considerably primarily as a result of the reduction of royalty fees for heat treated foundation grapevines from 5¢ to 2¢ per unit.

Direct sales of registered material from FPMS to nurseries and growers decreased, as expected, later in the decade of the 1970's as the Grapevine R&C Program participants were able to establish their own mother and increase blocks of registered material. Income from direct sales of registered grapevine propagative units in the FPMS program reached a high of $37,000 in 1973-74 and steadily declined thereafter to around $18,000 in 1976-77.

New Manager 1971

Curtis Alley resigned as manager of FPMS in 1971 to assume full-time research responsibilities in the Department of Viticulture & Enology. He also continued to work on grape issues at FPMS. 146 FPMS Club News, vol.1(1), FPS collection AR-050, 25: 16, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library; H.P. Olmo, Plant Genetics and New Grape Varieties (oral history), supra, p. 85. Alley's replacement as Manager of FPMS came from the Department of Plant Pathology.

Leon Corey, Senior Laboratory Technician, joined the UC Davis Department of Plant Pathology in 1957. Corey was eligible for the FPMS Manager position since the classification for Manager was Staff Research Associate IV. Corey had considerable experience in grape and fruit tree growing, as well as with virus diseases. He was trained on the job as a plant pathologist while working as Hewitt's research assistant. Corey began work at FPMS as an assistant to Alley in January, 1971, and became full-time Manager of FPMS later that year. 147 Minutes, Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, October 29, 1980, FPS collections AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library; Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, p. 228. There were at the time three full-time employees at FPMS in addition to the Manager position.

Corey's particular managerial strengths revolved around maintaining the FPMS records and processing the orders. He worked directly with field staff to put the orders together in a meticulous and careful fashion. An administrative staff member in Hunt Hall on campus processed the orders. A series of index cards was developed with notations on varieties and clones ordered by customers and source vines from which the orders were filled. Those cards are the only remaining information available for FPMS order history prior to 1988 when the FPMS order system was computerized.

While Corey excelled at organizational matters, his "no nonsense, straightforward" personality sometimes offended FPMS clients. In contrast, co-workers and customers reported that Curtis Alley had been a "wonderful people person" and good plant propagator but had not been good with records, which had periodically gotten mixed up. 148 Interviews with Susan Nelson-Kluk, former FPMS Manager and Grape Program Manager, July 21, 2014 and Mike Cunningham, former FPMS Production Supervisor, February 24, 2015.

FPMS Move to Straloch Road

FPMS was notified in April 1971 that they would have to vacate their field HQ building at HB-1 forthwith to allow an early start on removal of buildings for the construction of new Highway I-80. For one year, they would use temporary facilities on campus. 149 Memo “FPMS Building and Office Facilities 1974”, dated April 8, 1971, FPS collection AR-050, box 25: 41, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

FPMS was earning enough income at the time to establish a contingency fund for future periods of low income, as well as for funding for the Department of Plant Pathology for continued work in indexing and heat therapy of grapevines and for a much-needed new office and field headquarters facility. The FPMS Administrative Committee allocated a portion of money received as royalty fees for new facilities that were eventually constructed in 1973-74 on the west side of the Davis campus north of Straloch Road near Hopkins Road. The facilities were adjacent to new field headquarter facilities for the Department of Viticulture.

The FPMS portion of the new complex included shared office space, a 40-foot x 100-foot covered storage area for grapevine and fruit tree materials, a small refrigerated storage area, preparation area, greenhouse and lathhouse. 150 Administrative Supplement to Academic Plan, FPMS, FPMS Industry Advisory Board Meeting, December 10, 1974, FPS collection AR-050, box 26: 2; FPMS Club News, vol.3 (1): 2 (July 1973); Corey, “FPMS Present and Future”, supra. At that time, FPMS was exploring the feasibility of assuming the propagation and indexing work then being done by the Department of Plant Pathology.

Merger into FSPMS

FPMS was significantly affected by a major structural change within the UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (AES) in 1975. Originally, FPMS was administered through the Department of Viticulture, although an advisory committee composed of representatives from other departments (Pomology, Plant Pathology, Environmental Horticulture) also provided input on management. When the Chairmanship of the FPMS Administrative Committee passed to George Nyland (Plant Pathology) in 1967 and then to Dale Kester (Pomology) in 1972, the committee that managed FPMS assumed a more independent role and became administratively separate from Viticulture.

In July 1972, an organization plan for FPMS was approved by the AES Dean after consultation with the Departments of Pomology, Viticulture, Plant Pathology and Environmental Horticulture. The Dean thereafter appointed the FPMS Administrative Committee from nominations from the four departments. The Administrative Committee dealt with policy, procedure and personnel issues. The Dean also appointed departmental technical committees to deal with specific commodity programs and problems. Signature authority and budget preparation remained with the Dean's Office. 151 Annual Report as Supplement to Report of Manager by Dale Kester, Chairman, “Role of FPMS Committee”, October 23, 1974, FPS collection AR 050, box 26: 2, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

The 1973 Committee appointed to manage FPMS consisted of Dale Kester (Pomology) acting as Chair, with George Nyland (Plant Pathology), Andy Leiser (Environmental Horticulture) and Curtis Alley (Viticulture). The Grape Technical Committee, advising FPMS on issues related to grapes, included Alley, Olmo, Goheen, Lloyd Lider and Amand Kasimatis. The Technical Committee chose grapevine material for the foundation vineyard, checked varietal identifications, and established the health status of the "subclones" (selections) in the program. An Industry Advisory Committee had also been formed for the first time in 1970 with nurserymen, growers and a representative from the Wine Institute. 152 FPMS Club News vol 1(1), May 1971.

FPMS was united in 1975 with two other University units that performed similar functions. FPMS dealt with clonally reproduced specialty crops such as grapes, fruit and nut trees, strawberries and roses. The Foundation Seed Program (FSP) oversaw the production and distribution of field crop varieties. The California Crop Improvement Association (CCIA) was a nonprofit California corporation that certified seed of about 400 varieties of 23 crops in cooperation with the university staff and faculty. Each of the units collaborated with CDFA and the USDA for compliance with regulations for certification of seed and plant materials.

The three units - FPMS, FSP and CCIA - were joined into one larger administrative unit known as Foundation Seed and Plant Materials Service (FSPMS). FSPMS was dedicated to the production, distribution, and promotion of high quality, healthy seed and propagation materials of varieties developed by the University and elsewhere of important California crops and ornamental species. 153 A Review of Foundation Seed and Plant Materials Service, A Task Force Report, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Davis, December, 1992, Executive Summary ii (hereinafter cited as 1992 Task Force Report).

The new administrative entity FSPMS was a unit of the California Agricultural Experiment Station in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at UC Davis. After the merger, each unit continued to function with business as usual. However, the direct oversight authority for FSPMS, and therefore for FPMS, now rested in the Agronomy Department rather than the Viticulture Department. 154 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at pp. 228-229.

The Department of Plant Pathology provided a specialist who worked closely with grapevine testing and treatment at FPMS. A technical committee for grapes and an industry advisory committee for grapes continued to advise FPMS staff. 155 Organization chart, FPS collection AR-050, box 26, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

Burt Ray was appointed Director of Foundation Seed and Plant Materials Service (FSPMS). 156 FSPMS Annual Report 1977, filed in FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10 and box 27, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library. Ray reported to the AES College Dean via the Associate Dean of Research, who liaised with the FSPMS Advisory Committee. Corey continued as manager of FPMS with its own Industry Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee. Ray would serve as Director of FSPMS until his retirement in July, 1988, after which Robert Ball (Department of Agronomy) was elevated to Director from Assistant Director.

Distribution of FPMS foundation grapevine materials increased in 1978 during the red wine boom in the 1970's and early 1980's. There was a shortage of rootstock and all the nurseries were desperate for material; they would use whatever they could find, especially AXR#1. Grape rootstock sales at FPMS increased dramatically during that time. FPMS net receipts were positive until a sizeable drop in direct sales occurred in 1982-83 for the first time in three years, reflecting a temporary downturn in the nursery industry as a whole. 157 Foundation Plant Materials Service Newsletter, Number 3, October 1983, p. 2.

FPMS IN THE 1980's

Susan Nelson-Kluk, a Davis-trained plant scientist, was hired at FPMS in 1977 to train as Leon Corey's replacement in anticipation of his retirement. It was announced at the FPMS Advisory Committee Meeting in October, 1977, that Nelson-Kluk would also eventually assume the heat therapy and indexing work at FPMS. 158 Minutes, FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, October 27, 1977, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library. Nelson-Kluk would remain instrumental in the FPMS program until her retirement in 2008.

Prior to being hired at FPMS, Nelson-Kluk had trained with the plant pathologist at Peto Seed in Woodland. She studied for a master's degree in physiology in Professor George Nyland's lab in the Plant Pathology Department at UC Davis, while taking courses in virology and viticulture. She alternated between Goheen's lab and Nyland's lab learning about clean stock programs and disease testing procedures. 159 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, page 229; Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk, July 21, 2014.

Susan Nelson-Kluk

Leon Corey retired in December, 1980, and Nelson-Kluk took over as Manager of FPMS entrusted with management of the FPMS operations and infrastructure. She recalls that there were three full time employees at FPMS in 1980 - Nelson-Kluk, Mike Cunningham and Julian Escamilla, who worked in the field.

Cunningham was a UC Davis Plant Sciences graduate (1974) who worked in quality control at Oki Nursery in Sacramento and then in production at Peto Seed Co., where he had met Nelson-Kluk. She urged him to apply for the vacancy to replace Don Maier as FPMS Superintendent of Production. 160 FPMS 1981 Grape Growers’ Newsletter, vol. 1, 1 August 1981; Minutes, Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, October 29, 1980, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library. Cunningham started at FPMS in 1980 and stayed until his retirement in 2013. He recalls a tough initiation into the FPMS/Viticulture & Enology field culture because he was relatively inexperienced at the start in some of the technical aspects of growing grapes.

Nelson-Kluk, working closely with industry representatives, was instrumental in obtaining funding for a new importation and quarantine facility. Cunningham observed that Nelson-Kluk was more service-oriented than Leon Corey had been and was concerned with allocation of the limited amount of the foundation grapevine material in a fair way. Corey had been difficult with FPMS customers and more oriented toward internal affairs and organization at FPMS. Nelson-Kluk also took a dedicated interest in promoting the search for new clonal materials for the program, obtaining industry funding for the importation of new materials after Goheen retired and his resources were no longer available. 161 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra page 229.

THE RISE OF CLONES

The search for new and exceptional clones to be used in winemaking became the focus of the clean plant program in the 1980's in response to intense interest by the grape and wine industry. A newly-constituted FPMS Industry Advisory Committee assumed a more active role influencing importations beginning in 1985. FPMS utilized respected experts and new technology to accomplish proper identification of the grapevine collection.

The Rise of Clones

Amand Kasimatis became an extension specialist in the UC Davis Department of Viticulture in 1955 and worked with farm advisors and growers state-wide until 1987. He was involved with the clean plant program at UC Davis from the early days and felt that it made a tremendous difference in California viticulture in that vineyards became healthy and more uniform in growth and development. Kasimatis described the goal of FPMS as "not only to index the material, but also to introduce material. There will never be an end of varieties or clones of varieties that may have some promise in California that need to be tested here... ." 162 Amandus Kasimatis, A Career in California Viticulture, an oral history conducted in 1987 by Ruth Teiser, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1988, at pp. 38-39.

In the 1960's and 1970's, grapevine varieties and clones came to the FPMS foundation vineyard primarily as a result of efforts by the Department of Viticulture. The Department vineyards at Davis and the old U.C. Experiment Station vineyards yielded numerous selections. Harold Olmo had travelled extensively on plant exploration missions and sent many varieties and clones back to Davis. He and others bred many new varieties. Viticulture staff and extension specialists were in constant contact with growers throughout the state and solicited farm advisors and growers for certain specific varieties for the FPMS foundation collection.

Plant pathologist Austin Goheen also had contacts with experts in Europe, particularly Rauscedo Nursery and Antonio Caló in Italy. Goheen and Olmo worked together on importing and creating the foundation collection. Goheen maintained a collection of the foundation vines (mostly from the Hopkins Foundation Vineyard) at the Plant Pathology facility at Armstrong block near the quarantine lathhouse. At times, there was tension between the two scientists when Olmo imported germplasm to FPMS but was unable to get the material out of quarantine testing for an extended period of time. Goheen would not normally release the vines to the foundation vineyard until the testing was complete. Olmo would on occasion take some of the selections and work with them in the interim. 163 Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk, former Manager of FPMS and Grape Program Manager of FPS, July 21, 2014.

Olmo and his protogée Curtis Alley believed that it was possible to improve grape varieties by clonal selection. They collected clones of important grape selections over the years and conducted studies of their performance. 164 C.J. Alley, ''Certified Grape Stocks Available'', Wines & Vines 40(2): 30 (1959). Many of the clonal selections they developed from the heritage material in California enriched the FPS collection and are described in later chapters in this book.

Goheen himself did not believe that clonal variation was an important quality factor within varieties. He firmly believed that most or all clonal variation was the result of virus infection. As a result, when he guided the FPMS grape program in the 1970's and early 1980's, acquisition decisions were not made with the goal of increasing clonal diversity. 165 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 227.

Despite Olmo's best efforts in Europe, growers and winemakers in California were interested in even greater diversity. Susan Nelson-Kluk and Mike Cunningham both pointed to this time as the beginning of industry interest in and request for grape "clones", using the term in the sense of different "strains" or variations within a single variety.

1984-85 was an eventful year for industry participation in the FPMS grape program. A meeting between growers and winemakers and University staff was held in December, 1984, addressing a wide range of industry concerns, including correct naming of grape varieties, grape clonal evaluation work, and maintenance of clonal collections at Davis. As a result of the meeting, Dean Charles Hess appointed a Grapevine Germplasm Task Force to study the issues. A vineyard was set up in the Viticulture Department block to compare vines of approximately 15 important California varieties side by side with suspected European counterparts. 166 Foundation Plant Materials Service Newsletter, no. 3, October 1983, p. 4.

Susan Nelson-Kluk recalls clearly when David Adelsheim of Adelsheim Vineyards in Newberg, Oregon, attended the 1984 FPMS Grape Meeting and spoke about the French grapevine "clones" they had in Oregon, primarily Pinot noir. The Oregon Winegrowers' Association and Oregon State University (OSU) had collaborated on a project related to mutual interest in European clonal material. Adelsheim and Ron Cameron at OSU worked together and successfully established relationships with Professor Raymond Bernard, viticulturist and regional director at the Office National Interprofessionnel des Vins (ONIVINS) in Dijon, France, and Alex Schaeffer at the Station de Reserches Viticoles et Oenologiques, INRA, Colmar, France.

The OSU program (no longer in existence) was able to import eight French Chardonnay clones selected by Bernard from Burgundian vineyards. The Oregon Winegrowers Association imported French winegrape clones in 1974 and released them in 1980 after testing at Oregon State University (OSU). 167 FPMS Grape Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, October 7, 1988, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 12, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library; Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk, July 21, 2014.

Nelson-Kluk stated that the California nurseries and growers at the 1984 FPS Grape Meeting expressed immediate interest in the European clones and proposed a symposium to investigate further. A symposium was held 2 to 3 months later, where UC Professor Carole Meredith explained the difference between a "clone" and a "selection", and Adelsheim lectured on the clonal development system in France.

The FPMS Grapevine Industry Advisory Committee became very active in 1985. Influential members such as Phil Freese (Chair), Zelma Long, and Carole Meredith were tasked to provide guidance to FPMS staff on improving communication with the industry, meeting industry needs, and recommending new directions in development, increase and maintenance of grapevine materials. Freese himself, who served as Chair of the Advisory Committee until 1993, had visited Europe in 1977 and consulted with Raymond Bernard in Dijon. Bernard showed him what Bernard believed to be possible significant clonal variation in his experimental Pinot noir vineyard. Freese was intrigued. 168 Foundation Plant Materials Service Newsletter, no. 5, October 1985, p. 3; Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, p. 227-228.

The Industry Advisory Committee made it clear in 1985 that California growers and winemakers wanted importation of established wine varieties that had been evaluated in Europe, as well as more information about the grapevines available at FPMS. The table grape industry requested new seedless varieties also. 169 Minutes of FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5, 1985, contained in 1986 FPMS Annual Report, FPS collection AR-050, box 29; Minutes of the FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, February 22, 1985, AR-050, box 23: 11, both in the Department of Special Collections, Shields Library; Foundation Plant Materials Service Newsletter, no. 6, November 1986, p. 3.

Dr. Deborah Golino speaks to the concept of "speed of the industry" in connection with grape clonal development. When American and California growers first became aware of clonal development programs in Europe, they were eager to start similar programs in the United States. After further investigation, the growers discovered that it took 20 years to bring a clone through winemaking (find the clone, observe it, clean it up if needed, plant it in the field, grow vines, make and evaluate the wines). Precise management of clonal trials is difficult for academic and extension scientists and for large companies. The industry did not want to wait the 20 or 30 years necessary to bring new clones and wines to the public. The interest in the of importation of new European clones was heightened by the possibility of having immediate access to them for winemaking.

Winegrowers of California

The desire for the new European clones was the impetus for a project funded by a group called the "Winegrowers of California". The "Winegrowers" was an industry group that collected money to fund research and import clonal material. A call for research proposals for the Winegrowers of California was issued on July 31, 1986. Rich Kunde (Sonoma Grapevines Nursery) advised Susan Nelson-Kluk to apply for a grant from Winegrowers to test the OSU clones for the California Grapevine R&C Program.

Nelson-Kluk and Burt Ray submitted a proposal entitled "Introduction of Selected Winegrape Cultivars" with cooperators Goheen, Goheen's assistant Carl Luhn and Viticulture Extension Specialist Jim Wolpert. The proposal included the Adelsheim clones in Oregon as well as new clones to be imported directly from Europe to FPMS. The Winegrowers' acquisitions were the final shipments in which Austin Goheen was involved.

Winegrowers awarded FPMS $20,000 to import, index and treat 53 selected clones from Europe. In response to interest from the California grape and wine industry, OSU initially agreed to make some of the Chardonnay clones (known as the "Dijon clones") available for the public grapevine collection at FPMS in 1987-88. At the time, the regulations provided that RSP-positive plants could not come out of quarantine, so the RSP-positive OSU Chardonnays all underwent microshoot tip tissue culture treatement at FPS. When Cameron retired from OSU, he made a special effort to insure that FPMS received all OSU imports that were not yet available at FPMS.

FPS was also able to arrange for direct shipment of other varieties of French and Italian clones to FPS as part of the Winegrowers' Project. The direct imports from European experiment stations arrieved in 1988-89. 170 Foundation Plant Materials Service Newsletter, no. 7, November 1987, page 3; Minutes, Project Advisory Committee Meeting, Introduction of Selected Winegrape Clones, at FPMS, March 30, 1988, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

A final report for Winegrowers of California was submitted to the American Vineyard Foundation in summer of 1988. Details about the individual clones imported as a results of the Winegrowers' Project are included later in this publication in the variety chapters on the FPS collection.

Generic French clones

The importation of the French clones in the Winegrowers' Project occurred well before the establishment of the ENTAV-INRA® trademark program for French grapevine clonal material. The clones that came to FPS from Dijon via OSU and to FPMS directly were and are included in the catalogue of official French certified clones. After the creation of the trademark program for French clones around 1995, FPMS made an effort to ensure that the clones imported prior to that time were not confused with the official proprietary French clones that came to the United States via the ENTAV-INRA importations. The situation gave rise to the concept of what FPMS characterized as "generic French clones".

The French clones sent to FPMS from OSU and directly to FPMS are a part of the public foundation collection. FPS considers those clones to be "generic" French clones. The source for the generic French clones is indicated on the FPS database using the following language: "reported to be French clone xxxx". That language is used to distinguish the generic clonal material from the ENTAV-INRA® trademarked clones that are developed in France and sent from the official ENTAV vineyards.

FPS makes no guarantee of the authenticity of the "reported to be" French clonal material. "Generic clones" are assigned an FPS selection number that is different from the reported French clone number. The reported French clone source (CTPS number) is not the same as the selection number that FPS assigned to the clone in the California Grapevine R&C Program. One example is: Chardonnay FPS 46, "reported to be French clone 75".

In contrast, the proprietary, official French clones imported by ENTAV for sale by their licensees in the United States carry the trademark "ENTAV-INRA®" in the United States and are assigned the true French clone number. For example, Chardonnay ENTAV-INRA® 76.

Trueness to type

Misidentified varieties were common in California vineyards when the clean plant program was created at UC Davis. Planting was often done in the first half of the 1900s with little knowledge of or concern for varietal identity. Some winemakers and growers were indifferent to issues of correct identity at times when varietal wines were unknown. A variety might be known by different synonyms within its native country or in other countries. European selections coming to California were often mislabeled when they arrived, or the names were lost once the vines were planted. Pet names were assigned to vines by nurserymen. 171 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, p. 224. Many questions of varietal identity needed to be resolved.

The original regulations for the California Grapevine R&C Program provided that a grapevine could be denied Registered status in the program if the vine was "off-type", meaning that it differed from the variety named on the application for registration. 172 Regulations for Registration of Grapevines Inspected and Tested for Virus Diseases, Cal. Admin. Code sections 3025 (c) and 3027 (e), effective September, 1956. In 1964, a sentence was added stating that a vine or a cane was considered off-type when affected by a disorder of genetic origin. The 1984 regulations assigned responsibility to the University of California for selection of source vines and trueness to varietal identity. The regulations were extensively reworked in 2010 and now require FPS to identify grapevine variety experts who will inspect or test vines in the foundation block for trueness-to-variety, document variety inspections results and apply to CDFA to register grapevines growing in the foundation block after they are reported to be true-to-variety. 173 Title 3 California Administrative Code Section 3024.2 (a). FPS has used various methods over time to meet the requirements in the regulations.

Ampelography is the science of identifying grapevines based on the physical characteristics (phenotype) of the variety under study. Specialists all over the world have been called upon to describe, catalogue and compare grape varieties. Characteristics like shape, color, size, texture, and growth patterns of leaves, shoot tips, flowers and fruit, the architecture of bunches and the vine, the taste and smell of fruit have been extensively documented. Some of the characteristics vary significantly with site, especially as varieties move far from their original home to find their way into new soils and climates. Diseases can affect appearances. A working familiarity with a variety or species throughout the seasons, over a number of years, is the ideal training for this field. Grapes of each region of the world are best known by specialists working in that region. 174 Deborah A. Golino, “Trade in Grapevine Plant Materials: Local, National and Worldwide Perspectives”, Proceedings of the ASEV 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, June 19-23, 2000, pp. 216-221.

The job of varietal identification at UC Davis fell upon Harold Olmo early in his career as successor to Frederic Bioletti. The FPMS Viticulture Advisory Committee started a program in 1982 to standardize the names in the foundation collection, starting with the philosophy that it would be desirable for a single name to be used for the same variety wherever it was grown. They estimated that approximately 100 cultivars were then grown in California on 50 acres or more and sorted them into categories. Unresolved conflicts would be clarified by comparative plantings on the Davis campus with the California variety in question planted next to the known variety from the country of origin. 175 FPMS Grape Growers' Newsletter, no. 2, August 1982, pp. 5-6.

The Department of Viticulture was responsible for breeding, clonal selection and cultivar and clone identity. Their task was to demonstrate to the industry the value of cultivars and clonal selections bred or selected and maintained in the program. FPS is not a research organization and must routinely rely on experts from the Department of Viticulture & Enology or from abroad for their expertise in the identity of grapevines.

In years gone by, great efforts were made to certify selections in the FPS program as "true-to-type". FPMS policy in 1982 was to utilize clones that were selected by viticulturists for trueness to type with desirable growth and production characteristics. FPMS would maintain each clone until fruiting so that a viticulturist could check the identity of the material before any wood was distributed. 176 Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk, July 21, 2014; Minutes of the Grape Subcommittee/Notes from FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, October 26, 1981, on file FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

Andy Walker examining vines in the foundation vineyard

The collection at FPS has been examined by both local ampelographers and guest ampelographers from around the world, including Jean Michel Boursiquot of France (1990, 1996) and Anna Schneider of Italy (1992). Dr. Andrew Walker of the UC Davis Department of Viticulture & Enology has taken a special interest for the past 25 years in coordinating the professional ampelographic identification of the selections in the FPMS/FPS collection. 177 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, no. 2, November 1996.

As the challenges of objective ampelography became clearer, FPS refashioned the identification process into a "professional identification" of the foundation vines. The difference is that the production characteristics and unique clonal attributes are no longer assessed as part of the identification process at FPS.

Identification of grape varieties has undergone a revolution due to the development of molecular techniques for an objective determination of identity. One of the pioneers in that effort was Dr. Carole Meredith in the Department of Viticulture & Enology at UC Davis. Meredith began verifying the varietal identity of FPS vines in 1999 by comparing their DNA profiles to those of authentic references. Andy Walker has also developed that expertise. DNA profile data has been developed and shared by teams of scientists around the world and is now a common technique for identification at the grape variety level.

In 2003, FPS hired Gerald Dangl, an associate in Meredith's lab, to perform the DNA identification work at FPS. He now evaluates each selection in the foundation vineyard for varietal identity, as well as offering identification services to the public.

"Registered (R)" status

The original policy established at FPMS prior to 1998 was to hold a variety or clone until it was identified and registered; only then would the selection be offered on the official list of vines for the Grapevine R&C Program regulations. After the vines successfully completed disease testing, they would be planted in the foundation vineyard and left to mature until able to produce fruit. Once the vines produced fruit, they were identified as true to variety and then were assigned "Registered (R)" status per the regulations for the R&C Program. In 1983, a "pre-release increase" for Grapevine R&C Program participants was approved by way of a contract between FPMS and the nursery or grower. 178 Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk, former Manager and Grape Program Manager at FPMS/FPS, July 21, 2014; Minutes, FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Annual Meeting, November 1, 1983, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

"Provisional (P)" status

FPS began using a new category called "Provisional (P)" status for foundation grapevines in 1998. All vines in the foundation block, including those with Provisional status, have tested negative on all proscribed disease tests. "Provisional foundation stock" is defined in the R&C Program regulations as propagative material taken from grapevines planted in the foundation block before the material is professionally identified.

Provisional status is most frequently associated with desirable new materials just planted into the foundation block. A customer is required to assume the risk regarding identification of the Provisional vines if he wishes to purchase them prior to being identified. The Provisional category was also used to address the problem created by vines that tested positive for Rupestris stem pitting virus while awaiting amendment of the regulations to allow such vines in the foundation vineyard. 179 Provisional Registration Status, FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 1998, page 3.

Jean-Michel Boursiquot inspected over 4,000 vines in the FPMS collection for trueness to variety during his visits in 1990 and 1996. He returned to Davis in 2000 for a sabbatical year. Walker noted that Boursiquot's comments were based on internationally accepted synonyms and prime name listings, and those names often conflicted with what the varieties are called in California. The inspections resulted in name changes for a few FPMS varieties and in some cases, the adoption of the international name as a synonym for the California name, which was left as is. Walker worked with Boursiquot to arrive at the most reasonable naming solutions for FPMS varieties in question. 180 The results of the inspection were summarized by Susan Nelson-Kluk in a handout: “Summary of trueness to variety inspection of the FPMS vineyards conducted by Dr. Jean-Michel Boursiquot, August 1996”, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 15, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library; Minutes, FPMS Grape Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, January 15, 1997; FPMS Newsletter, no. 11, October 1991, p.3; FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, October 2000, page 2.

Nomenclature for grape clones in FPMS/FPS collection

Grapevine plant units in the UC Davis program have been known over time by several names. Early administrators of the program referred to each unique plant group as a "clone", which is why Curtis Alley referred to the heat-treated material in the 1970's as "superclones". The early unique vines are also referred to occasionally in the FPMS materials as "sub-clones". The word "clone" has complex associations that eventually made the use of that word ambiguous and confusing. FPMS later changed the designation of a unique vine in the collection to "selection" for scientific accuracy.

Historically, the word clone has been used to refer both to a distinct variety as well as to a variation within a single variety. Olmo wrote that common acceptance of the term "variety" would originally indicate a "clone", meaning continuous vegetative propagation by cuttings from a single seedling. As selections (or "strains") from the same variety are compared, subtle performance differences between selections of the same grape become apparent. 181 D. Golino and J. Wolpert, “Vine Selection and Clones”, Wine Grape Varieties in California, p. 8 (University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2003).

Somatic variations of a genetic nature (mutations) can give rise to a heterogenous group of clones, some being more or less like the original. Variation would be more likely in varieties that are most unstable genetically, such as Pinot noir. Over time, mutations accumulate and lead to greater diversity in older varieties. 182 Olmo H.P., “Association pour la certification des raisins”, OIV Bulletin 278 (287): 6, 11-20 (1955); H.P. Olmo, “A Proposed Program for the Introduction Improvement and Certification of Healthy Grape Varieties”, Wines & Vines 32 (7): 7-9 (July, 1951). Those variations within a single variety are evaluated and compared and have also come to be known as "clones".

The grapevines brought to Davis for the CGCA/FPMS foundation vineyards were called "clones" until 1982. FPMS policy until that time was to collect "clones" that were selected by viticulturists for trueness to type with desirable growth and production characteristics. In those days, FPMS maintained each clone until fruiting so that an ampelographer such as Harold Olmo could check identity of the material before any wood was distributed. 183 Minutes of the Grape Subcommittee/Notes from FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, October 26, 1981, on file FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

The use of the word "clone" ultimately became ambiguous and confusing in reference to the FPMS accessions. Grape varieties have undergone clonal selection, development and evaluation in programs in Europe for many years. Approval of an official "clone" in a country such as France assures certain viticultural characteristics and performance standards. On the other hand, the plant units in the clean plant program at Davis do not undergo that type of evaluation at FPS. The sole identifiers provided with any certainty by FPS are variety identity and source vine data.

The FPMS Viticulture Technical Committee decided in 1982 to drop the term "clone" and use the word "selection" when referring to the unique vine sources in the foundation collection. The Committee felt that the term "clone" implied genetic and source differences from one group of plants to the next, whereas the term "selection" applied only to source differences. The Committee defined "selection" as "a group of vines propagated from a common historically significant source". 184 Minutes of the Grape Growers Meeting held April 27, 1982, FPMS, attached to Foundation Plant Materials Service Newsletter, No. 2, August 1982; Minutes, FPMS Viticulture Technical Committee Meeting, March 4, 1982, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library.

Over time, the definition of "selection" has evolved at FPS to signify plant material harvested from a single or unique vine source, whether or not the source was historically significant. A different selection number is assigned to each unique vine source that is introduced at FPS. The number is created using the variety name plus a number, which is usually determined by next in order after the existing selections of the same variety in the R&C Program. An example is Cabernet Sauvignon 08.

Despite the apparent simplicity of the above rule, confusion was generated by actual numbering practices in the early days. Many groups that were designated "separate clones" at FPS originated in fact from the same source vine at one point. The separate numbers arose when multiple cuttings from genetically identical material underwent disease elimination therapy, such as heat treatment and microshoot tip tissue culture therapy.

For example, Cabernet Sauvignon cuttings from the same source vine in Chile came to Davis in 1971 and were divided into seven separate groups, each of which underwent heat treatment for a different time period (Cabernet Sauvignon FPS 12-15, 19-21). Those seven separate groups each received a unique selection number, which differed from the number assigned to the original material. The theory was that each group was potentially unique because the heat treatment could have produced plants with different virus status. 185 FPMS Grape Growers Newsletter, no. 2, August 1982, pp. 3-4.

Similarly, a vine produced at FPS using tissue culture therapy is given a different selection number than the original material from which it is cut. The rationale for the new number is that shoot tip culture might possibly affect either the plant genetics or the disease status of the plant material. Prior to the creation of the Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard, the new tissue culture version was assigned an entirely new number from the original (untreated) material.

The tissue culture selections created for the Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard now receive a ".1" extension added to the FPS selection number from the selection in the Classic Foundation Vineyard selection. For example, Chardonnay 04 is a selection in the Classic Foundation Vineyard that had not previously undergone tissue culture therapy. Chardonnay 04 underwent microshoot tip tissue culture therapy in 2009 to qualify for the Russell Ranch Foundation Vineyard, where it now exists as Chardonnay 04.1. The ".1" extension is given to preserve selection identity and yet distinguish the tissue culture creation from the Classic Foundation selection.

The complicated numbering system sometimes led to a bewildering accumulation of numbers for FPMS grapevine selections that did not differ significantly in performance. Additional confusion was engendered by the existence of European clones that reached California through other importation centers and may have been named by different conventions. Intellectual property issues have affected numbering of wine grape clones. Some clones are trademarked and/or proprietary while others are in the public domain. 186 FPS collection AR-050, box 29: 49, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Caldwell trip

Additional European clones came to FPMS in 1993. Nurseryman and grower John Caldwell sponsored a trip to France and Italy to collect important new clones. Nelson-Kluk accompanied him to France and retrieved clones from Richter Nursery. There was industry support (IAB) to bring 20 of those selections through quarantine at $1500 each. Other sources were contacted to solicit support for remaining selections, including CAWG (California Association of Winegrape Growers), the Wine Institute and Oregon Grape Growers. 187 Minutes, FPMS Grape Industry and Technical Advisory Committee, March 23, 1993, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 14, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Unfortunately, FPMS was never able to release the material Nelson-Kluk obtained from France on that trip. ENTAV argued that the clones imported from individual French nurseries were ultimately proprietary to ENTAV since they were developed through a government program in France. ENTAV would not agree to a general public release of the clones in the United States because it was, at the time, in the process of trademarking ENTAV material and setting up an international system with ENTAV licensees to handle the clones. FPMS (a public nursery) could not agree to receive material under a system that would not be accessible to all of its nursery clients. 188 Minutes, FPMS Grape Advisory Committee Meeting, August 10 and November 9, 1995, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 16; Minutes, FPMS Grape Advisory Committee Meeting, January 15, 1997, AR-050, box 23: 15, both available in Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Challenges in the 1980's

The 1980's resulted in dramatic improvements in the FPMS program in some respects but were also fraught with difficulties.

During the late 1980's and early 1990's FPMS went through a period of growth and transition. Many of the faculty that had contributed to the creation of FPMS programs, including Goheen and Olmo, were retiring. New faculty had heavy workloads which made it difficult to find time for FPMS. The technical complexity of the program was increasing rapidly. Disease detection, virus elimination and varietal identification were changing rapidly. 189 Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at page 229. FPMS was forced to examine many of its operations and underwent significant changes.

FPMS struggled to meet expenses between 1982 and 1988, suffering a net loss in total income in all but one year. The net deficit in 1982-83 was the first in three years, most likely a reflection of the temporary slowdown of the California nursery industry in general. 190 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 3, October 1983 Newsletter, at p. 2. Direct sales of grapevine propagative units were down the following year from 119,574 (1982-83) to 88,530 (1983-84) and remained down until 1988-89. For most years, the grape portion of the FPMS program was able to cover its own costs with direct sales, user fees, and grants. However, the FPMS program overall (for all crops) was suffering.

FPMS took several measures to bring expenditures and income into line during the 1980's, including raising prices for sale of grape propagative units (1984, 1987, 1988), sale of "mist propagated [own rooted] plants" and new grape rootstock varieties (1985), and changes in grower agreements. New tax assessment legislation on grapevine nurseries in 1987 was an effort to fill the income gap at FPMS.

Grape user fees ("royalties") had been a major source of income for FPMS. In the 1980's, user fees had become inadequate, inequitable and difficult to collect. In 1986, FPMS was granted permission by CDFA to consult state grape certification tag records to improve auditing of user fees. 191 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 6, November 1986, at page 2. New tax legislation on the sale of grapevines sold in California was enacted in 1987, designed to replace user fees in California with a stable funding source. User fees were temporarily suspended for a brief time. 192 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 7, November 1987, at page 2.

The total revenue generated by the new nursery assessment (tax) was much less than had been expected in 1987-88. A change in the amount of the assessment was made by the Legislature in 1988. The new revenue was not expected to reach FPMS until 1991 or 1992. 193 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 8, November 1988, at pages 2-3. The chapter in this publication on the growth of the California grapevine nursery industry contains the full story of user fees and the tax assessments.

The increase in net income in 1988-89 was attributed to an increase in prices and reinstatement of grape user fees ("royalties") to compensate for inadequate revenue from the tax legislation. Sales of grape propagative units increased substantially in 1988-89 to 138,525 grape cuttings, graftsticks and budsticks and 29,838 mist propagated grape plants. FPMS rootstock varieties were in high demand as nurseries responded to vineyard losses due to phylloxera (AXR1) and fanleaf virus. 194 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 10, November 1990, at pages 1, 3; Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 9, November 1989, page 1.

Industry relations

Amidst the financial difficulties in the 1980's and prior to the tax assessment legislation of 1987, the perception of those at FPMS was that there was little active political support for them in the industry. FPMS was understaffed and limited in terms of resources and did not have the farming equipment or financing needed for optimal production.

Staff at Davis at FPMS, NCGR and the Department of Viticulture & Enology did not want to step on each other's toes, resulting in inconsistencies in spraying, labelling, weeding and greenhouses. There were complaints that the old vineyards were head trained, suffered from eutypa (from converting vines from two arms to one arm) and viruses and did not produce the quality or quantity of wood needed by the industry.

Most production nurseries in trees and grapes supported the use of certified material but indicated that the FPMS inventory did not meet their needs and that the cultural practices at FPMS were inadequate. Grape nurserymen such as Rich Kunde, Glen Stoller, and Luther Khachigian lobbied for more grape importations. Winemakers were having difficulty getting new imports out of quarantine because Goheen stopped processing selections in anticipation of retirement. Growers and nurseries complained of problems with plant material supplied in orders.

Mike Cunningham felt that there was frustration on both sides. Industry members felt that FPMS was not meeting their needs, while FPMS believed the industry was not letting their needs be known. Lack of communication appeared to be a problem.

Restructuring the FPMS advisory committees was undertaken to provide more active industry involvement at FPMS. FPMS staff had been aware as early as 1984 that relationships with the grape industry were strained. In making policy decisions, FPMS staff consulted with the Grape Industry Advisory Committee, a Technical Advisory Committee composed of University grape experts and plant pathologists, and a general FSPMS Advisory Committee. 195 Minutes, FPMS Grapevine Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, December 14, 1984, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. The FSPMS Director indicated to those Committees that FPMS staff were overloaded and unable to take on additional responsibilities.

The Grape Industry Advisory Committee was infused with new members in 1985 and intervened to take a more active role in facilitating communications. Those Committee members were: Chairman Phil Freese (Robert Mondavi Winery), Zelma Long (Simi Winery), Rich Kunde (Sonoma Grapevine Nursery), Keith Bowers (Napa County Cooperative Extension), Doug Hill (Jaeger Vineyard), Fred Jensen (Kearney Ag. Center), Terrel West (Arroyo Seco Vineyards), Richard Ripken (Ripken Nursery), Pete Mirassou (Mirassou Vineyards), Luther Khachigian (Cal-Western Nurseries) and James Lider (Lider Ranches). 196 FPMS, Newsletter, no. 6, November 1986, p. 3; Minutes, FPMS Industry Advisory Committee Meetings, December 5, 1985, and December 16, 1986, attached to 1986 and 1987 Annual Reports, filed in FPS collection AR-050, box 29: 50, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Nursery practices

Nurseries and growers were concerned about the quality of the grapevine materials received from FPMS. Complaints began to surface in the 1980's.

Vines produced as mist-propagated (own rooted) plants at FPMS caused many of the industry complaints. When Mike Cunningham first started at FPMS in 1980, he was told that FPMS did not do mist-propagated plants or produce plants from green cuttings any longer because greenhouse-propagated plants from both FPMS and Sacramento Nursery (Oki) Co.'s mother block had been heavily infested with crown gall. FPS records in 1974 validate that concern. For a time, the nurseries and growers in the California R&C Program were permitted to develop their own greenhouse mother blocks to meet high demand, especially for the "new" heat-treated selections. Those nursery greenhouse mother blocks were eliminated by CDFA between 1982 and 1984.

Mist-propagated plants in FPMS greenhouse in 2001

In 1983, the FPMS Technical Committee agreed that FPMS should produce and sell "mist propagated plants" (mpps) of varieties where there were insufficient hardwood cuttings available, commonly occurring with popular new selections. FPMS resumed production of mpps in 1984 on the condition that "appropriate measures against phylloxera and crown gall" be employed. 197 FPMS Newsletter, no. 4, October 1984; Minutes, FPMS Viticulture Technical Advisory Committee Meeting, December 5, 1983 and August 16, 1984, on file FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 10, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Those measures were taken, but other issues arose. FPMS used second generation greenhouse plants as a source for mpp production, which resulted in confusion and misidentification of vines received by customers. 198 FPMS Annual Report 1994, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 16, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Cunningham recalls FPMS would take cuttings from mother plants and grow them in 4-inch pots in the greenhouse; they would then harvest cuttings off the greenhouse vines rather than go back to the original mother plant. As the number of cuttings increased, varieties were mixed up.

Both vines and cuttings generated complaints with FPMS orders. FPMS correspondence with Sonoma Grapevine Nursery regarding a 1989 order provides an example of the type of problems that existed for cuttings and vines, such as delivery of off-type vines, mislabelling of rooted vines in flats, issuance of bundles without tags and designation of ambiguous source locations in flats. 199 Correspondence between FPMS and Sonoma Grapevines, Inc, 1988-1989 order files at FPMS. Incidents of mistakes with orders included multiple varieties planted in a single flat becoming confused, or lack of care with harvesting resulted in Pinot Meunier vines being delivered as Chardonnay. Errors occurred when one label was affixed to an entire flat rather than to each vine individually. Some customers experienced poor survival rates of vines. Paperwork accompanying orders contained significant errors. 200 Memo to FPMS Technical Advisory Committees from Susan Nelson-Kluk August 17, 1987, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11, Department of Special Collections; Interview with Ray Tonella, June 14, 2014.

Complaints were generated by multiple episodes of misidentified vines in orders. U.C. fanleaf resistant rootstocks O39-16 and O43-43 became available at FPMS in 1987 and looked very similar. O43-43 subsequently proved to be susceptible to phylloxera. O39-16 was used in North Coast vineyards due to nematode issues. Some North Coast plantings of O39-16 were found contaminated with O43-43. 201 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, no. 5, October 1999, pages 2-3. U.C. Professor Andy Walker visited nursery and grower blocks to inspect rootstock supplied by FPMS as mpps between 1989 and 1993 and found off-type varieties (Kober 5BB and AXR1) mixed in with 1103P. 202 FPMS 1994 Annual Report, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 16, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. A memo was distributed in July, 1993, to all FPMS customers who received 1103P advising of the problem and explaining corrective measures.

The misidentification of registered Riparia Gloire rootstock was addressed at a meeting of the Grape Technical Committee in September, 1989. Independent reports from California and Oregon questioned the identification of the registered Riparia Gloire distributed by FPMS. Several experts opined that the correct variety identification was Couderc 1616. Jean Michel Boursiquot, Assistant Chaire de Viticulture, Montpellier, France, was retained to inspect over 4,000 FPMS foundation vines in July, 1990 for correct names and identification. The Riparia Gloire selection had in fact been misidentified, as had Oppenheim #4 which turned out to be Teleki 5C. 203 FPMS Newsletter, no. 11, October 1991, page 3; Minutes, FPMS Technical Committee Meeting, September 8, 1989, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 12, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The sense was that FPMS did not employ professional nursery practices. A non-grape example is illustrative. When Deborah Golino took over as FPMS Director, UC's strawberry meristem plants were potted for sale at FPMS in styrofoam coffee cups with holes punched in the bottoms. Staff argued that the cups were cheaper than nursery pots. Golino received complaints from a nurseryman about the meristems, which sold for $100 apiece. One grapevine nurseryman also remembers receiving grape cuttings in such containers. Golino indicated that lack of professional presentation was a problem at FPMS at that time.

Steps forward

Rich Kunde (Sonoma Grapevine Nursery), Ray Tonella (California Grapevine Nursery), Glen Stoller (Sunridge Nursery) and other nurseries hosted educational sessions to demonstrate good nursery practices and proper mapping techniques for the vineyards to FPMS staff. In 1993, Nelson-Kluk and Cunningham, with guidance from Andy Walker, revised FPMS protocols for "improving mpp propagation and production accuracy" including standard harvesting and identification procedures, tracking, and labelling. 204 Memo to FPMS Grapevine Advisory Board from Susan Nelson-Kluk dated September 17, 1993, Memos to Subcommittee for FPMS nondormant propagation protocols from Susan Nelson-Kluk dated July 27 and September 14, 1993, filed in FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 14, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Cunningham recalls that FPMS worked with the industry to develop the lyre system of trellising that is now used in all the foundation vineyards. Davis' climate and deep and fertile soil are excellent for wood production and encourage vigor in the vines. In order to maximize the amount of wood available for sale, a customized lyre system was developed to allow the exceptional growth to be trained and retained. He appreciated the industry input and felt that the University could get isolated and out of touch without it.

The financial situation in which FPMS found itself during this period also provided the impetus for industry and University cooperative efforts for funding. A series of important meetings at FPMS was initiated between industry representatives for trees, roses, strawberries and grapevines and University officials to discuss the future of the FPMS program. The message from FPMS (primarily Nelson-Kluk and Burt Ray) at that time was that industry for all the crops would need to find a way to support FPMS financially if they wanted to maintain a source of certified material for the program. Emphasis was added that the grape industry should no longer be expected to support the other commodities at FPMS to the extent that it had been happening to that time. 205 Interview with Mike Cunningham, February 24, 2015.

FPMS staff was gratified at the support for certified material expressed by industry members at the meetings. Several positive steps were taken in response to the issues raised. The rose industry established the Garden Rose Council and established a funding source to propagate and maintain the rose block. UC provided funding in the form of a loan from the College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences to build a new greenhouse. The fruit tree, nut tree and grape industries through the IAB sponsored the new law enacted by the California Legislature in 1987 to create a nursery tax assessment (in lieu of user fees) on all sales of fruit and nut trees and grapevines sold in California to support FPMS and CDFA activities. (see grapevine nursery chapter)

Cunningham recalls that it had always been difficult anticipating future industry demand for grape scion material, in particular, and FPMS was "always behind the eight ball trying to get nurseries and growers the material they wanted". When the new foundation vineyard at Brooks Farm was installed beginning in the early 1980's, FPMS solicited industry input and ideas for plantings; Nyland C Block was the direct result of input from Rich Kunde and Terrel West offering a list of popular selections requiring the planting of additional foundation vines.

The Industry Advisory Committee facilitated many improvements at FPMS, including importation of new varieties and clones from Europe via the Winegrowers' Project and establishment of the Germplasm Task Force. Under the guidance of the Committee, FPMS staff made major efforts to improve communication with the industries that used their plant material, including regular attendance at industry meetings and visiting nurseries and making presentations to industry groups. 206 Memo from Susan Nelson-Kluk to FPMS Technical Advisory Committee, August 17, 1987, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11; Minutes, FPMS Grape Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, December 16, 1986, included in 1987 FPMS Annual Report, AR-050, box 29: 50, both filed in FPS collection AR-50, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

New publications

FPMS responded to an industry need for more information about the FPMS grape selections by creating two new publications in 1986. The first publication was entitled "FPMS Registered Grape Selections by Nursery and Variety", which later came to be known colloquially as "the blue book". Initially, the blue book listed grape selections available at FPMS, sorted alphabetically both by grape selection name/number and availability of such selections at the nurseries and increase blocks participating in the R&C Program. The second publication was known as "the green book", which offered detailed information about all FPMS grape selections (registered or in the pipeline), including their disease indexing history, heat treatment record and source information. 207 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 6, November 1986, page 2.

The blue book evolved into the "California Grape Register" in the 1990's and contained all information about registered grape selections, including database and source information and nursery availability. 208 FPMS Grape Program Newsletter, no. 4, October 1998, p. 8. Today, profiles for all public and some proprietary selections in the FPS grapevine collection are displayed electronically on the FPS website in the FGR Grape Registry feature (http://fps.ucdavis.edu/fgrabout.cfm) .

Departure of Goheen and transfer of index/heat treatment to FPMS

A significant issue facing FPMS in the midst of this challenging time was the imminent retirement of Austin Goheen in 1986. In 1982, he was ready to distribute 198 selections that had successfully completed index testing to another University department for maintenance. Hundreds of additional selections were still in testing, treatment and quarantine. The determination as to which department would assume responsibility for heat treatment and indexing work on FPMS selections remained unresolved in 1984.

The possibility that the USDA/APHIS would no longer recognize FPMS as a quarantine station once Goheen retired was a real issue; FPMS needed a plant pathologist to read the index and oversee other testing. There was no certainty that the Department of Plant Pathology would allow FPMS to take over the greenhouse, lathhouse and heat treatment chambers that Goheen had used. The continued existence of hundreds of selections in the testing and treatment process and the ability to continue importations of desirable varieties and clones were threatened. 209 Minutes, FPMS Grape Technical Advisory Committee Meetings, June 18, 1982, AR-050, box 23: 10, and December 20, 1984, AR-050, box 23: 11, filed in FPS collection AR-50, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The FPMS Industry Advisory Committee agreed in 1985 to recommend that APHIS continue the Goheen position at UC Davis. 210 FPMS Grapevine Industry Advisory Committee Meetings, July 12, 1985, and January 10, 1986, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Nelson-Kluk had been hired in 1977 to assume responsibility for the indexing and heat treatment work and was trained accordingly, but she was not a plant pathologist. When she was initially hired, FSPMS managers believed that the volume of material sold by FPMS and the demand for heat treatment and indexing services would decrease to the point where Nelson-Kluk could handle those functions as well as serve as Manager of FPMS. However, by 1986, the workload at FPMS was projected to increase due to a large number of expected new grape introductions and the addition of the strawberry program to the FPMS workload. 211 Letter from Burt Ray, Director, FSPMS, to Dean Charles Hess, College of AES, April 15, 1986, FPS collection AR-050, box 27: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

Nelson-Kluk recalled walking the field index blocks at Armstrong tract with Goheen learning how to read the vines for index testing. She helped Goheen's assistant Carl Luhn with budding indicator plants for a time but never actually read the index herself. That function was always performed by a plant pathologist. Cunningham worked with Luhn on the field index at the Plant Pathology facility for the first few years that Cunningham was at FPMS. Luhn did the budding and planted the grape index at Armstrong tract.

Dr. Austin Goheen and FPS Manager Susan Nelson-Kluk examine grapevines in FPMS vineyard in 1988

After Goheen retired, the importation and quarantine activity languished. FPMS eventually lost the greenhouses, growth chambers, lath house and field areas at the Plant Pathology area in Armstrong tract. Bob Webster (Chair of the Department of Plant Pathology) believed that the day-to-day work such as field index testing, therapy and facilities improvements that the Plant Pathology field crew performed for FPMS consumed an undue amount of resources dedicated to service work, as opposed to what the University preferred, i.e, research. 212 Interview with Deborah Golino, August 11, 2015.

The FPMS mother plants remained for a time at the lathhouse in the Plant Pathology field facilities, which was the quarantine holding area. Luhn budded the field index vines at Plant Pathology and thereafter brought them to FPMS for planting where the FPMS office and lab complex building is now located at 455 Hopkins Road. Luhn maintained a binder in which he recorded the results; those binders were the only record of testing results for FPMS selections in the period prior to Goheen's retirement. Nelson-Kluk said that "it was a shock to realize that once Goheen retired, FPMS would lose all the facilities he had used at Plant Pathology".

Starting in 1984 or 1985 and ending in 1986, FPMS distributed approximately 600-700 selections from Goheen's grape collection at the Plant Pathology facilities to FPMS, the Department of Viticulture and the National Clonal Germplasm Repository (NCGR) in Davis. 213 Memo to FPMS Technical Advisory Committees, August 17, 1987, from Susan Nelson-Kluk, AR-050, box 23: 11; Minutes, FPMS Grape Industry Advisory Committee Meeting, December 16, 1986, included in 1987 FPMS Annual Report, filed AR-050, box 29: 50, both at Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. FPMS assumed responsibility for holding all the selections being indexed in 1987-88 and all selections remaining in quarantine. FPMS had adequate greenhouse and field capacity at the time to accommodate index testing for grapes as well as fruit trees and roses. However, had they chosen to perform heat treatment therapy, it would have been necessary to borrow the thermotherapy facilities from the Department of Plant Pathology.

When the Goheen material was finally moved from the Plant Pathology lathhouse to the FPMS facilities on Straloch Road, the pots were placed outside near the NCGR shadehouse and the FPMS greenhouse, where the vines rooted into the ground. The pots had phylloxera and it spread to the ground outside but did not get into the nearby FPMS greenhouse. In an effort to prevent any future infestation, a new concrete floor and raised benches were installed in the FPMS greenhouse in 1989 at the insistence of Michael Mullins, Chair of the Department of Viticulture & Enology. 214 Minutes, FPMS Technical Committee Meetings, August 18, 1988 and February 3, 1989, filed in AR-050, box 23: 12, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis; Interview with Susan Nelson-Kluk and Mike Cunningham.

This phylloxera episode was the impetus for creation of what FPMS named "GQ blocks" (Grape Quarantine blocks), originally created to isolate the phylloxera-infested vines received from Goheen from the foundation vineyard. GQ1 was situated near Highway 113, GQ2 was north of Hutchison Road in the Pomology field area, and the "domestic zoo" (domestic selections that were in testing but not in quarantine) was along Hutchison Road. FPMS knew that the material had phylloxera but needed to be planted somewhere. Those GQ blocks were discontinued when the West Village development was installed. GQ3 was established west of the FPMS office building around 2010 when FPMS had to vacate the Tyree vineyard and return it to the Viticulture Department; the GQ3 selections have now all undergone testing and are in the foundation vineyard or have been discarded.

The FPMS Industry Advisory Committee worked diligently with FPMS in the mid-1980's to determine a way to pay for a new technician and acquire facilities needed to perform the indexing and heat treatment work. The Committee cited recent financial reports showing that the grape program had consistently paid for itself with income from user fees, direct sales and patent royalties, while the other crops did not. Budget projections for future years showed that there were not sufficient funds from the grape income alone to cover the costs of assuming the grape index and heat treatment programs. The 1987 and 1988 nursery assessment bills would assist with funding. 215 Letter from Burt Ray, Director, FSPMS, to Dean Charles Hess, College of AES, April 15, 1986, FPS collection R-050, box 27: 8, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

FSPMS Director Ray requested from the University funding for a staff plant pathologist for FPMS through the Experiment Station and for use of Goheen's Plant Pathology facilities. His request for funding for staff and facilities noted that a new tissue culture lab and thermotherapy chamber were under construction at FPMS for the strawberry program. He expected to use that lab and combine plant tissue culture techniques with existing heat treatment methods to improve upon the current 17% success rate for elimination of virus disease in grapevines. 216 Letter from Burt Ray, Director, FSPMS, to Dean Charles Hess, College of AES, April 15, 1986, FPS collection AR-050, box 27: 8, Department of Special Collections.

Carl Luhn chip budding at FPMS

Nelson-Kluk indicated that it was "a big deal" the year the responsibility for the index testing switched from Plant Pathology to FPMS staff. Luhn stayed on to perform index testing for FPMS for 3-4 years after Goheen retired in 1986. By 1988, FPMS had completely assumed responsibility for the index work from Plant Pathology. 217 Minutes, Introduction of Selected Winegrape Clones, Project Advisory Committee Meeting, March 30, 1988, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Luhn elected to retire in the early 1990's, after which FPMS staff took over the field index testing process. FPMS had to train a budding crew and establish a process to plant the field index vines.

Dr. Adib Rowhani was hired in spring of 1988 for the FPMS Plant Pathology specialist position to oversee the index testing. Rowhani would add molecular testing to the FPMS protocols and provide in-house guidance for FPMS staff. 218 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 8, November 1988, page 2.

The future of the grape program at FPMS was not nearly that well-defined in 1988, when grape importations were at a standstill. The retirement of Austin Goheen and George Nyland from the Department of Plant Pathology at UC Davis fostered concern over the loss of technical support for the FPMS clean stock program. The grape importation permit issued to FPMS in Goheen's name was set to expire on June 30, 1989. 219 Report from Grapevine Technical Committee to FPMS Industry Advisory Committee, July 11, 1988, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 11, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis.

The grape industry voiced concern over the backlog, the lack of progress on processing grape imports, and the uncertainty surrounding continuation of the quarantine program at FPMS. Grower frustration was evident in 1987 correspondence to FPMS and UC Davis from one winemaker who had travelled to Portugal with Olmo in 1981 to retrieve port varieties and had become exasperated with delays in release of the material. There were more than 400 grape selections backlogged at FPMS, either waiting for quarantine testing or treatment for diseases known to be present. 220 Minutes, FPMS Grape Technical Committee Meeting, October 6, 1988, FPS collection AR-050, box 23: 12, Department of Special Collections, Shields Library, UC Davis. Since FPMS did not have the facilities to maintain additional material on an indefinite basis, FPMS stopped accepting new foreign and domestic selections in 1987-88. 221 Foundation Plant Materials Service, Newsletter, no. 8, November 1988, pp.3-4; Alley and Golino, ASEV 2000, supra, at p. 227.

The seeds for the FPS program that would flourish in future decades were sown by those early struggles to develop a new entity with a worthy but relatively unexplored goal, i.e., creation of a large and diverse collection of clean grapevine material. The challenges faced by FPMS in the 1970's and 1980's would eventually be resolved by several major new initiatives. The story of FPMS/FPS is continued in the following chapter.