exBEERiment | Hop Comparison: LUPOMAX vs. T-90 Cascade Pellets When Holding IBU Constant In A Blonde Ale

Author: Martin Keen

For many, hops are the most recognizable and lauded ingredient in beer, thanks largely to the explosive popularity of the various types of IPA. While most known for the desirable characteristics they impart to beer, hops are also the sole contributor to the bitterness that balances malt sweetness. With the advent of modern hop products, many of which claim to offer notably increased pungency with less vegetal matter, brewers have been forced to consider the impact this has on their beer.

One such product is LUPOMAX, which looks similar to standard T-90 pellets, though possesses a higher concentration of lupulin with less plant material. Because of this increased potency, brewers can use approximately 70% of the volume required for T-90 pellets, resulting in less beer lost to absorption. Moreover, seeing as LUPOMAX hops are standardized for specific alpha acid levels and flavor characteristics, they’re marketed as offering brewers more consistent performance.

I’ve used LUPOMAX hops several times since they were first released in 2020, and my experiences have generally lined up with Haas’ claims – using quite a bit less than I would T-90s, I’ve consistently achieved pungent hop aroma with adequate bitterness while increasing beer yield, albeit slightly on my scale. However, I was curious how accurate the claims about usage rates are in terms of aroma, flavor, and bitterness, so I designed an xBmt to test it out for myself.

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a Blonde Ale hopped with Cascade LUPOMAX pellets and one made with more Cascade T-90 pellets when IBU is held constant.

| METHODS |

For this xBmt, I went with a simple Blonde Ale recipe in hopes that any differences between the beers would be emphasized. Getting both batches to achieve the same predicted IBU required the use of 62.5% less LUPOMAX than T-90 hops.

To The Max

After collecting the full volume of filtered water for two 5 gallon/19 liter batches, adjusting each to the same desired profile, and heating them up, I added the grains.

During the mash rests, I weighed out the single kettle hop addition for each batch.

Once the mashes were finished, I collected the worts and proceeded to boil them for 60 minutes, adding hops at the times listed in the recipe.

With refractometer readings showing the worts were at the same 1.055 OG, I quickly chilled each wort during transfer to separate fermenters then pitched a pouch of White Labs WLP001 California Ale yeast into each.

The beers were left to ferment at 66°F/19°C for a week before I took refractometer readings showing they were at the same FG.

At this point, I cold-crashed the beers overnight before pressure transferring them to CO2 serving kegs that were placed on gas in my keezer. After a week of conditioning, they were carbonated and ready for evaluation.

| RESULTS |

A total of 20 people of varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each participant was served 1 sample of beer hopped with Cascade LUPOMAX pellets and 2 samples of the beer hopped with Cascade T-90 pellets in different colored opaque cups then asked to identify the unique sample. While 11 tasters (p<0.05) would have had to accurately identify the unique sample in order to reach statistical significance, only 7 did (p=0.52), indicating participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a Blonde Ale made with LUPOMAX Cascade from made with T-90 Cascade when IBU was held constant.

My Impressions: Out of the 5 semi-blind triangle tests I attempted, I correctly identified the odd-beer-out 3 times, though will admit those are lucky guesses, as these beers tasted identical to me. As simple as they were, these beers were quite pleasant to drink.

WHILE LABS IBU DATA

I sent these beers to White Labs for official IBU testing and they determined the beer made with LUPOMAX hops was at 25 IBU while the beer made with 62.5% more T-90 hops was at 21.5 IBU.

| DISCUSSION |

While not the biggest concern for homebrewers, those making larger batches are right to focus on increasing beer yield, particularly when that beer is being sold. LUPOMAX hops promise to help increase yield by packing a higher concentration of lupulin with less plant matter compared to T-90 pellets, allowing brewing to use less, which results is less loss to absorption. Tasters in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a Blonde Ale made with LUPOMAX Cascade from made with T-90 Cascade when IBU was held constant.

This result supports Haas’ claim that a lower amount of LUPOMAX can be used to achieve similar characteristics as a beer made with more T-90 pellets, which would also insinuate that higher LUPOMAX usage rates would contribute more pungent hop characteristics. While Haas states that 70% less LUPOMAX can be used than T-90 pellets, I had to use 62.5% less to achieve the same predicted IBU. However, considering the lab data showing the LUPOMAX beer was 3.5 IBU higher than the T-90 beer, I could likely have used a touch less and achieved the same outcome.

Understandably, people love to see xBmts return significant results, though in some cases, non-significance can be just as revealing. Seeing as neither blind tasters nor I could consistently tell these beers apart, I’m wont to take Haas at their word when it comes to LUPOMAX usage rates and will continue using them in the future, though I tend to prefer the pungency I get from them when used in higher amounts.

If you have any thoughts about this xBmt, please do not hesitate to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

Follow Brülosophy on:

FACEBOOK   |   TWITTER   |   INSTAGRAM

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!