Did they note dry hop rates?
If you’re going to throw out my experience, then why not throw out everything else I’ve ever said, too. Why not throw out everything anybody says? Why do we talk? Why are we on forums? Why do we exist? Why do we bother? Just so we can cast doubt all over everywhere to boost our own egos?
Since when do we all need to be friggin: A) scientists, or B) celebrities, to be of any value in this universe???
I’m fed up with a lot of stuff but just answer me that question, that one really bugs the crap out of me. And perhaps maybe in part because I am a scientist, at least by degree.
Run your own damned experiments, and don’t accept anybody’s word on anything until you do, ESPECIALLY scientists and celebrities who THINK they know everything but really don’t know jack.
Sorry, I’m very tired. I need a nap, but won’t get one today.
Alright, back on track…
How do I know what I think I know? Prior to dry hopping, I kept the fermenter warm at about 73 F and swirled daily for several days, with no activity. Also, I soaked my dry hops in vodka prior to adding, so I seriously doubt it’s wild critters or even oxygen. THAT is why I think it could be enzymes. Other variables are largely eliminated. Perhaps not entirely, but… largely.
Gosh I’m crabby today. Somebody needs a beer ASAP.
I believe they used the typical rate at that time, 3/4 lb/ bbl, for the main experiments with beer and whole hops, though some preliminary experiments with the ground hops may have been more like 1 lb/ bbl. The excerpts and citation are in a series of posts on Barclay Perkins back in March and April.
dmtaylor, I hate to break it to you but you ARE a celebrity here
Based on my experiences and tastes and stuff I’ve heard on podcasts or read on the internet…
I’ve never noticed a gravity change after dry hopping. Maybe because I have never reverified gravity after dry hopping.
Since quite a while, I like to get my hop aromas from whirlpool additions and preserve them by closed transfer. So, I’m safe from the enzyme boogeyman.
Maybe…
Caveat- I believe in the boogeyman, so dont take that comment as discredit towards hop enzyme activity
You really shouldn’t be taking anything said in this thread personally at all. No one is trying to discredit your empirical results - and this is why we’re having this discussion or any discussion on here. As a scientist myself, I was merely suggesting that we need to be more careful with our language when it comes to saying that one observation point proves a hypothesis. The fermentation phenomenon you experienced could SUGGEST that enzymes from the dry hops were further attenuating the beer, but it does not PROVE anything. Proof is much more difficult, and involves much more rigor. That being said, we can still TALK about what data points we’ve collected and observations we’ve made, I just don’t think we can make any sound conclusions without doing the actual hard experiments.
I listened to a podcast a couple of months ago (can’t remember which channel) that had people from Allagash talking directly about this. At least I think it was them. It referred to a link to “The freshening power of hops” which is located in Google docs.
It now occurs to me – should be obvious – that another limiting factor besides dry hop rate is the amount of unfermentable carbohydrates available for conversion. Bigger beer, bigger effect. The 1893 paper being from, well, England in 1893, the beer used was big (1.089 IIRC) and so I gather are the IPAs (also heavily dry hopped) that have brought this back to our attention. So most of us who brew more average strength beers are less likely to see an effect outside the margin of error in our FG measurements, even if we were to recheck post dry hopping. But even within those constraints, it seems reasonable to me that dry hopping – accepting arguendo the old timers’ results – could alter things sufficiently to be apparent in the character of the finished beer. As local celebrity scientist Dave has often noted, “more experiments are needed.” Maybe they’ve all been done and I’m just 125 years behind on my reading.
[quote]It’s not an issue unless you’re dry hopping at extremely high levels.
[/quote]
Denny, shouldn’t you also have to prove it only happens at extremely high levels of dry hopping based on your statements?
In my mind, there’s not enough information for anyone to make any blanket statements. We don’t know how hop variety or growing conditions affects enzyme content. However, let me add a bit more. Here’s a study from 1941:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1941.tb06070.x
[quote]The conclusion of Brown and Morris that dry-hopping
in cask produces an appreciable quantity of sugar in dextrinous beer, and so
promotes “after fermentation,” has been confirmed. In addition, the opinion
has been formed that one or more additional factors, at present unknown, operate
in stimulating “after fermentation” during dry-hopping.
The enzyme maltase has been shown to be present in dry hops.
[/quote]
Experiment 4 seems to indicate the the quantity of hops is not as large of a factor (no variation in maltase production with increasing hopping ratio, from 1g/100 cc). 1 g/100 CC=1.34 oz/5 gallons if my math is correct, which is not an extraordinarily high dry hopping rate. What do we know about enzymes? They work at a range of pH and temperature, and will work until they are denatured (typically by temperature or pH). Therefore, my hypothesis would be that any introduction of enzymes by dry hopping would have the potential to lower final gravity of the beer (in the presence of yeast, dextrines, etc.). It may take a lot longer for the effect to take place, but it still has the potential to occur.
I’ll add that there are experiments in that paper that show sugar production varying with hop variety as well.
I’m not throwing out your experience at all. I accept it as a data point. But it’s not a conclusion.
Denny, shouldn’t you also have to prove it only happens at extremely high levels of dry hopping based on your statements?
In my mind, there’s not enough information for anyone to make any blanket statements. We don’t know how hop variety or growing conditions affects enzyme content. However, let me add a bit more. Here’s a study from 1941:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1941.tb06070.x
[quote]The conclusion of Brown and Morris that dry-hopping
in cask produces an appreciable quantity of sugar in dextrinous beer, and so
promotes “after fermentation,” has been confirmed. In addition, the opinion
has been formed that one or more additional factors, at present unknown, operate
in stimulating “after fermentation” during dry-hopping.
The enzyme maltase has been shown to be present in dry hops.
[/quote]
Experiment 4 seems to indicate the the quantity of hops is not as large of a factor (no variation in maltase production with increasing hopping ratio, from 1g/100 cc). 1 g/100 CC=1.34 oz/5 gallons if my math is correct, which is not an extraordinarily high dry hopping rate. What do we know about enzymes? They work at a range of pH and temperature, and will work until they are denatured (typically by temperature or pH). Therefore, my hypothesis would be that any introduction of enzymes by dry hopping would have the potential to lower final gravity of the beer (in the presence of yeast, dextrines, etc.). It may take a lot longer for the effect to take place, but it still has the potential to occur.
I’ll add that there are experiments in that paper that show sugar production varying with hop variety as well.
[/quote]
“Brown and Morris” said to be confirmed in 1941 is the 1893 article I’ve been referring to. Just got the full on Google Books. One of the March issues I believe.
Denny, shouldn’t you also have to prove it only happens at extremely high levels of dry hopping based on your statements?
In my mind, there’s not enough information for anyone to make any blanket statements. We don’t know how hop variety or growing conditions affects enzyme content. However, let me add a bit more. Here’s a study from 1941:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1941.tb06070.x
[quote]The conclusion of Brown and Morris that dry-hopping
in cask produces an appreciable quantity of sugar in dextrinous beer, and so
promotes “after fermentation,” has been confirmed. In addition, the opinion
has been formed that one or more additional factors, at present unknown, operate
in stimulating “after fermentation” during dry-hopping.
The enzyme maltase has been shown to be present in dry hops.
[/quote]
Experiment 4 seems to indicate the the quantity of hops is not as large of a factor (no variation in maltase production with increasing hopping ratio, from 1g/100 cc). 1 g/100 CC=1.34 oz/5 gallons if my math is correct, which is not an extraordinarily high dry hopping rate. What do we know about enzymes? They work at a range of pH and temperature, and will work until they are denatured (typically by temperature or pH). Therefore, my hypothesis would be that any introduction of enzymes by dry hopping would have the potential to lower final gravity of the beer (in the presence of yeast, dextrines, etc.). It may take a lot longer for the effect to take place, but it still has the potential to occur.
I’ll add that there are experiments in that paper that show sugar production varying with hop variety as well.
[/quote]
I’ll try to find the citation about the rate. And since we’re talking personal experience. I usually dry hop at rates far higher than Dave did, and I’ve never seen it happen in hundreds of dry hopped batches.
I’ll be dry hopping again for sure next time I have a stuck fermentation. That’s what I’ve learned. You all can do what you like but that’s what I’ve learned.
And I have learned that Denny’s dance effectively repels flying elephants, which, I believe, proves their existence. 
Oh, and if seeded hops contain more diastase… Fuggles! Could explain why Denny’s never experienced this.
HAHA! Good on ya, Robert.
New drunken revelation!: Fresh NEIPAs are hazy PRIMARILY BECAUSE…
Dry hops contain enzymes which convert unconverted complex dextrins into fermentable sugars and it keeps the yeast eating and in suspension otherwise they’d be settling out but since they’re not done eating they don’t.
Discuss. Or don’t. I don’t care.
NEIPAs are what caused hops to get enzymes, I’m pretty sure
Seems you’re feeling better now. Cheers! So… Primarily? Dunno. In part at least? Why the heck not. Except that besides attenuation, the other big purpose of dry hopping back in the day was rapid clarification; but then the mechanism there is providing lots of polyphenols to complex with proteins and all settle out, which will not have gone to completion in said FRESH Knee-pah, so maybe, hmm…
Yeah… it’s so VITAL to consume your NEIPA within SECONDS of it getting into the can that you need to go wait in line for 20 minutes in the NE to get the freshest stuff. Even though it kind of sucks. But yeah.
Yes, I feel very much better, now, thank you. I’m trashed, not on beer but on 3 (or maybe more soon?) good old fashioned Wisconsin whiskey old fashioneds with cherry juice, yummo. I do drink stuff other than beer on occasion. This was one of many of those occasions. Cheers all.
3 Old Fashions, and feeling better… no denying the correlation there