## 2 Results and Discussion
### Hop Cone Analysis
#### 2.3.1 GC-MS Hop Oil Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Terpenes** & **C** & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** & **T4** & **RI _Calc_* \\ \hline \(\alpha\)-pinene & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 1028 \\ \(\beta\)-pinene & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.22 b & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 1.9 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.20 ab & 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 1039 \\ \(\beta\)-Myrcene & 47.3 \(\pm\) 3.01 b & 58.5 \(\pm\) 1.73 a & 57.9 \(\pm\) 1.36 ab & 57.4 \(\pm\) 1.39 ab & 56.5 \(\pm\) 1.10 ab & 1173 \\ Limonene & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 1.2 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 12 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 1.2 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 1185 \\ \(\beta\)-Linaolol & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.19 a & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 1544 \\ \(\beta\)-Caryophyllene & 6.5 \(\pm\) 1.08 a & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.60 ab & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.10 b & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.24 ab & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.60 ab & 1577 \\ trans-Bergamotene & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.14 a & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 1581 \\ trans-\(\beta\)- Farnesene & 6.3 \(\pm\) 0.60 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.63 a & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.41 a & 4.7 \(\pm\) 0.14 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.23 a & 1645 \\ \(\alpha\)-Humulene & 15.2 \(\pm\) 2.25 a & 9.6 \(\pm\) 0.96 ab & 9.0 \(\pm\) 0.57 b & 10.0 \(\pm\) 1.08 ab & 11.6 \(\pm\) 2.06 ab & 1658 \\ Muurolene & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.13 a & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.29 a & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.04 ab & 1684 \\ Methyl germanate & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.20 a & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 1688 \\ \(\beta\)-Selinene & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.21 a & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.79 ab & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.03 ab & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.08 ab & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.06 b & 1714 \\ \(\alpha\)-Selinene & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.11 a & 2.6 \(\pm\) 1.13 ab & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.05 ab & 1718 \\ \(\tau\)-Cadinene & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.11 a & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.61 a & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 1755 \\ \(\delta\)-Cadinene & 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.22 a & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.38 a & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 1763 \\ trans-1,4-Cadina diene & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.5 \(\pm\) 0.62 a & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 1769 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
* RI calc = calculated retention index, in accordance with the literature [24; 25]. C = control treatment; T1 = Treatment 1; T2 = Treatment 2; T3 = Treatment 3; T4 = Treatment 4.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Relative % abundance of hop sample terpenes. Means \(\pm\) standard deviation of the percentage of total sum area of the integrated terpen peak area (\(\mathrm{A_{S}}\)) compared to the area of the internal standard (\(\mathrm{A_{IS}}\)). Different letters indicate significant differences using [PERSON] and [PERSON]’s post hoc tests, with a cut-off significance of \(p<0.05\). post was used (compared to treatments using NPK and no fertiliser), with the alteration in sesquiterpene biosynthesis being related to the up- or downregulation of the genes involved in the promotion or inhibition of important enzymes.