HOP GROWERS

GUIDE
A PROGRESS REPORT ON THE 2018-2019
GROWING SEASON AND SUMMARY OF BEST
PRACTICES FOR GROWING HOPS IN MARYLAND.

Flying Dog Brewery and the University of Maryland’s College of Agriculture and
Natural Resources: Revolutionizing the Future of Beer-Centric Agriculture
OUR SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN A NUTSHELL
1. PLANT HOPS
2. GROW HOPS
3. PICK HOPS
4. MAKE BEER
5. DRINK BEER
6. RATE HOPS
7. DRINK MORE BEER
8. FORGET WHERE YOU
PUT YOUR CAR KEYS

JUST KIDDING, THERE’S MORE TO IT THAN THAT.

 2018 - 2019

HOPS TRIAL GROWING SEASON REPORT

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
AND OVERCOMING DIFFICULTIES
 MEET & GREET

LET US INTRODUCE OURSELVES

 FROM FLYING DOG CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER MATT BROPHY AND BREWMASTER BEN CLARK:
Our primary goal from year three to four didn’t
change: We want Maryland hops to be the same
quality as the hops we get from the Pacific Northwest,
the largest producer of hops in the US. While we see
differences in the aroma and flavor of local hops, it’s
important for them to be as commercially-viable here
as they are with their Yakima Valley counterparts. A
hop could be lights out, but if the yield isn’t enough
to recoup investment, it’s a non-starter. That’s why
MATT BROPHY CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER it’s important to detail our findings in this guide. The
UMD team is establishing best practices for our
unique climate.

And while it’s great to already have multiple data

sets for comparison, year four is where we start to
have confidence in our research. It typically takes
hop bines three years to reach full maturity, so now
we’re working with fully-mature hops, which give us
the best indication of how viable they truly are in
BEN CLARK BREWMASTER this climate.

FROM UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND EXTENSION AGENT BRYAN BUTLER:

As we wrap up the 4th growing season of our
Maryland Hops Project, clearly we can produce hops
in Maryland. But the question remains, can a
consistent, high-quality, profitable crop be produced?
Partly, this depends on the business plan and type of
operation. Hops grown in Maryland may only be a fit
for farm breweries and limited release beers. While
there’s interest from consumers for local ingredients,
it’s also clear the price and quality of the end product
BRYAN BUTLER EXTENSION AGENT must be in line with other locally-brewed beers. Over
four years we’ve battled environmental and manmade
obstacles, and have tried to be transparent in making
all information available to those interested. Although
growth in local hop production doesn’t match the
growth in the number of Maryland Breweries, that
may be more indicative of our project’s success
rather than our failure.

Establishing a hop yard is expensive and the specialty

tools required to grow and process high-quality hops
may not have much recovery value for growers who
reconsider and want to sell out. Hops production is
risky and many variables impact the final yield on any
given year. Thus, our objective delivery of research-based
info is intended to help people make the best decision
for themselves, rather than convince them to engage
in a new agricultural enterprise that contains more
risk than they’re comfortable with.
4
 BACKGROUND
A few years ago, University of Maryland Extension, in partnership with Flying Dog
Brewery, established a 1/2-acre hops yard at the Agricultural Experiment Station
in Keedysville, Maryland. Twenty-four hops varieties were selected in consultation
with local growers and brewers for Maryland’s hot and humid climate. Hops were
managed for fertility, irrigation and other horticultural practices; as well as insect,
disease, and weed pests, using integrated pest management (IPM) principles.
Trials were performed to identify varieties best suited for production in Maryland
and potential challenges from growing to pelletization to final product.

As we approach year five of this project, we have summarized the first four
years of research and analysis of the 24 hop varieties planted at the Western
Maryland Research and Education Center in Keedysville. In this fact sheet,
you will see a comparison of the previous growing seasons, new findings
on each of the top hop varieties, and best practices for establishing and
maintaining a hops yard in Maryland.

The goal of this joint research is to determine hops varieties that are best suited
for production in Maryland and what challenges Maryland growers may
encounter along the entire production chain – from growing to harvesting to
processing. Compared to the Pacific Northwest; the largest producer of hops,
Maryland is hotter, more humid, at a lower latitude and has a variety of insects,
diseases and soil types.

KEEP IN MIND: This document is not intended to be a recipe for production,

but rather a menu for growers to select what works in their own operations
with ideas to combat common challenges that limit production in the
region. This past year (YEAR 4) brought with it unforeseen challenges that
we will discuss later in this guide.

5
HOPS ARE PART OF THE CANNABCEAE FAMILY, IT’S
COUSINS ARE HEMP AND MARIJUANA
 HOP YARD ESTABLISHMENT
SOIL AND SITE PREPARATION: In Maryland’s unique climate, the foremost
priority is to select the best site possible, in order to reduce the
negative effects of environmental stresses caused by extreme heat,
high humidity, and erratic rainfall. The site should have well-drained
soil, full sun, good air circulation and accessibility, and clear of frost
pockets. Soil should be tested at least one year in advance of
planting to ensure time to develop a nutrient management plan and
allow time to make the proper fertility and pH adjustments. Pay
particular attention to pH, phosphorus, and potassium. Be aware
of the previous crops, potential herbicide carryover, and the
existing weed population. Perennial weeds need to be controlled
prior to planting to help reduce weed pressure. Sod establishment
in the fall prior to the year of planting will help facilitate future hop
yard growth, prevent soil erosion and nutrient runoff, and suppress
weeds. Tall fescue should be planted between rows in spring or fall
prior to hops yard establishment. Availability of water is an absolute
necessity for drip irrigation.

VARIETY SELECTION: The primary goal of the partnership between Flying

Dog and the University of Maryland is to identify varieties acceptable
for Maryland’s climate. We are screening 24 varieties in an effort to
identify those that might be better suited to be grown in Maryland,
while still possessing the characteristics desired for brewers to make
high quality beer. Varietal information, such as yield and brewing
quality, are discussed later in this publication. For 2019 two poorly
preforming varieties (Neo 1 and Multihead) were removed and
replaced with plants propagated from hops that have been growing
on two farms in Maryland for over 100 years. These varieties will be
called Lyon and MH001 for now and will be evaluated with the other
varieties as they mature.

PLANTING: April through early May from transplants.

FERTILITY: All nutrients and soil pH, except for nitrogen, should be
addressed based on soil test results prior to planting. Nitrogen
should be applied the first week after planting, three weeks later
and then three weeks later, at a total of 75 pounds of nitrogen per
acre for the first year hops yard.

WEED CONTROL: Apply glyphosate pre-plant to rows to burn down

all weeds prior to planting. Use burndown product as needed to
control weeds in the row throughout the first season. Avoid
burning hops with drift from burndown products.

(cont. on next page)

(cont. from previous page)

IRRIGATION: Regular and consistent

watering is essential. Plants can grow
ten inches per day and need water
but should not have “wet feet.”
Maintain adequate moisture in the
soil profile but do not allow water to
puddle on the soil surface or for the
soil in the hop yard to have a “muddy”
WEEKLY
texture. Irrigation should be run as
often as four days per week during
hot and dry periods.

TRELLIS: Trellises need to be well

anchored and able to support a
cable 18-feet high to allow the hops
to reach their full potential. Posts
should be 4 feet in the ground
with plants spaced 3 1/2 feet within a
row and 12 feet between rows. Row
spacing in Maryland needs to be
wider than in commercial hops
production of the Pacific Northwest
due to our much more humid climate.
Wider rows facilitate air movement
and help reduce disease. It is
important that your row spacing is
suited to your equipment and that,
when the plants are fully mature,
operations in the hop yard can
continue without damaging the plants.

TRAINING/PRUNING: Use one string per

plant and encourage all the growth of
the plant to climb the string. This will
help the plant establish a strong root
system and may help to produce a
light crop the first season.

PEST CONTROL: Weekly integrated pest

management (IPM) scouting is a
must for successful hops production
in Maryland. Rapid deployment of
control measures can make all the
difference between success and
failure of a new planting. Growers
should be proactive rather than
reactive.
 This consists of walking the rows
observing overall condition of your
plants, looking at vigor, color of
foliage, discoloration or browning of
leaves and presence of insects or
mites. It is important to examine both
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) the upper and lower surfaces of the
leaves with a magnifying glass or

SCOUTING IS A MUST FOR SUCCESSFUL hand lens to see mites or early

infestations of leafhoppers.

HOPS PRODUCTION IN MARYLAND. Major arthropod pests include potato

leafhoppers and spider mite outbreaks.
These pests can show up early in the
growing season. Japanese beetles may
be a pest later in the season and can
be difficult to manage with labelled
products.

The major weeds of concern in the UMD

hop yard are bindweed (Convolvulus
arvensis) and horsenettle (Solanum
carolinense); both of which are
herbaceous perennials, and as a result,
are difficult to control in a perennial
crop such as hops. During late winter/
early spring dormancy, products such
as Scythe and Pendimethalin can be
used. In-season weed control (hops
greater than 6 feet) can be achieved
with applications of Goal, Scythe, Aim,
and Chateau. Label restrictions and
pre-harvest intervals are major
hindrances with weed control in
a hop yard.

Downy mildew (Pseudoperonospora

humuli) is by far the most prevalent and
significant disease of Maryland hops.
This disease thrives in Maryland because
of our hot, humid summers.
The pathogen overwinters inside
dormant buds and will reappear every
year when conditions are conducive
for disease development. Preventative,
scheduled sprays are critical to keep
this disease at bay.
 ESTABLISHE D HOP YARD
MANAGEMENT
OPTIMAL FERTILITY: A total of 200 pounds
of nitrogen per acre, per year, should
be split-applied into four applications
starting the first week of April, followed
by the fourth week of April, third week
of May, and second week of June.
Weed control: Apply Solicam DF +
Scythe to burn down winter annuals
and provide spring preemergent weed
control.

IRRIGATION: Regular and consistent

watering is essential and follows the
same guidelines as establishing a new
hop yard outlined above.

SPRING PRUNING/CROWNING: This can be

done mechanically or with a desiccant
in early May (May 7th). Either way,
the critical objective is to completely
remove all green tissue above the soil
to encourage the plant to push up new
strong bines from the crown.

TRAINING/PRUNING: Two strings per plant,

selecting two or three healthy, strong,
undamaged bines per string.

PEST CONTROL: Weekly IPM scouting

is a must for successful hops
production in Maryland. The same pest
control measures taken to
establish a hops yard outlined above
are crucial to maintain a
successful crop year-to-year.
TABLE 1. EXAMPLE HOPS YARD PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

2019 UMD HOP YARD PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

3/12/19 – PROWL H2O 2QT/A+ SCYTHE 10% SOLUTION AT 150 GPA 6/17/19 – APPLIED BRIGADE WSB (16OZ/A) + PHOSTROL (2.5PT/A)
4/04/19 – RIDOMIL GOLD SL 8OZ/ACRE (.8OZ/10GAL, 5 GAL TREATS 6/26/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5PT/A) +
APROX.50 PLANTS) *USED SIDE BOOM SPRAYER 1.7 MPH, 50 PSI AZAGUARD (16OZ/A) + MPEDE (2% SOLUTION)
5/02/19 – PLANTED NEW HOPS (SEPARATE YARD) 6/26/19 – APPLIED 30LBS. NITROGEN/ACRE
5/07/19 – CROWNED ALL PLANTS 7/02/19 – APPLIED ACRAMITE 50 WS (1.33 LB/A)+
5/08/19 – APPLIED 30LBS. NITROGEN/ACRE RANMAN (2.5OZ/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A)
5/09/19 – STRINGS ON ESTABLISHED PLANTS (2 PER PLANT) 7/03/19 – APPLIED 30LBS. NITROGEN/ACRE
5/15/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL TO ALL HOPS (2.5PT/A) 7/08/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5PT/A) +
MALATHION 5 (16OZ/A) + ZEAL (3OZ/A)
5/23/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5PT/A) +
BRIGADE WSB (16OZ/A) TO ALL HOPS 7/10/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5/T/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A) +
MPEDE (2% SOLUTION) + MILLERS PRO
5/30/19 – APPLIED 30LBS. NITROGEN/ACRE TO 2019 HOPS
7/15/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5/T/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A) +
5/31/19 – APPLIED TANOS (8OZ/A) + CHAMP FORMULA 2 FLOWABLE MILLERS PRO FOLIAR
(1.33PT/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A)
7/22/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5/T/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A)
5/31/19 – TRAINED ESTABLISHED HOPS
7/29/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5/T/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A)
6/06/19 – APPLIED RANMAN (2.5OZ/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A)
8/06/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5/T/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A) +
6/12/19 – APPLIED TANOS (8OZ/A) + MILLERS PRO FOLIAR
CHAMP FORMULA 2 FLOWABLE (1.33PT/A)
8/16/19 – APPLIED PHOSTROL (2.5/T/A) + AZAGUARD (16OZ/A)
6/12/19 – APPLIED 30LBS. NITROGEN/ACRE ON ESTABLISHED HOPS
8/21 – 30/19 – HARVEST
6/17/19 – APPLIED CHATEAU (6OZ/A) + AIM (2OZ/A)

TABLE 2. CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS USED IN THE 2019 HOPS TRIAL

CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS AND RATES - UMD HOP TRIAL

C L ASS T RA D E N A M E ACT I V E I N G R E D I E N T RAT E
SOLICAM DF NORFLURAZON VARIES ON SOIL TEXTURE
HERBICIDES

SCYTHE PELARGONIC ACID 10% SOLUTION AT 150 GPA

AIM EC CARFENTRAZONE 2 OZ/A
CHATEAU SW FLUMIOXAZIN 6 OZ/A
PROWL PENDAMETHALINE
RIDOMIL GOLD SL MEFENOXAM 8 OZ/A
RANMAN 400 SC CYAZOFAMID 2.75 OZ/A
FUNGICIDES

PHOSTROL SODIUM, POTASSIUM AND AMMONIUM PHOSPHITES 2.5 PT/A

TANOS FAMOXIDONE + CYMOXANIL 8 0Z/A
CHAMP FORMULA 2 FLOWABLE COPPER HYDROXIDE 1.33 PT/A
REVUS MANDIPROPAMID 8 OZ/A
OXIDATE 2.0 HYDROGEN DIOXIDE + PEROXYACETIC ACID 32 OZ/100 GAL
BRIGADE 2EC BIFENTHRIN 6.4 OZ/A
INSECTICIDES
& MITICIDES

AZAGUARD AZADIRACHTIN 16 OZ/A

M-PEDE POTASSIUM SALTS 2% SOLUTION
MALATHION 5 MALATHION 1 PT/A
ZEAL WDG ETOXAZOLE 4 OZ/A
ACRAMITE - 50WS BIFENAZATE 1.5 LBS/A
As Wu Tang once pointed out, Cash Rules Everything Around Me, so in
order for hops to be a viable agricultural enterprise in Maryland, hops
production must be profitable. With that in mind, the tables below
outline the costs associated with establishing and maintaining the
UM 1/2-acre hops yard (Table 3 through 6).

TABLE 3. INITIAL START-UP COST FOR A 1/2 ACRE RESEARCH HOP YARD

STA RTUP C O ST OF A 1 / 2 AC R E H OPS YAR D

IT EM COST

HOPS RHIZOMES (PLANTS) $1,300

POLES $4,500
HARDWARE FOR POLES $1,200
LABOR $6,400
HARVESTER $28,000
OAST (FOR DRYING) $2,000
PELLETIZER $5,000
IRRIGATION $1,500
LIQUID NITROGEN COOLING SYSTEM $500
HAMMER MILL $2,000
COOLER/STORAGE $1,000
SEED (TALL FESCUE), FERTILIZER, LIME, CHEMICALS $3,500
TOTA L COST $56,900
TABLE 4. CROP BUDGET FOR MAINTENANCE 2017 GROWING SEASON

2 0 17 SEA SO NAL C OST OF 1 /2 AC R E H OP YA RD

ITEM COST

HERBICIDES $130
FUNGICIDES $550
INSECTICIDES & MITICIDES $300
COCONUT COIR $175
FERTILIZER $120
LABOR $2,400
TOTA L COST $3 ,675

TABLE 5. CROP BUDGET FOR MAINTENANCE 2018 GROWING SEASON

2 0 18 SE A SONAL C OST OF 1 / 2 AC R E H OP YA RD
IT EM COST

HERBICIDES $128
FUNGICIDES $168
INSECTICIDES & MITICIDES $435
COCONUT COIR $350
FERTILIZER $110
LABOR $3,400
TOTA L COST $4 ,591

TABLE 6. CROP BUDGET FOR MAINTENANCE 2019 GROWING SEASONS

2 0 19 SE A SONAL C OST OF 1 / 2 AC R E H OP YA RD
ITEM COST

HERBICIDES $228
FUNGICIDES $153
INSECTICIDES & MITICIDES $695
COCONUT COIR $350
FERTILIZER $110
LABOR $3,840
TOTA L COST $5,376
 2017 - 2 019
MARYL AND HOPS TRIAL PROGRESS REPORT
Because this project is a replicated variety trial, the same hops were studied
in first 3 years. Planted in 2017, these 12 varieties were initially chosen from
discussions with academic and industry experts to determine which hops
local brewers are interested in or are already using:

ALPHAAROMA CHINOOK MT. RANIER SOUTHERN CROSS

2 017

CASECADE CRYSTAL NUGGET TAHOMA

CENTENNIAL MT. HOOD SORACHI ACE ULTRA

As those discussions extended to farmers who were already growing hops

in Maryland, it became clear that there were more varieties with potential for
success in this region. The remaining 12 varieties were chosen based on both
agricultural and market potential:

AMALLIA GLACIER NEWPORT VOJVODINA

2018

CANADIAN RED VINE MULTIHEAD SOUTHERN BREWER WILLAMETTE

GALENA NEO 1 TEAMAKER VF ZEUS
In year four, we once again adjusted the varieties of hops studied, taking into
account further input from local brewers as to market viability and
overall quality. THESE VARIETIES INCLUDED:

ALPHAROMA CHINOOK MT. RANIER SOUTHERN CROSS

CASCADE CRYSTAL NUGGET TAHOMA
CENTENNIAL MT. HOOD SORACHI ACE ULTRA
2019

AMALLIA GLACIER NEWPORT VOJVODINA

CANADIAN RED VINE SOUTHERN BREWER WILLAMETTE MH001
GALENA TEAMAKER VF ZEUS LYON

Each variety was planted in a block of six plants and replicated three times
on a 1/2-acre plot. Plants were spaced widely with 3 1/2 feet between plants
and 10 feet between varieties to maximize airflow, a priority in Maryland’s
humid climate. Data was collected on fertility and irrigation; disease, insect
and pest management; harvest timing; levels of acid and oils in the hops;
and any other unique aspects of the hop’s profile. The lowest-performing
varieties, Neo 1 (with no yield) and Multihead (low plant survival) were
removed at the end of 2019 and replaced with two prospective
local, heirloom varieties.
 2 019
PL AN TING AND GROWING SEASON
AS YOU WILL READ, THIS SEASON BROUGHT UNIQUE CHALLENGES TO THE HOP
YARD AS WE BATTLED UNEXPECTED WEATHER, INSECT INFESTATIONS, AND
ACCIDENTAL INTERFERENCE FROM A NEIGHBORING FARM.
Observations of weather conditions in the hops yard began late December, 2018.
We saw extreme cold from late December through mid-January with no snow
cover and little moisture, which may have contributed to the loss of several
Multihead plants. 2019 began with continued excessive moisture, February
through April were above average for both temperature and moisture. We
saw heavy rain until mid-May that resulted in downy mildew development,
and a limited opportunity to apply a fungicide. Phostrol was applied, but it did
not have adequate conditions or time to dry. These conditions certainly
contributed to the poor growth of certain varieties, namely Southern Cross,
Southern Brewer, Amelia, Zeus were particularly hard hit and did not seem to
be able to shake off the “hangover” from the extremely wet 2019 season. At
the end of May as the weather began to dry out and seem to follow more of a
typical summer season, there was a heavy infestation of leafhoppers, which
blow in every year from the south. It depends on the weather patterns, but
once they arrive, the population increases very quickly. They reduce the plant’s
ability to photosynthesize and need to be managed quickly with an insecticide.
That infestation was followed by another round of heavy rain at the beginning
of June with a subsequent round of downy mildew.
From late June through mid-August, there was an abundance of Japanese
beetles, attempts to manage the very high populations with insecticide
applications encountered in the 2019 season were futile. The products available
to us were not sufficient to prevent almost total defoliation of the top 10 to 20
percent of the bines. It should be noted that there are very few labeled crop
protection products specifically for hops, making it difficult to find the right
mix of products, but not impossible in most growing seasons.

The first three weeks of July were extremely hot and dry, causing a two-spotted
spider mite outbreak, which required a heavy application of miticide to control.
Theses looming populations of mites further inhibited our insecticide options for
Japanese beetle control because we wanted to try to preserve as many beneficial
mite predators as we could.

It was as we found ourselves in the throes of

fighting mites and Japanese Beetles that the
most devastating situation arose which I
could not control with any level of
management. A herbicide application was
made to a nearby soybean field and the
product applied drifted into the fast growing
hop bines. The effect was almost immediate
with the bines turning an almost florescent
pale green and growth shut down entirely.
Cone that had form quickly began to dry
down but there was no Lupuline inside. Over
the next two weeks that great majority of those cone turned brown and fell apart.

After evaluation and an attempt to harvest some of the varieties the decision
was made to wait and see if the bines could recover enough to produce a second
crop. 21 out of 24 varieties did make new cone on reduced sized bines. The cones
were very small yet many appeared to have a great deal of Lupuline in them.
Yields were very low and sensory evaluation of the crops has shown. The take
home message is that this crop is extremely sensitive at certain times to
broadleaf herbicides that can drift from their target application site.

GOOD ADVICE
IF YOU ARE GROWING OR PLAN TO GROW HOPS, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU REGISTER YOUR FIELDS
WITH THE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S PESTICIDE REGULATION
SECTION’S FIELDWATCH, AN ONLINE REGISTRY THAT CONNECTS BEEKEEPERS, SPECIALTY CROP
GROWERS, AND PESTICIDE APPLICATORS AROUND THE STATE. THIS REGISTRY USES PRECISION
MAPPING TOOLS TO HELP COMMERCIAL APPLICATORS KNOW WHERE BEEHIVES AND SPECIALTY
CROPS ARE LOCATED, THUS SHOWING WHICH AREAS ARE MORE SENSITIVE TO PESTICIDES.

AS IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS THAT INTENSIVE CARE IS PARAMOUNT
FROM THE THIRD OR FOURTH WEEK OF JUNE TO EARLY AUGUST, WHICH IS A SMALL WINDOW
FOR A PERENNIAL PLANT, IN ORDER FOR THESE PLANTS TO THRIVE. IN THE CASE OF 2019 A
WHOLE YEAR’S WORK WAS RUINED ON ONE HOT HUMID DAY IN EARLY JULY.
 HORTICULTURAL
PRACTICES
SOIL PREPARATION: The soil was
prepared the previous fall, limed,
with phosphorus and potassium
added for levels optimum for corn
production in Maryland.
FLOOR MANAGEMENT: Planted rows
are maintained as 42-inch-wide
bare ground with 12½-foot alleys in
between rows. Alleys were planted
with tall fescue, which suppresses
weeds and mitigate erosion while
allowing equipment use despite
Maryland’s frequent heavy rains.

FERTILITY: Nitrogen was applied as

six banded applications of
sulfur-coated urea for a target
of 200 pounds per acre per
growing season.

STRINGING: Wires were run parallel

to the posts to maximize airflow.
One and two-year-old plants were
strung with two bines per string.
Three-year-old plants were strung
with two bines on two strings in a
“V” arrangement.

CROWNING: In 2017, plants reached

the top wire long before the
optimal date of June 21,
indicating that final crowning
was too early. In 2018, the final
crowning was delayed until May 7
and yields improved dramatically,
even in the younger plantings. 2019
date was May 7th . To look at this
more closely six varieties have been
selected and planted in an adjacent
yard to experiment with timing of
crowning and its effect on yield.
NOTES
This project is not only about growing excellent hops in sufficient quantities; they
must be useful to craft brewers in Maryland, so it is also about demonstrating
scalable technologies to provide a high-quality product in a useable form to
brewers. This meant harvest and post-harvest handling had to be an integral
component of this experiment.

Timely harvest is critical and needs to be performed consistently and within a

narrow window of time to ensure maximum quality and comparison of varieties.
To facilitate this, Flying Dog’s investment in the partnership included joint funding
of a mobile harvester. The harvester ensured that each variety was harvested in
a timely and consistent fashion, and ensured the data collected on each variety
regarding yield was (and will continue to be) consistent (Figure 1).

The cones were harvested at 25 ± 4% dry matter, and in 2019, all 24 varieties
were harvested within a 12-day period. Harvest of the 24 varieties stretched
from August 12 through August 24.

FIGURE 1. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND HOP YARD YIELD 2016-2019 GROWING SEASONS

1,500 CALCULATED DRY WEIGHTS FOR 1,000 BINES

20 1 6/ 20 1 7 / 20 1 8/ 20 1 9 Y I E LD S I N P O U ND S

1,000

500

0
S

CE

NE

US

RT

TE

1
L

AL

ER

ER

R
MA

MA

NA

LIA
K
ET

O
TA
OS

AD

IE

IE
OO

OO

EA
TR

IN

ET
GG

IA

PO
ZE

EW

AK
NI

VI

NE
LE
AN

AC

AL
HO

RO

OD
YS

UL
CR

SC

IH
EN
IN

.H

AM
CH

GA

W
AM
NU

AM
GL
BR
CR

.R
AA

LT
TA

JV
CH

RE
CA

MT
RN

NT

NE
RA

ILL
MT

MU
TE
VO
PH

RN
AN
HE

CE

SO

W
AL

HE
DI
UT

NA

UT
SO

SO
CA

ONE ACRE OF HOPS IS EQUIVALENT TO 1000 BINES.

Compared to 2017’s harvest, which stretched from July 29 to September 8, the

2018 harvest was very quick. Most days we had to wait for the plants and ground
to dry, so harvest wouldn’t start until early afternoon. Then, it was essential to
get the cones into the dryer quickly because the moisture and humidity during
the season was so high. 2019’s harvest was delayed about two weeks and lasted
just one week. This year, we used a dehumidifier inside of the dryer to get the
moisture out of the hops as fast as possible (reducing moisture content from
about 80% down to 8% in less than 24 hours).
 T HE REAL AND FI NAL TOTALS FO R 2 01 9
VOJVODINA - 2.14KG (4.72LBS) 262 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
CHINOOK - 1.48KG (3.26LBS) 192 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
WILLAMETTE - .72KG (1.59LBS) 106 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
NEWPORT - .525KG (1.16LBS) 64 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
CENTENNIAL - .42KG (.93LBS) 58 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
GALENA - .805KG (1.77LBS) 99 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
SORACHI ACE - .765KG (1.69LBS) 121 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
ZEUS - 2.47KG (5.45LBS) 302 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
CRYSTAL - 2.105KG (4.64LBS) 258 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
CASCADE - 3.575KG (7.88LBS) 437 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
TAHOMA - .935KG (2.06LB) 250 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
ALPHAROMA - 1.81KG (3.99LB) 222 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
ULTRA - .675KG (1.49LB) 83 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
MT.HOOD - 2.065KG (4.55LB) 252 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
AMALIA - .315KG (.70LB) 38 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
SOUTHERN CROSS - 1.065KG (2.35LB) 135 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
NUGGET - 2.645KG (5.83LB) 325 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
COMET - .395KG (.87LB) 49 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
GLACIER - 1.18KG (2.60LB) 145 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
CANADIAN RED VINE - 2.945KG (6.49LB) 367 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
LYON - .48KB (1.06LB) 255 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
MT.RANIER - 1.2KG (2.65LB) 176 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
SOUTHERN BREWER - 1.19KG (2.62LB) 146 POUNDS/ 1000 PLANTS
TEAMAKER 0

NOTE: in 2019, everything was harvested with

TOTAL: 70.35 LBS the exception of Teamaker and MH001
 PROCESSING
As in 2017, the hops were processed on-site at the research facility after harvest.
The hop cones were placed in the oast immediately following harvest and dried
within 24 hours to 8% moisture. They were placed in sealed bags and frozen in
a freezer until they could be ground up in the hammer mill and then run directly
into the pelletizer. The pellets were not heated above 110°F during pelletization,
which required close attention. Once pelletized, they were placed in
vacuum-sealed bags and frozen.

Most of the same processing techniques were used in 2018 and 2019 to
maintain best practices for processing hops and to minimize the number of
variables in this project. Because the hops needed to be harvested in a shorter
timeframe in 2018, they were vacuum-packed and stored in a freezer once they
were dried. This kept them stable in between processing runs while we finished
the harvest. Processing the hops cold also improved efficiency, an unexpected
discovery out of necessity.
 DUE TO HIGH COST OF HOPS CHEMICAL ANALYSIS THIS YEAR, WE
ARE FOCUSING OUR FUNDS ON YIELD AND BREWING DATA.
Immediately after processing, Flying Dog received the hops from the 2019
harvest. To best replicate how a brewer would use the hops in the typical
brewing process (without brewing an individual beer with each), Flying Dog
executed a dry-hopping process, adding the hops to a light lager set to
the same temperature as a dry hop. From there, Flying Dog’s trained
sensory team did an aroma evaluation of the pelletized hops. Each
evaluation was performed blind and panelists selected the top two hops
out of five groups. Not only did the team evaluate aroma notes,
they also noted the intensity of the aroma (Table 5).
 HOPS CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Flying Dog’s final analysis of each hop combines the aroma and dry hop
evaluations, with the dry hop evaluation weighted heavier because it a
better indication of how the hops will perform in a beer.

TABLE 5. SENSORY ANALYSIS DATA FOR 2017-2019 HOPS VARIETY TRIALS

HOPS SENSORY ANALYSIS, 2017 VS 2018 VS 2019

2017
VARIETY DESCRIPTION
VOJVODINA GRASS, MELON
SOUTHERN CROSS FRUIT PUNCH
SOUTHERN BREWER TANGERINE, RESIN
GLACIER PINE, RESIN
MT. HOOD FRUIT, HERB
NEWPORT PINEAPPLE, GREEN APPLE

2018
VARIETY DESCRIPTION
VOJVODINA TROPICAL, CITRUS
SOUTHERN CROSS CITRUS, FRUIT
SOUTHERN BREWER CITRUS, MELON, RESIN
GLACIER PINE, FRUIT, SPICE
SORACHI ACE CITRUS, LEMON, SPICE
AMALLIA FRUIT, EARTH, BERRY
CANADIAN RED VINE ONION, GARLIC, HERB

2019
VARIETY DESCRIPTION
CRYSTAL FRUIT PUNCH, TROPICAL
GLACIER FRUITY, GREEN, CITRUS
VOJVODINA FRUITY, PINK BUBBLEGUM, SPICE
MT. HOOD DANK, POINE, CITRUS, FRUITY
LYON PEACHES, STONE FRUIT, WAXY (THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WE HAVE EVALUATED THIS VARIETY)
SOUTHERN CROSS FRUITY, TROPICAL
 CRYSTAL
CITRUS

DANK/CATTY TROPICAL

ONION/GARLIC FRUITY

EARTHLY/WOODY APPLE/PEAR

GRASSY MELON

RESINOUS BERRY

PINE FLORAL

SPICY/HERBAL

GLACIER
CITRUS

DANK/CATTY TROPICAL

ONION/GARLIC FRUITY

EARTHLY/WOODY APPLE/PEAR

GRASSY MELON

RESINOUS BERRY

PINE FLORAL

SPICY/HERBAL
When evaluations were completed, Flying Dog mapped out
the top performing hop profiles on spider sensory maps
to compare profiles from previous harvests.

VOJVODINA
CITRUS

DANK/CATTY TROPICAL

ONION/GARLIC FRUITY

EARTHLY/WOODY APPLE/PEAR

GRASSY MELON

RESINOUS BERRY

PINE FLORAL

SPICY/HERBAL

MT. HOOD
CITRUS

DANK/CATTY TROPICAL

ONION/GARLIC FRUITY

EARTHLY/WOODY APPLE/PEAR

GRASSY MELON

RESINOUS BERRY

PINE FLORAL

SPICY/HERBAL
 LYON
CITRUS

DANK/CATTY TROPICAL

ONION/GARLIC FRUITY

EARTHLY/WOODY APPLE/PEAR

GRASSY MELON

RESINOUS BERRY

PINE FLORAL

SPICY/HERBAL

SOUTHERN CROSS
CITRUS

DANK/CATTY TROPICAL

ONION/GARLIC FRUITY

EARTHLY/WOODY APPLE/PEAR

GRASSY MELON

RESINOUS BERRY

PINE FLORAL

SPICY/HERBAL
 2019 HARVEST

• CRYSTAL - This year’s crop was bigger and juicier than past yield,
comprised of fruit punch and tropical notes.

• GLACIER - This year performed well despite not featuring the piney resin
profile of past crops, instead featuring huge fruit notes with hints
of green and citrus.

• VOJVODINA - Past years highlighted floral, melon and topical fruit, while 2019
introduced notes of pink Bubblegum and spice

• MT. HOOD - This varietal performed well this year, highlighting dank notes of
pine, citrus, and juicy fruit.

• LYON - This was the first year we evaluated this varietal, and we were pleased
to discover peaches and stone fruit notes with a tinge of waxiness.

• SOUTHERN CROSS - While last year’s crop had a citrus forward profile, this year’s
yield was more tropical fruit forward.

In comparison, the top hops from the 2018 harvest were Vojvodina, Glacier,
Southern Brewer and Southern Cross, Amallia, Canadian Red Vine and
Sorachi Ace. In 2019, Southern Cross, Glacier, and Vojvodina remained on the
top performer list, while the rest were outperformed by Lyon, Mt. Hood, and
Crystal varieties. The profile differences over 3 years show how drastically
some hop varieties can change as they reach maturity.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Flying Dog Brewery, particularly
Ben Clark and Ben Savage, for their generous support
and collaboration on this project, as well as Doug Price,
Ryan McDonald, Lexi Simmons, Kenny Frey and
Frank Allnutt at the University of Maryland Western
Maryland Research and Education Center.
NOTES
NOTES
AGNR.UMD.EDU I FLYINGDOG.COM