Author: Matt Del Fiacco

Whether a homebrewer entering their beer in a competition or a professional brewer distributing their product to market, flavor stability has long been a challenge faced by both. When it comes to beer staling, the most commonly cited culprit is oxidation, the reduction of which has led to the development of sophisticated mechanical solutions involving the packaging and shipping process.

BrewTan B is a chelating agent said to improve flavor stability over time due to its ability to inhibit Fenton reactions that lead to oxidation in beer. Our initial xBmt on this product was completed back in February 2018 and showed that participants could reliably distinguish a beer made with BrewTan B from one made without it, despite the beers being relatively fresh.

Given claims that the use of BrewTan B improves shelf stability, I was curious how the beers would fare after a bit of time and disconnected them for a period of aging. After 6 months, the beers were put back on tap and ready for another round of tasters!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a Pale Ale treated with Brewtan B during both the mash and the boil and one that was untreated after 6 months of aging.

| METHODS |

Seeing as hoppier styles tend to lose their freshness fairly quickly, and having recently brewed more malt-forward beers, I went with a classic American Pale Ale for this xBmt.

Chillax Pale Ale

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 4.5 gal 60 min 36.1 IBUs 5.2 SRM 1.048 1.013 4.6 % Actuals 1.048 1.013 4.6 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Malt (Weyermann) 8 lbs 96.24 Munich I (Weyermann) 5 oz 3.76 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Caliente 4 g 60 min Boil Pellet 16.8 Caliente 9 g 20 min Boil Pellet 16.8 Caliente 22 g 5 min Boil Pellet 16.8 Caliente 75 g 3 days Dry Hop Pellet 16.8 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Flagship (A07) Imperial Yeast 75% 60°F - 72°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 80 | Mg 2 | Na 10 | SO4 125 | Cl 62

Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

A few days before brew day, I spun up a starter of Imperial Yeast A07 Flagship, a strain not particularly known for high flocculation.

I kicked off my brew day by gathering my water and turning the temperature controllers on my systems on to heat the liquor.

I adjusted the water profile of both batches then weighed out and milled the grain.

I mashed in the standard batch before focusing on the BrewTan B batch. There’s some variance on the recommended amount of BrewTan B, but for the purposes of the xBmt, I thought it best to stick with middle range of the manufacturer recommendation. After measuring it out, I dissolved the BrewTan B in some water and added it to the strike water.

When the BrewTan B was fully incorporated, I mashed in. Both mashes were continuously recirculated and they were held at the same temperature.

I noticed the foam produced by the agitation from recirculation was more stable on in the BrewTan B mash.

After each 60 minute mash, I removed the grains and began heating the worts, measuring out the hops for both batches while waiting to reach a boil.

Since BrewTan B is said to improve beer clarity, I left out my usual addition of Whilflocc during the 60 minute boil. With 5 minutes left in the boil, I dissolved another 1 gram of BrewTan B in water then added to its respective wort. It seemed the foam on the BrewTan B batch had a subtle pink shade to it, unlike the standard wort.

Once each boil was complete, I quickly chilled the wort with my CFC, collecting identical amounts of chilled wort from either batch in glass carboys.

I noticed the trub in the bottom of either kettle look quite different, almost as if the BrewTan B encouraged more break formation.

Hydrometer measurements showed the BrewTan B wort was slightly higher than the standard wort.

I let the worts sit in my chamber until they cooled to my target pitching temperature of 64°F/18°C before pitching the yeast. Signs of activity were observed just 7 hours later.

The beers fermented for a week before I added the dry hop additions, after which I left them alone for another 3 days before cold crashing. Hydrometer measurements at this time confirmed both beers had reached the same FG.

When it came time to keg, I noticed the standard beer had a touch more trub than the BrewTan B beer, which had a slightly lighter colored kräusen ring.

I transferred each batch to sanitized and CO2 purged kegs.

The beers were placed in my kegerator and burst carbonated. Curiously, even after a week in the cool environment, both beers maintained a noticeable haze.

Following the first round of data collection, I disconnect the kegs from gas and let them sit for a period of aging.

After 6 months, both kegs were put back on tap in preparation for a second round of data collection. While both beers were slightly clearer than before, and the BrewTan B one a bit more so than the untreated version, neither had dropped bright.

| RESULTS |

Huge thanks to the Plainfield Ale and Lager Enthusiasts for allowing me to collect data for this xBmt at a recent club meeting! A total of 21 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of the BrewTan B beer and 1 sample of the standard beer in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the sample that was unique. At this sample size, 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to select the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, though only 8 people were correct (p=0.40), indicating participants were unable to reliably distinguish a Pale Ale treated with BrewTan B in both the mash and the boil from one that was untreated after 6 months of aging.

My Impressions: My performance on multiple triangle tests was similar to the first round– I couldn’t distinguish the odd beer out at all. I perceived the beers as being identical in all respects and thought both tasted stale.

| DISCUSSION |

BrewTan B is said to have an impact on two main things– shelf-stability and clarity. While tasters were able to reliably tell the beers apart in the initial xBmt, neither ever dropped clear, something I thought might best be explained by the fact they were still rather fresh. Curiously, after 6 months of aging, the beers were still noticeably hazy. I’m not entirely sure what the culprit is, as neither beer showed any signs of contamination and I brewed them using my standard process. Regardless, participants don’t rely on appearance when doing the triangle test, but aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel.

Given the significant results of the original xBmt, I fully expected the differences between these beers to become even more pronounced over time. However, tasters could not reliably distinguish the beer made with BrewTan B from the one made without it, a finding that suggests both were impacted equally by time in such a way that any initial differences were erased. Interesting for a product intended to improve shelf-stability.

Since brewing these beers 6 months ago, I’ve used BrewTan B numerous times, in part because I have it lying around, but also because the results of the first xBmt seemed to suggest it did something to beer. Now I’m not sure. To my tastes, both of the aged beers tasted similarly stale. My subsequent batches have come out clear, though they admittedly haven’t been comparative in nature, so perhaps it wasn’t due to the BrewTan B. At this point, I plan to continue using and exploring the impact of this product, as I still think there’s a ton to learn.

If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...