Author: Phil Rusher

Beer comes in varying degrees of color, flavor, and haziness, but one thing they all have in common is at least some level of bitterness. Responsible for the good majority of bitterness in beer, hops contain alpha acids that, in the presence of boiling wort, get converted into iso-alpha acids, which are perceptibly bitter.

The most common forms of hops are whole cone and pellets, the latter of which comes in two main types that are delineated by their weight relative to the whole hop cone. Type 45 (T-45) pellets are processed in a manner that results in less leafy material and a higher concentration of alpha acids as compared to Type 90 (T-90) hops, which are essentially the broken down and pelletized version of whole cone hops. While T-90 pellets are used far more often, there’s some who feel all the leafy material being in contact with wort can contribute less than desirable characteristics, and one way to avoid this involves the use of an interesting modern hop product.

Purported to retain all of the good stuff from hops including alpha and beta acids as well as the various aromatic oils while getting rid of the unnecessary bits, hop extracts are produced using CO2 to concentrate the hop resins into a viscous liquid that can be added directly to wort. The production of hop extract occurs at cool temperatures so that the alpha acids remain non-isomerized, allowing it to be used in a similar way standard hops are used, albeit with much less material and, some might contend, a higher degree of precision.

I’ve been interested in learning more about this relatively novel product since first hearing about it a couple years ago, particularly its impact on bitterness quality compared to standard T-90 pellets, which I use almost exclusively. Despite having no real issues with the character of my pellet hop beers, I picked up some extract to test it out for myself!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between beers bittered with either T90 hop pellets or hop extract.

| METHODS |

After some discussion with the crew, I settled on a Best Bitter for this xBmt with a single bittering addition with the hope of emphasizing any differences caused by the variable.

Soggy Bottom Bitter

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 47.6 IBUs 12.7 SRM 1.048 1.012 4.8 % Actuals 1.048 1.011 4.9 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Malt, Maris Otter (Thomas Fawcett) 5.5 lbs 55 Canada Malting Munich 10L 3 lbs 30 Crystal Malt - 60L (Thomas Fawcett) 1.5 lbs 15 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % CTZ OR Hop Extract 25 g 60 min Boil Pellet 16 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature House (A01) Imperial Yeast 74% 62°F - 70°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 111 | Mg 2 | Na 10 | SO4 143 | Cl 80 Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

I started my brew day collecting two equal volumes of RO water.

After adjusting both sets of water to my desire profile, I began heating it up then moved on to weighing out and milling the grain.

Once each batch of water was appropriately heated, I mashed in and set the controller to maintain my target mash temperature of 152°F/67°C.

Seeing as the HopShot hop extract I purchased was made from CTZ hops, so I used pellets of the same variety for this xBmt. During the mash rest, I measured out the amount of hop pellets BeerSmith predicted would contribute the same 48.5 IBU expected in the hop extract batch.

At the completion of each mash rest, the grains were removed and sparge before I started heating the wort. As soon as a boil was reached, the single addition of either pellet hops or hop extract was added.

With each boil complete, the wort was chilled during transfer to identical fermentation vessels.

Hydrometer measurements confirmed both worts achieved the same 1.048 OG.

The filled fermentors were placed next to each other and I direct pitched a pouch of Imperial Yeast A01 House into both batches.

The beers were left to ferment at 66°F/19°C for 11 days, at which point signs of activity were absent and hydrometer measurements were taken that revealed a very slight difference in FG.

The beers were then transferred to sanitized and CO2 purged kegs.

After a brief period of burst carbonation, the beers were left to condition for a couple weeks before they were ready to be served to tasters.

| RESULTS |

A total of 21 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of the beer made with T-90 pellets and 2 samples of the beer made with hop extract in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 8 (p=0.40) made the accurate selection, indicating participants in this xBmt could not reliably distinguish a Best Bitter made with a single bittering addition of T-90 pellet hops from one made with hop extract.

My Impressions: Out of the 5 semi-blind triangle tests I attempted, I chose the odd-beer-out only 3 times, and it wasn’t easy, the beers tasted incredibly similar. The only difference between the beers I think I might have detected was that the pellet hop version had a slightly sharper bitterness than the one made with hop extract. Regardless, I enjoyed both of these beers equally and had no preference.



| DISCUSSION |

Hop extract is marketed as a relatively cost effective way to impart bitterness to beer without adding all the leafy material known to contain compounds that some believe can lead to undesirable flavors. Moreover, the use of hop extract can increase overall yield, which while arguably more important on the commercial scale, is an added bonus for homebrewers as well, particularly if the resultant beer tastes better. Interestingly, tasters in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish beers bittered with either hop pellets or hop extract, suggesting they had a similar impact.

These findings contradict claims that hop material being in contact with wort for the duration of the boil can be detrimental to flavor, which is validating for those who have been brewing delicious beer for a long time without extract. However, it also seems possible the lack of a perceptible difference in these beers was a function of the amount of hops used, with larger charges leading to a larger delta. It also makes sense that the point in the boil at which they were added might have an impact, which is something I look forward to exploring in the future.

With the understanding that predicted IBU is an imperfect measurement for perceived bitterness, we sent samples of both beers to our friends at Oregon Brew Lab for evaluation. My aim was for both beers to be as close to identical in terms of bitterness as possible, using the amount of pellets and extract to achieve approximately 50 IBU. Given past lab results, I expected the measured numbers to be somewhat lower than what BeerSmith predicted, and I concurred with tasters who described the perceived bitterness as being rather low. But I was shocked when lab measurements indicated the pellet hop beer was at a paltry 9 IBU while the hop extract beer hit 10.5 IBU.

I’ve been racking my brain for a way to explain these strikingly low numbers, and at this point, I’m really not sure what to make of them. What is nice is that they’re not that different, meaning both beers possessed similar levels of bitterness, as the xBmt results would imply. Either way, I plan to continue experimenting with hop extract and am particularly interested in its impact when used later in the boil.

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...