skip to content

Darwin Correspondence Project

From Adolphe Damseaux1   19 November 1881

Gembloux /Belgique/

ce 19 Nov. 81

Très honoré Monsieur,

Excusez, je vous prie, la liberté bien grande que je prends de vous adresser ces lignes. Mais elles concernent un fait qui, je pense, vous intéressera et sur lequel je me permets, de demander un mot d’explication.

A titre de membre et Secrétaire d’une commission d’enquête sur le houblon, instituée par le Gouvernement belge pour rechercher les causes du discrédit qui atteint les produits de cette culture depuis quelques années, j’ai été chargé de visiter les houblonnières de l’Allemagne de l’Angleterre, après avoir parcouru les nôtres. En Belgique, la contrée de Poperinghe (Flandre occidentale) produisait jusqu’en 18eSo. un houblon abondant, très aromatique, hautement apprécié de nos brasseurs et des brasseurs de Lille et Dunkerque2—mais depuis lors il s’est appauvri extrèmement, la lupuline a pour ainsi dire disparu. Or c’est depuis cette époque que les cultivateurs, en vue d’obtenir des cônes plus pesants parce qu’ils sont riches en semences, ont planté beaucoup de pieds mâles.3

Ne peut-on pas admettre que l’absence prolongée des mâles avait en pour effet de développer la lupuline dans la fleur, la production de la graine étant rendue impossible? Et d’autre part depuis 18eSo. l’introduction excessive der pieds mâles n’a-t-elle pas pu avoir pour conséquence une réaction en faveur de la production de la graine et aux dépens de la lupuline? La sève affluerait maintenant plus abondamment vers les graines, but ultime de la fécondation et de la vie végétale.

Ou bien cette disparition de la lupuline serait-elle la conséquence d’un autre drangement dans le traitement de la plante. En effet jusqu’en 1872 on prenait les boutures de renouvellement des plantations au pied des souches, au printemps, comme ailleurs. Mais depuis lors, pour plus de commodité, on forme des boutures avec les jets minces qui apparaissent au pied des tiges en Juin. Ce procédé aurait-il pour résultat une dégénérescence de la plante au point de vue de la lupuline des cônes, car les tiges restent vigoureuses comme autrefois?

Excusez de nouveau, très honoré Monsieur, ma liberté et ma prière d’obtenir un mot de réponse au sujet des points agités. | Votre respectueux serviteur, | A. Damseaux | Professeur de culture a l’Institut agricole de l’État.

Footnotes

For a translation of this letter, see Appendix I.
Poperinghe (Poperinge), in the Belgian province of West Flanders, was the centre of the hop-growing region of Belgium, near the border with France. Lille and Dunkirk are French cities nearby.
The common hop plant, Humulus lupulus (family Cannabaceae), is a dioecious perennial vine. Only female hop plants produce lupulin, an oleoresin that gives flavour and aroma to beer; unfertilised cones produce a greater quantity of lupulin (Almagauer et al. 2014).

Bibliography

Almagauer, Cynthia et al. 2014. Humulus lupulus – a story that begs to be told. A review. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 120: 289–314.

Translation

From Adolphe Damseaux1   19 November 1881

Gembloux /Belgium/

19 Nov. 81

Very honoured Sir,

Please excuse the very great liberty I take in addressing these lines to you. However, they concern a fact which I think will interest you, and about which I take the liberty of asking for a word of explanation.

As a member and Secretary of a commission of inquiry on hops established by the Belgian government to investigate the causes of the disrepute attached to the products of this cultivation for a number of years, I have been charged with visiting the hop fields of Germany and England, after having gone through our own. In Belgium, the area of Poperinghe (west Flanders) produced until the 18th century hops that were prolific, very aromatic, highly appreciated by our brewers and the brewers of Lille and Dunkirk2—but since then they have declined greatly, the lupulin has, in a manner of speaking, disappeared. However, it is since this time that growers, with the aim of getting heavier cones because they are filled with seeds, have planted many male plants.3

Can it not be acknowledged that the prolonged absence of males had the effect of developing the lupulin in the flower, since the production of seed was rendered impossible? And on the other hand since the 18th century could not the excessive introduction of male plants have had the result of favouring the production of seed at the expense of lupulin? The vital force would flow more strongly now towards the seeds, the ultimate goal of fertilisation and of vegetable life.

Or would this disappearance of lupulin be the result of another disturbance in the treatment of the plant. In fact until 1872 cuttings were taken from a plant stump, in spring, as elsewhere. But since then, for more convenience, cuttings are made from thin shoots that arise at the base of the stems in June. Would this procedure result in a degeneration of the plant, in terms of the lupulin of the cones, for the stems remain as vigorous as before?

Pardon again, very honoured sir, my liberty and my request for a word in reply on the subject of these troubling points. | Your humble servant, | A. Damseaux | Professor of agriculture at the State Agricultural Institute

Footnotes

For a transcription of this letter in its original French, see Transcript.
Poperinghe (Poperinge), in the Belgian province of West Flanders, was the centre of the hop-growing region of Belgium, near the border with France. Lille and Dunkirk are French cities nearby.
The common hop plant, Humulus lupulus (family Cannabaceae), is a dioecious perennial vine. Only female hop plants produce lupulin, an oleoresin that gives flavour and aroma to beer; unfertilised cones produce a greater quantity of lupulin (Almagauer et al. 2014).

Bibliography

Almagauer, Cynthia et al. 2014. Humulus lupulus – a story that begs to be told. A review. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 120: 289–314.

Summary

AD asks CD’s advice on possible causes of a decline in the Belgian hop crop.

Letter details

Letter no.
DCP-LETT-13491
From
Adolphe Damseaux
To
Charles Robert Darwin
Sent from
Gembloux
Source of text
DAR 162: 37
Physical description
ALS 4pp (French)

Please cite as

Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 13491,” accessed on 23 April 2024, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13491.xml

letter