New England IPA hater

[murphyslaw]

Which part of my comment is false? Also. Didn't you recently brew a NEIPA with 1 pound of oats and 3/4 pounds of flaked barley/wheat thrown in? No knock on the recipe author in any way, but these are cloud-inducing adjuncts and contradict your argument. You even say in the related post:

They probably* contribute to the haze, yeah. But their primary purpose is the mouthfeel. Its not added for the purpose of haze. I think Tree House or one of the big NEIPA breweries claims they don't use anything like that in their beers.

* I think there have been a lot of experiments to determine what causes the haze and no one variable, including oats and flaked grains, has been found to be the haze inducing factor. Its kinda of perplexing, but it seems to be a combination of the proteins from those ingredients, the less flocculant yeast, and the hop oils, and perhaps the timing of the hop additions.


But more importantly:

Malted wheat (used in weissbiers and wits) is a malted adjunct and is a cloud inducing malted adjunct, just because it is unmalted it is wrong to use in a recipe?

From BYO: "Oats are low in starch, high in oil and protein and extremely high in beta glucans. As a result, they are not used as a major substitute for malt in the grist. However, they add a smoothness and increased mouthfeel to beers and have become popular as an additive to stouts."

So lingering protein from malted wheat in a weissbier is okay but lingering protein from unmalted oats is wrong. Gotcha.

So yeah, the other false part is claiming the "difference" between a wit and a NEIPA is that the wit's haze comes from naturally occurring proteins and yeast while the NEIPAs are something else.

 

[murphyslaw]

I didn't say that. It's clear I'm responding to a previous posters' comments that NEIPAs do not include adjuncts to make them couldy. Stick to the facts please.

No, I, the previous poster, was making the point that the adjuncts are not included for that purpose, just as they are not included in wits for that purpose.


Look, have you had a NEIPA made by any of the breweries that are known for the style?

 

[h22lude]

What does this mean?



Which part of my comment is false? Also. Didn't you recently brew a NEIPA with 1 pound of oats and 3/4 pounds of flaked barley/wheat thrown in? No knock on the recipe author in any way, but these are cloud-inducing adjuncts and contradict your argument. You even say in the related post:

I think he means you are contradicting yourself. You said in one post that NEIPAs are a senseless waste, assuming you were referring to the hops but then you said you have no issue with the amount of ingredients.

So any recipe that uses wheat or oats is doing so only for the cloud-inducing property? A beer can't use wheat or oats for mouthfeel or head retention? The amount of wheat and oats in a NEIPA does very little for cloudiness. The haze comes mostly from hop resin during biotransformation from dry hopping during high krausen.

As murphyslaw stated, no one is telling you that you need to like NEIPAs. We are questioning your hatred for them. If you said you don't like them because of the taste, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You said you don't like them because they are a waste and you don't like that a very small percentage use adjuncts to give an extra haze appearance. Not liking a beer because they use more ingredients seems silly but if that's your reasoning, that's fine but then you say the amount of ingredients doesn't matter in another post. Which is it? And the other reason you don't like them is not even a fact. An extremely small percentage of NEIPAs are made with a haze induction adjunct on purpose. Oat and wheat are used in most for mouthfeel. Some have said they use flour for haze but the big well known breweries do not. Haze is a byproduct ofuaig oats for mouthfeel and dry hopping during high krausen.

 

[Morrey]

I never brewed a NEIPA but i am gearing up to do so..Can anybody recommend a water profile?

Matty, I focused on the sulfate to chloride ratio (SO4:Cl) which is easily adjusted to the individual brewer's own tastes. In my preferred version, I had 140 Chlorides to 70 Sulfates. This is a 1:2 ratio of SO4 to Cl. While I knew I could make up the 140 adding all CaCl, I chose to use a combination of CaCl and sea salt make the proportion.

I tried this backwards in another batch and went 2:1 of SO4:Cl and preferred the original 1:2 SO4:Cl ratio.

I used Bru'n Water and adjusted my mash ph to 5.3 with lactic acid.

 

[h22lude]

No, I, the previous poster, was making the point that the adjuncts are not included for that purpose, just as they are not included in wits for that purpose.


Look, have you had a NEIPA made by any of the breweries that are known for the style?

I don't know how many times this can be said. Yes oats and wheat are used in NEIPAs just like they are used in wits. And just like wits, they aren't used to product haze. They are used for mouthfeel and head retention.

I'm starting to think the hatred for this style is really just trolling and nothing we say factually will matter. If he said he doesn't like them because of taste, no one would care.

 

[rhys333]

So yeah, the other false part is claiming the "difference" between a wit and a NEIPA is that the wit's haze comes from naturally occurring proteins and yeast while the NEIPAs are something else.

I haven't made any false statements in this discussion. I'm posting replies though because false or misleading statements continue being used in replies to me (trolling).

Also worth noting that malted wheat in a wheat beer isn't an adjunct. Malted wheat in a IPA, for example, would be an adjunct because it's a suppliment to a beer that could be made without it.

 

[Morrey]

I don't know how many times this can be said. Yes oats and wheat are used in NEIPAs just like they are used in wits. And just like wits, they aren't used to product haze. They are used for mouthfeel and head retention.

I'm starting to think the hatred for this style is really just trolling and nothing we say factually will matter. If he said he doesn't like them because of taste, no one would care.

Supporting your mouthfeel point, h22lude, I recently made a low 2.8% abv beer with nothing but wheat and rye for grains. Since the abv was going to be extremely low, I knew I ran the risk of wimpy, fizzy water tasting beer. But due to my grain bill, the beer has a surprising mouthfeel and is quite drinkable as a session summer beer.

 

[rhys333]

I think he means you are contradicting yourself. You said in one post that NEIPAs are a senseless waste, assuming you were referring to the hops but then you said you have no issue with the amount of ingredients.

So any recipe that uses wheat or oats is doing so only for the cloud-inducing property? A beer can't use wheat or oats for mouthfeel or head retention? The amount of wheat and oats in a NEIPA does very little for cloudiness. The haze comes mostly from hop resin during biotransformation from dry hopping during high krausen.

As murphyslaw stated, no one is telling you that you need to like NEIPAs. We are questioning your hatred for them. If you said you don't like them because of the taste, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You said you don't like them because they are a waste and you don't like that a very small percentage use adjuncts to give an extra haze appearance. Not liking a beer because they use more ingredients seems silly but if that's your reasoning, that's fine but then you say the amount of ingredients doesn't matter in another post. Which is it? And the other reason you don't like them is not even a fact. An extremely small percentage of NEIPAs are made with a haze induction adjunct on purpose. Oat and wheat are used in most for mouthfeel. Some have said they use flour for haze but the big well known breweries do not. Haze is a byproduct ofuaig oats for mouthfeel and dry hopping during high krausen.

At no point do I contradict myself and I clearly stated my reason for disliking the style but you refuse to accept it. You're twisting my words and I appreciate if you can stop.

 

[h22lude]

I haven't made any false statements in this discussion. I'm posting replies though because false or misleading statements continue being used in replies to me (trolling).

Also worth noting that malted wheat in a wheat beer isn't an adjunct. Malted wheat in a IPA, for example, would be an adjunct because it's a suppliment to a beer that could be made without it.

Your false statement was that NEIPAs use oat and/or wheat to create the haze. This is 100% false. Oats are used to create a more creamy mouthfeel. This has been said many times and you don't seem to want to hear it.

At no point do I contradict myself and I clearly stated my reason for disliking the style but you refuse to accept it. You're twisting my words and I appreciate if you can stop.

Your reason for not liking them is on principle because they are senseless excess and waste and beer is more than hops.

"I dislike them on principle. Senseless excess and waste, but each to their own. I also believe beer is more than hops, hops, hops. Just my opinion btw folks, so no need to shout me down."

You then say

"The next sentence in my previous post that you quoted explains why I dislike NEIPA. I said nothing about DIPA or stout, and I'm certainly not mad or upset about ingredient amounts. You set up a straw man argument right there."

So you originally say they are senseless excess and a waste but then you say you aren't mad or upset about ingredient amounts. I don't know about you but to me that is contradicting.

Those are your quotes. I'm not twisting anything. If you meant it in another way, you need to clarify.

 

[day_trippr]

[...]Also worth noting that malted wheat in a wheat beer isn't an adjunct. Malted wheat in a IPA, for example, would be an adjunct because it's a suppliment to a beer that could be made without it.

That's crazy talk right there...

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I didn't say that. It's clear I'm responding to a previous posters' comments that NEIPAs do not include adjuncts to make them couldy. Stick to the facts please.

The problem with your statement is that you seem to assume that adjuncts are added for the purpose of making them cloudy and that they're popular because they're cloudy. You're getting it totally backwards.

NEIPAs didn't evolve with an intent to make them cloudy. To the contrary, there was concern about the cloudiness making them hard to sell, less popular and seen as poorly crafted beer. Ultimately, what those adjuncts and the process brought to the experience was worth the risk of trying to market a beer that might be viewed as poorly crafted based solely on appearance. There was indeed an uphill battle with this. I suspect that's why Heady cans say to drink from the can...concern that the visual would turn people away.

I will agree that there has been a second generation of 'NEIPAs" that are crafted with cloudiness as a primary goal because the good ones are so tasty and they want to jump on that bandwagon. I wouldn't judge the concept on poor copycats.

There was a lot of thought, creativity and effort put into producing NEIPAs. The hazy aspect was seen as an unfortunate byproduct. Attempts were made to produce the same experience without the haze...so far they've failed but I'd be fine drinking one that was clear if they could make it as tasty.

As has been pointed out...nobody is trashing you for having an opinion. People are challenging your rationale which, so far, really doesn't hold water.

 

[rhys333]

The problem with your statement is that you seem to assume that adjuncts are added for the purpose of making them cloudy and that they're popular because they're cloudy. You're getting it totally backwards.

NEIPAs didn't evolve with an intent to make them cloudy. To the contrary, there was concern about the cloudiness making them hard to sell, less popular and seen as poorly crafted beer. Ultimately, what those adjuncts and the process brought to the experience was worth the risk of trying to market a beer that might be viewed as poorly crafted based solely on appearance. There was indeed an uphill battle with this. I suspect that's why Heady cans say to drink from the can...concern that the visual would turn people away.

I will agree that there has been a second generation of 'NEIPAs" that are crafted with cloudiness as a primary goal because the good ones are so tasty and they want to jump on that bandwagon. I wouldn't judge the concept on poor copycats.

There was a lot of thought, creativity and effort put into producing NEIPAs. The hazy aspect was seen as an unfortunate byproduct. Attempts were made to produce the same experience without the haze...so far they've failed but I'd be fine drinking one that was clear if they could make it as tasty.

As has been pointed out...nobody is trashing you for having an opinion. People are challenging your rationale which, so far, really doesn't hold water.

I'm not making that claim about adjuncts at all. I responded to another posters question about cloudiness in hefe vs NEIPA, and fairly pointed out that a number NEIPAs do not use adjuncts to increase haze, while others do. It's since been used out of context to support contradicting arguments.

My opinion is that I don't care for NEIPA because of the amount of hops used, and I trust you'll agree this isnt a claim that needs to hold any water.

 

[bolus14]

I think the problem with the "style" is it's being called an IPA, similar to the argument that there is with Session IPA's. It's an IPA in the sense that there are plenty of hops in it, but it doesn't fit being bitter like "traditional" IPA's are. Even some would contest that the true, original, IPA's being shipped on boats weren't necessarily bitter.

To me it could be equated to calling a Dubbel a Dark Tripel... As far as the styles go there's overlap in what the ABV should be and for my understanding a Tripel doesn't have to be light colored, just most are. So, you could be making a Dubbel and call it a Tripel, or you could make a Tripel and call it a Belgian Strong Golden.

I have had a couple that I thought were gross, wrong hop combo's and the mouthfeel was too think, almost chunky. If I had to guess one or two of those used flour and it almost seemed like it clumped together. I have also had some that are excellent, fruitiness isn't over done, the mouthfeel I was similar to a RIS, or some Oatmeal Stouts, or a good Wit, smooth, velvety, with some carbonation to open up the flavors. Very little bitterness or just a touch on the finish to make you want to go back for more.

Personally I have dabbled with a couple recipes and I don't think the haziness has to be there. I think the malts being used help get the right mouthfeel, but given the right malts, combo of hops(think oil content), and carbonation level you can get a clear beer that has the fruitiness that other hazy ones have.

 

[Hwk-I-St8]

I'm not making that claim about adjuncts at all. I responded to another posters question about cloudiness in hefe vs NEIPA, and fairly pointed out that a number NEIPAs do not use adjuncts to increase haze, while others do. It's since been used out of context to support contradicting arguments.

My opinion is that I don't care for NEIPA because of the amount of hops used, and I trust you'll agree this isnt a claim that needs to hold any water.

Due to the flavor or simply because that amount of hops should not be used?

 

[rhys333]

I stated my reason for disliking the style here:

I do mean excess and wasteful amounts of hops. It's my opinion on the subject of NEIPA.

Your false statement was that NEIPAs use oat and/or wheat to create the haze. This is 100% false. Oats are used to create a more creamy mouthfeel. This has been said many times and you don't seem to want to hear it.



Your reason for not liking them is on principle because they are senseless excess and waste and beer is more than hops.

"I dislike them on principle. Senseless excess and waste, but each to their own. I also believe beer is more than hops, hops, hops. Just my opinion btw folks, so no need to shout me down."

You then say

"The next sentence in my previous post that you quoted explains why I dislike NEIPA. I said nothing about DIPA or stout, and I'm certainly not mad or upset about ingredient amounts. You set up a straw man argument right there."

So you originally say they are senseless excess and a waste but then you say you aren't mad or upset about ingredient amounts. I don't know about you but to me that is contradicting.

Those are your quotes. I'm not twisting anything. If you meant it in another way, you need to clarify.

I'm not "mad or upset about ingredients". You said this, and I was responding to you about suppositions you made that you have been using to support your position since. The contradictions you speak of were created by you.

If you read carefully through the posts, you'll see that I stick to my position about hop usage, and respond to assumptions and misinterpretations with clarifying statements and facts.

 

[h22lude]

I'm not making that claim about adjuncts at all. I responded to another posters question about cloudiness in hefe vs NEIPA, and fairly pointed out that a number NEIPAs do not use adjuncts to increase haze, while others do. It's since been used out of context to support contradicting arguments.

My opinion is that I don't care for NEIPA because of the amount of hops used, and I trust you'll agree this isnt a claim that needs to hold any water.

The difference is that wits and hefes are naturally cloudy from proteins and low floc yeast. Many NEIPAs are deliberately made cloudier with haze-inducing adjuncts for market appeal. The naturally cloudy ones would be fine, but the pea-soupers are a bit contrived.

Maybe you miss-wrote what you meant but your first sentence implies that wits are naturally hazy from protein (which come from wheat and oat) but MANY NEIPAs use oat just as an adjunct deliberately just for haze. Maybe this isn't what you meant but many of us read it that way from how it is worded. Very little use any adjunct for haze. I know of one brewery that has said they use flour. All the other really big NEIPA breweries use oat for mouthfeel and the haze comes from the dry hop process.

Your reason for not liking NEIPAs is fine. I don't understand it but it is your reason. What I'm not getting is your post about not being mad or upset about ingredient amounts. So you don't like NEIPAs because they use a lot of hops. Does this apply to other beers too or just NEIPAs? Do you not like 90 or 120 minute from DFH? Those beers use a ton of hops too. Is it just hops? Do you not like high gravity stouts because of the amount of grains? I asked this before and it seemed like you didn't understand why I was asking about other beers. I'm asking because to me if you don't like a style soly because of the amount of hops, you wouldn't like other beers that use a high amount of one ingredient too.

 

[rhys333]

Maybe you miss-wrote what you meant but your first sentence implies that wits are naturally hazy from protein (which come from wheat and oat) but MANY NEIPAs use oat just as an adjunct deliberately just for haze. Maybe this isn't what you meant but many of us read it that way from how it is worded. Very little use any adjunct for haze. I know of one brewery that has said they use flour. All the other really big NEIPA breweries use oat for mouthfeel and the haze comes from the dry hop process.

Your reason for not liking NEIPAs is fine. I don't understand it but it is your reason. What I'm not getting is your post about not being mad or upset about ingredient amounts. So you don't like NEIPAs because they use a lot of hops. Does this apply to other beers too or just NEIPAs? Do you not like 90 or 120 minute from? Those beers use a ton of hops too. Is it just hops? Do you not like high gravity stouts because of the amount of grains? I asked this before and it seemed like you didn't understand why I was asking about other beers. I'm asking because to me if you don't like a style soly because of the amount of hops, you wouldn't like other beers that use a high amount of one ingredient too.

Maybe I mis-wrote or maybe it was misinterpreted. For the sake of everyone's sanity, please leave it there and lets move on.

 

[h22lude]

I stated my reason for disliking the style here:






I'm not "mad or upset about ingredients". You said this, and I was responding to you about suppositions you made that you have been using to support your position since. The contradictions you speak of were created by you.

If you read carefully through the posts, you'll see that I stick to my position about hop usage, and respond to assumptions and misinterpretations with clarifying statements and facts.

Ok fine I get your are saying you aren't mad or upset. I used the term mad as a synonym to you thinking it was senseless excess and a waste. Those words come off as being mad. Not mad at them just mad at the style for using so many hops.

 

[h22lude]

Maybe I mis-wrote or maybe it was misinterpreted. For the sake of everyone's sanity, please leave it there and lets move on.

Fair enough.

For the record, I'm pretty sure this is why this thread was created. To spark these types of conversations. I don't think anyone cares who likes or dislikes what. This back and forth stuff is just part of a topic like this. Part of it is not getting points across through the internet.

 

[Queequeg]

So far I have not tasted one that lives up to the hype. However I live in the UK, and this summer it was neipa this nepia that. I guess none of these brewers actually have ever tasted one.

 

[rawlus]

What does this mean?



Which part of my comment is false? Also. Didn't you recently brew a NEIPA with 1 pound of oats and 3/4 pounds of flaked barley/wheat thrown in? No knock on the recipe author in any way, but these are cloud-inducing adjuncts and contradict your argument. You even say in the related post:

If wheat and oats are cloud-inducing adjuncts then so are hops, yeast, etc.
I think you might be reaching to try and justify your personal dislike of the style by some scientific, factual, traditional basis? Why not just be content that you don't like them but that doesn't make people who like them or make them wrong. Just be content in your own taste man, you don't also have to be right.

 

[brewbama]

That's OK. I live in the US and I'm not impressed either

 

[rawlus]

I think the problem with the "style" is it's being called an IPA, similar to the argument that there is with Session IPA's. It's an IPA in the sense that there are plenty of hops in it, but it doesn't fit being bitter like "traditional" IPA's are. Even some would contest that the true, original, IPA's being shipped on boats weren't necessarily bitter..

Partly we we refer to them as NEIPAs to distinguish them from say, a west coast IPA.

I like that brewers are experimenters, craft beer would be so boring if every beer was brewed to a style in the BJCP guidelines. The NeIPA may become a style because both the technique and ingredients are involved to create a new class of beers and there are hundreds of brewers exploring this technique and the incredients used.

It is sort of how all the styles have evolved I expect, someone colored outside the lines of the already defined styles and when enough people did it, a new style was born.

It's okay to like west coast IPAs. I remember not too long ago when all the rage was to make a face peeling IPA, one billion IBUs, or dogfish continuously hopping for 60, 90, 120 minutes.

I'm now seeing American lagers taking off in craft breweries, are we complaining that they aren't to the style of budmillercoors?

Like what you want, but I hope brewers and homebrewers keep experimenting and don't listen to the those too afraid to step out of their comfort zone and evolve/innovate.

 

[rhys333]

If wheat and oats are cloud-inducing adjuncts then so are hops, yeast, etc.
I think you might be reaching to try and justify your personal dislike of the style by some scientific, factual, traditional basis? Why not just be content that you don't like them but that doesn't make people who like them or make them wrong. Just be content in your own taste man, you don't also have to be right.

I explained the reason I dislike this beer, and it's not because of cloud-inducing adjuncts. I'm also not criticising people for liking them.

 

[crusader1612]

I would say disregard the brewers who are putting additives in, to intentionally make the beer hazy.



These brewers, to me, are similar to the crazy brewers in the early 2000's that were making the ridiculous bitter bombs during the IPA craze.

Agree. It's no different to those who add all sorts of weird stuff to goses and Berliners to be different. Etc.
same goes for fruit IPA and even milkshake IPA.

 

[specharka]

My $0.02 on the matter...

I hate non-sour fruited beers. I don't enjoy them because (most) taste like fake fruit flavoring added to a lifeless beer, just to encourage non-beer drinkers to dip their toes in the water. Doesn't matter to me whether you spent months concocting your Mango Dreamsicle Hopscotch IPA and it's made from organic free range sustainably harvested bat-free fruit, it will still taste like swill to me. But I digress... My point is that I don't have any ethical reasoning for my distaste of fruity beers. I just don't like them.

There's nothing wrong with not enjoying a particular style of beer, or beer in general. I just don't think it makes sense to present a logical argument to try and validate a (naturally) irrational subjective opinion. You'll just dig yourself into a hole on this one.

It might be a fad, but it's certainly a delicious one. Somehow I think this one will outlive the fidget spinner...

 

[z-bob]

Drink what you like. Wear skinny jeans or leather, assless chaps if you want, too.

Aren't all chaps assless? (nevermind)

 

[OswaldvW]

Enjoyed a Tree House Green IPA yesterday.

DE-

LI-

CIOUS-


And it looked great, too.

 

[Mainer]

My $0.02 on the matter...

I hate non-sour fruited beers. I don't enjoy them because (most) taste like fake fruit flavoring added to a lifeless beer, just to encourage non-beer drinkers to dip their toes in the water. Doesn't matter to me whether you spent months concocting your Mango Dreamsicle Hopscotch IPA and it's made from organic free range sustainably harvested bat-free fruit, it will still taste like swill to me. But I digress... My point is that I don't have any ethical reasoning for my distaste of fruity beers. I just don't like them.

There's nothing wrong with not enjoying a particular style of beer, or beer in general. I just don't think it makes sense to present a logical argument to try and validate a (naturally) irrational subjective opinion. You'll just dig yourself into a hole on this one.

It might be a fad, but it's certainly a delicious one. Somehow I think this one will outlive the fidget spinner...

I've done a few beers with fruit in them that came out pretty good. A German pilsner with dogwood fruit, a Belgian stout with cherry... I find that in order for it to work, it can't be a bland beer. It has to have a good, bold character so that the fruit is complimentary to the malt rather than dominating it. I did a concord grape helles lager over the winter. I'm not a fan, but a few of my more critical tasting friends enjoy it.

 

[Mainer]

Partly we we refer to them as NEIPAs to distinguish them from say, a west coast IPA.

I wonder if people would mind less if we dropped the "I". I mean, in some ways they're closer to an APA, or just a specialized Pale Ale. I dunno, NEPA? NEAPA? Would the style be any less controversial if re-framed? What say you, hivemind?