Author: Matt Del Fiacco

Historical relevance aside, wood-aged beers have surged in popularity in the craft beer market, particularly for big, boozy styles. These beers are commonly aged in liquor barrels to impart characteristics from both the wood and alcohol, which while romantic, can be a cumbersome process. In addition to being pretty expensive, a good barrel can be difficult to maintain and takes up quite a bit of space. For the brewer seeking wood character without all the trouble, there are wood alternatives such as cubes, chips, and spirals, which get added directly to the beer.

Brülosophy Patron Brandon Lepley proposed an xBmt idea that was right up my alley. In his research, Brandon found a lot of conflicting timelines for alternative wood additions, with suggested contact times ranging from just a couple weeks up to a few months. On one end of the spectrum were critics claiming reduced contact time leads to unpleasant wood flavors, while others felt extended contact time was essentially useless, as any wood character would dissipate.

I’ve talked quite a bit about wood aging in the past, and while I have my own assumptive rule of thumb about wood-aging timelines, I was excited to collaborate with Brandon on this xBmt in hopes of learning something new!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between beers aged on oak for either 2 weeks or 2 months.

| METHODS |

Brandon and I agreed on my house Porter recipe for this xBmt, as I’ve aged it on wood in the past and knew what to expect.

The Last March

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5 gal 60 min 33.0 IBUs 27.2 SRM 1.060 1.013 6.2 % Actuals 1.06 1.01 6.6 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Ale Malt (Muntons) 10 lbs 89.89 Crystal, Medium (Simpsons) 8 oz 4.49 Black (Patent) Malt 5 oz 2.81 Pale Chocolate Malt 5 oz 2.81 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Magnum 14 g 60 min First Wort Pellet 12 Cascade 27 g 15 min Boil Pellet 5.5 Miscs Name Amount Time Use Type American Oak Cubes - Medium Toast 2.00 oz 60 days Secondary Flavor Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature House (A01) Imperial Yeast 74% 62°F - 70°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 50 | Mg 5 | Na 8 | SO4 36 | Cl 80 Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

Having collected my brewing water and adjusting it to my desire profile the night before brewing, I started my day by powering the controllers on.

While the water was heating up, I weighed out and milled two identical sets of grain.

With strike temperature reached, I added the grist to the water and checked to make sure both achieved the same target mash temperature.

I took pH readings about 15 minutes into each mash rest that showed now real difference.

As the mashes rested, I prepared the kettle hop additions.

At the end of each mash rest, the grains were removed and the worts were brought to a boil, during which hops were added at the times listed in the recipe.

Following the 60 minute boils, I ran the wort through my counterflow chiller during transfer to fermentation vessels.

Hydrometer measurements confirmed both worts had reached the same OG, as expected.

I placed the fermentors in chambers controlled to 66°F/19°C and proceeded to pitch a single pouch of Imperial Yeast A01 House into each batch.

With diminished signs of activity 2 weeks later, I took hydrometer measurements showing both beers were finished fermenting.

At this point, I prepared the oak for the beer that would be aged on it for 2 months by boiling it for 10 minutes.

The boiled oak was gently placed in the bottom of a sanitized keg, which was then purged with CO2 before being filled with beer. To keep things as similar as possible between the batches, the other beer was racked to a CO2 purged keg at the same time.

Six weeks later, I prepared the same amount of oak in the same manner as before then gently added it to the other keg, removing the lid from the batch that already had oak in it to ensure similar exposure to oxygen. After another 2 weeks, both beers were pressure transferred into CO2 purged serving kegs.

The beers were given a bit more time to condition than usual, a little over a month, as I was in the process of moving into a new home. Once settled in, the beers were nicely carbonated and ready to serve to participants.

| RESULTS |

A special thanks to the C.H.A.O.S. Homebrew Club for allowing me to crash their annual Stout & Chili Night to collect data for this xBmt! A total of 36 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of the beer aged on oak for 2 weeks and 1 sample of the beer aged on oak for 2 months in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 16 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 13 (p=0.42) did, indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a Porter aged on oak cubes for 2 weeks from the same beer aged on oak cubes for 2 months.

My Impressions: Out of the 4 semi-blind triangle tests, I identified the odd-beer-out 3 times, which while not perfect, is pretty consistent. In my admittedly biased opinion, I felt the beer that was aged on oak for 2 months had a slightly richer mouthfeel and stronger wood characteristic with more chocolate flavor compared to the one aged on oak for 2 weeks. That said, both beers were delicious, perfect for the unreasonably cold Illinois winter.

| DISCUSSION |

There is more to barrel aging than the contributions of wood characteristics, and arguments of scale certainly come into play when we consider its impact on the homebrewing scale. Contrary to a barrel, alternative wood additions don’t play a meaningful role in determining the oxygen exchange rate of the vessel the beer is stored in. Furthermore, surface area-to-volume ratio becomes increasingly difficult to calculate based on the penetration of beer in a smaller alternative wood addition relative to the staves of a barrel. The effect of the toasting process changes too, as does the typical lack of a char on homebrew wood additions.

It is perhaps due to carry-over practices and disjointed logistics such as these that homebrewers have typically recommended longer aging periods for beers in contact with wood, regardless of the volume, type, or toast of the wood itself. The fact tasters in this xBmt were unable to distinguish a Porter aged on oak for 2 weeks from one aged for 2 months suggests cubes possibly contribute maximum effect within a 2 week period, or perhaps the more granular contributions simply aren’t large enough to be detected.

These results have me thinking less about what wood contributes to beer, and more about the overall situation surrounding the use of wood in beer. Do aging recommendations come from a need for the beer to age, regardless of the fact it is in contact with wood? Is a fresh barrel more harsh than boiled wood cubes, and as such, the longer aging period alleviates some of that harshness? There’s a lot of room to explore the variable of wood aging further, and I look forward to doing so.

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...