Anyone making "BRUT" IPA's??

[Morrey]

A microbiologist at a yeast company shared the latest trend may be shifting from the NE IPA craze to the drier BRUT IPA.

A quick look online shows glucoamalyse is added to help break down the long chain sugars down to available food for yeast allowing the FG to get way down to a target of 1.002 or similar.

Seems the low FG of the BRUT IPA allows hops to pop while subduing malts and other flavors. Does anyone have experience with this concept such as appropriate yeast..etc? Thanks!

 

[radwizard]

Head over to the All Grain Section. There is a thread going about Brut on the first page.

 

[Morrey]

Thanks...I didn't see that at first!

 

[GPP33]

Sounds like an incredibly unbalanced beer. I’ll go check out the other thread to hopefully learn more.

 

[Morrey]

Sounds like an incredibly unbalanced beer. I’ll go check out the other thread to hopefully learn more.

I "stumbled" across a Brut IPA today at a micro brewery. It was quite dry but I totally enjoyed it. Wife likes a thicker mouthfeel from a DIPA or a NE IPA, but this Brut was seriously enjoyable. I had my doubts too....surprised me.

 

[Murphys_Law]

I "stumbled" across a Brut IPA today at a micro brewery. It was quite dry but I totally enjoyed it. Wife likes a thicker mouthfeel from a DIPA or a NE IPA, but this Brut was seriously enjoyable. I had my doubts too....surprised me.

Did you like it enough to brew one yourself?

 

[Morrey]

Did you like it enough to brew one yourself?

Absolutely, yes. The Brut IPA wasn't crazy over hopped, yet the perception of hops was very dominate in a clean and non-bitter sort of way. The body was not cloying so I could enjoy more than one w/o getting bogged down from being too heavy.

Last fall I did a 12G batch of fresh pressed apple cider with English Cider yeast which took the cider to 1.000. I actually kind of liked that very thin and dry profile which seemed clean and non assuming. I retarded the yeast and brought the SG up slightly by adding some brown sugar (brought to 1.007) and dry hopped with Nelson Sauvin. Terrific!

I can see my Brut with a standard 5% ABV and 30 IBU not to overpower the delicate nuances. Yes, this is on my radar next up after a Gose next weekend.

 

[day_trippr]

I've been totally intrigued since the first mention of this style on HBT.
I need to find a prototypical sample, but otherwise it's definitely on my short list of new things to try...

Cheers!

 

[Morrey]

In my opinion, this 1.002 FG beer is well worth the time to research and to brew. It is crisp, clean and flavorful, so it hits the right notes for my tastes.

In contrast, my wife preferred the NE IPA we brew as she likes the mouthfeel and residual sugars our beer has at 1.012.

But if you enjoy Brut champagne, you should be in business.

 

[dmtaylor]

Ugh... tired of new trends........

 

[GPP33]

Ugh... tired of new trends........

Tell me about it. Why can’t we just have one style of beer that everone drinks. Maybe something very pale and with little flavor so everyone can “tolerate” it. No one should really enjoy beer. We shall call it the king of beers!

On a serious note, I think people are interested in new styles because they like them, not because it’s the new trend. Some catch on and make it a trend but with so many choices out there that’s a pretty silly thing to do.

So with sub 1.000 FGs are post fermentation infections a non issue? Nothing for any unwanted grubs to eat right?

 

[dmtaylor]

Tell me about it. Why can’t we just have one style of beer that everone drinks. Maybe something very pale and with little flavor so everyone can “tolerate” it. No one should really enjoy beer. We shall call it the king of beers!

On a serious note, I think people are interested in new styles because they like them, not because it’s the new trend. Some catch on and make it a trend but with so many choices out there that’s a pretty silly thing to do.

Why can't we just have a shitload of styles that are all enjoyable, with new trends being confined only to malty styles? That'd be great.

 

[GPP33]

Why can't we just have a poopyload of styles that are all enjoyable, with new trends being confined only to malty styles? That'd be great.

Since all the new styles seem to play off of the IPA name, which is something I wish they wouldn’t do, you should do a no hop IPA. Give it a catchy name with “IPA” in it and you’ll be famous. It won’t matter if there’s no hop flavor or aroma.

 

[day_trippr]

I just felt my BeerIQ drop...from reading where this thread just went...

 

[afro_lou]

Just had a local Brut Pale, and it was excellent. I’m looking forward to trying my hand at one at home!

HenHouse Brewing “Gucci’s a Clone” if anyone wants to check it out.
http://untp.beer/Q3ra

 

[Morrey]

Just had a local Brut Pale, and it was excellent. I’m looking forward to trying my hand at one at home!

Me too as I'm preparing my thoughts and ingredients for the Brut IPA brew at home.

The brewery I sourced as having one called theirs "Brut Hop Champagne". Seriously, it was off the chain good.

I know what y'all mean about so many styles coming and going - trending and fading. Of course trends offer companies like White Labs the opportunity to develop and sell new strains of yeasts and cash in on new products. There is "gold" in them thar' trends.

 

[Morrey]

Since all the new styles seem to play off of the IPA name, which is something I wish they wouldn’t do, you should do a no hop IPA. Give it a catchy name with “IPA” in it and you’ll be famous. It won’t matter if there’s no hop flavor or aroma.

I really think you have a darn good point regarding this beer called an IPA. I don't see much IPA in it actually...but I loved the beer.

With only 25 - 30 IBU, the IPA profile doesn't reach out and grab me. I realize we have gotten away from IBU's and embraced the term hop perception by using flameout, whirlpool and dry hop additions to control bitterness, but I still cling to the ideal that an IPA needs to have more than a minimal amount of hops. I have had Pilsners, Bitters and Pale Ales with more IBU influence than this. So yes I agree they have taken the term IPA as a marketing tool to align this beer with trendy styles for name recognition.

With that said, I liked the term "Brut Hop Champagne". No matter what they or we call it....it is delicious. Maybe the name needs to be discussed as I may call mine..."The Champagne of Beers" Opps...Miller may bust me.

 

[cactusgarrett]

The problem is that the masses have a hard time discerning an IPA from a non-IPA when the hop flavor and aroma are slapping them in the face, as the Brut IPA does. Permit me a moment of existentialism: what makes an IPA an IPA - perception-wise? Would you call a beer an IPA if it had bitterness and no hop aroma/flavor? Vice versa (as is with the NEIPA or the Brut IPA)? More than ever brewers are starting to blur style lines, and it'd be futile to create a new style to match every unique style out there. I just had one that was considered a NEIPA but was centered more on being like pinot grigio wine.

Another local joint (to me) that does one (very well!) calls their Brut IPA "Bier Brut/Bier de Champagne", but the champagne part incorrectly (for this style) references the whole process of inverted freezing, yeast plug removal, etc.

 

[couchsending]

Another local joint (to me) that does one (very well!) calls their Brut IPA "Bier Brut/Bier de Champagne", but the champagne part incorrectly (for this style) references the whole process of inverted freezing, yeast plug removal, etc.

They’re clearly not that bright. That is a completely different style/beer than Brut IPA.

 

[dmtaylor]

If every single beer is on some part of the mega-broad IPA spectrum, then I love IPA.

To me an IPA is a Pale Ale brewed to a higher strength of say >5.5% ABV with big hop bitterness, big hop flavor, and big hop aroma.

Anything too dark, or a lager, or too low in ABV, or less than big hop character, is NOT an IPA. For the love of all beers that are holy, get creative and name it something else for once.

 

[couchsending]

I have no problems calling this an IPA. Just because traditionally IPAs were bitter and this isn’t doesn’t make it a different beer. You use the same amount of hops just at different stages of the process.

Yes it’s classified as IPA in order to sell it better but it’s a hop focused beer made with a clean yeast profile. Dry, Chico, 2 Row, no crystal..sounds just like a modern west coast IPA with low bitterness.

 

[Morrey]

Mostly Pils or 2 row malts....got it. How about a pound of white wheat in the grain bill to give us a bit of mouthfeel? Thinking out loud....9 pounds 2 row and 1 pound white wheat in a 5.5G batch should bring it to about 1.050 OG. That wheat addition will keep it from dropping crystal clear, but I'd be ok with that.

 

[couchsending]

If you want better mouthfeel in a dry highly carbonated beer I would suggest naturally carbonating it versus force carbing. To me it makes a noticeable difference. I’m thinking of bottle conditioning some in champagne bottles for dramatic effect.

If you’re going to force carbonate and want to add something for mouthfeel Rye would be what I would use. It’s higher in beta glucans than Wheat.

 

[GPP33]

If every single beer is on some part of the mega-broad IPA spectrum, then I love IPA.

To me an IPA is a Pale Ale brewed to a higher strength of say >5.5% ABV with big hop bitterness, big hop flavor, and big hop aroma.

Anything too dark, or a lager, or too low in ABV, or less than big hop character, is NOT an IPA. For the love of all beers that are holy, get creative and name it something else for once.

Exactly. If it’s different then call it something different. I don’t particularly enjoy NEIPAs but I love west coast style IPAs. IMO lumping them together is doing both styles a disservice. A style simply defines what you’re going to get. It’s nothing more and nothing less. Of course it is just a name and the only time it really bothers me is when I order an “IPA” and get something closer to a muddled mess that’s attempting to be a “NEIPA”.

 

[dmtaylor]

I don't even mind haze. I can't taste haze. I've tasted good NEIPAs. My point is more that not everything needs to be called "IPA" to sell............... OR DOES IT?!?!

 

[stickyfinger]

It seems that "IPA" should indicate to a majority of consumers what to expect when being presented with this style. An educated consumer would know to expect a substantial amount of hop flavor - not much else can be assumed from "IPA". Today, IPA says nothing about strength, bitterness or malt character. Now, you wouldn't really expect a malt-bomb, 12% beer to be called an IPA, of course, and there is style bleed when you stretch "too far" in one or more dimensions. Brut IPA fits right in perfectly in the IPA universe. It's an ultra-dry, usually sparkly beer with minimal malt character and substantial hop flavor.

I for one thoroughly enjoy the new styles that are constantly emerging and changing. The more diversity the better. Styles are just there to give a general idea about sort of what to expect from a particular beer ultimately. Judging takes that to the extreme, but it's still just a blurred set of guidelines for what to expect and what is considered within the realm of the style.

 

[Morrey]

If you want better mouthfeel in a dry highly carbonated beer I would suggest naturally carbonating it versus force carbing. To me it makes a noticeable difference. I’m thinking of bottle conditioning some in champagne bottles for dramatic effect.

If you’re going to force carbonate and want to add something for mouthfeel Rye would be what I would use. It’s higher in beta glucans than Wheat.

Done deal. With the addition of my Uni Tanks last year, I don't think I have force carbed since. I like natural carbing in the tanks by shutting the BO valve when close to FG. Carbonation seems smoother with no bite.

Per your suggestion to use rye: I brewed a very low ABV beer last year at 2.8% by using only wheat and rye, then dry hopped with Nelson Sauvin. Naturally carbed in the Uni tank and was a HUGE hit. You'd think the mouthfeel would be non-existent, but it was surprisingly nice.

 

[MT's AZ Ale Haus]

I have a couple general FYI questions.

1. Do you add your Amylase in the mash side or the ferm side?

2. Has anyone used an organic white grape juice in their batch?

 

[Calder]

This is not new to me and I've been making these for years. I call them IPAs.

I just like my IPAs to finish dry. I regularly take them down to 1.002/1.004. I think I've done something wrong if it comes in around 1.008. Usually around 6% (although at that low an FG, it usually creeps up a little more), and around 60 IBUs. I love them.

I didn't know I'd been secretly making a new style for the past 5+ years. I just like them dry. I find many (not all by any means) Commercial IPAs to be cloyingly sweet.

I have a couple general FYI questions.

1. Do you add your Amylase in the mash side or the ferm side?
2. Has anyone used an organic white grape juice in their batch?

1 - Just mash low and long, and the wort will be very fermentable. No need for any amylase.
2 - I've added grape juice before to some beers, usually Belgians. I find it adds an excellent flavor, but for some reason, the few beers I have used it on have not held up well to storage; so drink them young.

 

[cactusgarrett]

But are you doing these IPAs with relatively lower IBU levels? One of the distinguishing characteristics is low IBU coupled with big hop flavor/aroma due to flameout/whirlpool additions. Regarding gravity, most people can't get down around 1.000 no matter what variables are adjusted. Enzyme is often needed.