Agronomic and chemical evaluation of hop cultivars grown under Mediterranean conditions

  • Sandra Afonso Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO) – Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre s/n, 4169-007 Porto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2464-8464
  • Margarida Arrobas Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO) – Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4652-485X
  • M. Ângelo Rodrigues Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO) – Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, 5300-253 Bragança http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5367-1129
Keywords: Humulus lupulus, aroma, bitter acids, cone yield, cone quality

Abstract

Aim of study: Evaluation of the agronomic performance and chemical profile of four hop cultivars grown under Mediterranean conditions.

Area of study: The study was undertaken in Bragança, north-eastern Portugal.

Material and methods: The newly introduced cultivars (‘Columbus’, ‘Cascade’ and ‘Comet’) were compared with the well-stablished ‘Nugget’. The field experiment was carried out between 2017 and 2019. Dry matter (DM) yield (plant and cones), tissue elemental composition and bitter acid and nitrate (NO3-) concentrations in the cones were assessed.

Main results: ‘Comet’ was the most productive cultivar with the highest total DM yield (1,624 to 1,634 g plant-1), cone yield (572 to 633 g plant-1), and dry weight of individual cones (0.28 to 0.79 g cone-1). ‘Cascade’ showed the lowest average total DM yield (723 to 1,045 g plant-1). The year affected the average values of DM yield and the concentration of bitter acids in the cones, with ‘Cascade’ showing the highest sensitivity between cultivars. The concentrations of α and β-acids in the cones were within or close to the normal ranges internationally accepted for all cultivars. ‘Columbus’ exhibited the highest levels of α-acids, ranging between 12.04 % and 12.23%, followed by ‘Nugget’ (10.17–11.90%), ‘Comet’ (9.32–10.69%) and ‘Cascade’ (4.46–8.72%). The nutrient accumulation criteria in cone and leaf tissues seem to be a differentiating factor between cultivars with influence on bitter acid biosynthesis and biomass production.

Research highlights: All cultivars showed notable performance in terms of DM yield and bitter acid concentration in the cones when compared to international standards.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Afonso S, Arrobas M, Rodrigues MA, 2020. Soil and plant analyses to diagnose hop fields irregular growth. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 20: 1999-2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00270-6

Almaguer C, Schönberger C, Gastl M, Arendt EK, Becker T, 2014. Humulus lupulus- a story that begs to be told. A review. J Inst Brew 120: 289-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.160

Čeh B, Naglič B, Luskar M, 2012. Hop (Humulus lupulus L.) cones mass and lenght at cv. Savinjski golding. Hmeljarski Bilten 19: 5-16.

Champagne A, Boutry M, 2017. A comprehensive proteome map of glandular trichomes of hop (Humulus lupulus L.) female cones: Identification of biosynthetic pathways of the major terpenoid-related compounds and possible transport proteins. Proteomics 17: 1600411. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201600411

Clescerl L, Greenberg A, Eaton A, 1998. Standard methods for water and wastewater analysis. American Public Health Association.

De Keukeleire D, 2000. Fundamentals of beer and hop chemistry. Quimica Nova 23 (1): 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-40422000000100019

EBC Analysis Committee, 1998. Analytica EBC, Hans Carl Getränke Fachverlag, Nürenberg, Method 7.7.

Eriksen R, Rutto L, Dombrowski J, Henning J, 2020. Photosynthetic activity of six hop (Humulus lupulus L.) cultivars under different temperature treatments. Hortscience 55: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI14580-19

Euromonitor, 2019. Beer in Portugal. https://www.euromonitor.com/beer-in-portugal/report/ [15 Aug 2020].

FAOSAT, 2020. Production quantities of hops by country in 2018. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize/ [15 Aug 2020].

Forteschi M, Porcu MC, Fanari M, Zinellu M, Secchi N, Buiatti S, Passaghe P, Bertoli S, Pretti L, 2019. Quality assessment of Cascade hop (Humulus lupulus L.) grown in Sardinia. Eur Food Res Technol 245 (4): 863-871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-018-3215-0

Garavaglia C, Swinnen JJC, 2017. The craft beer revolution: An international perspective. Choices 32(3): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58235-1_1

Guo W, Nazim H, Liang Z, Yang D, 2016. Magnesium deficiency in plants: An urgent problem. Crop J 4 (2): 83-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2015.11.003

Hawkesford M, Horst W, Kichey T, Lambers H, Schjoerring J, Møller IS, White P, 2012. Functions of macronutrients. In: Marschner's mineral nutrition of higher plants; Marschner P (ed.). pp: 135-189. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384905-2.00006-6

Hieronymus S, 2012. For the love of hops: The practical guide to aroma, bitterness and the culture of hops. Brewers publications.

Hopslist, 2020. Hop varieties. http://www.hopslist.com/hops/ [15 Aug 2020].

Inui T, Tsuchiya F, Ishimaru M, Oka K, Komura H, 2013. Different beers with different hops. Relevant compounds for their aroma characteristics. J Agr Food Chem 61: 4758-4764. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3053737

IPMA, 2020. Normais climatológicas. Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera. http://www.ipma.pt/pt/oclima/normais.clima/ [20 Jul 2020].

Jarrel WM, Beverly RB, 1981. The dilution effect in plant nutrition studies. Adv Agron 34: 197-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60887-1

Kathpalia R, Bhatla SC, 2018. Plant mineral nutrition. In: Plant physiology, development and metabolism; Bhatla SC, Lal MA (eds.). pp. 37-81. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2023-1_2

Kishimoto T, Wanikawa A, Kono K, Shibata K, 2006. Comparison of the odor-active compounds in unhopped beer and beers hopped with different hop varieties. J Agr Food Chem 54 (23): 8855-8861. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf061342c

Lafontaine S, Shellhammer TH, 2019. Investigating the factors impacting aroma, flavor, and stability in dry-hopped beers. Tech Quart 56: 13-23.

Lakanen E, Erviö R, 1971. A comparison of eight extractants for the determination of plant available micronutrients in soils. Helsingin yliopiston rehtorin professori Erkki Kivisen juhlajulkaisu/Viljo Puustjärvi.

Lal MA, 2018. Nitrogen metabolism. In: Plant physiology, development and metabolism; Bhatla SC, Lal MA (eds.). pp: 425-480. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2023-1_11

Marceddu R, Carrubba A, Sarno M, 2020. Cultivation trials of hop (Humulus lupulus L.) in semi-arid environments. Heliyon 6: e05114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05114

Mongelli A, Rodolfi M, Ganino T, Marieschi M, Caligiani A, Dall'Asta C, Bruni R, 2016. Are Humulus lupulus L. ecotypes and cultivars suitable for the cultivation of aromatic hop in Italy? A phytochemical approach. Ind Crop Prod 83: 693-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.12.046

Mozzon M, Foligni R, Mannozzi C, 2020. Brewing quality of hop varieties cultivated in central italy based on multivolatile fingerprinting and bitter acid content. Foods 9 (5): 541. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9050541

Ocvirk M, Grdadolnik J, Kosir I, 2016. Determination of the botanical origin of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) using different analytical techniques in combination with statistical methods: Determination of the botanical origin of hops. J Inst Brew 122 (3): 452-461. https://doi.org/10.1002/jib.343

Patzak J, Henychová A, 2018. Evaluation of genetic variability within actual hop (Humulus lupulus L.) cultivars by an enlarged set of molecular markers. Czech J Genet Plant Breed 54 (2): 86-86-91. https://doi.org/10.17221/175/2016-CJGPB

Pearson BJ, Smith RM, 2018. Effect of Humulus lupulus cultivar on first-year growth and strobile yield utilizing a tall-trellis production system in Florida, United States. Acta Hortic 1205: 497-504. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1205.61

Rettberg N, Biendl M, Garbe LA, 2018. Hop aroma and hoppy beer flavor: chemical backgrounds and analytical tools-A review. J Am Soc Brew Chem 76 (1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610470.2017.1402574

Rodolfi M, Chiancone B, Liberatore C, Fabbri A, Cirlini M, Ganino T, 2019. Changes in chemical profile of Cascade hop cones according to the growing area: influence of growing area in Cascade hop cones. J Sci Food Agr 99 (13): 6011-6019. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9876

Rodrigues MA, Morais J, Castro JP, 2015. O lúpulo: da cultura ao extrato. Técnica cultural tradicional. Livro de atas das Jornadas do Lúpulo e da Cerveja: novas oportunidades de negócio (Bragança), July 13-15. pp: 1-10.

Rossini F, Loreti P, Provenzano ME, De Santis D, Ruggeri R, 2016. Agronomic performance and beer quality assessment of twenty hop cultivars grown in Central Italy. Ital J Agron 11 (3): 180-187. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2016.746

Rossini F, Virga G, Loreti P, Provenzano ME, Danieli PP, Ruggeri R, 2020. Beyond beer: Hop shoot production and nutritional composition under Mediterranean climatic conditions. Agronomy10: 1547. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101547

Ruggeri R, Loreti P, Rossini F, 2018. Exploring the potential of hop as a dual purpose crop in the Mediterranean environment: shoot and cone yield from nine commercial cultivars. Eur J Agron 93: 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.10.011

Schönberger C, Kostelecky T, 2011. 125th Anniversary review: The role of hops in brewing. J Inst Brew 117 (3): 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2050-0416.2011.tb00471.x

Seigner E, Lutz A, Oberhollenzer K, Seidenberger R, Seefelder S, Felsenstein F, 2009. Breeding of hop varieties for the future. Acta Hortic 848: 49-58. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.848.4

Shellie R, Poynter S, Li J, Gathercole J, Whittock S, Koutoulis A, 2009. Varietal characterization of hop (Humulus lupulus L.) by GC-MS analysis of hop cone extracts. J Sep Sci 32: 3720-3725. https://doi.org/10.1002/jssc.200900422

Sirrine JR, Rothwell N, Lizotte E, Goldy R, Marquie S, Brown-Rytlewski D, 2010. Sustainable hop production in the great lakes region. Michigan State Univ Ext Bull E-3083.

Štěrba K, Čejka P, Čulík J, Jurková M, Krofta K, Pavlovič M, Mikyška A, Olšovská J, 2015. Determination of linalool in different hop varieties using a new method based on fluidized-bed extraction with gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric detection. J Am Soc Brew Chem 73 (2): 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1094/ASBCJ-2015-0406-01

Teghtmeyer S, 2018. Hops. J Agric Food Inform 19 (1): 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2018.1403248

Temminghoff EEJM, Houba VG, 2004. Plant analysis procedures, 2nd ed. Kluwer Acad Publ, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2976-9

Ting PL, Ryder DS, 2017. The bitter, twisted truth of the hop: 50 years of hop chemistry. J Am Soc Brew Chem 75 (3): 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1094/ASBCJ-2017-3638-01

Van Reeuwijk L, 2002. Procedures for soil analysis. Technical Paper 9. Int Soil Ref Inform Centr., Wageningen.

Xu H, Zhang F, Liu B, Huhman DV, Sumner LW, Dixon, RA, Wang G, 2013. Characterization of the formation of branched short-chain fatty acid:coas for bitter acid biosynthesis in hop glandular trichomes. Mol Plant 6 (4): 1301-1317. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sst004

Published
2021-08-12
How to Cite
AfonsoS., ArrobasM., & RodriguesM. Ângelo. (2021). Agronomic and chemical evaluation of hop cultivars grown under Mediterranean conditions. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 19(3), e0904. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2021193-17528
Section
Plant production (Field and horticultural crops)