Amarillo alternative - late kettle addition · esterification – 2-undecanone ... – Decyl...

Hopsteiner PanelTesting Results

Comparison of Simcoe with(9 panelists)

Difference detected

No difference detected

Significant difference(at 0.01 level)

60% Eureka40% Calypso

8 panelists 1 panelist Yes

50% Eureka40% Apollo10 % Cascade

4 panelists 5 panelists No

Method: Triangle Test (MEBAK – Sensory Analysis, 2014, Method 3.1.3)Results: Recommended alternative to Simcoe = 50% Eureka + 40% Apollo + 10% Cascade

Comparison of Citra with(10 panelists)

Difference detected


Significant difference(at 0.01 level)

40% Eureka35% Calypso25% Apollo

9 panelists 1 panelist Yes

70% Calypso30% Bravo

7 panelists 3 panelists No

Method: Triangle Test (MEBAK – Sensory Analysis, 2014, Method 3.1.3)Results: Recommended alternative to Citra = 70% Calypso + 30% Bravo

Citra alternative - dry hopped

Simcoe alternative - dry hopped

Comparison of Amarillo Difference detected


Significant difference

80% Cascade20% Lemondrop

No

Method: Panel Tetrad Test (Sensory Analysis, 2016)Results: Recommended alternative to Amarillo = 80% Cascade + 20% Lemondrop

Amarillo alternative - late kettle addition

The application of science

to hop blending

Dr Chris Smart

Head of Brewing Services

Campden BRI

Overview

• Hop blending

• Our approach

• Hop tea data and insights

• Beer data and insights

• Hop blending and results – ‘show me the way to Amarillo’

• Conclusions

Hop blending

• More art than science

• Based on experience – hop merchant

and brewer

• Difficult to predict

• Several recommended substitute hops

Our approach

• Identify a range of aroma hops

– New and traditional varieties

– From several geographical regions

• Assess hops - sensory profiling and analytically

• Pilot brews – single hop brews, late addition

• Analyse data and use it to see if it can predict the

effect on blending

• Brew blends to match a specific aroma hop variety

• Assess blended hop beer using sensory panel

Hop choice • Identify a range of hops to investigate: 14 selected in total

• New and established varieties

• From various regions in the world (UK, Europe, US, Aus)

Hop variety

Amarillo hop pellets Hersbrucker Spat hop pellets

Bramling Cross hop pellets Lemondrop hop pellets

Citra hop pellets Mandarina Bavaria hop pellets

East Kent Golding hop pellets Sovereign 2014 hop pellets

Fuggle hop pellets US Cascade hop pellets

Galaxy hop pellets Saaz hop pellets

Hallertauer Mittelfruh hop pellets Simcoe 2013 Harvest US hop pellets

Hop tea sensory data

• Hop teas prepared using 5g hop pellets

in 2L boiling water left to cool to room

temperature

• Expert panel agreed the sensory

attributes to be used

• 22 attributes identified and used to

assess each hop, scale 0-9

All 14 hop teas

UK grown hops

European grown hops

US grown hops

Geographical differences

Geographical differences

• Why are the hops in each region similar to each other but

different from other regions?

– Genetically similar through breeding programmes or natural populations?

– Consumer/brewer preferences pushing selection/breeding in one direction

in a region?

– Growing conditions/climate?

– What are the sensory characteristics of a single hop variety grown in

different regions?

Fuggle vs Saaz

Analytical data

• Hops analysed by GCMS QToF (x3)

• Over 100 volatile or semi-volatile

compounds identified

• The majority have known sensory

properties

• Wide variation found for many compounds,

as expected, in each hop variety

GCMS QToF: Simcoe hop pellets

Examples

1. Amarillo, 2. Bramling Cross, 3. Citra, 4. East Kent Golding, 5. Fuggle, 6. Galaxy, 7. Hallertauer

Mittelfruh, 8. Hersbrucker Spat, 9. Lemondrop, 10. Mandarina Bavaria, 11. Sovereign,

12. Cascade (US), 13. Saaz, 14. Simcoe

Beer sensory data

Beer sensory - taste

Beer sensory - aroma

Hop tea aroma vs beer aroma

Hop tea aroma Beer aroma

• Similar in top right quadrant

• Green beans, cooked veg, green leaves, herbal medicinal <- disappeared! Why?

• Hop teas are not a good predictor of hop aroma in beer (at least not under these

brewing conditions)

Beer analytical data

• From 120 hop compounds identified in hop teas only 9 are

found in the beer namely:

– 2-methyl-1-butanol (roasted wine onion fruity)

– isobutyl butyrate (sweet, fruity, candy, berry, cherry, tutti frutti, over ripe

and bubble gum-like)

– beta-pinene (woody, piney, turpentine-like, minty, eucalyptus,

camphoraceous, spicy peppery and nutmeg)

– alpha-phellandrene (citrus, terpenic, slightly green, black pepper)

– linalool (citrus, orange, floral, terpy, waxy and rose)

– geraniol (floral, sweet, rosey, fruity and citrus)

– humulene (woody)

– beta-cadinene (green woody)

– cis-calamenene (herb)

Beer analytical data

• Why so few hop cpds detected in the beer? And what happens

to the sensory aroma notes?

– Below limits of detection (analytically)

– Masked by other compounds (analytically and sensory)

– Chemically transformed

– Biochemically transformed

– Too volatile

• Some cpds are lost due to heat/CO2 stripping etc

• Some cpds biotransformed e.g. reduction (NADH recycling?) or

esterification

– 2-undecanone (hop cpd) -> 2-undecanol (beers)

– Decyl acetate (in beers) <- ester possibly formed from decanol/acetic acid

• Question: late/dry hopping – how much difference does this

make?

Hop blending

Matching Amarillo – beer data

Matching Amarillo – beer data

Panel Tetrad Test result: no significant difference

Conclusions • 22 fixed sensory attributes can be used to differentiate all 14

hop varieties tested

• For most varieties hop teas are a poor predictor of the sensory

attributes in the final beer product

• Different hop varieties grown in the same country have very

many sensory attributes in common as hop teas

• The aroma characteristics of some specific hop varieties, even

those grown in different countries, are almost identical (e.g. UK

grown Fuggle and European grown Saaz)

• Certain aroma notes in all of the hop varieties tested are

reduced, and often disappear, in the final beer especially

green/herbal notes

• Blending can be assisted by sensory data but it is best done in

beers not hop teas

• Amarillo can be matched in finished beer with late hop addition

using Cascade and Lemondrop at a ratio of 5:1

Acknowlegdements

• Ed Wray, Project brewer

• Gill Fisher, Senior sensory scientist

• Eung Lee, Project maltster

• Campden BRI members

Questions

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

ze

ro

Ap

oll

o

Bra

vo

Ca

lyp

so

Ca

sc

ad

e

Cit

ra

De

na

li

Eu

rek

a!

Ha

lle

rta

u

Mit

ellfrϋ

h

Le

mo

nd

rop

Sim

co

e

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

Th

res

ho

ld

ze

ro

Ap

oll

o

Bra

vo

Ca

lyp

so

Ca

sc

ad

e

Cit

ra

De

na

li

Eu

rek

a!

Hall

ert

au

Mit

ell

frϋ

h

Le

mo

nd

rop

Sim

co

e

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

(mg/L)0.90 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01

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 tableF

lora

l

Sp

icy

Tro

pic

al F

ruit

Gra

pefr

uit

Lem

on

Pin

e

Gra

ss

y

He

rbal

Re

sin

ou

s

Su

mm

er

Fru

its

Wo

od

y

Sw

eet

So

ur

As

trin

ge

nt

Lin

ger

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

Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

GrassyHerbal

Resinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent

Linger

Apollo

Bravo

Calypso

CascadeCitra

Denali

Eureka

Hallertau Mitt.

Lemondrop

Simcoe

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

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

F2 (

19

.43

%)

F1 (51.50 %)

Symmetric plot(axes F1 and F2: 70.94 %)

Attributes Products

Analysis of attributes based on ideal

profile (Citra)

Similarity score based on Euclidean distance using 5 principal components

(90% difference explained)

Hop Similarity

Apollo 5.1

Bravo 2.8

Calypso 5.6

Cascade 3.7

Citra 10.0

Denali 5.5

Eureka 6.5

Hallertau Mitt. 4.3

Lemondrop 4.0

Must have Nice to have Does not influence Does not harm Must not have

Grapefruit Floral

Herbal Spicy

Resinous Tropical Fruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent

Linger

Summer Fruits

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

GrassyHerbalResinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Apollo Citra

Similarity: 5.1

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Bravo Citra

Similarity: 2.8

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Calypso Citra

Similarity: 5.6

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Cascade Citra

Similarity: 3.7

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Denali Citra

Similarity: 5.5

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Eureka Citra

Similarity: 6.5

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Hallertau Mitt. Citra

Similarity: 4.3

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Lemondrop Citra

Similarity: 4.0

Blend modelling Citra

0123456

Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

HerbalResinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

60% Eureka + 40% Calypso

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

HerbalResinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

60% Eureka + 40% Apollo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

HerbalResinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

40% Eureka + 30% Calypso + 30% Apollo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

HerbalResinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

50% Eureka + 30% Calypso + 20% Denali

Blend Modelling Citra (II)

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

70% Calypso + 30% Bravo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

70% Apollo + 30% Bravo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

40% Apollo + 40% Calypso + 20% Bravo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Citra Pred(Citra)

50% Calypso + 30% Denali +20% Bravo

Analysis of attributes based on ideal

profile (Simcoe)

Similarity score based on Euclidean distance using 5 principal components

(90% difference explained)

Hop Similarity

Apollo 4.9

Bravo 4

Calypso 6.4

Cascade 5.2

Denali 7

Eureka 7

Hallertau Mitt. 5.8

Lemondrop 5.6

Simcoe 10

Must have Nice to have Does not influence Does not harm Must not have

Herbal Grapefruit Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

Resinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Apollo Simcoe

Similarity: 4.9

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Bravo Simcoe

Similarity: 4.0

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Calypso Simcoe

Similarity: 6.4

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer…

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Cascade Simcoe

Similarity: 5.2

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer…

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Denali Simcoe

Similarity: 7.0

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Eureka Simcoe

Similarity: 7.0

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Hallertau Mitt. Simcoe

Similarity: 5.8

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer…

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Lemondrop Simcoe

Similarity: 5.6

Blend modelling Simcoe

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

60% Eureka + 40 % Calypso

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

HerbalResinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

45% Eureka + 35% Calypso + 20% Apollo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

HerbalResinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

70% Eureka + 30% Apollo

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.0

Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

50% Eureka + 40% Calypso + 10% Hallertau

Blend Modelling Simcoe (II)

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

90% Calypso + 10% Bravo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

80% Apollo + 20% Bravo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

60% Calypso + 30% Apollo + 10% Bravo

0123456Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine


Summer Fruits

Woody

Sweet

Sour

Astringent_

Linger

Simcoe Pred(Simcoe)

70% Calypso + 20% Hallertau + 10% Bravo

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

40% Calypso 30% Apollo 30% Denali

40% Eureka 35% Calypso 25% Apollo

50% Eureka 30% Calypso 20% Denali

50% Eureka 40% Apollo 10% Cascade

60% Eureka 40% Calypso

65% Eureka 35% Apollo

70% Calypso 30% BravoCitra

Simcoe

Floral

Spicy

Tropical Fruit

Grapefruit

Lemon

Pine

Grassy

Herbal

Resinous

Summer Fruits

Woody

SweetSour

Astringent

Linger

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

F2 (

15

.91

%)

F1 (48.18 %)

Biplot (axes F1 and F2: 64.09 %)

Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering Citra

50

% E

ure

ka 3

0%

Cal

ypso

20

% D

enal

i

65

% E

ure

ka 3

5%

Ap

ollo

50

% E

ure

ka 4

0%

Ap

ollo

10

% C

asca

de

60

% E

ure

ka 4

0%

Cal

ypso

70

% C

alyp

so 3

0%

Bra

vo

40

% E

ure

ka 3

5%

Cal

ypso

25

% A

po

llo

Cit

ra

0.01

0.11

0.21

0.31

0.41

0.51

0.61

0.71

0.81

0.91

Sim

ilari

ty

Dendrogram Citra

Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering Simcoe

40

% E

ure

ka 3

5%

Cal

ypso

25

% A

po

llo

Sim

coe

40

% C

alyp

so 3

0%

Ap

ollo

30

% D

enal

i

65

% E

ure

ka 3

5%

Ap

ollo

50

% E

ure

ka 4

0%

Ap

ollo

10

% C

asca

de

60

% E

ure

ka 4

0%

Cal

ypso

-0.27

-0.07

0.13

0.33

0.53

0.73

0.93

Sim

ila

rity

Dendrogram Simcoe

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

12

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

Amarillo alternative - late kettle addition · esterification – 2-undecanone ... – Decyl...

Documents

Transcript of Amarillo alternative - late kettle addition · esterification – 2-undecanone ... – Decyl...