Dry hopping to match a target

hop profile

Progress Report
30th January 2017
 Outline
• Objectives
• Brewing
• Analytical
• Sensory
• Hop Blend modelling
• Next steps
• Sensory results from Hop blends
 Objectives

The key objective is to assess and blend a range of hops (dry hopped in
fresh beer) to match the sensory character of a target hop. The
deliverables will be descriptive profiles of 10 dry hopped beers which
will be used to produce beers with hop blends to match the target hop.

Objective 1. Propose hop blends to match Citra without using Simcoe

Objective 2. Propose hop blends to match Simcoe without using Citra
• Recipe
25 kg 100 % pale malt
5 kg Maltose syrup to achieve gravity required (for 200 litres of wort)
•Mashing
64 ⁰C for 60 minutes
•Kettle
Boil 60 minutes
Alpha extract to achieve approx 20 BUs (65 g)
•Fermentation
Nottingham Ale yeast (dried)
2 x 100 litre FVs
18 ⁰C for 6 days
13 ⁰C for 3 days (diacetyl rest)
3 ⁰C 3 days (removal of yeast)
•Dry hopping
10 x 16 litres in Cornelius kegs for the 10 hop varieties
5 g hops per litre of beer
Condition at cellar temperature (approx 13 ⁰C) for 7 days
•Bottling
No filtration – bottle conditioned
Priming sugar addition
Crown
Condition at 18 ⁰C for 7 days prior to sensory evaluation
 Analytical results

Lemondrop
Mitellfrϋh
Hallertau
Cascade
Calypso

Eureka!

Simcoe
Apollo

Denali
Bravo

Citra
zero

Ethanol (% v/v) 4.58 4.75 4.70 4.67 4.56 4.70 4.59 4.62 4.58 4.61 4.78

Bitterness (BU) 21.3 31.2 29.2 30.9 22.5 24.6 24.4 23.8 23.3 22.9 27.9

CO2 (g/L) 5.06 5.78 6.05 6.13 5.93 6.49 5.64 6.05 5.45 5.86 7.02

NIBEM10 (s) 84 63 89 75 87 65 84 58 80 61 50

NIBEM20 (s) 174 141 176 151 185 143 176 125 171 142 106

NIBEM30 (s) 265 222 259 227 271 227 264 207 269 237 167
 Flavour Volatiles

Lemondrop
Threshold

Mitellfrϋh
Hallertau
Cascade
Calypso

Eureka!

Simcoe
Apollo

Denali
Bravo

Citra
zero
Acetaldehyde
(mg/L) 25 3.2 4.5 3.3 3.2 4.2 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 3.7 3.9

Ethyl Acetate
(mg/L)
33 9.6 11.6 9.7 10.3 10.8 9.9 11.1 11.6 10.8 10.8 10.8
Iso-Butyl Acetate
(mg/L) 1.6 <0.06 0.06 <0.06 0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 <0.06 0.07
n- Propanol
(mg/L)
800 14.6 22.0 27.4 26.0 18.7 30.0 18.6 27.7 25.4 27.4 28.3
Iso-Butanol
(mg/L) 200 31.3 35.6 39.9 38.4 32.7 42.1 32.3 41.2 41.5 41.1 40.3
Iso-amyl acetate
(mg/L) 1.6 0.42 0.64 0.58 0.76 0.62 0.63 0.59 0.95 0.081 0.088 0.66
Iso- Amyl
alcohol (mg/L)
70 85.9 83.9 85.7 83.9 83.6 86.0 83.6 85.7 86.8 85.1 87.8
Ethyl Hexanoate
(mg/L)
0.2 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04
Dimethyl
Sulphide (μg/L) 50 21.3 27.6 34.1 38.2 23.3 34.6 14.9 24.3 21.0 <12 35.8
Diacetyl (mg/L) 0.15 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05
2,3 –
Pentanedione 0.90 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
(mg/L)
 Sensory Analysis
• Check All That Applies using a defined hop
glossary based on literature and past experience
• Generation of contingency tables, PCA
• Analysis of attribute desirability and penalty
using similarity scores to target hop profile
• Hop profile comparison
• Modelling of hop blending using PLS regression
 CATA contingency table

Summer Fruits
Tropical Fruit

Astringent
Grapefruit

Resinous
Grassy

Woody
Lemon

Herbal

Linger
Sweet
Floral

Spicy

Sour
Pine
Apollo 7 7 4 10 7 13 8 12 13 3 10 7 4 10 9
Bravo 16 7 10 9 14 4 13 4 5 10 5 11 9 5 5
Calypso 8 9 6 10 10 7 11 13 7 7 6 5 9 13 8
Cascade 9 5 7 7 10 3 6 5 6 7 2 9 9 9 6
Citra 11 5 9 16 10 10 12 14 13 3 6 7 9 11 10
Denali 12 6 7 10 9 5 10 6 6 7 6 8 8 10 6
Eureka 7 3 9 16 14 6 10 13 13 7 4 6 12 11 10
Hallertau 9 6 3 3 8 4 10 11 6 10 5 9 8 10 8
Lemondrop 10 5 2 8 10 2 12 2 6 9 5 8 9 11 6
Simcoe 11 5 7 16 10 7 11 15 11 6 5 7 9 10 8

Note: only attributes with frequency ≥ 15% are included in the analysis
 Symmetric plot
(axes F1 and F2: 70.94 %)
0.4

0.3
Woody
Spicy
0.2 Hallertau Mitt. Apollo

Pine
0.1 Lemondrop Astringent
Summer Fruits Calypso
F2 (19.43 %)

Sweet Grassy Linger

0 Denali Herbal
Floral
Bravo Resinous
Cascade
-0.1 Sour Citra
Lemon Simcoe

-0.2 Eureka
Grapefruit
Tropical Fruit
-0.3

-0.4
-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -1E-15 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
F1 (51.50 %)

Attributes Products
 Analysis of attributes based on ideal
profile (Citra)

Hop Similarity Must have Nice to have Does not influence Does not harm Must not have
Apollo 5.1 Grapefruit Floral
Herbal Spicy
Bravo 2.8
Resinous Tropical Fruit
Calypso 5.6 Lemon
Cascade 3.7 Pine
Grassy
Citra 10.0
Woody
Denali 5.5 Sweet
Eureka 6.5 Sour
Hallertau Mitt. 4.3 Astringent
Linger
Lemondrop 4.0
Summer Fruits

Similarity score based on Euclidean distance

using 5 principal components
(90% difference explained)
 Apollo Citra Bravo Citra Calypso Citra
Floral Floral Floral
Linger 6.0 Spicy Linger 6.0 Spicy Linger 6.0 Spicy
Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit

Sour 2.0 Grapefruit Sour 2.0 Grapefruit Sour 2.0 Grapefruit

0.0 0.0 0.0

Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy
Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal
Similarity: 5.1 Similarity: 2.8 Similarity: 5.6
Cascade Citra Denali Citra Eureka Citra
Floral Floral Floral
Linger 6.0 Spicy Linger 6.0 Spicy Linger 6.0 Spicy
Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit

Sour 2.0 Grapefruit Sour 2.0 Grapefruit Sour 2.0 Grapefruit

0.0 0.0 0.0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy
Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal
Similarity: 3.7 Similarity: 5.5 Similarity: 6.5

Hallertau Mitt. Citra Lemondrop Citra

Floral Floral
Linger 6.0 Spicy Linger 6.0 Spicy
Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit

Sour 2.0 Grapefruit Sour 2.0 Grapefruit

0.0 0.0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy
Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal
Similarity: 4.3 Similarity: 4.0
 Blend modelling Citra
60% Eureka + 40% Calypso 60% Eureka + 40% Apollo
Floral Floral
6 Linger 6 Spicy
Linger Spicy
5 5
Astringent_ Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
4
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy

Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal

Citra Pred(Citra)
Citra Pred(Citra)

40% Eureka + 30% Calypso + 30% Apollo 50% Eureka + 30% Calypso + 20% Denali
Floral Floral
Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy
5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy

Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal
Citra Pred(Citra)

Citra Pred(Citra)
 Blend Modelling Citra (II)
70% Calypso + 30% Bravo 70% Apollo + 30% Bravo
Floral
6 Floral
Linger Spicy 6
5 Linger Spicy
Astringent_ Tropical Fruit 5
4 Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy

Resinous Herbal
Resinous Herbal

Citra Pred(Citra)
Citra Pred(Citra)

40% Apollo + 40% Calypso + 20% Bravo 50% Calypso + 30% Denali +20% Bravo

Floral Floral
6 Linger 6 Spicy
Linger Spicy
5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy

Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal

Citra Pred(Citra) Citra Pred(Citra)

 Analysis of attributes based on ideal
profile (Simcoe)

Hop Similarity Must have Nice to have Does not influence Does not harm Must not have
Herbal Grapefruit Floral
Apollo 4.9
Spicy
Bravo 4 Tropical Fruit
Calypso 6.4 Lemon
Pine
Cascade 5.2
Grassy
Denali 7 Resinous
Eureka 7 Summer Fruits
Hallertau Mitt. 5.8 Woody
Sweet
Lemondrop 5.6
Sour
Simcoe 10 Astringent

Similarity score based on Euclidean distance

using 5 principal components
(90% difference explained)
 Apollo Simcoe Bravo Simcoe Calypso Simcoe

Floral Floral Floral

Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy
5 5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1 1
0 0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy
Summer Fruits Grassy Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal
Resinous Herbal
Similarity: 4.9 Similarity: 4.0 Similarity: 6.4

Cascade Simcoe Denali Simcoe Eureka Simcoe

Floral Floral Floral

Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy
5 5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1 1
0 0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon
Woody Pine Woody Pine Woody Pine
Summer… Grassy Summer… Grassy
Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal Summer Fruits Grassy
Similarity: 5.2 Similarity: 7.0 Resinous Herbal
Similarity: 7.0
Hallertau Mitt. Simcoe Lemondrop Simcoe

Floral Floral
Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy
5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer… Grassy
Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal
Similarity: 5.8 Similarity: 5.6
 Blend modelling Simcoe
60% Eureka + 40 % Calypso 70% Eureka + 30% Apollo
Floral Floral
Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy
5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon
Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine
Woody Pine
Summer Fruits Grassy
Resinous Herbal Summer Fruits Grassy
Resinous Herbal
Simcoe Pred(Simcoe) Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

45% Eureka + 35% Calypso + 20% Apollo 50% Eureka + 40% Calypso + 10% Hallertau
Floral Floral
Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6.0 Spicy
5 5.0
Astringent_ Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4.0 Tropical Fruit
4
3.0
3
Sour 2.0 Grapefruit
Sour 2 Grapefruit 1.0
1 0.0
0 Sweet Lemon
Sweet Lemon
Woody Pine
Woody Pine
Summer Fruits Grassy
Summer Fruits Grassy Resinous Herbal
Resinous Herbal

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe) Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

 Blend Modelling Simcoe (II)
90% Calypso + 10% Bravo 80% Apollo + 20% Bravo
Floral Floral
Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy
5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy Summer Fruits Grassy

Resinous Herbal Resinous Herbal

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe) Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

60% Calypso + 30% Apollo + 10% Bravo 70% Calypso + 20% Hallertau + 10% Bravo
Floral Floral
Linger 6 Spicy Linger 6 Spicy
5 5
Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit Astringent_ 4 Tropical Fruit
3 3
Sour 2 Grapefruit Sour 2 Grapefruit
1 1
0 0
Sweet Lemon Sweet Lemon

Woody Pine Woody Pine

Summer Fruits Grassy
Summer Fruits Grassy
Resinous Herbal
Resinous Herbal

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)
Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)
 Conclusions from Blend Model
• Simcoe and Citra have the closest sensory profiles

• Eureka and Calypso are the nearest sensory match

to both Simcoe and Citra and they can be used in
blends to match both target hops

• Apollo and Denali could be used in blends to match

Citra

• Apollo and Hallertau Mitellfrϋh could be used in

blends to match Simcoe
 Next Steps
• Validate blend models

• Brew 2 hL of beer, split for dry hopping,

bottle and pasteurise

• Descriptive analysis of up to 10 hop

blends and validation by triangular testing
 Hop Blends
1. 40% Calypso 30% Apollo 30% Denali
2. 40% Eureka 35% Calypso 25% Apollo
3. 50% Eureka 30% Calypso 20% Denali
4. 50% Eureka 40% Apollo 10% Cascade
5. 60% Eureka 40% Calypso
6. 65% Eureka 35% Apollo
7. 70% Calypso 30% Bravo
8. Citra
9. Simcoe
 PCA Blends vs Target Hops
Biplot (axes F1 and F2: 64.09 %)
10

Spicy
6

Grassy
4

Sour
Linger
Sweet
F2 (15.91 %)

2 65% Eureka 35% Apollo

Resinous
50% Eureka 40% Apollo 10%
70% Calypso 30% Bravo 40% Calypso 30% Apollo 30%
Cascade
50% Eureka 30% Calypso
Summer FruitsCitra Denali 20%
0 Denali
Tropical Fruit
Floral Herbal
40% Eureka 35% Calypso 25% Lemon
Apollo 60% Eureka 40% Calypso
-2 Astringent
Simcoe Pine

-4 Grapefruit

-6 Woody

-8
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
F1 (48.18 %)
 Similarity

0.91
0.81
0.71
0.61
0.51
0.41
0.31
0.21
0.11
50% Eureka 30% Calypso 20% Denali 0.01

65% Eureka 35% Apollo

50% Eureka 40% Apollo 10% Cascade

60% Eureka 40% Calypso

Dendrogram Citra

70% Calypso 30% Bravo

40% Eureka 35% Calypso 25% Apollo

Citra
Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering Citra
 Similarity

0.93
0.73
0.53
0.33
0.13
-0.07
-0.27

40% Eureka 35% Calypso 25% Apollo

Simcoe

40% Calypso 30% Apollo 30% Denali

Simcoe
Dendrogram Simcoe

65% Eureka 35% Apollo

50% Eureka 40% Apollo 10% Cascade

60% Eureka 40% Calypso

Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering
 Selected Blends for Validation

• Citra
– 40% Eureka 35% Calypso 25% Apollo
– 70% Calypso 30% Bravo
• Simcoe
– 60% Eureka 40% Calypso
– 50% Eureka 40% Apollo 10% Cascade
– 65% Eureka 35% Apollo
– 40% Calypso 30% Apollo 30% Denali
Sensory Profiles Citra Blends
Sensory Profiles Simcoe Blends
 Next Steps
• Validate selected blends by Tetrad testing with
12 trained panellists

– Perceived difference at 95% confidence?

– Estimate degree of difference using
Thurstonian model and calculating d’
Project Management Team

Management Support:
Dr. Chris Smart
Head of Department – Brewing Services

Brewing:
Ed Wray
Project Brewer Maltster

Sensory:
Dr. Javier Gomez-Lopez
Sensory and Product Innovation Manager

Analytical :
Ian Slaiding
Analytical Laboratory Manager-Beer and Beverage Analysis

12