Lupulin Powder

[McMullan]

No, it’s overdosing hops, being lazy and impatient. How imaginative! A failure to follow tried and tested instructions very rarely produces a generally acceptable recipe, brewing or otherwise. Trading off one perceived quality (e.g. clarity) for the sake of over-promoting another (because it's easy?) is not a development. It’s a personal choice, I guess. A can't-be-bothered attitude. It indicates a failure to control the process invented by others long ago. It’s like promoting square ‘wheels’ or a polish for turds. ‘NextGen Beer’ Dry hopping during active primary fermentation is not a new technique either. Nor does it promote turbid beers, in my experience. If I favoured hops that much, I’d probably brew hop tea, instead of beer.

Are you suggesting John Keeling would promote turbidity in Fuller's beers? I'm pretty sure he'd agree the appearance of a beer, its clarity, is an important part of the consumer experience and a measure of a Brewer's skill.

[Sadfield]

Are you suggesting John Keeling would promote turbidity in Fuller's beers? I'm pretty sure he'd agree the appearance of a beer, its clarity, is an important part of the consumer experience and a measure of a Brewer's skill.

turbid [tur-bid]

adjective
1.
not clear or transparent because of stirred-up sediment or the like; clouded; opaque; obscured:
the turbid waters near the waterfall.
2.
thick or dense, as smoke or clouds.
3.
confused; muddled; disturbed.




http://imbibe.com/news-articles/beers/f ... nfiltered/

Ha, Ha. Yes, yes I am.

[McMullan]

But Fuller's unfiltered London Pride doesn't look like 'pea soup', does it? Nor does my home-brewed version, which has never been filtered, yet goes very bright indeed and retains more flavour than a filtered version ever would

So you promote 'pea soup' beverages on one hand and advocate the perceived benefits of lupulin powder on the other? Then use a bright, unfiltered commercial beer as somehow supporting your argument, whatever that is

[orlando]

Brewing director John Keeling suggests serving Unfiltered around 6°C rather than the 12°C the cask London Pride is dispensed at. Commenting on how the beer evolves as it warms during drinking, Keeling says it becomes ‘more interesting at the bottom of the glass than at the beginning’.

So you have to drink 90% of it to get to the best bit? The lunatics are taking over the asylum. This is where all this is leading. Keg beer via the back door. Turbid beer as the hand maiden.

[McMullan]

So you have to drink 90% of it to get to the best bit? The lunatics are taking over the asylum. This is where all this is leading. Keg beer via the back door. Turbid beer as the hand maiden.

The 10% at the bottom is like home brew

[Sadfield]

But Fuller's unfiltered London Pride doesn't look like 'pea soup', does it? Nor does my home-brewed version, which has never been filtered, yet goes very bright indeed and retains more flavour than a filtered version ever would

So you promote 'pea soup' beverages on one hand and advocate the perceived benefits of lupulin powder on the other? Then use a bright, unfiltered commercial beer as somehow supporting your argument, whatever that is

Bright beer is brewing term referring to beer in which yeast is no longer in suspension. NEIPAs are bright beers in that the yeast has dropped out of suspension, as most brewers crash cool after hopping, the opaque appearance is a result of hopping, grist and water treatment, as it is with Unfiltered London Pride. NEIPA haze will clear given time, although this seldom happens as most intelligent drinkers will drink them fresh, because beer hop aroma and flavour dissipates with time and these are hop forward beers. There is little brewing skill in fining and filtering. Ergo, one is not better brewing than the other, something that is not relative to your narrow minded personal preference. My advocacy of lupulin powder is it looks to offer a cleaner hop flavour (read the article).

[McMullan]

Yes, it's called Stoke's law and it takes time. Bad for business, apparently. Thanks for another lesson in how not to brew a hoppy beer

[Sadfield]

Yes, it's called Stoke's law and it takes time. Bad for business, apparently. Thanks for another lesson in how not to brew a hoppy beer

Bad for who's business? Yet another meaningless response in a thread where you have not contributed anything of relevance to the original post.

[McMullan]

‘Intelligence’: 'the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests).'

If you add too many dry hops, you’ll get ‘pea soup’ and possibly off flavours from adding too much vegetable matter. Most brewers know that, except the 'intelligent drinkers’, of course. Now you know. Please use this knowledge wisely and it will serve you well

[Sadfield]

If you add too many dry hops, you’ll get ‘pea soup’ and possibly off flavours from adding too much vegetable matter. Most brewers know that, except the 'intelligent drinkers’, of course. Now you know. Please use this knowledge wisely and it will serve you well

And how does this relate to the original article, that you and IPA disparaged?

[McMullan]

Bad for who's business? Yet another meaningless response in a thread where you have not contributed anything of relevance to the original post.

Time is money, I'd say. You don't appreciate the nature of business, I guess. If my responses here are 'meaningless' to you, I would have to question your self-claimed 'intelligence'.

Does the following clip make you laugh?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCs4abeOKuU

Or do you take yourself too seriously?

[Sadfield]

Don't take myself seriously at all. Again, argumentum ad hominem. Why not answer my previous question?

[McMullan]

And how does this relate to the original article, that you and IPA disparaged?

There are a number of unanswered questions about 'lupulin powder'. Perhaps you should read my comments? Regardless, I have no need for this product myself. It's unlikely to improve my beers therefore it doesn't look very cost effective for me. It will be more expensive than whole hops. It lacks the additional benefits of whole hops, which I rely on: freshness (intact lupulin glands), filtering capacity, hop identification, for example. No, I don't use pellet hops either.

[McMullan]

From their website, 'INTENTIONAL PRESERVATION OF LUPULIN GLANDS… INCREASED EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY’. How? Where’s the data? At the moment, these are nothing more than unsubstantiated statements. Anyone could make unsubstantiated statements to claim whatever they liked. They often do, FFS! I’m quite happy with how lupulin glands seem to be preserved, naturally, in whole hops. How efficient is the ‘Cryo Hop’ process? Concentrating lupulin glands is not necessarily an ‘efficient’ process. Increased ‘efficiency’ and ‘sustainability’? For who? Brewers and the environment? Or business? As I typed, there are a number of unanswered questions about ‘lupulin powder’. And any costs are likely to be imposed generally; but as long as someone makes a profit out of it, it’s fine, because brewers 'need it’, right? I don’t know, in a year or two, I might be using it exclusively. On the face of it, today, that’s very unlikely, though.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-beer- ... SKCN0X81OS

[Sadfield]

Well done, you've finally started researching the subject matter, and already debunked your misconception about Lupulin glands. Thanks.

As this is a new products to both commercial and homebrewing markets there is a lot to be learnt about how it performs. As always testing involves extremes, so let's hope heavy handed brewers have the skills to provide constructive feedback. As for hop shortages and beer prices, the best way to future proof your drinking is to master all styles and stock up on hops.