Big hop flavor with 1/3 the hops

[NorCal]

Can anyone post the gist of the BYO article for us non-subscribers?

 

[NorCal]

Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Nimzomitch]

I was thinking that instead of Water and Vodka and 5.2, why not just draw off some of the fermented beer, and heat that to 180, and steep your hops? Would the extraction be good? Would the Ph of the beer be a problem?

Then, you're just adding back beer instead of water and vodka too.

The alcohol in that beer would have largely boiled off I'm thinking, but that wouldn't be so bad imo.

 

[desertbronze]

Have you seriously thrown a pound of hops into 5gal of beer?

Hasn't everyone?

 

[WortMonger]

Nimzomitch, that is pretty much what the article that NorCal is trying to get info on says to do. They basically take aroma hops and steep them at the first of the boil and chill the wort used until later when the addition needs to be made. The hops material however, is put into the kettle for bittering since you don't care about aroma or flavor. There is a lot in the article and it should be read and the magazine supported. That is about as much as I will get into it, but the new experiments and stuff going on are very informative and should give you some great places to start. Please go buy a copy and read the magazine as it is very very interesting.

 

[Chriso]

Danek, any update on the side-by-side bottle comparison?? How'd your "blind tasters" fare?

@WM, I didn't follow that procedure at all. Are you saying to make a tea, in order to extract F&A, save that tea, and then re-use the sludge at the bottom for a bittering addition?
If you say it's so good, I will consider picking up a copy. I've never been a BYO person, or a print-copy person at all. If it ain't online, I always assume it ain't relevant. These "magazine folks" need to get with the times. *shrug* (I have a buddy who would shoot me for saying that. He does print copy work. )

Cheers
c

 

[Nimzomitch]

Nimzomitch, that is pretty much what the article that NorCal is trying to get info one says to do. They basically take aroma hips and steep them at the first of the boil and chill the wort used until later when the addition needs to be made. The hops material however, is put into the kettle for bittering since you don't care about aroma or flavor.

Sounds interesting, but I'm really more interested in the "substitution for dry hopping" aspects of the "French Press Hop Tea method". Since someone above was posting that adding vodka and 5.2 helps with the extraction, etc, I was thinking that just using the fermented beer itself would be more ideal provided the Ph wasn't an issue. I'll be giving this a go on my next beer.

 

[Danek]

Danek, any update on the side-by-side bottle comparison?? How'd your "blind tasters" fare?

Man, I forgot all about that - I got one of those bad promotions at work where you suddenly become busy all the time, and the far more important topic of beer experimentation completely slipped my mind. I'm away at a conference at the moment but I'll try to sort that out when I'm back home next week. Thanks for the reminder!

 

[dp69_2001]

This was on last weeks BBR.

08-28-08 French Press Hopping - Basic Brewing Radio

 

[WortMonger]

WM, I didn't follow that procedure at all. Are you saying to make a tea, in order to extract F&A, save that tea, and then re-use the sludge at the bottom for a bittering addition?
If you say it's so good, I will consider picking up a copy. I've never been a BYO person, or a print-copy person at all. If it ain't online, I always assume it ain't relevant. These "magazine folks" need to get with the times. *shrug* (I have a buddy who would shoot me for saying that. He does print copy work. )

That is what they were doing. Very interesting stuff. I am just saying that supporting places I get great ideas from, plus it is really good in the bathroom. I won't quote the article but that was the gist of it.

Sounds interesting, but I'm really more interested in the "substitution for dry hopping" aspects of the "French Press Hop Tea method". Since someone above was posting that adding vodka and 5.2 helps with the extraction, etc, I was thinking that just using the fermented beer itself would be more ideal provided the Ph wasn't an issue. I'll be giving this a go on my next beer.

The Hot French Randal dry hopping method described here is easy to do and there shouldn't be any difference wheter you use vodka or beer for extraction. I think the 170-180 does most of it anyways.

 

[mew]

If the benefit of this method is that hop flavor and aroma aren't lost to CO2 during fermentation, why not boil the hops for 5 or 10 minutes for flavor additions and add after fermentation has ended? I'm thinking with the priming sugar.

 

[Orfy]

Off the wall idea.

What happens if you make a hop tea and then use the hops in the boil.

2 for the price of one?

I think I may try this today.

 

[mew]

For those who wanted to see what the BYO article was all about, Basic Brewing Radio did an episode on stretching hops with Chris Colby, the author of the BYO article. It can be found HERE.

Orfy, on that episode of Basic Brewing Radio they talk about using the hops twice like you posited.

 

[donosborn]

I thought I would scan in the relevant part of BYO and post it here. I have subscribed to the magazine ever since I started brewing in 2001. I think all homebrewers should buy it from time to time, if not always.

With that said, I think this part is the main section germaine to the topic at hand and it will make it easier for all of us to have the same info if it is just posted here. If it should be taken down let me know and I will happily comply. It should not take away from anyone buying the magazine, and that is why I only posted a snippet of a much longer article on getting the most out of your hops in this time of need.

Flickr Photo Download: Brew Your Own exerpt from Sept 2008 issue

Look in the "Newer Methods" section. A twist on the process as it has been discussed here is to use a small amt of DME to make a very low gravity wort, and then press the hops with that. (Nothing is said about the temperature, however, and with the discussion we have had it seems that results can vary based on that). Has anyone done that (or even both ways to compare them)? I wonder if it makes a difference.

keep the results coming!
Don

 

[rcrabb22]

Basic Brewing Radio did a podcast on this subject

"August 28, 2008 - French Press Hopping
James and Andy try out one of the hop stretching methods explained by Chris Colby on the previous show: steeping hops in a French press coffee maker."

 

[Warrior]

Off the wall idea.

What happens if you make a hop tea and then use the hops in the boil.

2 for the price of one?

I think I may try this today.

Made a 12 gallon batch of a 60 Min clone on Wed night. Split the beer in to 3 - 4 gallon batches. Used Summit for the bittering hop. Going to use all Simcoe in one, all Amarillo in another and 1/2 of each in the last one. I was planning on using about 3/4 of an oz with the French press. Does this amount sound about right using the press in the secondary?

 

[natefitz]

Danek, buddy...
the suspense is killing me.
Oh, and congrats on the promotion.

 

[wendelgee2]

How would this work for those of us who bottle instead of keg?
Could we dump in the hop tea with the priming sugar??

 

[EvilTOJ]

That's exactly what I did when I tried it. Works the same.

 

[wendelgee2]

This is definitely on my to-do list.

 

[Warrior]

How would this work for those of us who bottle instead of keg?
Could we dump in the hop tea with the priming sugar??

I bottle all the time. Just bottled the 60 min Simcoe version of 4 gallon last night. Had a very good pineapple type aroma and good flavor. Will bottle the Amarillo and combo next week. Will give a side by side taste comparison on here in about three weeks.

 

[Danek]

Apologies for being so slow with this. For those who can't be arsed to wade through it all, you can just read the abstract

Abstract:
A batch of American Pale Ale was split into two secondary tanks after fermentation, and each was treated with a different late-hopping technique. One was dry-hopped, and the other had a hop infusion added according to the “Hot French Randall” technique. Blind tasting with three beer-literate but experimentally naïve participants suggested that the two techniques give noticeably different final characteristics; mean scores from this sample indicate that late-hop additions by the dry-hopping method are preferred to those made by the Hot French Randall method.



Experimental question:
With other variables held constant, how does the Hot French Randall (HFR) method of hop addition compare to dry-hopping (DH) when an equal quantity of hops are used?


Recipe (5 gallon batch, to be split into two):
7.5lb Maris Otter
0.5lb Carapils
0.5lb Crystal 60
1oz Perle @ 60
1oz Cascade @ 10
1oz Cascade @ 5
Plus 2 x 1.2oz of Cascades for hop addition
US-05 yeast
Mash @ 153F

After 2 weeks in primary at 68F, the beer was split into two identical secondaries. For the HFR batch, 1.2oz of Cascades were steeped in a French Press (1 pint capacity). This was placed in a water bath and held at 160F for 30 minutes. The resultant liquid was then added to the HFR secondary. For the DH batch, 1.2oz of Cascades were added to the DH secondary, together with a French Press full of water that had been held at 160F for 30 minutes (to control for any oxygen loss in the heated water in the HFR batch). After a week, the two batches were separately bottled with priming sugar to give 2.5 volumes of CO2.


Tasting:

Tasting sessions were conducted in a university laboratory. Three adult males with an interest in craft beer were asked to take part in the tasting session for this experiment. Participants were tested separately. All were aware that they would be tasting samples of beer, but none were aware of the hypothesis being tested, or of what beers they would be sampling. They were asked to answer any questions they were asked as fully and honestly as possible, and otherwise to note their impressions of each of the samples tasted. Although there were no obviously apparent visual differences between the two beers, opaque red plastic cups were used for the tasting to minimise the influence of any visual comparisons the tasters made. For all testing, participants did not see the samples being poured.

Phase one: triangulated testing:
Each participant was given three cups of beer (each containing approximately 150ml of liquid) and was told that two of the cups contained the same beer, whilst the third contained a different type. They were asked to indicate the two cups that they believed contained the same beer. The purpose of this testing was to see whether there was any perceivable difference between the two batches; if there was no noticeable difference between beers, then any further subjective judgements of the two beers would run the risk of simply reflecting demand characteristics or other non-interesting noise, rather than actual subjective taste differences between the two batches. For this phase of the experiment, participants A and C had 2 HFR samples and one DH sample; participant B had 2 DH samples and one HFR sample.

Two of the three participants (B and C) correctly identified the two paired samples, whilst the third (A) was incorrect in his pairing. Given the small sample size, no meaningful statistical comparison against chance is possible. However, these findings are consistent with, if not direct evidence for, the idea that the two batches are noticeably different.

At the conclusion of this part of the experiment, participants were given iced water and dry crackers to eat before the next session.

Phase two: subjective ratings:
Participants were told that they would be tasting different types of beer, and that they should write down scores for aroma, flavor, and overall impression for each beer they tried. These three categories were taken from the standardised BJCP scoresheet for beer; the categories of “appearance” and “mouthfeel” were not used, both to keep the procedure simple, and because they were not expected to differ between beers. Again, to keep the judging procedure simple, participants were asked to give scores out of five for each category.

In order to help keep the participants naïve to the experimental hypothesis, they were told that they were going to be given four types of beer to judge. The DH and HFR batches were sampled and rated first to avoid any influence on the palate from the other beers; after this, participants rated two additional beers (one an English Bitter, one a Belgian Pale Ale). Data for these beers is not reported.

Participants A and B were given the HFR sample first, followed by the DH sample. Participant C was given the DH sample first, followed by the HFR sample.


Dry-Hopped Batch
Aroma....A:5...B:4...C:4...Total:13
Flavor....A:3...B:4...C:3...Total:10
Overall...A:4...B:4...C:4...Total:12

Hot French Randall Batch
Aroma....A:5...B:3...C:3...Total:11
Flavor....A:4...B:2...C:3...Total:9
Overall...A:4...B:3...C:3...Total:10

Participants' preferred beer:
A: HFR by 1pt
B: DH by 4pts
C: DH by 2pts

Mean scores for each beer:
...Aroma...Flavor...Overall
DH....4.3....3.3....4.0
HFR...3.7....3.0....3.3


Discussion:

Taking the mean averages of the two samples as an index of subjective preference, the DH batch scored more highly than the HFR batch on the three measures used. On account of the small sample size, it is not possible to judge whether this difference would be replicated in the broader population. However, it would appear from the subjective scores that the different late-hopping techniques do indeed impart noticeably different characteristics to the final beer.

An obvious limitation to this study is the small sample size. No meaningful statistical comparisons can be made without testing further participants, so the findings should be interpreted with caution. However, notes made by the brewer are consistent with the idea that the DH method yields a more pleasing final product (at least, when used with this recipe, and with these techniques). These brewer’s notes are reproduced in the Appendix. Although these are obviously subjective, a common theme which may help to explain the findings from the blind tasting is that the HFR beer appeared to have a slight vegetal note that did not sit well with the style of beer being made. In comparison, the DH beer did not have this taste. Whether this vegetal taste would be more welcome in other styles of beer is a question for further study.

A further limitation to this study is the lack of a third “control” beer - one in which no late-hop additions were made. Including this third condition would allow not just a comparison between the two methods of late-hop additions, but between each of them and the same beer with no hop additions at all. This would allow for a better index of how the extra hops in the DH and HFR beers change over time.

In conclusion: when other factors in the recipe are held consistent, these results suggest that the dry-hopping technique yields a more favourable final product. This may not, however, be because of additional perceived hoppiness; instead, it may be due to the absence of a “vegetal” taste component that the HFR technique introduces into the beer.


Appendix: Brewer’s notes

Recorded at bottling: “Both batches were pretty much fine. The HFR batch I think has a slight vegetal taste to it. When it’s chilled and carbed it’ll probably be fine, but next to the DH version I don’t think it tasted as fresh and fragrant. The DH version seemed really good – even flat and warm it’s very nice.”

Recorded 3 months after bottling: "There’s not a huge difference between these two in terms of appearance or aroma. There may be a slight aroma like hot, wet hops (rather than the more usual floral or citrus aroma) on the HFR batch, but it really could just be me imagining it as I look desperately for some difference, however slight. That said, the flavor difference is more noticeable. In the HFR batch there’s a slightly odd taste. It isn’t quite cabbagey, but it’s in that direction. In comparison, the DH batch is cleaner tasting. Both are nice and perfectly drinkable beers, but I think I’d describe the flavour in the HFR batch as a flaw rather than a complementary flavor. This component might come across better in a different style of beer, but for an American Pale Ale, I think the DH version is closer to what I’m used to tasting. I also think the DH version is more pleasant tasting than the HFR beer.

Recorded 6 months after bottling: “Both batches have aged well. They’re well carbonated and have a nice head retention. When the beers are very cold, there’s not a lot to choose between them, and both are surprisingly very clear. As the beers warm up slightly, the HFR batch reveals a slight vegetal note to the aroma, and this is also present in the flavor. In comparison, the DH version has a more familiar hop aroma, and a very clean taste with a good-to-moderate hop flavor. The vegetal flavour in the HFR batch is not unpleasant or overpowering, but neither is it something that I would choose to add to the beer. The HFR batch can stand on its own as a decent beer, and I would happily drink it. But next to the DH version (of this recipe, at least) my preference is for the DH version. It doesn’t wow me with hops, but it doesn’t have the slightly stewed off-note of the HFR version.”

 

[natefitz]

Wow, nicely done sir.

 

[Chriso]

EXCELLENT write up, Danek!!! Above and beyond what I expected, that is truly top notch!

Thanks so much for sharing that! It was a fantastic read.

 

[rasherb]

Methods Question:

Did you use light wort or plain water in the coffee press with the hops?

 

[Danek]

Thanks for the comments guys.

Methods Question:

Did you use light wort or plain water in the coffee press with the hops?

I just used my normal brewing water, untreated. The water here's pretty soft.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Wow. That is seriously academic. Worthy of a Master's with some tweaking!

If you weren't actually doing that for school, you really should. You could probably easily repeat the experiment since you've already done the grunt work. This time, with a control beer; one that hasn't had the late hop additions. One thing I'm curious about.....how would "whirlpool" hops stack up?

Stone uses that method in their IPA, and it's the most fragrant, balanced IPA on the market IMHO. From what I read in this month's BYO, they actually whirlpool for 90 mins, steeping the hops while subjecting them to circulating forces (in a giant kettle; homebrewers might maintain a temp of 190F for 30 mins or so).

If Stone does it, it must be good

 

[Warrior]

Thanks for the comments guys.


I just used my normal brewing water, untreated. The water here's pretty soft.

Excellent wrtie up. I'll give my thoughts on how the three different beers taste in a few weeks. I need to brew another batch with using ScubaSteve's idea. I might try steeping the hops at 190 after the boil and see how the flavor and aroma compare to the FHR.

 

[rasherb]

This great. We need more "formal" brewing experiments like this. There's enough of us dedicated to this hobby and in clubs that we could ask and answer many experimental questions.

Hops are like 4-5% tannins, I think. We could explore ways to minimize tannin extraction...

I'm thinking about comparing HFR with soft water vs. light distilled water wort vs. distilled water.

Also maybe how hard you press out the hops from the press might be a factor. I noticed the first time I did this technique I got a large tannin extraction from using 1 oz hops, boiling water, rest for 10 min, then pressing the hops until they were well compacted in the coffee press.

 

[LakeErieBrew]

Thanks Danek for the awesome experiment and report. It was a very interesting and entertaining read. I would like to try this for myself.