Author: Jake Huolihan

Since the advent of transportation, food and beverage have been shipped from the point it’s created to the end user. While shipping has completely changed the world, allowing for mass production of consumables, it does pose some few issues, food spoilage being the most problematic.

With the creation of cold shipping, manufacturers were able to send perishable items all over the world and largely overcome the spoilage issue. As for beer, some large breweries even market the fact their product remains cold from the time it leaves their facility to when the consumer purchases it. Cold storage of beer is believed to be important because, like most food products, it undergoes staling reactions that are amplified as temperatures increase.

As someone who abhors shipping beer, my homebrew only ever sees warmer post-packaging temperatures when it’s poured for consumption. However, many homebrewers compete, and one constant about competition is that it requires one to package and ship their beer. Without the means of a large commercial brewery, homebrewers are resigned to ship beers in less than ideal conditions, usually resulting in bottles being jostled around in warm environments for a few days. This has always concerned me and is one of the main reasons I compete so rarely. Are my concerns overblown? I designed a simple xBmt to test it out!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a beer that underwent conditions similar to warm shipping and the same beer that was stored in a cool keezer.

| METHODS |

Since this variable would be introduced post-packaging, I brewed up a single 10 gallon/151 liter batch of Helles for this xBmt.

Schubsen

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 21.4 IBUs 3.7 SRM 1.045 1.008 4.9 % Actuals 1.045 1.01 4.6 % Fermentables Name Amount % Odyssey Pilsner 9.75 lbs 89.66 Weyermann Vienna 1.125 lbs 10.34 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Loral 5 g 60 min Boil Pellet 10.3 Loral 13 g 30 min Boil Pellet 10.3 Loral 5 g 5 min Boil Pellet 10.3 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature Global (L13) Imperial Yeast 75% 46°F - 56°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 65 | Mg 0 | Na 8 | SO4 67 | Cl 68 Download Download this recipe's BeerXML file

A few days prior to brewing, I whipped up a large starter of Imperial Yeast L13 Global, equal amounts of which would be added to either batch (and a couple others).

In preparation for brew day, I weighed out my grains before collecting the water and adjusting it to my desired profile the night before brewing.

When I woke up the next morning, I turned on the elements to heat my strike water then proceeded to mill the grains.

I then weighed out the kettle hop additions.

When the water was slightly warmer than strike temperature, I transferred it to my mash tun for a brief preheating before mashing in to hit just a hair lower than my target mash temperature.

I briefly stirred the mash every 15 minutes over the 60 minute rest.

Once the mash was finished, I collected the sweet wort in my kettle and turned the heating elements on.

The wort was boiled for 60 minutes with hops added as stated in the recipe.

At the end of the boil, I quickly chilled the wort.

A refractometer reading showed the wort had reached a respectable 11.3 °P, or 1.045 OG.

I collected equal volumes of wort in separate sanitized Brew Buckets.

The filled fermentors were controlled to my desired fermentation temperature of 64°F/18°C and, after the yeast was pitched, each was hit with a 90 second dose of pure oxygen. I noticed airlock activity just a couple hours later. After 7 days, signs of fermentation were absent and I took hydrometer measurements confirming the same FG had been reached in both beers, so I proceeded with kegging.

The filled kegs were placed in my keezer and burst carbonated. Once carbonation was stable in both beers, I removed one keg from my keezer and placed it in my car to emulate a warm shipping environment. The things we do for science…

After 10 days of carpooling with me, during which the late spring Denver weather got quite warm, my beer had a new worldview and decided it was time to return to its home in my cool keezer. I allowed the beers to lager for another 2 weeks before serving them to blind participants.

| RESULTS |

A total of 21 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 2 samples of the beer that was stored only in a cool keezer and 1 sample of the beer that spent 10 days in the backseat of a warm car in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. At this sample size, 12 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, though only 5 (p=0.88) made the correct selection, indicating participants in this xBmt could not reliably distinguish a beer stored consistently cool from one stored in an environment that emulates warm shipping.

My Impressions: Out 5 self-administered blind triangle tests, I correctly guessed the unique sample just one time. They were identical in every respect, completely indistinguishable, which was a good thing considering I rather enjoyed the beer.

| DISCUSSION |

It’s scientific fact that heat hastens certain chemical reactions, the most concerning for brewers being oxidation, hence the effort (and money) invested in making sure beer stays as cool as possible once it leaves the brewery. Anyone who has been drinking beer for any length of time has had a pint that was obviously out of its prime, despite the date code being somewhat recent, an issue some attribute to the product being shipped in a non-refrigerated environment. This has always made sense to me, which made the results from this xBmt showing tasters couldn’t distinguish a beer that spent 10 days as a passenger in my warm car from one that sat still in my cool keezer all the more surprising.

While these results may be used by some as evidence that warm shipping environments have little negative impact on beer, there are a few caveats to this xBmt. First off, the beers were kegged, and I’ve developed kegging procedures over the years that keep oxygen ingress to a minimum, so it’s possible there simply wasn’t enough oxygen present for oxidation to occur. Bottling may very well produce different results, and seeing as most competitions only accept bottles, this is something one should keep in mind. Also, these homebrewed xBmt beers were consumed 10 days after packaging, far sooner than commercial breweries can ensure, as their product may end up sitting on a warm shelf for weeks before somebody gets to it.

I won’t pretend I perceived any differences between these beers, my own triangle test results speak for themselves, but I have no plans to start storing beers warm prior to serving. That said, given my tight packaging processes, I certainly feel a little less worried about shipping beers off to be judged.

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...