4 BULLETIN 282, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
As far as physical valuation indicates, the sulphured hops in cold 
storage deteriorated at a slower rate than the unsulphured hops, and 
the same is true for the samples placed in open storage. At the end 
of one year of storage very little physical difference could be noticed 
in the cold-storage hops other than that the color had darkened in 
both the sulphured and unsulphured samples, more especially in the 
latter. The samples in open storage at the end of one year had each 
developed a strawlike odor and had become dull in color. The 
lupulin of both the sulphured and unsulphured hops had begun to 
lose its brightness and its sticky feeling. 
At the end of the second year of storage a most decided change had 
taken place in all the samples. The sulphured hops in cold storage 
had developed a strawlike flavor and a dry feeling and the bright 
color had disappeared. The unsulphured samples had developed a 
musty odor and an extremely dry feeling, and the characteristic 
ereenish yellow color had disappeared. The unsulphured hops had 
deteriorated more rapidly than the corresponding sulphured hops. 
So far as the physical valuation indicated, the hops in open storage 
had deteriorated to a much greater degree than the hops in cold 
storage. The unsulphured samples in open storage had become very 
_ musty in odor and very dark in color, in addition to losing their 
crisp and sticky feeling. 
At the close of three years of storage the samples had lost all traces 
of hop flavor and had developed a musty, strawlike odor. A slight 
stickiness could still be detected in the sulphured hops in cold storage. 
The hop cones in the cold-storage samples had fallen apart to some 
extent, whereas those in the open storage samples had completely 
fallen apart. The lupulin in all the samples was much discolored. 
MOISTURE CONTENT AND CHANGES IN THE PROPORTION OF SOFT 
AND HARD RESINS. 
At the time the hops were received in Washington a sample each of 
the sulphured and unsulphured hops was analyzed and the results 
thus obtained were used as the basis for comparing the analyses which 
were made of the various samples during each year of storage. 
MOISTURE CONTENT. 
For the determination of the moisture content 12 grams of hops 
were taken from each of the samples under investigation, dried over 
sulphuric acid until of constant weight, and the loss in weight 
returned as moisture. The moisture content of the original hops and 
of the hops in both cold and open storage for the several years is 
given in Table I. 
