Jump to content

Talk:Humulus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Noble or Aromatic?

[edit]

Fuggles and Goldings are certainly aromatic hops, but I would not have called them noble hops. Am I wrong in thinking that term applies largely to the classic continental varieties like Saaz and Hallertauer? BrendanH 14:33, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • I believe that I abstracted that list from the 'Brew Chem 101' book. My guess is they used some sort of humulene to cohumulone ratio to make the cut. This might not match the selection process others would use. I'm personally no expert in this, so I have no objection if you change the list to reflect your knowledge of noble hops. Thanks. Brian Rock 17:31, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Regulated

[edit]

By "regulated", does that mean it's illegal for any ol' [American] consumer to buy, own, and grow hop? What does it take? How is the fruit and is it safe? lysdexia 23:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is regulated. I have easily purchased hop rhizomes from my brewery supply shop in California. A friend purchased it via mail. Grafting marijuana onto the roots of hops will not disguise the marijuana. Grafting hops onto marijuana roots will produce hops, not marijuana, so the disguise is useless. Unless someone can provide a reference for some area where growing hops is regulated, I will remove the paragraph.Nereocystis 23:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Harvest section

[edit]

The "Harvest" section was ripped off from The Mirror (source Project Gutenberg). This is not a copyright problem as this issue was August 25, 1827 so it is public domain, however all the same it should be cited. Also that whole section is quaint and rather dated, as hops hasn't been picked by "women and children" for quite some time, etc. NTK 04:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at copyediting everything, but my feeling is also that the whole "from the Household Cyclopedia" section can go -- it brings no new information to the article. If no-one objects, I'll remove it -- the info is always accessible from the page history. Dewet 18:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dewet - didn't see your note until just after my edit; I removed a couple of particularly awfully worded archaic bits and nearly chucked the rest but didn't quite have the courage. I agree with you, it doesn't add anything, so removal would be a good idea - MPF 16:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question

[edit]

Do hop bines grow counter-clockwise in Australia? --Daniel11 10:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not. Growth directions in plants are genetically determined, and not influenced by centrifugal force. wkr, Paunaaro.

Error about flavour of hops to beer?

[edit]

Well, look at the beer section. hops produces resins made up of 2 acids... and it is gonna give a bitter taste to the beer? Search for "alkaline" and "acid" and they will tell you that acids are sour while alkalines are bitter. Please check and correct the page pls!

Hi What they are talking about are the alpha acids which are organic compounds that give a bitter flavour to the beer

- the flavour is definitely bitter

- the compounds are definitely called hop alha acids

The reason for the naming of the compounds - we would need to get someone with extensive organic chemistry to answer this point.

Andbrew.downes (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Someone appears to have tampered with the destinations of the links in the biological-classification box near the top of the article: for example "Cannabaceae" goes to the topic of "stability". Perhaps someone who actually knows what he's doing here can fix them.f

Wild hop habit?

[edit]

Can anyone tell how the hop plant grows in natural habitats, e. g., woods? Does it develop twines on the ground? Thx, wkr, Paunaaro

old hops image. help is needed?

[edit]

can someone please explain what part is what on the hops diagram from the 19th century. (on the previous page) i would know but the book its from is in latain and i can't read it. can someone who knows there hops plant help please?

Different articles for genus/species

[edit]

Could someone help with moving the relevant parts of content from here to the new species article Humulus lupulus? This page here, "Hop (plant)", could also be moved to "Humulus" or to "Hop (genus)" to clarify the article's scope, IMO. The history and uses specific stuff is only related to the Common hop, not to all species of Humulus. These parts also need some review/rewriting afaics, so this could be a good reason now :-) --:Bdk: 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Much of the material in the section on cultivation appears to be copied verbatim from this source. Although the source is old enough to be public domain, it would be better to cite it appropriately. Unfortunately I don't have time now to work out the exact citation of the original (as opposed to the website I linked above). -- The Photon 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge article with "Hops"?

[edit]

I find it odd that the use of hops in brewing is the subject of a separate page. There is a great overlap between the articles and the duplication may lead to confusion. I suggest that use of hops in brewing should be a section within this article. Does anyone have any comments, or suggestions why this should not happen? Thanks for your consideration of this suggestion. Weydonian (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No merge. I don't agree. Merging them would make a very unwieldy and difficult-to-read single article. While there is some repetition of Hops material in Hop (plant), the way to deal with this (if really necessary) is to edit out repetition, not to merge. Hops are a product from the hop plant, in the same way as flour is a product from wheat, beef a product from cattle or come to that writing a product from ink – this is not enough to merge them. As long as each article makes its relationship with the other clear and does no more than summarise the other, at present I can see no reason to muddle them up. --Richard New Forest (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging would make a rather large single article and that the two shouldn't be merged, perhaps the relationship between the two articles could be made more clear. If they remain separate articles and the Hops article is only about the use of hops in brewing, it should be renamed "Hops (brewing)" or "Hops (flower)" and Hop (plant) should be considered the main article. Matt (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Humulus lupulus. Between this article, Hops and Humulus lupulus we have one too many articles. One article (Hops) should discuss the use in beer. Another should discuss the biology, etc. More of this article seems to fit in the biology article than the use-in-beer article. There doesn't presently seem to be any material here to support a third article (someone suggested that Hops (plant) should discuss the characteristics of the humulus genus. That's okay, but so far I don't see any material. If there were, the article should probably be Humulus instead of Hop (plant).) --The Photon (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both the previous two comments – I must admit I had not realised that Hop (plant) was already covering the whole Humulus genus not just Humulus lupulus. I agree that most of the information currently in Hop (plant) really belongs in the article for H lupulus. What I think we need is:
  • Hops as at present, covering the product and the varieties. I think in this case there is no need for an epithet such as "(brewing)", as the "s" already distinguishes it (it would of course have a dab-link as at present).
  • Humulus lupulus, including botanical information about the species.
  • Humulus is the proper title for an article about all the Humulus species – however, I think that what we have could safely be covered within Cannabaceae, so I agree there is no need for such an article (yet).
Which article is best for the cultivation of H lupulus? --Richard New Forest (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have opened a can of worms, but I'm pleased there is some agreement of the need for rationalisation. Unfortunately, it's become a bit complex for me, as I'm just a user of hops (mmmm!) and do not have the botanical expertise to conduct this merge. Hopefully some of you can come to an agreement about a way forward. Thanks very much for your constructive opinions. Weydonian (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
I've been looking at WP:NC (flora), which seems to be quite definite about this situation. It says that the product should have an article under that name, the species under its scientific name, and of course the genus gets its own article. I have therefore divided the information as follows:
  • Humulus (formerly Hop (plant)). Information covering all species. Cultivation, history etc information (all relevant only to one species) moved to Hops.
  • Humulus lupulus. Botanical information.
  • Hops. History, uses, cultivation etc. Incorporate information from Hop (plant). Now some duplication.
I hope this all looks OK... Richard New Forest (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, can't move Hop (plant), as there is an existing redirect from Humulus. This page tagged, and request made on WP:Requested moves.
All done by admin – thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is a page on hop diseases that was pointed out to me by User:Million_Moments this should surely be linked to this page. I will look at finding out more on hop agronomy and add a section on modern commercial hop farming.
Andbrew.downes (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humulus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humulus&oldid=1202621094"