American IPA "Northeast" style IPA

I JUST made a sort of maltier NEIPA with a lot of crystal 60L that I added a ton of Denali dry hops to. The resulting beer smells like a ripe piece of pineapple. I did also use 1318 for the first time in a year or so as well, so not sure how much that contributes to the pineapple perception. However, I think the Denali will give you pineapple if that is what you are after.

 

I brewed a version of this up on saturday morning and decided to use Imperial organics A20 Citrus yeast strain. OG of 1.057 Pitched at noon with fermentation chamber set to 69F. Fermentation started later that evening and by Sunday morning it was vigorously fermenting. The fermentation chamber smells like fruity/citrusy delicousness. Fermentation appeared to be just about complete already as of monday night, so I put in dry hop #1 and will add second set of dry hops on Saturday. I am really looking forward to this batch.

 

Is the cloudiness something you aspire to in this style, or is it just tolerated? I don't get it.

 

It's a byproduct of the type of beer I want to make. I enjoy very juicy, hop forward, low bitterness IPAs and the methods I use to achieve that result in a hazy beer.

Nothing in my process is there solely to create haze, it just happens.

 

The hazy/cloudy appearance isn't sought after in and of itself. It is part of the style because of the grains with high protein content such as flaked oats and/or flaked or malted wheat and because of dry hopping during active fermentation.

http://brulosophy.com/2017/01/23/biotransformation-vs-standard-dry-hop-exbeeriment-results/

 

The only reason I do two charges is I use a stainless hop tube for filtering, if I add to many hops, the hop mass is too dense. I feel they get more contact time and better extraction when split up

 

I find it interesting that so many people shy away from saying that haze is a goal. To me, its one of its defining characteristics of the emerging style, just as it is with a hefe or wit, or just as clarity is important to regular IPA. I get that you might personally be just as happy with a beer that tastes like a NE IPA but looks like a West Coast IPA, but in the sense of describing the style, the haze is one of things that makes it different. If mine came out clear, I would view it as a flaw for a NE IPA. Appearance plays a role in taste, too, I think.

It strikes me as a concession to those who have never had one but are dismissive, so they don't look at you so funny. I say celebrate the diversity! My first NE IPA was like my first sour beer. It was so different than anything I had tried before that it immediately convinced me that craft beer is not a bubble. It showed me that innovation still exists even in the most crowded of styles.

Just my 2 cents, but I'd love to hear others' take on this.

 

Agreed. Appearances contribute to perception of flavor.

Neipas look like juice, taste juicy, feel juicy in the mouth. It's a package deal.

 

I've come to like the haze as well. I know my NEIPA will still be hoppy and delicious if it still is hazy. Once they clear, it usually means it is starting enter the mellower, rounder, less-hoppy phase that I am trying to hold off for as long as possible.

 

Exactly.

 

I definitely agree that it's one of the styles defining characteristics and I have no problem at all with my beers ending up hazy. My more recent batches have been borderline opaque. I was just noting that nothing in my process is there solely to create the haze which is what I thought the original question was about. I would no doubt question what happened if a batch finished up clear because that would probably mean I didn't achieve the amount of hop oils in suspension that I was aiming for.

 

I'll play devils advocate and disagree....
Haze is a by product of the beer, not a prerequisite.
Why? Because the commercial versions produced, were hazy, and as they looked like juice, and the descriptors "juicy" came out, its now become the norm.

If its hazy thats cool - if its not hazy thats cool as well. As long as it tastes good, and as it should.

Same goes for Hefe and wit. Most wits I've seen recently ahave been relatively clear on a commercial scale. Why? Because the Wit yeast tends to drop out of suspension after a period of time, and while not crystal clear, you can physically see through it.

Hefe not so much. But that mostly a function of the low flocc yeast.

People can perceive certain tastes based on its appearance, i'll agree with that. Although it'd be nice if the other areas were discussed a little more.

 

Has anyone had success fermenting 1318 in the low 70s? I heard it can throw an awesome fruit profile in that range.

 

I'll let you know in the summer!

 

I have seen quotes from some of these brewers--Kimmich, I think--that said they're not specifically trying to make it hazy, and that if you let it sit long enough, it will clear. [Edit: http://www.newschoolbeer.com/2016/03/new-englandvermont-style-ipa-is-not-a-thing.html]

I think a big part of the attraction of these beers is that they're usually consumed really fresh. My only real experience is with Tree House, which literally stacks the beer off the canning line, sets up a folding table, and sells them right there, fresh off the press. The two times I've been there, they sold out after a couple hours. Both times they had canned Julius the day prior, and both times they were unavailable when I got there. They're building a much bigger brewery that should be ready this summer. I am curious to see if that results in their beer sitting on a shelf for once, and possibly losing some of its luster.

 

I usually ferment with 1318 at 70. I've never gone above but it's definitely provided some great fruit esters at that temp.

Interested in your results if you were to test higher temps.

 

Bumping this one.

 

I think if you're TRYING to make the beer cloudy/hazy, you're missing the point. If you are making a NEIPA in a remotely similar fashion using similar ingredients to the originators, you will get a hazy beer.
Adding flour or other such nonsense just for the purpose of making it cloudy is putting form over function, and aiming to make it look like something it's not. Might as well add red food coloring when trying to make a red ale.
If you are following normal proceedures for the style, your beer will come out hazy. If it doesn't, you're probably doing something wrong (as wrong as there ever really is - I mean we're just making beer and if it tastes good, it isn't really wrong).

 

Nice. I brewed on Friday, pitched at 68 degrees, then let it rise to 72-3 where there was a 3" krausen, which just fell yesterday. The OG was 1.078 (going for a dipa) so I'm antsy to take readings soon. I'm debating when I should dryhop.

 

now and dry hop heavily!

 

Honestly, it comes down to every person's preference. if you like your beer, do what you want. add flour. add hops. add whatever. don't add whatever. i see no need to dismiss methods if they produce what someone is trying to brew. have a problem with murky, yeasty beer. don't drink it. maybe focus on comments that express your preference for less murky beer and why. if someone likes murky beer, good for them. beer is not an objective goal unless brewing to a standard for a competition.

 

Sounds a lot like the batch I brewed this past Sunday. 1.079 OG, pitched at 68 and increased by a degree each day. Currently at 70 and going to let it ride. Planning to add the first dry hop tomorrow night which is a day earlier than I normally do. Interested to hear how yours progresses

 

I totally agree that beer is 100% subjective and people should brew what they want.
I don't have any problem with hazy, cloudy, or even murky beers - far from it. People should make what they want.
What I was pointing out though is people trying so hard to make a beer cloudy not because they like cloudy beer, but because they think they have to in order to meet style standards. And my particular point was about people focusing on that aspect (cloudiness) rather than focusing on making a great beer, to the extreme of adding adjuncts solely for the purpose of adding cloudiness.
And sure, if you want to do that, that's your prerogative. But like I said, adding stuff just to enhance cloudiness is no different than adding red food coloring to make a red beer - it's missing the point.
Red ales should be reddish because of the malts used, not because someone added coloring to make it red. Likewise, NEIPAs will be cloudy all by themselves if you just use the normal ingredients and processes. Don't worry about the haze - they will do that all by themselves.
But if you like, by all means, add red dye to make a red ale, add flour or other junk to enhance cloudiness, and while you're at it, you might as well wear extra thick soles on your shoes to make you look taller than you really are.
All three of those are working toward creating an illusion that you think people want to see, when all anybody really cares about is does your beer taste good.

 

well shoot-hopefully this attenuates to at least 70%, was targeting 1.018. Any chance of this dropping if theres no visable krausen on top? I have been swirling my carboy about once a day-do you think the dry hop may help this beer finish? The taste was great besides being sweet-no offputting byproducts this far.

 

Fermentation still continues even after the krausen drops. Some yeasts like 1318 have a krausen that never drops well without help anyway, so u could still get a few extra points if u keep it warm 70-72 deg and let it go for another 5-7 days. 1.024 would be an awfully sweet IPA, if u used a massive dry hop that could give perceived dryness.

 

Still nothing.
I'm interested in the long term dryhopping process and if grassy notes are imparted. I'd also like to know if people bag their hops at this stage so they can remove the hops without leaving in contact for too long....
very interested in this process and more information would be hugely helpful.....

 

1318 is a garbage attenuator. What was your OG? If you're more than 7 days into ferm, pitch Amylase Enzyme ASAP

 

Curious to hear what kind of attenuation you get out of 1318 with that OG

 

i've never gotten grassy even with 3 weeks on dry hops. Some may be more sensitive to something about long dry hopping though. I see little reason to do multiple dry hop stages, but I haven't compared side by side. I shake my carboy 1-2x per day when doing massive dry hop addns to encourage beer contact.

 

1.078, and today marks the 4th day so I'm holding out hope. Mashed at 153/4 so hope I didn't goof there. Wrapped towels around the carboy and swirled it a bit-fingers crossed!

 

I just so happened to use 1318 recently for a DIPA at 1.077 OG. Stalled at 1.025 on day 4. I added some enzyme later and at nearly 3 weeks it finished at 1.015. My grist even had 3% dextrose and the starter I made was full beast mode.
Get some Amylase and add it now IMHO

 

lol your batch sounds damn near identical to mine-mine was 3% dextrose as well and pitched a 1.5L starter at high krausen. probably shouldn't have dry hopped this early. chit

 

No problem, I'll keep this thread updated

 

My personal strategy on hopping in general has been:

*2 Dry hops
*All dry hops are pellets and lose
*1 early - day 3-4-5 range
*1 late - day 10-11-12 range
*That first dry hop may be in contact with beer for 7-10 days. Second one is generally 2-3 days.
*In general, I have transferred to dry hop keg for #2, but recently have done both in primary and not used dry hop keg - I felt this produced beer every bit as good as dry hop keg, however, it left more debris in the beer going to serving keg.
*I think the only time I have really experienced "grassy" flavors in this beer is when I have used more assertive/dank type hops like Columbus, equinox, etc. And, when I have tried to rush the beer through in say 10 days as opposed to 14 days.

 

I have not..... pretty much for the same reason. I will likely try that the next time I do two batches.... one the "normal" way and one just dumping them all in on day 3-4 range. Honestly, I would be surprised if there would be a difference.

 

last night I did a closed transfer to a keg and dropped a sanitized paint strainer, shot glass, and 3 oz of hops in last night. Stupid me, I should have put in the bag before transferring.

So It was a closed transfer but opened afterwards. My guess is the low surface area and purged headspace shouldnt give me oxidization.

Still getting the hang of my equipment, I ended up with a full corny and almost a gallon in another corny. So i used too much water. The partial Corny will be chilled and served without dry hopping whereas the full corny will be the actual product.

 

I ended up with a 1.072 OG, used washed 1318 in a 2L starter and ended up at 1.008 after 10 days using a tsp of yeast nutrient in the boil. Hydro sample was good, tons of aroma from 1st dry hop. Anxious to try it out next week after 2nd dry hop and being carbed.

 

Brau, was just looking at your original recipe description. I was taken aback by the ABV, listed as 5.3%. I think it should be higher than that right, unless you are ending higher than 1.011 most of the time. It is still lowish for an IPA. I am shooting to get the 5.3% or less in mine, but it can be difficult without very high mash temps and less attenuative yeast.

 

yeah ..... originally, when I started brewing this, I was brewing it to 5-5.5% range. Not sure if that correlated directly to the OG and FG I listed. But, originally, it was pretty low ABV.

Currently, I am brewing it consistently right around 1.058-1.060 with a FG at 1.012 or so. So, current version is around 6%ABV.

I really am not a fan of 7-8% beers.

1968 will finish out high for you usually..... might be a yeast to try.

 

I've also settled into 1.060 as my minimum. I love 7.5% ABV IPAs, but they are too strong to allow for enjoyment of all of my creations too regularly!