IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlpse/v66y2020i12id430-2020-pse.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Czech hop cultivars since 2010 till 2019

Author

Listed:
  • Vladimír Nesvadba

    (Department of Hop Breeding, Hop Research Institute Co., Ltd., Saaz, Czech Republic)

  • Jitka Charvátová

    (Department of Hop Breeding, Hop Research Institute Co., Ltd., Saaz, Czech Republic)

  • Josef Vostřel

    (Department of Hop Protection, Hop Research Institute Co., Ltd., Saaz, Czech Republic)

  • Markéta Werschallová

    (Department of Hop Protection, Hop Research Institute Co., Ltd., Saaz, Czech Republic
    Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

Czech hop cultivars were evaluated from 2010 to 2019. A total of 13 cultivars were assessed. The highest yield per plant was found out in cv. Kazbek (3.66 kg/plant), whereas the lowest in cv. Saazer (2.02 kg/plant). Rubín and Boomerang are the cultivars with the lowest variability of the yield per plant. On the contrary, the highest variability was shown by cv. Kazbek. Conclusively the highest content of alpha acids was recorded in cv. Gaia (13.81%), whereas Saazer is the cultivar with the lowest content (2.87%). Significantly highest content of beta acids were recorded in cvs. Gaia, Vital, Boomerang and Bohemie. On the contrary, the lowest content of beta acids was found in cvs. Saazer, Rubín and Bor (below 4%). Kazbek is the cultivar with the highest ratio of cohumulone (36.67% rel.). Cvs. Premiant and Harmonie show the lowest ratio of cohumulone (19.63% rel.). The lowest ratio of myrcene (18.91% rel.) and caryophyllene (8.26% rel.) was recorded in cv. Saazer. The highest ratio of farnesene was found in cv. Saazer (13.34% rel.) and cv. Saaz Late (10.22% rel.). A wide range was found in the ratio of humulene: from 2.15% rel. (cv. Vital) to 35.76% rel. (cv. Bor). Cv. Gaia has the highest ratio of selinene (19.77% rel.).

Suggested Citation

  • Vladimír Nesvadba & Jitka Charvátová & Josef Vostřel & Markéta Werschallová, 2020. "Evaluation of Czech hop cultivars since 2010 till 2019," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(12), pages 658-663.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlpse:v:66:y:2020:i:12:id:430-2020-pse
    DOI: 10.17221/430/2020-PSE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pse.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/430/2020-PSE.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://pse.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/430/2020-PSE.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/430/2020-PSE?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. Krofta, 2003. "Comparison of quality parameters of Czech and foreign hop varieties," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 49(6), pages 261-268.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liana-Claudia SALANŢĂ & Maria TOFANĂ & Sonia SOCACI & Elena MUDURA & Anca FĂRCAŞ & Carmen POP & Anamaria POP & Antonia ODAGIU, 2015. "Characterisation of hop varieties grown in Romania based on their contents of bitter acids by HPLC in combination with chemometrics approach," Czech Journal of Food Sciences, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 33(2), pages 148-155.
    2. Lukáš Jelínek & Michal Šneberger & Marcel Karabín & Pavel Dostálek, 2010. "Comparison of Czech hop cultivars based on their contenst of secondary metabolites," Czech Journal of Food Sciences, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 28(4), pages 309-316.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlpse:v:66:y:2020:i:12:id:430-2020-pse. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.