SAAZ—Fine Aroma Hop Pedigree: A Review of Current Knowledge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review summarizes previously published data (breeding history, genetic data, basic parameters such as yield, sensory profile, concentrations of key technologically important hop compounds. In addition, it presents long-term data (2004–2021), and shows similarities/differences among the varieties. Even though the new varieties have no identical chemical parameters to the original Saaz, they can substitute this established standard as well.

The review is interesting and well organized containing the following paragraphs: 1. Introduction, 1.1. Cross-breeding methods of Saaz varieties, 2. Pedigree of new Saaz varieties, 2.1. Saaz Late, 2.2. Saaz Brilliant, 2.3. Saaz Comfort, 2.4. Saaz Shine, 3. Genetic analysis of Saaz varieties, 4. Resistance to fungal diseases, 5. Tolerance to drought, 6. Comparison of new Saaz varieties with original Saaz and 7. Conclusions.

I have to minor remarks pointed out in the following text.

At the end of Introduction part there is need to state the novelty of this review. What was reviewed for the first time? Some clues of the novelty are present in the abstract but it should be elaborated much more at the end of introduction part. Also the review hypothesis is missing and what were the goals of the present review.

There is need to expand the conclusion part. It should contain the main findings from each paragraph.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the corrections and suggestions for improving the manuscript, which I accepted.

1. At the end of Introduction part there is need to state the novelty of this review. What was reviewed for the first time? Some clues of the novelty are present in the abstract but it should be elaborated much more at the end of introduction part. Also the review hypothesis is missing and what were the goals of the present review.

Thank you for this advice. These important points were missing there. I added both goals and novelty to the last paragraph of the introduction.

2. There is need to expand the conclusion part. It should contain the main findings from each paragraph.

I agree with your comment. I made a new conclusion according to your advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is very interesting to brewers and scientists that work in the field of beer production. As a whole, the paper was well written but there are few things that should be corrected in order to improve the paper quality.

Can you explain what is % rel.?

Figure 2 and 3 can hardly be seen by the readers. Please, make them clearer.

Table 8 In the table it was written E, but in the footer was given explanation for B

ln. 340 Table 8 ->Table 9

Table 9 You have given 2 times the results for Saaz variety

ln. 365-371 Different font from the other text

Table 9 ->Table 10

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the corrections and suggestions for improving the manuscript, which I accepted.

 

1. Can you explain what is % rel.?

% rel is used for the relative percentage of (for example) colupulone as part of the total, sum of alpha acids. It is a common unit in hop chemistry description.

2. Figure 2 and 3 can hardly be seen by the readers. Please, make them clearer.

We agree, that these figures have low quality in the manuscript, however, I simultaneously sent to the journal also these figures in a high quality to publication in the final article.

3. Table 8 In the table it was written E, but in the footer was given explanation for B

Thank you for pointing this out, B was unified in the table and its footer.

4. 340 Table 8 ->Table 9

Thank you for pointing this out, the number of Table 9 was corrected.

5. Table 9 You have given 2 times the results for the Saaz variety

We agree, therefore the last row of Table 9 was deleted.

6. 365-371 Different font from the other text

We agree, therefore font was unified.

7. Table 9 ->Table 10

Thank you for pointing this out, the number of Table 10 was corrected in both, the title and the related text.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I was tasked to review the review entitled “SAAZ – fine aroma hop pedigree. A review of current knowledge” for the journal Beverages by MDPI.

The review is clear and well-written, I appreciated the readability and the proper English quality. However, some parts still need to be improved. In particular, the discussion about aroma composition is very generical reporting only spider plots in Figure 2 which are also very difficult to read because of the image quality and dimension; in that case it is necessary to describe the aroma descriptor of every substance reported, its ODT and the average value in conventional hops. These data have no reference and is not clear how were they measured. The section about SAAZ aroma is very poor compared to my expectation because the title focuses on the pivotal odor role of this hop, so I was expecting to find useful information in this sense.

The whole review has a little number of references, probably because of the limited number of articles about SAAZ hops but many other aspects can be discussed comparing these varieties with conventional ones reinforcing also the reference list.

Most tables provide numerical data but not the related reference. If data were measured by the authors, a material and methods section is required and, in that case, it would not be a literature review anymore.

Some specific comments:

-            Lines 14 -16 (abstract): The following sentence “Since information about these varieties is splintered and often available only in the original language in regional journal.” Is not clear to me.

-            References 22 and 23 have to same structure (Nesvadba, V.; Olšovská, J.; Straková, L.; Charvátová, J.; Trnková, S. Essential oils in Czech hop varieties. Kvasny Prum. 2021, 67,) even if they are different the DOI are correct.

In the end, this review needs to be reinforced in terms of discussion on aroma composition and comparison with most used hop cultivar. Especially for the aroma part, key compounds should be investigated and merged with sensory approaches (if available).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for the corrections and suggestions for improving the manuscript, which I accepted.

1. In particular, the discussion about aroma composition is very generical reporting only spider plots in Figure 2 which are also very difficult to read because of the image quality and dimension; in that case it is necessary to describe the aroma descriptor of every substance reported, its ODT and the average value in conventional hops. These data have no reference and is not clear how were they measured. The section about SAAZ aroma is very poor compared to my expectation because the title focuses on the pivotal odor role of this hop, so I was expecting to find useful information in this sense.

Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the section regarding hop aroma among all tested varieties. While we believe the final article will include higher-resolution images, we have also numerically described the intensity value of each aroma on a scale of 0 to 1.5. For example: „Saaz Comfort has a characteristic fine hoppy aroma (1.39) with a pronounced spicy (0.53) and herbal (0.28) scent and weak fruity (0.21) in the background with traces of citrusy (0.11) and floral (0.06).“

For data measurement and reference, please, see point 3.

2. The whole review has a little number of references, probably because of the limited number of articles about SAAZ hops but many other aspects can be discussed comparing these varieties with conventional ones reinforcing also the reference list.

We agree, therefore the review was expanded by 25 references.

3. Most tables provide numerical data but not the related reference. If data were measured by the authors, a material and methods section is required and, in that case, it would not be a literature review anymore.

We agree.  It is a non-traditional review supplemented by the author's data. We would like to reassure you that before submitting the manuscript, we discussed with the editor whether it is possible to classify this article as a review. Referenced data in the tables as well as new data were measured by the same authors, in the same laboratories by the same methods. We added references to these methods at the end of the Introduction and References section. The determination of hop resins and hop oil in hops was performed according to the commonly used method EBC 7.7  and a related study [Krofta 2003], respectively. These data are the property of the Hop Institute in Žatec, CZ, and the Research Institute of Brewing and Malting in Prague, CZ, where the authors of the article work. The evaluation of the hop aroma takes place in Žatec every year after the harvest by at least 100 evaluators. Data is the property of Hop Institute in Žatec, CZ.

4. Lines 14 -16 (abstract): The following sentence “Since information about these varieties is splintered and often available only in the original language in regional journal.” Is not clear to me.

The sentence was corrected as follows: „Since information about these varieties is splintered and often available only in the Czech language in regional journals.“ We hope it is just more understandable.

5. References 22 and 23 have to same structure (Nesvadba, V.; Olšovská, J.; Straková, L.; Charvátová, J.; Trnková, S. Essential oils in Czech hop varieties. Kvasny Prum. 2021, 67,) even if they are different the DOI are correct.

Thank you for pointing this out, the reference No 22 (after revision reference No. 41 was corrected: Nesvadba, V.; Charvátová, J.; Trnková, S. Evaluation of hop yield stability in Czech bitter hop varieties  Kvasny Prum. 2022, 68, 674 – 678 https://doi.org/10.18832/kp2022.68.674.

6. In the end, this review needs to be reinforced in terms of discussion on aroma composition and comparison with most used hop cultivar. Especially for the aroma part, key compounds should be investigated and merged with sensory approaches (if available).

We accepted your suggestion and, therefore we completely rewrote and supplemented the conclusion according your advice. Regarding key compounds, they are described in detail in simultaneous article  Olšovská, J.; Straková, L.; Nesvadba, V.; Vrzal, Přikryl J. The comparison and brewing value of Saaz hop pedigree. Beverages 2024, submitted. This information was also included in the review Introduction/line 588, reference No 26

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors did an excellent job.