## 3 Materials and Methods  
### Experimental Design and Hop Cone Sampling  
The experiment was carried out during the 2018/2019 season at the \"Azienda Agricola Ludovico Lucchi\", located in Campogalliano (MO-IT) (44.704140 N, 10.841347 E). Meteorological data are reported in the Supplementary Materials, Figure S2. In the hop field, plants were spaced 1.2 m from each other along the row, with the rows being 3 m apart. Hop plants were grown on a loamy clay soil, with 1.04% of gravel, coarse sand and fine sand (1 and 12.9%), coarse slit and fine slit (15 and 35%), and 36% of clay. The physical and chemical proprieties of the soil are reported in Table 6. In winter, 30 t\(\cdot\)ha\({}^{-1}\) of cow manure was supplied to the soil. The experimental design and the first results of the experiment regarding physiological measurements have already been published [22]. During the growing season, four organic fertiliser mixtures, based principally on marine algae, amino acids and microelements (T1, T2, T3 and T4) (Table S1), which had been kindly provided by Caprara S.r.l., were tested on the same cultivar (Cascade). Each treatment, consisting of different nutrient mixtures (Table 1, Table S1), was applied utilising an atomiser machine (foliar treatments). The experiment involved two periods where foliar treatment was carried out: the first period (t1) took place between the emission of lateral shoots and the start of blooming; the second period (t2) took place between 50% blooming and the end of blooming. For each period, three foliar treatments, one per week, were applied. The amounts of macro- and microelements applied to the hop plants are indicated in Table 1. Non-treated plants were also considered, representing the control. For each treatment, 3 independent replicates were used, with each replicate consisting of 150 plants. Each treatment was separated from the next by 5 rows of untreated plants.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Hedonic Score for Beer Samples** & & & \\ \hline
**Sensory Attribute** & **BC** & **BT1** & **BT2** & **BT3** & **BT4** \\ \hline Appearance & 5.6 \(\pm\) 1.5 a & 5.8 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 5.7 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 5.7 \(\pm\) 1.1 a & 5.8 \(\pm\) 1.3 a \\ Odour & 6.1 \(\pm\) 1.2 b & 6.0 \(\pm\) 1.3 b & 5.1 \(\pm\) 1.3 ab & 5.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 ab & 5.2 \(\pm\) 1.0 a \\ Flavour/aroma & 5.7 \(\pm\) 1.3 b & 5.8 \(\pm\) 1.3 b & 5.1 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 5.3 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 5.1 \(\pm\) 1.3 a \\ Taste & 5.3 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 5.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 5.3 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 5.2 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 5.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 a \\ Overall Acceptability & 6.0 \(\pm\) 1.2 a & 6.1 \(\pm\) 0.9 a & 5.7 \(\pm\) 1.1 a & 5.8 \(\pm\) 1.4 a & 5.8 \(\pm\) 1.3 a \\ \hline
**Preference +** & 166 & 164 & 174 & 174 & 172 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} + Lower ranking denotes greater preference by respondents.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Mean hedonic scores of sensory attributes of appearance, aroma, flavour and overall acceptability are tabulated. Values are arithmetic means \(\pm\) standard deviation (N = 52 consumers, who evaluated beers in a structured nine-point hedonic scale). Different letters indicate significant (\(p<0.05\)) differences according to [PERSON]’s LSD test.