Author: Brian Hall

“Free range” has taken the food world by storm, but hops are one ingredient that might not benefit from the free-range treatment. Brewers making IPA often add massive amounts of hops to the kettle, and if those pellets are left to float free, they can drastically increase the amount of sediment in the wort at the end of the boil. To both prevent a clogged chiller and reduce the amount of trub going into the fermenter, some brewers resort to filtering their kettle hop additions, and one popular option of late is a stainless mesh basket colloquially referred to as a hop spider.

While wort easily flows through the fine mesh filter of a hop spider, it restrains the finest particulate from entering the kettle, ostensibly allowing the hops to impart all of the expected bitterness, flavor, and aroma without increasing the amount of kettle trub. However, some believe using such a device can affect beer quality by reducing the overall hop character, a concern that was confirmed by a past xBmt looking at how filtering kettle hops with fabric bags impacts beer.

I’ve been using a stainless hop spider in my brewing for the last several years with good results. Still, I’ve found myself thinking twice before making heavy hop additions to New England IPA, worried that the overcrowded hops wouldn’t produce the zing I was looking for. Not wanting to kneecap those heavenly flavors and aromas, I’ve often added whirlpool contributions in a separate spider out of concern not doing so my hinder my goal of maximum hop character. Curious if my approach was worth the effort, I designed an xBmt to test it out.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between beers where kettle hops were added either to a stainless hop spider or directly to the boiling wort.

| METHODS |

I went with an IPA sans dry hop for this xBmt in an attempt to isolate the impact of using a stainless hop spider.

Slipper Check IPA

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 127.1 IBUs 6.9 SRM 1.062 1.012 6.6 % Actuals 1.062 1.01 6.9 % Fermentables Name Amount % Lamonta American Style Pale Malt (Mecca Grade) 13 lbs 85.6 Cara-Pils/Dextrine 14 oz 5.76 Caramel/Crystal Malt - 40L 5 oz 2.06 Corn Sugar (Dextrose) 1 lbs 6.58 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Columbus/Tomahawk/Zeus (CTZ) 14 g 60 min Boil Pellet 13.1 Warrior 14 g 60 min Boil Pellet 13.8 Columbus/Tomahawk/Zeus (CTZ) 28 g 45 min Boil Pellet 13.1 Simcoe 28 g 30 min Boil Pellet 11.8 Simcoe 28 g 1 min Boil Pellet 11.8 Centennial Hop Hash 14 g 1 min Boil Pellet 18 Columbus/Tomahawk/Zeus (CTZ) 57 g 5 min Aroma Pellet 13.1 Simcoe 57 g 5 min Aroma Pellet 11.8 Centennial Hop Hash 5 g 5 min Aroma Pellet 18 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Flagship (A07) Imperial Yeast 75% 60°F - 72°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 117 | Mg 3 | Na 10 | SO4 84 | Cl 168 Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

Having collected RO water ahead of time, I started my brew day by warming up two identical volumes, which I adjusted to the same desired profile.

With the water on the burner, I weighed out and milled separate sets of grain.

Using the BIAB approach, I incorporated the grains into each batch before checking mash temperatures.

I wrapped each batch with insulation before leaving them alone to rest.

At the end of each mash step, the grain bags were hoisted out of the kettle and allowed to drip until the same pre-boil volume was reached.

To ensure homogeneity, I combined the sweet wort from both batches and stirred thoroughly before splitting them equally.

While the worts were being heated, I measured out the kettle hop additions.

Both worts were boiled for 60 minutes with hops added at the same points, one set going into a stainless hop spider while the other was tossed directly into the wort.

When the boils were complete, I quickly chilled the wort.

The difference in kettle trub appearance between the batches was rather stark.

Wanting to keep the variable isolated, I made an effort to leave behind as much kettle trub as possible when racking to Brew Buckets.

Hydrometer measurements showed both worts hit the same OG.

Each wort was then pitched with a single pouch of Imperial Yeast A07 Flagship.

The beers were left to ferment next to each other in a chamber controlled to 66°F/19°C for 16 days before I took hydrometer measurements showing a very minor difference in FG.

At this point, the beers were racked to separate CO2 purged kegs.

The filled kegs were placed in my keezer, burst carbonated, and left to condition for a couple weeks before I started serving them to tasters.

| RESULTS |

A total of 22 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of the beer made with hops added to a hop spider and 2 samples of the beer made with added loosely to the wort in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 8 (p=0.46) did, indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a hoppy Pale Ale made with the kettle hops added to a hop spider from one where the hops are added directly to the boiling wort.

My Impressions: Out of multiple triangle test attempts, I was unable to reliably tell these beers apart, they were identical to me. I thought I had it nailed at one point, but subsequent attempts reminded me I had no idea what I was doing. The beer itself is great– bitter and flavorful without the huge caramel notes I feel make many examples of west coast IPA suck.



| DISCUSSION |

Clogged chillers are a huge pain, and previous xBmts have indicated that excessive trub might have an impact on the quality of finished beer, so it makes sense that brewers would want to contain their hops if doing so doesn’t have an impact on bitterness, aroma, and flavor. The fact tasters in this xBmt were unable to distinguish beers where the kettle hops were added either to a stainless mesh filter or directly to the wort suggests the impact wasn’t enough to create a perceptible difference.

Considering tasters from a previous xBmt were generally able to tell apart a beer where kettle hops were filtered with a fabric bag from one where the hops were added loosely, I’m left wondering if the material the filter is made of plays a role. Perhaps a stationary stainless mesh hop spider allows for better wort flow than fabric, which also seems to keep the hops more tightly contained.

For my part, I plan to continue using my hop spider. It’s easy to use, takes almost no time to rinse at the end of a brew day, and makes it a cinch to save yeast after fermentation since it reduces trub in the fermenter. If they don’t have an appreciable negative effect on bitterness or flavor, as the results of this xBmt seem to indicate, I really don’t see a downside.

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...