The Comparison and Brewing Value of Saaz Hop Pedigree

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a comparison of Saaz hops to four new varieties (Saaz Late, Saaz Brilliant, Saaz Comfort, and Saaz Shine) to determine if these can be acceptable Pilsner style lagers. Overall, the manuscript is well written and all conclusions are supported with collected data and literature.

While I see no major issues with the reported experiments, I have several comments which I feel will improve the manuscript.

Table 3: Not sure why Saaz is included twice, suggest removing second column

Line 187: not completely sure what "This phenomenon..." is. Please clarify in sentence.

Line 196 -197: Not sure what was determined...previous sentences gave two different published results.

Figure 1: the figure needs to be better described what does E, M, A, S, and C represent? In fact, I am not sure this figure is needed since the values are listed in the previous table and the figure is not significantly discussed.

Same thing with figure 4: needs to be better describe but not sure it adds any significance over the tabled data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall I saw no issues with the quality of the English, there were a few instances with awkward sentence structure but if is was significant it is noted in my review above. Otherwise, it is not significantly distract form the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

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

1. Table 3: Not sure why Saaz is included twice, suggest removing second column.

We agree with this comment, therefore the column was deleted.

2. Line 187: not completely sure what "This phenomenon..." is. Please clarify in sentence.

Thank you for pointing this out, therefore the sentence was corrected. It now describes what the phenomenon means.

3. Line 196 -197: Not sure what was determined...previous sentences gave two different published results.

By correcting sentence 1 (Line 187), this sentence should also be clearer.

4. Figure 1: the figure needs to be better described what does E, M, A, S, and C represent? In fact, I am not sure this figure is needed since the values are listed in the previous table and the figure is not significantly discussed.

We agree Figure 1 is redundant, therefore it was deleted. The same information is given in Table 4.

5. Same thing with Figure 4: needs to be better described but not sure it adds any significance over the tabled data.

We agree Figure 4 is redundant, therefore it was deleted. The same information is given in Table 5.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aimed to reveal and compare the impact of five Saaz-related varieties in kettle-hopped beer, which was prepared using the traditional technology of Pilsner lager beer, including double decoction mashing, kettle-hopping, bottom fermentation, and cool and long lagering.

Add detailed results in both the abstract and conclusion. Specify "high," as it is currently very vague: higher intensity, higher yield (by how much—1% or 50%?), higher concentration, etc.

Include the Latin name for hops in the Introduction. Provide more information about the hops (when and where they were collected; GPS coordinates; average weather conditions during the growing period; whether fresh or dried samples were used for extraction and beer brewing).

The term "min2" in lines 113-114 is unclear. Specify how many runs for GC-GC analysis were performed for each sample. Specify how hop oils were quantified.

"Supporting Information S1" (line 120) is missing from the manuscript.

Add a section with statistical analysis: how many repetitions were done for each measurement and beer brewing.

In Table 2, explain what DMX stands for.

Figure 1 repeats the data provided in Table 4.

Figure 4 repeats the data provided in Table 5.

Add a reference to line 291 (Muramatsu is not the only author of this publication).

Latin names must be italicized in the reference list.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

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

1. Add detailed results in both the abstract and conclusion. Specify "high," as it is currently very vague: higher intensity, higher yield (by how much—1% or 50%?), higher concentration, etc.

Thank you for pointing this out, the average values ​​of yield, concentration of bitter acids, and hop oils were added to the abstract (lines 25-27) and the conclusion (351 – 354) . Specific values ​​are the content of the related cited study Olšovská, J.; Straková, L.; Nesvadba, V.; Vrzal, T.; Malečková, M.; Patzak, J.; Donner, P.; Cerkal, R. Saaz – fine aroma hop pedigree. A review of current knowledge. Beverages 2024, submitted. [4]

2. Include the Latin name for hops in the Introduction. Provide more information about the hops (when and where they were collected; GPS coordinates; average weather conditions during the growing period; whether fresh or dried samples were used for extraction and beer brewing).

We accepted, the location name and GPS coordinates were supplemented. Also way of harvesting and hop processing was added (lines 135-138)

3. The term "min2" in lines 113-114 is unclear. Specify how many runs for GC-GC analysis were performed for each sample. Specify how hop oils were quantified.

Thank you for pointing this out. The term "min2" The term has inexplicably crept into the text and does not belong there. The text has been checked and corrected (line 116-117).  Information regarding the number of repetitions and usage of the calibration curve with internal standard was added (line 127-132)

4. "Supporting Information S1" (line 120) is missing from the manuscript.

Thank you for pointing this out. We forgot to attach this file. It is attached as an Appendix (Table A1) according to MDPI format.

5. Add a section with statistical analysis: how many repetitions were done for each measurement and beer brewing.

We agree, it was supplemented to the text (127, 132) and under the tables (Table 2, Table 5 and 6).

6. In Table 2, explain what DMX stands for.

We agree, an explanation under the table has been added.

7. Figure 1 repeats the data provided in Table 4.

We accepted it, Figure 1 is redundant, therefore it was deleted. The same information is given in Table 4.

8. Figure 4 repeats the data provided in Table 5.

We accepted it, Figure 4 is redundant, therefore it was deleted. The same information is given in Table 5.

9. Add a reference to line 291 (Muramatsu is not the only author of this publication).

We agree with this comment, therefore „et al“ was added.

10. Latin names must be italicized in the reference list.

We agree therefore we corrected it (lines 376, 380, 392, and 434).