Heady Topper- Can you clone it?

BrewSwag 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Petekiteworld said:
Just had another heady last night and compared it to a columbus smash...

I definitely think we need to put more columbus into the clone.
Click to expand...


I agree. I think there is a significant amount of columbus in this beer. There is some amarillo in there as well. The yeast isn't throwing all of that character.

But yeah.. I'm pretty sure there's some Nugget in there with the Columbus.
 
Just left the alchemist. Am now stacked with 54 cans but wasn't able to get my hands on any good info. Noticed that one fermenter had a temp of 56 on it but we knew that already. Anyway, needless to say I will be studying the taste of this beer tonight...
 
Back when I first tried Heady, I honestly wasn't impressed with it. I said to myself, "This is no Pliny." But then I delved deeper and the flavor grew on me. It had more dank flavor than Pliny. But Pliny's dank aroma was more substantial. Since then, I always thought it was perplexing how two beers could have such a focus on dank marijuana character... but one (HT) is more about the flavor whereas the other (PtE) was more about the aroma. They have the same character but one is reflected more in the flavor than the aroma. Heady smells more fruity to me, but tastes more dank. Pliny smells more dank to me, but tastes kind of citrusy.
 
bobbrews said:
Back when I first tried Heady, I honestly wasn't impressed with it. I said to myself, "This is no Pliny." But then I delved deeper and the flavor grew on me. It had more dank flavor than Pliny. But Pliny's dank aroma was more substantial. Since then, I always thought it was perplexing how two beers could have such a focus on dank marijuana character... but one (HT) is more about the flavor whereas the other (PtE) was more about the aroma. They have the same character but one is reflected more in the flavor than the aroma. Heady smells more fruity to me, but tastes more dank. Pliny smells more dank to me, but tastes kind of citrusy.
Click to expand...

Very much agree with this. I was thinking the same thing last night drinking a heady.

Very dank but fruity up front in aroma and flavor.
 
NordeastBrewer77 said:
Midwest Supplies alway has Pearl if you don't mind mail order. It is pretty key to this clone. As is Hop Shot, I don't believe you'll get the resin-y hops character from FWing with any hop.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm going to get Pearl and Hopshot, this is just mainly to get my feet wet with Conan, and try out some hop combo's. I'll be trying my first Heady tomorrow, so that may change my thoughts on the whole process.
 
I just kegged my Heady 'Clone' this weekend. It smells and tastes awesome! It's not a Heady, but it has some similarities and will be a very enjoyable DIPA. I can't wait to share it. A few things that I think are important to the advancement of this thread (most of this we already know):

Pearl Malt is a must. I think it comes through in several ways: color, the very faint malt under all those hops, and that slick mouthfeel.

Hop extract is a must. I didn't have any, so I used 60 IBU's of Simcoe (@60mins). The bitterness is all wrong in my attempt. Not bad, just not right. I know I used Simcoe and it has a distinctive character, but I think even a milder hop still would not provide you with the right bitterness and taste.

Conan, Conan, Conan. That's it, no substitutions! It really is the heart of this beer. Tropical fruit and peach is what Conan produces in this beer's aroma and taste. It is an absolute must in this beer.

Dry hops will be tricky. I think this is where the beautiful balance of Heady Topper happens. Before dry hopping my 'clone' had a nice balance to it. Good malt, nice mouthfeel, tropical, peachy, bitterness was a bit off but still tasty. Then I dry hopped and the balance went a little awry. Not awful, just 'off'. I wish I could offer more help here, but all I can do is offer what combo of hops did not work: I used 1oz each of Simcoe, Centennial, Amarillo, and Columbus for 5 days @64 degrees. If I were to dry hop this beer again I would go more Simcoe and maybe cut the others in half, or eliminate one.

Most of this stuff we already knew, but I wanted to add my 2 cents. Good luck to anyone trying to reproduce this beer. It is truly an exceptional DIPA.

-Mike
 
I'm going to go with 1oz of Columbus and Simcoe, the half the additions of the Amarillo, Centennial, and I think there is some nugget in there as well.

Get the citrus in the boil/hop stand, and fire away the dankness in the dry hop.
 
For 5 gallons, my 3-stage, 12 day dryhop (4 days each addition of about 2 oz):

0.75 oz. Apollo
0.75 oz. Amarillo
0.75 oz. Centennial
1.75 oz. Simcoe
1.75 oz. Columbus
 
I think the secret is they use a ton of hop extract. A ton that's why they say drink from the can you pour it all out in a glass get a ton of resin. You don't get that from dry hopping or doing hop stands with hops.
 
Ok....so after having my first Heady, I'll give a couple observations.

First....has anyone put the "floaties" under a microscope? It looks like a good portion is clumpy Belgian yeast.

Don't taste crystall at all

think I detect a some Vienna in there...not sure.

Columbus Centennial Simcoe cascade are evident to me, with a focus on Columbus(probably heavy in the dryhop/whirlpool/hopback)

Seems"thick" like there would have to be some oats, wheat, or dare I say it..corn in there.

Oh......and it's really good!

welp.....that's my 2 cents.....carry on
 
Counted the Conan yeast and did a viability test today so those of us that have some cultured Conan might have some ballpark numbers to base growth rates off of. I'm lucky that I use a digital hemocytometer. Did three separate counts since I did see some variance. I didn't have a flash drive with me, so couldn't pull the info, sorry!

These numbers are at a 500x dilution and stained 1:1 with Trypan Blue.

#1) 1.2 x 10^6 viable cells/ml at 33% total viability.
#2) 1.6 x 10^6 viable cells/ml at 61% total viability.
#3) 1.8 x 10^6 viable cells/ml at 50% total viability.

So it averages to ~1.5 x 10^6 live cells and 48% total viability. Extrapolating that, the culture veganbrewer sent has ~ (1.5 x 10^6)(500) = 750 million viable cells per ml. I have about 30 total mls, so 22.5 billion viable cells in the vial.

The yeast built up a lot of pressure, which I believe could attribute to some of the cell death. I had to periodically vent the vial to avoid what I sensed would have been a violent explosion.

Here's a pic under a standard hemocytometer:

XrMCINn.jpg
 
Well, I pitched a nice big starter that had been sitting in my fridge for a week since I didn't get around to using it.

Tossed it in 1.082 Kern River Citra DIPA clone I had milled up. Should pair well.

This yeast is a beast though, no kidding. I decanted, and had like 300ML of straight yeast built up from a vial. Sat in the fridge for a week. Pulled it out before brewing. Ended up mashing, vorlauf, and started heating it. Got to like 180* and then said to hell with it and went to play golf. Came back 3 hours later, started the boil again, went ahead with finishing the beer. Yeast was out the whole time in the flask.

Tossed it in, and 2.5 hours later, before I went to bed, it was in the garage at 62* and going wild. I've got 4in of krausen this morning, have a feeling I should have put on a blow off, but I'll risk it for today.

Should leave me with a nice cake to use for my HT clone.
 
cscade said:
This is excellent. Thanks so much! Having never seen anything like this, are the cells with the dark "centers" the dead cells?
Click to expand...

That picture is an unstained sample. But yes, when staining with methylene blue or trypan blue, all blue cells are dead (ruptured cell walls allow permeation of the dye) and viable cells will still have transparency.
 
Those of you who have had contact with Kimmich himself, have you ever just asked him "So, where did this yeast come from, originally? What's its heritage?" I can understand why he would be hesitant to give technical details about how he brews with it now, but maybe he'd be willing to part with some harmless background info.
 
I think it was mentioned that Conan was derived from an English Ale strain. The Ballantine Ale strain, which is available from East Coast Yeast (ECY10 Old Newark Ale) is close.
 
eandersen said:
Isn't it pretty much impossible to get ECY though?
Click to expand...

Tough, but it can be done. I can get the strain mentioned as well as several others about once a month or so from a guy in my club. It's tricky, and a PITA (gotta get online at the right time for the limited supply, kinda like buying popular tickets). If I see that the 010 is available next time he posts, I will try'n get some to compare to Conan.
 
anyone know if Hill Farmstead uses conan as well?

I was told that they were also handed down Conan from Greg Noonan
 
terrapinj said:
anyone know if Hill Farmstead uses conan as well?

I was told that they were also handed down Conan from Greg Noonan
Click to expand...

HF is pretty sought after beer as well. If thats the case, it would make Conan the key some of the more highly regarded or soughtafter beers.

It would also make the Vermont water some pretty good stuff for brewing.
 
FATC1TY said:
It would also make the Vermont water some pretty good stuff for brewing.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the water The Alchemist uses, but Hill Farmstead must have to treat there water with a fair bit of acid, as they have an alkalinity of ~140. The water may be low in chloride and sulfate, though, which would be good to start with.
 
terrapinj said:
anyone know if Hill Farmstead uses conan as well?

I was told that they were also handed down Conan from Greg Noonan
Click to expand...

That would be interesting. Hill makes some of the best IPAs and double IPAs I've ever had, right behind Heady Topper. Though I can't say I've ever gotten the Conan character from any of his beers. I also seem to remember his IPAs have a fairly clean, crisp mouthfeel, whereas Conan seems to create a pretty full, rich beer.

Regardless, I would be very curious to know what yeast strain Hill does use to ferment his IPAs.
 
afr0byte said:
I don't know about the water The Alchemist uses, but Hill Farmstead must have to treat there water with a fair bit of acid, as they have an alkalinity of ~140. The water may be low in chloride and sulfate, though, which would be good to start with.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen Sean hill attributes a bunch of his quality to the well water from his farmstead. Not that it necessarily is treated but he certainly makes it sound like it wouldn't be.
 
eandersen said:
From what I've seen Sean hill attributes a bunch of his quality to the well water from his farmstead. Not that it necessarily is treated but he certainly makes it sound like it wouldn't be.
Click to expand...

I know he checks pH (He's told me as much.). With an alkalinity of 140 he'd need to add acid for almost all (if not all) of his beers.
 
afr0byte said:
I know he checks pH (He's told me as much.). With an alkalinity of 140 he'd need to add acid for almost all (if not all) of his beers.
Click to expand...

Curious, where did you get the 140 figure for the alkalinity?

He definitely treat his water; he's said as much in interviews. I remember reading some profile / feature story describing him tasting the water before a batch to make sure he had it right. That could very well be exaggerated, but still.

I've also heard from a brewer at a major regional brewery who visited Hill Farmstead and was told Everett (HF's porter) is the only beer that they don't adjust the water profile for. Which would indicate that their well water is fairly hard.

One of the things that has always struck me about Hill's beers, particularly his IPAs, is how "soft" they are. The beer just seems to dissolve gently upon your tongue. He'd definitely need to soften his water considerably for such a mouthfeel to be possible.

Now, I can't say that I get the same sort of mouthfeel from Heady Topper, although given what Conan does for mouthfeel, I'm not sure what to deduce from that.
 
othellomcbane said:
Curious, where did you get the 140 figure for the alkalinity?

He definitely treat his water; he's said as much in interviews. I remember reading some profile / feature story describing him tasting the water before a batch to make sure he had it right. That could very well be exaggerated, but still.

I've also heard from a brewer at a major regional brewery who visited Hill Farmstead and said that he was told Everett (HF's porter) is the only beer that they don't adjust the water profile for. Which would indicate that their well water is fairly hard.

One of the things that has always struck me about Hill's beers, particularly his IPAs, is how "soft" they are. The beer just seems to dissolve gently upon your tongue. He'd definitely need to soften his water considerably for such a mouthfeel to be possible.

Now, I can't say that I get the same sort of mouthfeel from Heady Topper, although given what Conan does for mouthfeel, I'm not sure what to deduce from that.
Click to expand...

He told me (in an email) that his alkalinity is 140. As far as the smoothness, perhaps he adds less gypsum than many west coast brewers.
 
afr0byte said:
He told me (in an email) that his alkalinity is 140. As far as the smoothness, perhaps he adds less gypsum than many west coast brewers.
Click to expand...

Ahh, cool. You think he would tell you which yeast he uses for IPAs? :)

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing about the gypsum. Just enough so the beer doesn't taste flabby, but not quite enough to give the bittering hops that lingering, aggressive bite.
 
othellomcbane said:
Ahh, cool. You think he would tell you which yeast he uses for IPAs? :)

Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing about the gypsum. Just enough so the beer doesn't taste flabby, but not quite enough to give the bittering hops that lingering, aggressive bite.
Click to expand...

Ah, I don't know him personally or anything (though I've seen him at Three Penny Taproom before). I asked him a water question (based on a debate in a thread on here) and in a response to his response I asked him what his alkalinity is.
 
OK, here's an oddball theory: what if the Alchemist is refermenting Heady before canning? I realize this would be highly unusual behavior for a packaging brewery, but bear with me for a moment. He is the Alchemist, after all.

The latest ASBC Journal arrived in the mail yesterday with this article that quantifies some of the aromatic impacts of bottle conditioning. Here's the money quote:
[T]he most marked sensorial increase [in the bottle conditioned beer] was observed for 1-sulfanyl-3-methyl-2-butene (MBT). MBT is...responsible for the famous lightstruck skunky off-flavor of beer exposed to light. [...] In the absence of light, traces of MBT can be produced [from hydrogen sulfide and hop aglycone,] leading to pleasant hoppy flavors.
Click to expand...

MBT is described elsewhere in the article as having an aroma of "cannabis", but is usually described as "skunky" or sulphury. Perhaps it comes across more pleasantly in the absence of other light-struck flavors?

So maybe, just maybe, the Alchemist is turning up the dankness by refermenting prior to canning...

I think I'm going to have to try priming a DIPA in the keg.
 
abrix said:
OK, here's an oddball theory: what if the Alchemist is refermenting Heady before canning? I realize this would be highly unusual behavior for a packaging brewery, but bear with me for a moment. He is the Alchemist, after all.

The latest ASBC Journal arrived in the mail yesterday with this article that quantifies some of the aromatic impacts of bottle conditioning. Here's the money quote:


MBT is described elsewhere in the article as having an aroma of "cannabis", but is usually described as "skunky" or sulphury. Perhaps it comes across more pleasantly in the absence of other light-struck flavors?

So maybe, just maybe, the Alchemist is turning up the dankness by refermenting prior to canning...

I think I'm going to have to try priming a DIPA in the keg.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt they referment in the can. Plus, he's been making this since before they had a canning line. EDIT: I guess you didn't say referment in the can. I still highly doubt they're doing it in the bright tank.
 
Nahh.. the beer just simply has alot of hops, and the variety that gives it the wide range of fruity to dank and dirty.

It's canned because it's what they had planned, and Kimmich claims it's meant to be served from the can to preserve the resins, but aroma is flavor and you don't get it as much when you drink from the can. It's an ugly beer, or used to be ugly, as it's been coming out clearer as of the expansion.

When I pour it in a glass, I get some ugly floaties that once I get down to the bottom of the glass, they join and it's pretty much a floating barnacle of hop debris/protein/yeast. People won't drink it if they see it. In a can, you don't see it and you bottom's up!
 
abrix said:
MBT is described elsewhere in the article as having an aroma of "cannabis", but is usually described as "skunky" or sulphury. Perhaps it comes across more pleasantly in the absence of other light-struck flavors?

So maybe, just maybe, the Alchemist is turning up the dankness by refermenting prior to canning...
Click to expand...

It sounds like you've never had a date with Mary Jane before :ban:

I can assure you, we're talking about two different types of skunkyness here. Heady and Pliny's skunkyness comes from the type/amount of hops used, and that alone... It's a pleasant type of skunky, unlike the skunky descriptor used for light struck beers in green bottles.
 
bobbrews said:
It's a pleasant type of skunky, unlike the skunky descriptor used for light struck beers in green bottles.
Click to expand...

The authors of the ASBC article refer to MBT formed in the absence of light as a "pleasant, hoppy" flavor. There's more to the light-struck skunk that just MBT...though I admittedly I still have more background reading to do on that.

Here's what's bugging me most, though: it's only an 8% beer, and it's being fermented relatively cool in large tanks, which reduces ester and higher alcohol formation. So it should be doing pretty well after 10 days or so. Why does it need to condition for 2+ additional weeks after fermentation? Why not spend that time getting a little referment going to scrub some of the oxygen introduced by the dry hops and make the final canned product that much more stable?

This is a guy who (as I understand it) wouldn't sell growlers at his pub because he was concerned that customers would get a less-than-optimal version of his beer. I would expect the same level of detail with this beer -- especially being the only product that he currently produces in-house.
 

Similar threads

S
Autumn Wheat Ale
Replies
5
Views
1K
kwilson16
kwilson16
3 Dawg Night
Pliny the Elder American Pale Ale
Replies
14
Views
2K
redrocker652002
R
F
Advice on developing clone of Mast Landing "Windbreaker" NEIPA?
Replies
4
Views
670
poptarts
poptarts
Clint Yeastwood
Failure Beer
Replies
9
Views
826
Zambezi Special
Zambezi Special
pawleysplayr
Building Towards a Pilsner Taste - Yeast suggestions
Replies
27
Views
3K
ghpeel
ghpeel

Latest posts

Back
Top