Author: Jake Huolihan

Developed by the Hopsteiner Breeding Program and released to the public in 2006, Bravo is considered a “super alpha” hop due to it’s high alpha acid percentage (AA%), making it ideal for bittering applications since a smaller amount can be used to achieve desired levels of bitterness. However, unlike some other high AA% varieties, some brewers have found Bravo to impart favorable characteristics when used later in the process.

Alpha: 15 – 18%

Beta: 3.5 – 5.5%

Cohumulone: 28 – 35%

Total Oil (mL/100g): 2.3 – 3.5

Myrcene: 55 – 60%

Humulene: 8 – 11%

Caryophyllene: 6 – 8%

Farnesene: <1.0%

Linalool: 0.4 – 0.6%

Geraniol: 0.7 – 0.9%

ß-Pinene: 0.8 – 1%

Parentage: Zeus, 98004, USDA 19058m

With descriptors include orange, vanilla, and floral, Bravo certainly sounded to me like a rather ideal variety for the hop-loving masses, and having never used it before, I was excited to put it to the test for this edition of The Hop Chronicles.

| MAKING THE BEER |

So that the hops would be center stage, I designed a Pale Ale with a simple grist that would receive most of the Bravo hops late in the boil and in the dry hop.

Bravo Pale Ale

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 37.9 IBUs 3.6 SRM 1.045 1.010 4.6 % Actuals 1.045 1.008 4.8 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Malt (2 Row) US 9.25 lbs 90.24 Vienna Malt 1 lbs 9.76 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Bravo 5 g 60 min Boil Pellet 13.2 Bravo 10 g 30 min Boil Pellet 13.2 Bravo 30 g 5 min Boil Pellet 13.2 Bravo 30 g 10 min Aroma Pellet 13.2 Bravo 30 g 5 days Dry Hop Pellet 13.2 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature California Ale (WLP001) White Labs 77% 68°F - 73°F Notes Water Profile: Yellow Bitter in Bru’n Water Spreadsheet Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

I readied my ingredients and began filtering my RO water the day before brewing.

I woke up early the next morning and began heating the full volume of water adjusted to my target profile in preparation for a standard Brew In A Bag batch.

As the water was coming to temperature, I weighed out and milled the grains.

With strike temperature reached, I mashed in by dropping my fabric filter full of grains into the kettle of hot water then gently stirring before confirming I’d hit my target mash temperature.

A pH measurement 15 minutes into the mash revealed the adjustments I’d made worked, as it was right where I wanted it to be.

I let the mash rest for 60 minute rest, returning occasionally for a brief stir.

When the mash step was complete, I simply pulled the bag out of the kettle and let it drain until my target pre-boil volume was reached.

With the bag no longer at risk of being scorched, I lit the flame under my kettle and measured out hops while I waited for a boil to be reached.

The wort was boiled for 60 minutes with hops added at the appropriate times.

Once the boil was over, I quickly chilled the wort to my desired pitching temperature of 66°F/19°C.

A hydrometer reading showed my OG came in a hair lower than I’d planned, but nothing worth worrying about.

At this point, I made a vitality starter by collecting 500 mL of wort in a sanitized flask, pitching a pack of WLP001, and placing it on my stir plate.

I then filled a fermentor with wort and placed it in my cool chamber where it sat for 4 hours while the starter was spinning, after which I pitched.

Returning 24 hours later, I noticed the always pleasing sight of active fermentation.

Activity was dwindling by 5 days post-pitch, so I took a hydrometer measurement showing FG had been reached.

I added the dry hop charge and left the beer at fermentation temperature for a few days before proceeding with cold crashing, fining with gelatin, and kegging.

The filled keg was placed in my keezer where it was burst carbonated overnight then reduced to serving pressure and left to condition for a few more days. When it came time to collect data, the beer was nicely carbonated and looking great!

| METHOD |

Participants were instructed to focus only on the aromatic qualities of the beer before evaluating the flavor. For each aroma and flavor descriptor, tasters were asked to write-in the perceived strength of that particular characteristic on a 0-9 scale where a rating of 0 meant they did not perceive the character at all and a rating of 9 meant the character was extremely strong. Once the data was collected, the average rating of each aroma and flavor descriptor was compiled and analyzed.

| RESULTS |

A total of 39 people participated in the evaluation of this beer, all blind to the hop variety used until after they completed the survey. The average aroma and flavor ratings for each descriptor were plotted on a radar graph.

Average Ratings of Aroma and Flavor Perceptions

The 3 characteristics endorsed as being most prominent by participants:

Aroma Flavor Tropical Fruit Citrus Citrus Tropical Fruit Stone Fruit Floral

The 3 characteristics endorsed as being least prominent by participants:

Aroma Flavor Onion/Garlic Onion/Garlic Dank/Catty Dank/Catty Berry Earthy/Woody

When asked to rate the pungency/strength of the hop, the majority of tasters perceived it as being mild to moderately pungent.

Tasters were then instructed to identify beer styles they thought the hop would work well in.

Finally, participants were asked to rate how much they enjoyed the hop character on a 1 to 10 scale.

My Impressions: I was pretty intrigued to try my hand at making a single hop beer with a variety known mostly for its bittering qualities, and I have to say, this turned out far different than I expected. To me, the Bravo imparted intense fruity flavors characterized mostly by orange with a nice light pulpiness that seemed to coat my mouth. The bitterness was clean and I got very little in the way of the rougher hop flavors I’ve come to expect from the traditional American C-hops. Orange being one of my favorite flavors, I found Bravo to be an impressive variety that I definitely plan to use more of in the future, perhaps as a substitute for Mandarina Bavaria, a new favorite of mine.

| CONCLUSION |

For a variety that’s been around over a decade and has developed a reputation almost solely on its bittering potential, it’s pretty rad to discover that it can hold its own when used later in the process. In fact, given my very positive experience with this beer, I can’t help but wonder if Hopsteiner’s decision to market Bravo primarily as a hop used for bittering has led to it’s relative lack of popularity among hoppy beer brewers.

I couldn’t agree more with the results from blind participants, Bravo imparted a deliciously pungent citrus flavor balanced nicely by notes of tropical fruit and a hint of floral character that I think would work just as beautifully in a liberally hopped IPA as it would a less aggressive Amber Ale or Saison. And on top of all that, the bitterness quality was smooth and enjoyable. Bravo is an absolute winner in my book, a hop not only plan to integrate into my brewing, but am comfortable recommending others try as well, especially those who enjoy beers with a nice dose of fruity goodness.

If you have any experience using Bravo hops or thoughts on this edition of The Hop Chronicles, please feel free to share them in the comments section below!

Support for this edition of The Hop Chronicles comes from Hopsteiner, a leading grower, trader, and processor of high quality beer hops since 1845.

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 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...