Author: Greg Foster

The last hop stand xBmt comparing the impact of different temperatures was intriguing in that no statistical significance was found, though I have to admit I was a little disappointed, not because the results failed to uphold my assumptions, but since it did little to inform me how to go about making better IPA.

Woeful is the plight of the hophead!

Thirsting to learn more about how to get as much hop aroma into my beer as possible, I decided to compare techniques commonly known for maximizing hoppiness– the hop stand and the dry hop. I won’t go into full detail about the typically discussed ways a hop stand differs from a dry hop, that information is readily available on web. Briefly, hop stands are typically performed in wort warm enough to volatize some hop oils, while the dry hop occurs in cooler fermented beer where volitization isn’t a concern. Sounds good, but does really make all the big of a difference? Let’s find out!

| PURPOSE |

To investigate the differences between a cool hop stand and dry hopping in a split batch of the same beer.

| METHODS |

Curious about a recently acquired sack of Gambrinus ESB malt and wanting to keep things simple, I designed a SMaSH beer using Galaxy hops because, well, it’s Galaxy!

Gambrinus ESB Galaxy SMaSH

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 4 gal 60 min 104.1 IBUs 4.6 SRM 1.044 1.009 4.6 % Actuals 1.046 1.01 4.7 % Fermentables Name Amount % ESB Pale Malt (Gambrinus) 6.5 lbs 100 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Galaxy 14.2 g 60 min Boil Pellet 14 Galaxy - Hop Stand OR Dry Hop 85 g 20 min Boil Pellet 14 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature San Diego Super Yeast (WLP090) White Labs 80% 65°F - 68°F

Three days prior to brewing, I scoured my yeast drawer and found a vial of expired WLP090 San Diego Super Yeast, a personal favorite, and figured I wouldn’t have too much trouble bringing it back to life.

I split the contents of the vial between two mason jars filled with 1.5 liters of wort then let them spin on stir plates. The hearty yeast made quick work of the starter wort, fermenting it out in 2 days, at which point I put them in the fridge for a 24 hour cold crash. First thing brewsday morning, I measured out my malt and proceeded to run it through my new 3-roller mill, I was beyond impressed with the way it chewed through 13 lbs in 1/5 the time as my old 2-roller mill.

Giddily, I moved on to gathering my water additives, which I tossed into the warming strike water.

I mashed in and quickly reached my desired 154°F/68°C mash temperature.

Despite recirculating throughout the mash, I gave it a few good stirs to ensure good conversion.

With the 1 hour mash complete, I transferred the wort to the kettle, heated it up with my trusty heat sticks, then added a single bittering hop addition as the boil began.

An hour later, I cut the heat, chilled the wort to 175°F/79°C, then transferred equal amounts to two identical corny keg fermentors.

It was finally time to introduce the xBmt variable! Well, half of it anyway. With both worts sitting at 165°F/74°C, I lowered a stainless mesh hopper filled with 3 oz of Galaxy into one of the kegs and held it for a 20 minute hop stand.

The temperature had dropped to 157°F/69°C when I returned.

After removing the hop stand charge from the fermentor, I quickly and easily chilled both kegs to pitching temp with a novel contraption from JaDeD Brewing called the The CornyPillar.

A refractometer reading confirmed I’d hit my target OG so I decanted my starters and split the resultant slurries between the kegs, hit each with 20 seconds of pure O2, then placed them in my chamber controlled to 66°F.

A week later, I took hydrometer samples to discover both beers had finished fermenting and were sitting at the target FG.

It was now time to add the other half of the xBmt variable! I placed a 3 oz charge of Galaxy hops in a sanitized hop sock then put them in a Ziploc bag that was purged with CO2 before adding them to the fermentors. I’m a nut when it comes to avoiding oxygenated beer…

I cold crashed the beers 3 days after adding the dry hop charge then transferred them to serving kegs the following day.

After 5 days on CO2 in my keezer, the beers were nicely carbonated and shared a similar appearance including a slight hop haze due to my failure to fine with gelatin.

| RESULTS |

Data for this xBmt was gathered at the monthly meetings for both the Strand Brewers Club and Pacific Gravity. In total, 41 awesome brewers, BJCP judges, and craft beer enthusiasts participated in the evaluation.

Each taster, all who remained blind to the nature of the xBmt, was served 2 samples of the dry hop beer and 1 sample of the hop stand beer then asked to identify the one that was different. In order to reach statistical significance with the given sample size, 20 participants (p<0.05) would have had to accurately select the chilled hop stand beer as being unique. In this trial, a total of 31 people (p=0.00000004) made the proper selection. To put it in the strictest of scientific terms, these results are statistically significant as hell, implying participants were able to reliably distinguish between a beer that received a hop stand without being dry hopped from one that was dry hopped without receiving a hop stand addition.

A brief comparative evaluation of only the two different beers was completed by the 31 participants who made the accurate triangle test selection, all remaining blind to the nature of the xBmt. When asked about preference, 22 tasters chose the dry hop beer, 3 selected the hop stand beer, 3 felt the beers were different but had no preference, and 3 indicated they had no preference.

The nature of the xBmt was then revealed and a brief explanation that one might expect the dry hop sample to be more aromatic and the hop stand sample to be more flavorful was given. Following this, tasters were asked to choose the sample they thought was made using the hop stand technique and, surprisingly, only 9 got it right, meaning 22 incorrectly selected the dry hop sample. With the aforementioned explanation provided to each taster, it might seem as though the hop stand beer was more aromatic; however, when following up with tasters after they completed the survey, and prior to me informing them which beer was in which cup, I sought their impressions. Tasters consistently reported perceiving the dry hop sample as being fresher smelling, more flavorful, and having a different quality than the hop stand beer. On the other hand, the hop stand sample was described as having a more muddled aroma, with two participants independently describing it as “mulchy.” Participants didn’t describe either beer as being notably more or less aromatic than the other and a few acknowledged their selection was based on their perception of the dry hop beer being more flavorful, so they incorrectly assumed it must have received the hop stand addition based on the explanation provided. Of course, this reasoning only manifested after the surveys were complete, a point where performance anxiety creates an almost palpable level of dissonance in participants, hence it should be interpreted cautiously.

My Impressions: Pretty much identical to the majority of participants, I could tell a distinct difference between the samples… most of the time. I correctly selected the unique beer in several “blind” triangle and side-by-side tests, but interestingly, I got it wrong once. Granted, I was a bit stuffed up from a cold at the time, but the fact that I could get it wrong goes to show these beers were more similar than I initially expected. Overall, I perceived the aroma of the dry hop beer to be more fresh, inviting, citrusy sweet, and aromatic, while the hop stand beer did indeed come across as more “mulchy” and reminiscent of old hops. Fully expecting the dry hop addition to provide significant hop flavor, I was surprised to discover it imparted as much or more flavor than the hop stand. The character of the dry hop flavor to me was cleaner and grassier, in a good way, than the less distinctive but still enjoyable hop stand flavor.

| DISCUSSION |

These results may not be particularly surprising given the fact hop stands and dry hopping are entirely different methods, though since both are utilized primarily to enhance hop aroma, I think the fact they were reliably perceived differently is interesting. I’ll be honest, as a brewer in constant search of ways to pack as hop character in my beer as possible, this data is particularly meaningful, as it demonstrates both of these techniques do different things on their own, and potentially have a synergistic effect when used in tandem.

Will these results change the way I brew? To some extent, yeah, I’ll probably play around a bit more with my aroma hopping rates as a result of this xBmt. Thinking it the ultimate hopping technique, my IPAs of late have included enormous hop stand additions, but since I preferred both the flavor and aroma of the dry hop beer, I’ll try easing up on the hop stand quantities a smidge in favor of an increased dry hop charge. More importanly, I’m left asking even more questions, wondering about the impact of factors like hop stand temperature and time. Guess I better get to designing the next one!

If you have any comments or questions about this xBmt, please leave them below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

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

Follow Brülosophy on:

| Read More |

18 Ideas to Help Simplify Your Brew Day

7 Considerations for Making Better Homebrew

List of completed exBEERiments

How-to: Harvest yeast from starters

How-to: Make a lager in less than a month

| Good Deals |

Brand New 5 gallon ball lock kegs discounted to $75 at Adventures in Homebrewing

ThermoWorks Super-Fast Pocket Thermometer On Sale for $19 – $10 discount

Sale and Clearance Items at MoreBeer.com

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

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...