Biotransformation or just dry hop

That is my understanding as well - some strains will 'biotransform' and some won't. I personally have no idea which 'category' that A24 falls into here. I attended a Hopping Science presentation at HomebrewCon 2018 where the presenter (Chris Hotz - Ballast Point R&D guy) stated that biotransformation is dependent on hop variety as well.

The 'downside' of adding hops prior to active fermentation being complete is that there will be a loss of hop aromatics since there will be CO2 scrubbing that occurs due to outgassing.

I would suggest that if what you are seeking is maximization of hop aroma you add the hops after primary fermentation is complete. If you are willing to lose some aromatics but seek the potential for possible complexity from biotransformation split the hops between two additions (i.e., some when primary fermentation is winding down and some after active fermentation is complete).

Cheers!

 

That's my default practice these days.

 

In contrast I add all of my dry hops after active fermentation is complete.

Different strokes for different folks.

Cheers!

 

Skip the “biotransfomation” dry hop. That yeast will biotransform hop compounds but adding them during fermentation is IMHO a waste, especially if you’re down to you’re last bit. Add them after fermentation is complete to maximize the impact from the hops.

 

Agree with @wasatchback - If you had more hops I'd say maybe go for some active fermentation hopping, but you always get the most bang from the TG dry hop (esp in the keg).

I'd say the bits you got make a fine DH charge!

 

Agree with the above Brewers. Skip bio an DH.

 

28 tasters in a triangle test and 11 of them correctly identifying the different sample yields a "p-value" of 0.31. This means that if there was no actual difference, there was only a 31% chance that 11 or more would get it right.

Brulosophy requires a p-value of less than 0.05. If that's not met, they report the standard...
"...indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish..."

But ask yourself... assuming there was no difference, with only a 31% chance that 11 or more would get it right, and 11 did... does that indicate to you that there's no difference? Not to me it doesn't. A p=0.31 screams out for a second trial, IMO.

It gets even more comical with p-values of, say, 0.06, where there was only a 6% chance that beers with no difference would have yielded the result (or a more extreme one than) they did, and the answer is still... "...indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish..."

IMO, Brulosophy cashes in on the desire of lazy brewers to have their shortcuts "validated."

ETA: I don't mean to say that reading Brulosophy results is only for lazy brewers. If one understands what the numbers actually mean, they can definitely glean some useful information from some of the experiments.

 

Yep, definatly not a brulosify fan here. Poorly written, and I'll say it, short cut crap that does not impress.

I prefer it. Here.

 

Preach it Brother Gorm.

 

Always, ripper.