Heady Topper- Can you clone it?

[dyqik]

My take on this is:

Firstly, liquor in brewing means water, not finished wort or beer, which is why the brew sheet refers to both liquor profile and target liquor, and we have hot liquor tanks. Nothing else makes sense here. Wort and beer are not called liquor by brewers.

Secondly, using stated addition of 18g/5 gal of gypsum in the listed source liquor profile pretty much gives the target liquor profile. You can show this in Bru'n'water or any other water calculator. So the target profile is consistent with the stated additions.

Thirdly, the target liquor profile is a pretty close match to Burton-on-Trent deep aquifer water, which is widely used by many brewers to produce very hoppy beers. It's one of the built-in profiles in almost every brewing water calculator. It's completely plausible that this is used as the water profile of a very hoppy beer.

Fourthly, brewing beer with that liquor will change the mineral content in the final beer in an unknown way. You don't know whether the entire process will add or subtract sulfates, calcium, magnesium etc. from the finished beer - remember that spent grain, trub and yeast are all removed and may carry some of these minerals along with them, as well as adding minerals of their own. In particular, magnesium and calcium will get taken up by the yeast, which is then mostly removed. You cannot take the mineral content in the final beer and infer the liquor profile without accounting for these losses.

I'm unconvinced by the arguments above that the brewsheet is some kind of misinformation and that a brewer would for some reason target final mineral content in their beer rather than using the standard brewing procedure of producing a water profile that they brew with.

EDIT: I also haven't seen any statement or calculation in those other threads that suggests that significant sulfates are coming from the malt. Mg and Ca, but not sulfates. I don't know if grain contributes sulfates to the beer, but no one else has suggested it those threads (there is one post saying that someone else said it, but I can't find where they did actually say it). And how are the calculations accounting for minerals lost to material removed from the beer during the brewing process? Not everything going into the brewery ends up in the can.

 

[g-star]

Firstly, it is clear "target" can be interpreted in several ways. The fact that we have hard data supporting a final BEER hardness of 746ppm is stronger evidences than just speculating what the intent of every line a professional brew sheet means.

Secondly, an addition of anhydrous calcium sulfate at a rate 18g CaSO4/5gal would result in 669ppm sulfate. The beer tested at 156ppm sulfate. I can accept not all of the sulfate makes it into the final beer, but I cannot accept that 77% of the sulfate addition is lost. For the record, at a dose rate of 7g/5gal as was calculated, the theoretical sulfate level would be 260ppm. This type of loss (156 vs. 260ppm) is much more realistic.

Thirdly, the presence of a historic water profile in brewing software has little bearing on this discussion, which should instead be centered again around hard data - lab results vs. KNOWN salt additions.

Fourthly, losses as a function of the brewing process/fermentation certainly occur but cannot realistically account for such a dramatic drop off in terms of losses from theoretical at the dose rate of 18g/5gal:

Analyte/Lab Results/Theoretical @ 7g/5gal/Theoretical @ 18g/5gal

Ca/110/108/279
SO4/156/260/669


Lastly, no one is seriously accusing the Alchemist of trying to deliberately mislead home brewers. We're all here just trying to figure this out based on the facts that we have. It is more constructive to work off of the hard data that we have, rather than merely speculate and try to shoe-horn pre-conceived dogma to fit a certain paradigm.

 

[dyqik]

I see where you've gone wrong, the reported sulfate levels in the beer was 468ppm.

Ward labs reports sulfate as sulfur. You need to multiply that number by 3 to get the sulfate levels, which comes out at 468ppm, for a 25% loss the brewing process, which is entirely plausible. Your calculated dose rate is way short of that.

 

[g-star]

That is a good catch, and clearly something that I missed and would put the addition closer to 13g/5gal (assuming no process loss or contribution from the malt). That would also put Ca up over 200ppm, which is not evidenced in the lab results, but again, could be lost somewhere in the process, perhaps as precipitated calcium oxalate.

Going back to the original point, the only way we are going to know with more certainty is to brew the beer in deionized water with no salt additions, get an analysis, and then back-calculate.

All of this said, it may end up only being a tiny part of the puzzle. What really sets this beer apart is the great hop flavor/aroma profile. This is probably more a function of the use of premium fresh hops and proprietary hopping techniques used at the brewery (referenced by Kimmich in the video circulating around) in terms of kettle additions, whirlpool, hopback, and dry hop than the exact water chemistry.

Cheers mate.

 

[dyqik]

EDITED because I forgot about the difference between anhydrous CaSO4 and gypsum.

I can think of another way in which the additions listed can get pretty close to the measured levels of sulfate in the beer.

Gypsum isn't the same thing as anhydrous calcium sulfate - you need to multiply the gypsum additions above by 172/136 ~ 1.25 to to get the same sulfate levels, which would be more like 4.45 g/gal for the additions listed on the brew sheet. However anhydrous calcium sulfate will very rapidly take up water from the air (we use it in dehydrators in my lab), and so measuring it by weight can be unreliable. I'll calculate with both 3.57g/gal of anhydrous CaSO4 and 3.57g/gal of gypsum below.

Starting with my MWRA Boston water, which is very slightly harder and more alkaline than that shown on the brew sheet (28mg/L vs 20mg/L, and 38mg/L vs 20 mg/L alkalinity) and use the additions from the brewsheet in Bru'n'water, adding 3.57g/gal of gypsum or 3.57g/gal anhydrous calcium sulfate (2775 g in 776 gals, 17.9g in 5 gal) and 0.2 g/gal of CaCl2 (152 g in 776 gals, 1g in 5 gal), I get the following water:

Brewsheet additions in Boston water
Initial Profile:
Total Hardness: 28 mg/L
Alkalinity: 38 mg/L
Ca: 10 mg/L
SO4: 8.7 mg/L
Cl: 22mg/L
Carbonate: 46 mg/L

Final profile with gypsum:
Total Hardness: 612 mg/L
Alkalinity: -115 mg/L
Ca: 243 mg/L
SO4: 535 mg/L
Cl: 47.5 mg/L
Carbonate: -138 mg/L

Final Profile with anhydrous calcium sulfate:

Total Hardness: 749 mg/L
Alkalinity: -115 mg/L
Ca: 299 mg/L
SO4: 666 mg/L
Cl: 47.5 mg/L
Carbonate: -138 mg/L


Using distilled water (0 hardness), I get

Final Profile for Gypsum:
Total hardness: 584 mg/L
Alkalinity: -153 mg/L
Ca: 233.7 mg/L
SO4: 526 mg/L
Cl: 25.5 mg/L
Carbonate: -185 mg/L

Final Profile for anhydrous calcium sulfate:
Total hardness: 721 mg/L
Alkalinity: -153 mg/L
Ca: 288.4 mg/L
SO4: 657 mg/L
Cl: 25.5 mg/L
Carbonate: -185 mg/L


These should pretty much bracket the actual water profile that using the additions in the brewsheet would produce - Boston water is a little bit higher in the relevant minerals than the source water on the brew sheet, distilled water is obviously lower, calcium sulfate gives you the target hardness, but partially hydrated calcium sulfate doesn't get you as close to the target profile.

From that, I suspect that there's some scope for not fully reaching the target hardness in the brewsheet. It's then plausible that enough sulfate is lost in the brewing process to match the measured level in the beer - only about 60 mg/l needs to be lost in the worse case, 200 mg/l in the best case.

Basically, I don't think there's enough evidence to support the idea that the brewsheet additions are way off base. The lab results aren't conclusive enough.

 

[dyqik]

But yes, the only way to calibrate the lab data is to test a few clone brews with known water and known processes. But even then differences in things like the yeast growth factors would change the results.

However, it's pretty likely that a massively hop forward beer would use a large gypsum/calcium sulfate addition. I doubt there's an enormous difference in taste between 13g/5 gal and 18g/5 gal additions though.

 

[ianmatth]

It seems you have trouble with reading comprehension.

That's a bit insulting. I think you have trouble comprehending the point I am trying to make. I understand everything that has been said in this thread as well as the other thread in regard to where the total hardness is coming from. 750 mg/L is only circled because someone else circled it. I would have preferred to have 2775 grams and 776 gallons circled because basic math shows that equals over 18g/5 gallons.

There is no way they are adding 18g/5gal. The data doesn't support it.

I agree with you there, while I have stated multiple times that maybe John is screwing with us, in reality maybe it's a mistake or maybe somehow all that calcium doesn't make it to the final beer.

dyqik - Good notice about the sulfate, but 13g/5 gallons should make the calcium way higher than 110. At this point I'm thinking 3 tsp gypsum per 5 gallon batch is probably good if the source water isn't too hard or too high in calcium.

 

[dyqik]

Calcium will be lost by a number of mechanisms within the brewing process. Yeast takes it up and removes it when it drops out. It's precipitated as calcium oxalate, and it's absorbed by the trub and settles out with it. The calcium in the initial water can be much higher than the calcium the final beer.

EDIT TO ADD: We can estimate a minimum amount of calcium lost by the way - Bru'n'water and other sources suggest a minimum of 50 mg/L Ca for yeast and trub flocculation, which would suggest that at least 50 mg/L of Ca can be removed by that process in a normal beer. Since Heady is a pretty extreme beer, it's certainly not hard to imagine 2 to 4 times that amount of Ca could be lost that way.

Calcium also reacts in the mash with phosphate to lower pH (releasing H+ ions), so Ca is lost there as well as calcium phosphate, which precipitates out in the mash and is removed with the spent grain. See this thread in the brew science forum - Burtonizing.

So yes, there's plenty of scope for losing significant amounts of calcium.

The thing that really makes me think that the brewsheet might be accurate is that many sources suggest making big gypsum additions to pale ales, bitters and IPAs - even slightly bigger than on the brewsheet. Daniels in Designing Great Beers (p169-170) suggests adding 5 teaspoons (at 5g per teaspoon) of gypsum to a 5 gallon batch of bitter, pale ale or IPA, which is 25g/5 gal (or 20g/gal anhydrous calcium sulfate). That's pretty much in line with standard recommendations for "Burtonizing" water for hoppy pale ales and IPAs - the Beersmith newsletter sent out yesterday mentions the same thing.

But it's not necessary to fully Burtonize water to get the benefits, so 13g-15g/5 gal is probably enough to get the effect.

 

[trimixdiver1]

Quit nuking it! And drink what you got!

 

[trimixdiver1]

Quit nuking it! And drink what you got!

 

[globe]

So how far can you go with Gypsum before you get a sulphur aroma. I am sure heady has no such thing. Everything I have read says above 350ppm you get that.

 

[pickles]

I have a session ipa I'm drinking now with 354 ppm sulfate and absolutely no sulfur smell or taste. Hops pop though!

 

[chato]

I'm brewing my own take on the recipe tonight. I'm shooting for ~300ppm sulfate and <5.4 ph, basing my water treatment on the Brewcipher and Bru'NWater spreadsheets. No hop extract, no Apollo and Conan yeast harvested from fresh HT two weeks ago. This is my first attempt. Keepin' my fingers crossed.

 

[Bramstoker17]

A question about the hop bill: How vital is Apollo to the recipe? I'm not shooting for an exact clone as I plan on subbing Citra for the centennial, but I want to be close. I'm having a hell of a time finding Apollo hops near me in any of my LHBS's, and Northern Brewer was out when I ordered my hop shots.

Will using more Columbus be a decent sub?


Edit Nevermind, I bit the bullet and ordered some from another site, though I guess the question still stands for anyone not able to get a hold of this hop easily.

 

[Bramstoker17]

Oh, and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread, its full of awesome info! I was finally able to try this amazing beer the other day through a trade and was just blown away!

 

[brewski09]

I think the Apollo is not critical if you don't get really good quality hops. I you are getting top quality hops, then it should add some dankness. I would probably sub some CTZ and nugget in its place if you had to.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[Braufessor]

I just dropped the apollo out of my 4th attempt.....I cut it in half in my third attempt. I basically eliminated the apollo and replaced it with Centennial and chinook. I thought my first couple tries were very good IPA's, but I did not think the hop profile was like "Heady"..... Hoping the Centennial/Chinook addition brings this recent attempt closer.

 

[SFGiantsFan925]

How big of a starter are you guys using for this?? I have a packet of Gigayeast Vermont yeast, and if I make a starter out of that is it going to be enough? Or do I need a lot more.

Mr. Malty says a 1.65L starter would work with 1 packet. Anyone have input on this??

 

[Adaman05]

I used a 2L starter with the yeast bay Conan.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[Braufessor]

I generally do a 3L starter with a pack of GigaYeast....... However, I do this a few days ahead of time, decant the wort, and then put a bit into two different pint jars to use to make future starters (as harvesting yeast from this beer is a PITA with all the hops).
So, I am basically pitching a 2L starter made from one of the gold packs of Gigayeast.

Make sure you have a good size container - if you try to make a 1.5L starter with a pack of gigayeast, in a 2L flask...... it will likely be coming out the top.

 

[ianmatth]

I generally try to crash my yeast at some point so I really know how much I have. I assume 4 billion cells per ml of solidly crashed yeast, so 75 ml of solidly crashed yeast will provide the 300 billion cells I'm looking for. I always save 20-100 billion cells and continuously re-propagate. I have been using the same Conan yeast from a can of Heady for over a dozen batches and I never fail to get at least 85% attenuation.

 

[sweetcell]

apologies if this has already been posted...

Farmhouse Brewing Supply is selling a kit based on this recipe... should we get a cut?!?

http://www.farmhousebrewingsupply.com/heady-topper-clone-all-grain/

 

[stpug]

~13 lbs grain
14 oz expensive hops
hopshot
vermont yeast

That's pretty damn good for $50 retail, IMHO. Granted, bought in bulk you could save some money but not a ton.
Good for Farmhouse for offering up something reasonable.
I don't think they have "a cut" to spare

 

[geoffey]

I love that they credit the "popular HBT recipe". And yeah, that seems like a very reasonable price for this kit.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[brewski09]

With shipping from multiple sources as was previously required for this recipe, I think that's actually less expensive than what we paid when I brewed this.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[Roadie]

I thought I may try my hand at this but without reading 255 pages in this thread can someone tell me:

Is there is a recommended water profile (Ca; Mg; Na; Cl; SO4)?

Aroma steep temperature?

Fermentation temperature?

 

[Adaman05]

I thought I may try my hand at this but without reading 255 pages in this thread can someone tell me:

Is there is a recommended water profile (Ca; Mg; Na; Cl; SO4)?

Aroma steep temperature?

Fermentation temperature?

Go heavy on the hardness of the water.

Aroma steep at 180F.

Ferment at 68, then raise to 72 as fermentation is ending.

 

[mtnagel]

I thought I may try my hand at this but without reading 255 pages in this thread can someone tell me:

Is there is a recommended water profile (Ca; Mg; Na; Cl; SO4)?

Aroma steep temperature?

Fermentation temperature?

This is the water profile I used.

I steeped at ~180F for ~30 mins. Pitched all hops in loose. Removed wort chiller, stirred every 5 mins and put lid on in between.

I pitched at 70F, but then cooled down to 66F and held for 3-4 days, then allowed to rise to 68-69F.

Got 3rd out of 37 beers in IPA category in a local competition.

 

[Roadie]

This is the water profile I used.

I steeped at ~180F for ~30 mins. Pitched all hops in loose. Removed wort chiller, stirred every 5 mins and put lid on in between.

I pitched at 70F, but then cooled down to 66F and held for 3-4 days, then allowed to rise to 68-69F.

Got 3rd out of 37 beers in IPA category in a local competition.

Thanks for the responses.

I actually read several pages of the thread going backwards and saw your post. Congrats on 3rd place!! I was wondering if your numbers were the consensus hence my question. I've never personally gone over 110 ppm Ca and 350 ppm Sulfate (but never brewed this beer) so 170 and 400 made me nervous and I wanted to be sure those kind of numbers was what everyone was using.

The 180F for 30 minutes seems to be the consensus on the whirlpool. I've experimented with temps of 170F and 150F but not as long as 30 min so that will be a small change for me but no big deal.

Never worked with this yeast before so placed an order for it. My Yeast Bay Vermont Ale order is supposed to ship today as I've been unable to get Heady here in KS to step up dregs from but do have a couple bottles of this year's KBS left still so may post a future thread in the trade forum to have something to compare my finished beer with.

One additional question has come up in my reading regarding the quantities of dry hops. Is everyone still using the amounts listed on page one under the Current Best Clone for the dry hops?

 

[brewski09]

You can easily trade kbs for heady, probably even pull a 4 pack with just 2 of them since people buy heady by the case. I highly recommend getting some real heady.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[globe]

Anyone ever have calcium deposits on the bottom of their kettle after adding all this gypsum haha? At least that's what I am going to assume it is. Its something precipitating or possibly the fermcap. My system is electric so It wasn't burned.

 

[ianmatth]

I add the gypsum to my mash water, no issue whatsoever, it's probably less than 200 ppm Ca by the time it makes it to the kettle and there are plenty of municipalities with over 200 ppm of Ca. The hop oil will do 100x worse to your kettle than gypsum ever could.

 

[mtnagel]

Thanks for the responses.

I actually read several pages of the thread going backwards and saw your post. Congrats on 3rd place!! I was wondering if your numbers were the consensus hence my question. I've never personally gone over 110 ppm Ca and 350 ppm Sulfate (but never brewed this beer) so 170 and 400 made me nervous and I wanted to be sure those kind of numbers was what everyone was using.

You're welcome. If you've done 350 ppm sulfate, 50 ppm more isn't really that much. Go for it and see if you like it.

One additional question has come up in my reading regarding the quantities of dry hops. Is everyone still using the amounts listed on page one under the Current Best Clone for the dry hops?

I did.

 

[globe]

Maybe deposits isn't the right word, i just had a pile of white substance on the bottom of the kettle after the boil, perhaps i didn't mix it in well enough during the mash...I BIAB so same vessel. Owell the beer is tasting good so far...Conan was very peachy this time around.

 

[brewski09]

I'd guess precipitate (from chemistry reactions that are a bit beyond my caring right now, but I'm sure someone on here can explain it well. If not, there are some good water chemistry threads to post the question on)


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[trimixdiver1]

Try no2, I'm damn close and satisfied. Next I'm using some of the new German Hops!

I guess now I can admit it, John Kimmich is my cousin. NOT that he helped at all, he wouldn't. As a matter of fact he will not speak to me after I did this clone. Not that I could hurt his business here in Pittsburgh, I think I'm outside the 25mile distribution range. Also I asked him before I proped his Conan yeast. He said ok as long as I didn't sell it at the store. Well since that store will be no longer.... Oh well.

 

[robopp]

View attachment 226477

Try no2, I'm damn close and satisfied. Next I'm using some of the new German Hops!

I guess now I can admit it, John Kimmich is my cousin. NOT that he helped at all, he wouldn't. As a matter of fact he will not speak to me after I did this clone. Not that I could hurt his business here in Pittsburgh, I think I'm outside the 25mile distribution range. Also I asked him before I proped his Conan yeast. He said ok as long as I didn't sell it at the store. Well since that store will be no longer.... Oh well.

It definitely looks close in color. Are you using the recipe on the first page of this thread?

 

[trimixdiver1]

It definitely looks close in color. Are you using the recipe on the first page of this thread?

Yes, at 750ppm hardness and ferment at 63f

 

[PackerfaninSanDiego]

ordered this kit from Farmhouse Supply 3 days ago. I guess it's per the recipe on page 1. There quite a long wait to get it as they were short on the yeast. Anyone try their kit?

 

[wowbeeryum]

Had my first Heady last night and I got some hints of pineapple from it. This pineapple flavor was very present in another beer I've had recently, Wolf Among Weeds from Golden Road. I want to make something, not Heady specifically, that showcases this flavor.

What hop/hop combo is causing this?

Heady (from this thread): Simcoe, Apollo, Columbus, Amarillo, Centennial,
Wolf Among Weeds (from Golden Road website): Columbus, Chinook, Simcoe, Cascade

Simcoe and Columbus seem to be in both. However, I've made an IPA that was strictly Simcoe and Columbus and didn't get that flavor (turned out good but really dank/piney - not pineapple). Some searching on here indicates it could possibly be from Chinook, either dry hop or real late addition, but that was only a response or two from people while most say it's more herbal/earthy/piney. I've never used Chinook.

Thoughts?