Hop creep variability unveiled: a comparative analysis of hop variety, quantity, origin, and product type
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58430/jib.v131i4.84Keywords:
beer, hops, Humulus lupulos, hop creep, fermentation, dry hopping, hop varietyAbstract
Why was the work done: Hop creep remains a challenge for breweries producing dry hopped beers, as it leads to secondary fermentation that affects both beer quality and safety. Therefore, it is valuable to analyse hop creep across hop product types, growing regions, varieties, and concentrations to establish baseline metrics that reduce batch-to-batch uncertainty for brewers.
How was the work done: This study investigated the role of hop product types, growing regions, varieties, and extent of hop creep in laboratory fermentations. Over 450 fermentations were performed, spanning five hop product formats (T90, Cryo, whole leaf, Noble, and enriched polyphenol aroma pellets/EPAP), six growing regions, and 19 hop varieties. Hops were added at 1 g or 2 g per 100 mL (1 or 2 kg/hL) of beer, reflecting industry usage. Samples were analysed in R with multi-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc analysis.
What are the main findings: Significant (p < 0.05) differences were observed between hop varieties, origins, and product types, highlighting their role in hop creep. However, no significant difference was found with the amount of hops added. Widely used hop varieties, product types, and growing regions showed similar levels of hop creep.
Why is the work important: While the phenomenon of hop creep requires further investigation, these results provide insight to anticipate hop creep by hop variety, product type, and origin. This will help improve the consistency, beer quality, and safety of dry-hopped styles.
Downloads
References
Beer Judge Certification Program. 2021. BJCP beer style guidelines.
Brown HT, Morris G H. 1893. On certain functions of hops used in the dry-hopping of beers. Brew Guard 23:93-94, 107-109.
Bruner J, Marcus A, Fox G. 2021. Dry-hop creep potential of various Saccharomyces yeast species and strains. Fermentation 7:66.
Bruner J, Williams J, Fox G. 2020. Further exploration of hop creep variability with Humulus lupulus cultivars and proposed method for determination of secondary fermentation. Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am 57:1002–1008.
Cottrell M. 2025. Contribution of β-amylase from hops to the fermentability of dry hopped beer. J Inst Brew 131:92-99.
Hrabia O, Poręba P, Ciosek A, Poreda A. 2024. Effect of dry hopping conditions on the hop creep potential of beer. J Am Soc Brew Chem 82:412–421.
Jobe C, Féchir M, Rubottom L, Shellhammer TH. 2024. The importance of variety and regional identity on the dextrin-reducing enzymatic activity of Cascade and Mosaic hops grown in Washington and Oregon. J Am Soc Brew Chem 82:39–46.
Kirkpatrick KR, Shellhammer TH. 2018a. A cultivar-based screening of hops for dextrin degrading enzymatic potential. J Am Soc Brew Chem 76:247–256.
Kirkpatrick KR, Shellhammer TH. 2018b. Evidence of dextrin hydrolyzing enzymes in Cascade hops (Humulus lupulus). J Agric Food Chem 66:9121–9126.
Kirkpatrick KR. 2018. Investigating hop enzymes. Master's thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Klimczak K, Cioch-Skoneczny M, Duda-Chodak A. 2023. Effects of dry-hopping on beer chemistry and sensory properties - a review. Molecules 28:6648.
Krogerus K, Gibson BR. 2013. Diacetyl and its control during brewery fermentation. J Inst Brew 119:86-97.
Silva Ferreira C, Thibault de Chanvalon E, Bodart E, Collin S. 2018. Why humilones are key bitter constituents only after dry hopping: comparison with other Belgian styles. J Am Soc Brew Chem 76:236-246.
Teraoka R, Kanauchi M, Bamforth CW. 2021. Do starch degrading enzymes in hop samples originate in microorganisms? Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am 58:705–710.
Vollmer DM, Shellhammer TH. 2016. Dry hopping on a small scale: considerations for achieving reproducibility. Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am 53:140–144.
Werrie PY, Deckers S, Fauconnier ML. 2022. Brief insight into the underestimated role of hop amylases on beer aroma profiles. J Am Soc Brew Chem 80:66–74.
Wietstock P, Michalek D, Treetzen T, Pinto MBC, Biendl M, Gibson B. 2025. Diastatic activity of German hop cultivars with respect to variety, crop year, and separated hop cone parts. ACS Food Sci Technol 5, 2408–2416.
Willemart G, Tanriverdi Y, Collin S. 2025. Impact of contact time, temperature, and ethanol content on hop creep-related enzymatic activities in beer. J Am Soc Brew Chem 83:1-7.
Young J. 2021. Serial repitching method for New England IPAs with mid-fermentation dry hopping. Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am 58:100–105.
Young J, Oakley WRM, Fox G. 2023. Humulus lupulus and microbes: exploring biotic causes for hop creep. Food Microbiol 113:104298.
Young J, Fox G. 2025. A fresh perspective on hop composition: the discovery of starch in hop cones (Humulus lupulus). J Am Soc Brew Chem 83:282-287.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 29-01-2026 (2)
- 20-12-2025 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of the Institute of Brewing
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed or built upon in any way.
Permission will be required if the proposed reuse is not covered by the terms of the License. In this event, email the Editor in Chief - david.quain@cibd.org.uk - with details of your request.
