New England IPA "Northeast" style IPA

[LJvermonster]

Are you just adding both first and second dry hop (per the original recipe) all at once or are you just skipping the second dry hop altogether?

I hope that question makes sense.

I skipped the 2nd dry hop enitrely. I put 3 oz of hops in my primary which has a spigot on it. After 4 days at 70 degrees I cold crashed it the night before I kegged.

First two beers had some sediment in them but were fine, after that the beers ran clear.

 

[anteater8]

Getting ready for my 4th iteration of this beer in the next couple of weeks. Summary so far:

Citra/Galaxy/Mosaic: Outstanding, best IPA I've brewed
Citra: Really good as well, a close 2nd
Nelson: Good but not great, a bit too earthy/piney, needs more fruit

Now I'm looking for the right amount of dank/earth (Trillium seems to really nail this) to balance out the fruit a bit so for the next one I'm thinking 30% Citra, 30% Galaxy, 20% Simcoe, 20% Colombus. Also planning on bumping it up to 6.2-6.5%.

 

[Calaeb]

Not sure if I understand correctly.....

Are you basically saying that you would put all dry hops in fermenter, and then go straight to bottle or serving keg from there?

Sure - you could do that - especially if you are not begging, that is pretty much what you need to do.

I do 2 different dry hops for a couple reasons.

1.) All the cool kids do it But seriously, it seems to be a process that is recommended by a large percentage of professional brewers making the best IPA's.

2.) And this might be a little more significant for me and my process - The dry hop keg, and its double filter, allows me to easily (and oxygen free) let stuff settle out and get left behind in the dry hop keg as opposed to sending it all into the serving keg where it can degrade, break down, or simply clog up the posts. It allows me to transfer cleaner beer into the serving vessel.

Sorry for the confusion, i wrote that after finishing a 12 hour shift on my way out of work but yes you both answered my question. I was curious about the dry hopping in the keg since i only have two. I will still do a double dry hop, but will have to just do it all in one vessel, then transfer to serving keg. Cant wait to brew this! still need to gather water additives and hop as my lhbs didn't have them.

 

[rappinduke]

Did a couple more versions of this beer. First one was 1 Citra 1 Galaxy .75 Amarillo .25 Columbus. The second one I just kegged was 2 Citra 1 Nelson gave the uncarbed beer a taste and man the Nelson really dominates this beer. Kind of surprising with the half pound of Citra. Not a bad beer by any means just not what I was expecting. Looking forward to getting it carbed up. Also added a couple more pounds of base malt to get the abv around 6%. Next up is 2 Enigma and 1 Vic Secret.

 

[Braufessor]

Getting ready for my 4th iteration of this beer in the next couple of weeks. Summary so far:

Citra/Galaxy/Mosaic: Outstanding, best IPA I've brewed
Citra: Really good as well, a close 2nd
Nelson: Good but not great, a bit too earthy/piney, needs more fruit

Now I'm looking for the right amount of dank/earth (Trillium seems to really nail this) to balance out the fruit a bit so for the next one I'm thinking 30% Citra, 30% Galaxy, 20% Simcoe, 20% Colombus. Also planning on bumping it up to 6.2-6.5%.

I can see that with the nelson..... it is a good/interesting hop - but it can take over a beer. And, depending on the batch of hops you get, it can be VERY "earthy." I think you next combo looks like a good one.

 

[brew703]

Outside of the original hops, what are some good combinations to try? Thinking of trying Centennial, Simcoe & Amarillo next.

 

[PeteNMA]

For folks that want to dry hop in kegs but don't want to drop the money on the Bear Flavoured double screen setup and dedicate a keg, pick yourself up some dry hopping bags from wilserbrewer

 

[Braufessor]

Outside of the original hops, what are some good combinations to try? Thinking of trying Centennial, Simcoe & Amarillo next.

I have done this and liked it. I like it a bit more when I don't add centennial to the dry hops.... or add it in a smaller amount, increasing the amount of the other two. This is a good combo for sure.

Citra/Columbus is good too..... greater amounts of citra over columbus.

 

[brew703]

I have done this and liked it. I like it a bit more when I don't add centennial to the dry hops.... or add it in a smaller amount, increasing the amount of the other two. This is a good combo for sure.

Citra/Columbus is good too..... greater amounts of citra over columbus.

I may go with the centennial/simcoe/Amarillo version with only simcoe and Amarillo in dry hops.

 

[Dan_K]

El Dorado is a nice hop for this type of beer also. High AA so a true "dual purpose" hop.

"Aroma & Flavor Characteristics: El Dorado™ consistently elicits responses of fruity notes, specifically tropical fruit flavors. Other fruit notes offered have been pear, watermelon and stone fruit."

 

[atom]

El Dorado is a nice hop for this type of beer also. High AA so a true "dual purpose" hop.

"Aroma & Flavor Characteristics: El Dorado™ consistently elicits responses of fruity notes, specifically tropical fruit flavors. Other fruit notes offered have been pear, watermelon and stone fruit."

I have an el dorado/citra/amarillo version planned for this weekend. i've never used el dorado but i am planning on equal parts of all three hops.

 

[stickyfinger]

This is an interesting exBeeriment that is relevant to this thread:

http://brulosophy.com/2016/06/20/th...g-in-a-ne-style-pale-ale-exbeeriment-results/

 

[brew703]

I have an el dorado/citra/amarillo version planned for this weekend. i've never used el dorado but i am planning on equal parts of all three hops.

I used El Dorado in a SMaSH and it was different but good. I went a little lite on the hopping as I didn't know what to expect. it's a hop I would use again but I think would be best if paired with another hop. My wife like it and she drank most of what I bottled so I will probably brew it again just for her.

 

[cegan09]

This is an interesting exBeeriment that is relevant to this thread:

http://brulosophy.com/2016/06/20/th...g-in-a-ne-style-pale-ale-exbeeriment-results/

I just responded to this in the treehouse thread, but i'm going to echo my reply here because I'd like to see Braufessor and other's take on it. Below is a copy/paste.


Something interesting/annoying I noticed.

Right up front he acknowledges that water profiles play a big role in NE beers, but he chooses to ignore that and eliminate it. But isn't the point to experiment with the full style? I guess you could say you wanted to test one variable at a time, but shouldn't you then go and test the other?

While NE-style ales are commonly made with water that’s very high in chloride, we decided it would be best to go with a balanced water profile in order to reduce the impact it has on haziness. With the treated strike water all warmed up, Ed incorporated the grains and hit his target mash temperature.

The whole point was to experiment with haziness, so why leave out a variable that might be contributing.

He even brings it back up at the end

When it comes to this newfangled style, it seems to me there’s more to it than just grist, chloride levels, and yeast alone, but rather the interplay of various factors that contribute to what has become a hot commodity among the craft beer drinking community.

I'd like to see the same thing done but with the water profile included.


No longer copy/paste. Braufessor mentioned wanting to do a test of the original recipe compared to one that is actively "cleared". I'd love to see if his findings mirror the ones of that article.

 

[Braufessor]

I just responded to this in the treehouse thread, but i'm going to echo my reply here because I'd like to see Braufessor and other's take on it. Below is a copy/paste.


Something interesting/annoying I noticed.

Right up front he acknowledges that water profiles play a big role in NE beers, but he chooses to ignore that and eliminate it. But isn't the point to experiment with the full style? I guess you could say you wanted to test one variable at a time, but shouldn't you then go and test the other?



The whole point was to experiment with haziness, so why leave out a variable that might be contributing.

He even brings it back up at the end


I'd like to see the same thing done but with the water profile included.


No longer copy/paste. Braufessor mentioned wanting to do a test of the original recipe compared to one that is actively "cleared". I'd love to see if his findings mirror the ones of that article.

I saw this a couple days ago too and thought it was interesting. I agree with some of your thoughts as well. I guess the one thing that I really, really like about this particular experiment is simply this fact:

Now, we can get past the ridiculous idea that "NE IPA's" are the result of sloppy brewing, lazy brewers, poor practice, etc.......

There has been a ton of bashing on NE IPA's, much coming from folks on the west coast. A lot of the argument seems to come back to this false notion that the haziness is always the result of poor practices. I have heard more than one interview or commentator throw out off the cuff remarks to the tune of: "All they have to do is fine the beer or add some gelatin and bam.... you have a clear version that will now be a better version."

I think a lot of the "tone" has been dismissive of the beers as a whole. I think this very simple experiment opens up a wider, more genuine and sincere look at what is going on in these beers. Marshall sort of indicated that himself - he was surprised that the gelatin had essentially no impact..... and gelatin is used with great success to clear all kinds of beers, all the time. Why not this kind?

I think part of the issue is that, in general, the tone towards these beers has been so dismissive that it was sort of pointless (for the detractors) to even entertain the role of chloride, or pH, or polyphenols, or the types of hops, or hopping during fermentation.... etc. They already had their answer - lots of yeast, sloppy brewing, and rushing beer along rather than taking the time to drop it clear. Well, thanks to this simple experiment - maybe we can get past that and realize there are other things going on..... probably, not one thing - but several things all at play with each other.

There are certainly bad and sloppy versions of these beers. However, there are some great versions too. Marshall seemed to really like this beer in the experiment - even though it contrasted with what his acknowledged preferences were. I know these beers are not hazy because of laziness or bad brewing. The beers I brew are NOT yeasty. I don't prefer lots of yeast in these.... that is why I use Conan. But mine are very hazy - and they stay hazy. I have ZERO difficulty brewing crystal clear beer. I am not doing something to "make" these beers hazy... they just are. There is more going on than the simplicity of "fining" them.

My guess - in the end, I think the only real way (short of extravagant clarifying measures like filtering and centrifuge) is to basically turn them into west coast IPA's..... more traditional water, lower pH, less emphasis on late hops, dry hopping post fermentation, etc....... We'll see I guess. But, I think Marshall will come back to this with more and more precise angles at isolating significant variables.

Like I said - I don't even think there was much of a real discussion going on. Perhaps this will start to raise some actual questions and curiosities.

I have a current version going right now where I simply flip flopped my sulfate chloride.... with 150 sulfate, 70 chloride to simply see what impact it has. Perhaps in the next couple weeks I will brew 2...... the original recipe and then I will change it to a "west coast" version to simply see what the taste differences might be and if I have a preference one way or the other.

I think if I was going to turn this into a "west coast" version..... I would do the following things to start with:

*Scale back on flaked.... maybe subbing in regular wheat and 2Row
*1056
*Sulfate 150-200, Chloride 20-40
*pH = 5.30 (I usually go 5.4+)
*Hold dry hop in fermenter later..... maybe day 9-10 to make sure fermentation is done.
*Probably try some things like gelatin and cold crashing to clear it up as much as possible.

I would keep the hops the same..... and, I would still dry hop twice.

Those are some things that strike me as simultaneously trying to stay in the spirit of the NE IPA version, but making it "west coast" to some degree.

 

[WrQth]

I saw this a couple days ago too and thought it was interesting. I agree with some of your thoughts as well. I guess the one thing that I really, really like about this particular experiment is simply this fact:

Now, we can get past the ridiculous idea that "NE IPA's" are the result of sloppy brewing, lazy brewers, poor practice, etc.......

There has been a ton of bashing on NE IPA's, much coming from folks on the west coast. A lot of the argument seems to come back to this false notion that the haziness is always the result of poor practices. I have heard more than one interview or commentator throw out off the cuff remarks to the tune of: "All they have to do is fine the beer or add some gelatin and bam.... you have a clear version that will now be a better version."

I think a lot of the "tone" has been dismissive of the beers as a whole. I think this very simple experiment opens up a wider, more genuine and sincere look at what is going on in these beers. Marshall sort of indicated that himself - he was surprised that the gelatin had essentially no impact..... and gelatin is used with great success to clear all kinds of beers, all the time. Why not this kind?

I think part of the issue is that, in general, the tone towards these beers has been so dismissive that it was sort of pointless (for the detractors) to even entertain the role of chloride, or pH, or polyphenols, or the types of hops, or hopping during fermentation.... etc. They already had their answer - lots of yeast, sloppy brewing, and rushing beer along rather than taking the time to drop it clear. Well, thanks to this simple experiment - maybe we can get past that and realize there are other things going on..... probably, not one thing - but several things all at play with each other.

There are certainly bad and sloppy versions of these beers. However, there are some great versions too. Marshall seemed to really like this beer in the experiment - even though it contrasted with what his acknowledged preferences were. I know these beers are not hazy because of laziness or bad brewing. The beers I brew are NOT yeasty. I don't prefer lots of yeast in these.... that is why I use Conan. But mine are very hazy - and they stay hazy. I have ZERO difficulty brewing crystal clear beer. I am not doing something to "make" these beers hazy... they just are. There is more going on than the simplicity of "fining" them.

My guess - in the end, I think the only real way (short of extravagant clarifying measures like filtering and centrifuge) is to basically turn them into west coast IPA's..... more traditional water, lower pH, less emphasis on late hops, dry hopping post fermentation, etc....... We'll see I guess. But, I think Marshall will come back to this with more and more precise angles at isolating significant variables.

Like I said - I don't even think there was much of a real discussion going on. Perhaps this will start to raise some actual questions and curiosities.

I have a current version going right now where I simply flip flopped my sulfate chloride.... with 150 sulfate, 70 chloride to simply see what impact it has. Perhaps in the next couple weeks I will brew 2...... the original recipe and then I will change it to a "west coast" version to simply see what the taste differences might be and if I have a preference one way or the other.

I think if I was going to turn this into a "west coast" version..... I would do the following things to start with:

*Scale back on flaked.... maybe subbing in regular wheat and 2Row
*1056
*Sulfate 150-200, Chloride 20-40
*pH = 5.30 (I usually go 5.4+)
*Hold dry hop in fermenter later..... maybe day 9-10 to make sure fermentation is done.
*Probably try some things like gelatin and cold crashing to clear it up as much as possible.

I would keep the hops the same..... and, I would still dry hop twice.

Those are some things that strike me as simultaneously trying to stay in the spirit of the NE IPA version, but making it "west coast" to some degree.

I did almost exactly as you suggested to make it a "west coast"
-Same grain ingredients and qty
-Used 1056, 2l starter
-High sulfate and low chloride (I'll have to check my actual numbers)
-pH was estimated to be 5.32 but don't have a meter yet to verify
-Same hop schedule except I used Centennial and Willamette to equal the same qty used for each step except I went heavy on the Willamette relative to the Centennial.
-1 or 2 day cold crash but no other fining

It was hazy but not nearly as hazy when I brew the original. If I remember and have some left I will take a picture of it and post it.

If I remember when I get home and have some left I'll pour a glass and post the picture.

EDIT ----
-Added Picture
-55ppm Cl and 183ppm SO4 (built from RO water)
-All dry hopping was done in primary (DH1 after 5 days, DH2 6 days after DH1)

 

[g-star]

I have a current version going right now where I simply flip flopped my sulfate chloride.... with 150 sulfate, 70 chloride to simply see what impact it has.

The malt itself will add 200-300ppm of chloride and sulfate each to the final beer, so it would be kind of shocking if that 80ppm swing in your mash water has any impact whatsoever, especially if diluted further by untreated sparge water.

 

[mikeroesoft]

I brewed the 'Hoppy Thing' Nate Lanier recipe from Craft Beer & Brewing. Zero flaked malts, Safale US-05 and its now been in the keg for a week. It tastes great, there are a few things I would tweak, but overall, as a first crack at this recipe, its nice.....and its as hazy and a Treehouse Beer. Here's a photo...

 

[Dan_K]

Just started brewing up my interpretation of this beer. I don't have a 10 gallon pot yet, so I have to boil at my friend's house. I am doing partial BIAB. My mash bill:
7.0 lbs Pilsner LME
2.5 lbs Marris Otter
0.75 lbs Malted White Wheat
0.5 lbs Flaked Barley
0.5 lbs Flaked Oats
0.25 lbs Honey Malt

Since I am using a lot of LME I scaled back the water a bit (as suggested earlier). I am using distilled water so ultra-low in minerals, adding 1/8 tsp CaCl and roughly 1/16th tsp gypsum to each gallon. That comes to 5/8 tsp / 5 gallons which is 62.5% of the CaCl that you specified.

I would like to double dry-hop, I am using pellets. Should I just dump the first dry hops in around 7 days, and then the rest at 10 days? I am a bit concerned that the beer will be sitting on those hops for so long.
I will probably attempt to filter out much of the boil/whirlpool hops when I go to primary. I believe opinions on this practice vary.

I also made a starter even though for this beer probably not needed? I figured more/healthier yeast is always a good thing.

 

[Braufessor]

The malt itself will add 200-300ppm of chloride and sulfate each to the final beer, so it would be kind of shocking if that 80ppm swing in your mash water has any impact whatsoever, especially if diluted further by untreated sparge water.

Guess we will find out. That is why I try these things.

You post a lot that 50ppm here or 100ppm there is pointless..... because malt contributes so much more ppm. However, there is more to it than simply the total ppm. These ions have effects on pH. They have effects on hot and cold break. They do have effects on flavor. Personally, I have noticed staggering differences in 50-75ppm changes in sulfate and chloride in beers like Dortmunder's and Pilsners. Differences that surprised me. Differences to the point of "I don't like this beer" to "This is one of the better beers I have ever had."

Personally, I think it is simplistic to say - well, the malt adds a lot more, so the smaller amount you add has no impact. Of course it has an impact.

I added 1.5 grams of baking soda to a 5 gallon keg (post fermentation) of a scottish ale. I was trying to correct a beer that did not come out the way I had hoped. To me, it was a dumper. It scored 40 in the first round of NHC after the minor tweak. The difference in flavor was really almost incomprehensible..... 1.5 grams. But, again, these relatively small swings in ppm trigger other changes as well.

Obviously, the smaller the changes you get to the point that it may be negligible. However, if you want to brew and rebrew a recipe over and over - tweaking it to get it to where you like - you have to actually keep track of something.

It would all be sort of pointless if all of us just said......"oh - I added a little bit of some different minerals, but, the grain contributes so much more that it is stupid for me to even keep track of what I did. I will just do some different random thing next time, cause that won't matter either."

Reproducibility requires record keeping. Record keeping requires numbers. I like my beers (so far) in the lower to mid range of total additions.... that is why I am playing around in that range.

 

[Braufessor]

Just started brewing up my interpretation of this beer. I don't have a 10 gallon pot yet, so I have to boil at my friend's house. I am doing partial BIAB. My mash bill:
7.0 lbs Pilsner LME
2.5 lbs Marris Otter
0.75 lbs Malted White Wheat
0.5 lbs Flaked Barley
0.5 lbs Flaked Oats
0.25 lbs Honey Malt

Since I am using a lot of LME I scaled back the water a bit (as suggested earlier). I am using distilled water so ultra-low in minerals, adding 1/8 tsp CaCl and roughly 1/16th tsp gypsum to each gallon. That comes to 5/8 tsp / 5 gallons which is 62.5% of the CaCl that you specified.

I would like to double dry-hop, I am using pellets. Should I just dump the first dry hops in around 7 days, and then the rest at 10 days? I am a bit concerned that the beer will be sitting on those hops for so long.
I will probably attempt to filter out much of the boil/whirlpool hops when I go to primary. I believe opinions on this practice vary.

I also made a starter even though for this beer probably not needed? I figured more/healthier yeast is always a good thing.

I would maybe go with dry hops on day 5, and then again on day 12, keg/bottle on day 14. It is fine that they are on the hops.

 

[lilbova3]

Great base recipe Braufessor. I tweaked and put flaked adjuncts up to 31%, carapils 5% and honey malt 2%. I think the honey malt provides a sweetness that is needed in this recipe. I also mashed super high at 156*. Will be using this base recipe and mash temp from now on for most, if not, all APAs and IPAs. [emoji482]

View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1466728471.894017.jpg

 

[Braufessor]

Great base recipe Braufessor. I tweaked and put flaked adjuncts up to 31%, carapils 5% and honey malt 2%. I think the honey malt provides a sweetness that is needed in this recipe. I also mashed super high at 156*. Will be using this base recipe and mash temp from now on for most, if not, all APAs and IPAs. [emoji482]

View attachment 359611

Great looking beer. I have been bumping the flaked and wheat up into the 15-18% range.... but never went for 30%! Might have to give it a try some time.

 

[phyllobeddo]

Great base recipe Braufessor. I tweaked and put flaked adjuncts up to 31%, carapils 5% and honey malt 2%. I think the honey malt provides a sweetness that is needed in this recipe. I also mashed super high at 156*. Will be using this base recipe and mash temp from now on for most, if not, all APAs and IPAs. [emoji482]

View attachment 359611

That's a beauty, right there! Nice!

 

[lilbova3]

Great looking beer. I have been bumping the flaked and wheat up into the 15-18% range.... but never went for 30%! Might have to give it a try some time.

Thanks Brau! The other tries I've done I haven't gotten that mouthfeel I was looking for or slight sweetness that plays with the hops. Others came across kinda harsh on the bitter, a little to much of a bite I'd say and kinda thin, dry on the back end as well. This one did have sweetness, because of using honey malt (thanks for the suggestion in your recipe) for the first time and the higher mash, and I wouldn't mind more mouthfeel believe it or not. Might go as high as 40% next time around.

That's a beauty, right there! Nice!

Thanks phyllobeddo!

 

[g-star]

Reproducibility requires record keeping. Record keeping requires numbers. I like my beers (so far) in the lower to mid range of total additions.... that is why I am playing around in that range.

Not sure how this got twisted to an argument for record keeping, but OK. I'm all for detailed record keeping.

pH is of course influenced by Ca additions through reduction in RA, though there are other ways to manipulate that. I would reckon that mash/kettle/cast out pH have more of an impact than a few dozen ppm chloride here or there.

The case you pointed out with regards to adding bicarbonate is not really analogous to the chloride discussion, as that is a much stronger lever in terms of pH manipulation, not to mention two different approaches entirely (mash adjustment vs. final beer adjustment).

If you think you can taste the difference between a beer with 300/380ppm Cl- made with 12+ ounces of aggressive American hops, well knock yourself out. The more likely case is that it is power of suggestion.

 

[stickyfinger]

Guess we will find out. That is why I try these things.

I also find it interesting that by adding, say 100 ppm, of gypsum you can get a very different tasting beer even though there may be more sulfate in the finished beer. Apparently, a small swing shifts the flavor.

 

[Braufessor]

The entire thread is about fine tuning a particular beer. In my opinion, there is nothing more useless than a recipe that is too general (pounds of grain instead of percentages, lack of attention to total volumes, Lack of water and pH info, etc.) I am simply reporting all aspects of the beers I am brewing..... I have basically settled in on what I like to do for hops, and yeast, fermentation, mashing etc. I am pretty close to what I like on grain bill. The only thing left is fine tuning water profile and pH. In order to find what might work best, you have to try some different things. That is a package of variables..... one of those variables is the amount of CaCl and Gypsum. Like I said - kind of hard to communicate a recipe without applying some numbers to those things.

The same argument could be made with EVERY variable in brewing....

"Why are you bothering to use 10.5 pounds of 2 row instead of 10...... who cares, you can't taste it any way."

"Why did you say mash at 154 .... you can't tell the difference between 152 and 154."

"Why did you say to ferment at 68..... there is no way you can tell the difference between a beer fermented at 68 or 70."

On and on..... but in the end, you have to say "something."

PH and water profile plays a big role in a beer. That comes as a package deal..... CaCl, Gypsum, NaCl, Epsom, Lactic Acid, type of water...... any one of those variables might be a small piece - but they all come as part of a bigger puzzle. All of them need to play a role. I know for a fact that switching Chloride and sulfate levels, even when dealing with < 75ppm, in beers like blonde ales, pilsners, light lagers, etc.... has a very noticeable effect. So, I am simply seeing if it has "some" effect in a pale ale as well. I am trying to communicate that in a way that someone else can replicate.

There are lots of extremes that can get you the "same thing" that will not actually be the same thing in the end:
Beer 1 = All RO water, only lactic acid to Mash pH of 5.35
Beer 2 = All RO water only CaCl to mash pH of 5.35
Beer 3 = All RO water only Gypsum to mash pH of 5.35
Beer 4 = High Bicarbonate water only lactic acid to 5.35
Beer 5 = High Bicarbonate water only CaCl to mash pH of 5.35
Beer 6 = High Bicarbonate water only Gypsum to mash pH of 5.35

All of those beers are "the same"....... but they are not the same. They are extreme routes to the same destination. They would taste very different in the end because you would have to use very large amounts of individual things to achieve your goal.

However, you can also use a little bit of a lot of things...... Blending RO/Tap water, some lactic acid, some CaCl, some Gypsum, some NaCl, some epsom...... when you do that to get to the destination you have to start dealing with minor tweaks instead of major swings.

How exactly does one convey potential water profiles without using specific numbers for various mineral additions?

If this was a thread titled: "I claim that I can tell the difference between 80 and 100ppm of sulfate in a finished beer." Then yeah - I get it - doubtful.

But it isn't ...... it is a thread about putting together a recipe and process for fine tuning a beer that is representative of a so-called NE IPA..... in order to do that, in a way that someone else has a chance of replicating, you have to use numbers - whatever those numbers happen to be.

 

[stickyfinger]

The only thing left is fine tuning water profile and pH.

I don't think you're ever going to be finished tweaking with this recipe! You seem like a consummate tweaker!

 

[g-star]

You seem to be arguing a larger point that I don't have any issue with. The best brewers are meticulous and keep detailed records in an attempt to correlate cause and effect. I'm fully supportive of that approach.

My point is that given the parameters of the discussion, this particular variable is of in all likelihood, very little consequence when you stop for a minute and consider the chemistry of the final beer. The other examples you brought up (changing grain amounts, RO vs. high mineral water, etc.) are different variables and, in most cases, more extreme changes. This is an apples and oranges scenario.

This is a great, popular, and useful thread. I appreciate your efforts. Rather than just post pictures of my homebrew, I'm trying to add a different perspective to the actual brewing discussion as food for thought. Just consider it.