New England IPA "Northeast" style IPA

[stickyfinger]

I have a couple questions for the group:

1) Have you compared using whirfloc vs not using it in these beers. I am leaning toward thinking the whirfloc results in a much less hazy beer, but I haven't done a direct comparison.

2) Have you done a comparison of using post-fermentation fining vs. NOT to see the difference in flavor?

 

[Tarpon87]

I used whirfloc in my batch, you can look back a couple pages and see the beer, zero visibility. Couldn't even see shadows from my fingers, even holding it up to direct light. Now after a couple weeks in the keg if you hold it up to the light you can tell something is on the other side of the glass as it's darker but you still can't make out any fingers.

Edit to add picture. This is about 2 1/2 weeks in the keg, its cleared up some but still pretty hazy and aromatic.

 

[olotti]

I have a couple questions for the group:

1) Have you compared using whirfloc vs not using it in these beers. I am leaning toward thinking the whirfloc results in a much less hazy beer, but I haven't done a direct comparison.

2) Have you done a comparison of using post-fermentation fining vs. NOT to see the difference in flavor?

I use 1/2 a whirlfloc just to help precipitate out the cold break and other proteins but my beers in this style are still hazy and thick. I don't think whirlfloc would matter when the beer gets hit with huge dry hopping which it seems is what adds to the haze factor.

 

[crusader1612]

I have a couple questions for the group:

1) Have you compared using whirfloc vs not using it in these beers. I am leaning toward thinking the whirfloc results in a much less hazy beer, but I haven't done a direct comparison.

2) Have you done a comparison of using post-fermentation fining vs. NOT to see the difference in flavor?

the way i see it, if its part of your normal process then do it.
the whirlfloc shouldn't have an affect on flavor.

i get the whole haze is a desirable aspect in these beer, but if brewed properly, even with whirlfloc they are hazy.

i like to think of it like this.
when i brew i fine with gelatin. because its part of my process. (it probably wouldn't affect much if i left it out, but its part of my ritual when brewing/kegging, so it gets added.
what does gelatin do? nothing really, i still get hazy beer (its hazy rather than murky though)
and it tastes good.

so if brewed properly the beerwill be hazy no matterwhat, unless your a commercial brewery who runs through a proper filter etc.

 

[stickyfinger]

I use 1/2 a whirlfloc just to help precipitate out the cold break and other proteins but my beers in this style are still hazy and thick. I don't think whirlfloc would matter when the beer gets hit with huge dry hopping which it seems is what adds to the haze factor.

dude, sorry about the last 20 minutes of the State-Kansas game...

 

[tlucarelli]

I've purchased one pound of Denali so far in my life. I used that batch of Denali in two beers so far. One was 2 oz/gal. Denali dryhop, the other was 1 oz/gal Denali with 1oz/gal Eureka! Both beers were pineapple bombs. like pineapple juice. Though, interestingly, the second batch was kind of dank for a long time and then resolved into a pineapple bomb by 6 wks in the keg. In the future, I will use it as a small accent hop to get a little pineapple if that is what I am going for.

I would EXPECT huge pineapple from Denali. Eureka! is huge Mango to my taste for the batch of Eureka! I got.

Am I reading this right that you did 2oz dry hop per gallon? So 10oz per 5gal batch? Just making sure. Haven't tried eureka yet but really excited for Denali. Just ordered 1lb each of this and citra and I have some amarillo in the freezer

 

[stickyfinger]

Am I reading this right that you did 2oz dry hop per gallon? So 10oz per 5gal batch? Just making sure. Haven't tried eureka yet but really excited for Denali. Just ordered 1lb each of this and citra and I have some amarillo in the freezer

yeah, i've been doing big dry hops for several months now. i like the long-lasting hop flavor. i am still debating whether the hop stand is critical for flavor or not.

 

[stickyfinger]

the way i see it, if its part of your normal process then do it.
the whirlfloc shouldn't have an affect on flavor.

i get the whole haze is a desirable aspect in these beer, but if brewed properly, even with whirlfloc they are hazy.

i like to think of it like this.
when i brew i fine with gelatin. because its part of my process. (it probably wouldn't affect much if i left it out, but its part of my ritual when brewing/kegging, so it gets added.
what does gelatin do? nothing really, i still get hazy beer (its hazy rather than murky though)
and it tastes good.

so if brewed properly the beerwill be hazy no matterwhat, unless your a commercial brewery who runs through a proper filter etc.

I'm willing to change my process if it means a better result for a particular style. I thought maybe not using whirfloc was helping my hoppy beers, but it was just a theory. i thought for a long time that gelatin post-fermentation killed hoppy beers, but i just kegged a WC IPA split-batch, and I don't think I"m going to be able to tell the difference between the fined and un-fined version, other than the color. the unfined is quite a bit clearer, but still has some haze

 

[crusader1612]

I'm willing to change my process if it means a better result for a particular style. I thought maybe not using whirfloc was helping my hoppy beers, but it was just a theory. i thought for a long time that gelatin post-fermentation killed hoppy beers, but i just kegged a WC IPA split-batch, and I don't think I"m going to be able to tell the difference between the fined and un-fined version, other than the color. the unfined is quite a bit clearer, but still has some haze

whirlfloc in its very minor addition to the the process will not affect the flavor.

i've found with gelatin, no flavor difference really, (those i have, are very minor, and the clearer beer means my non craft friends will be happierto drink a glass of it)

 

[stickyfinger]

whirlfloc in its very minor addition to the the process will not affect the flavor.

i've found with gelatin, no flavor difference really, (those i have, are very minor, and the clearer beer means my non craft friends will be happierto drink a glass of it)

i plan to experiment more. my whirflocced west coast IPA with WY1056 is already WAY clearer than my usual NEIPA without whirfloc and with WLP095. could be the hop varietal difference too thoughl

 

[tlucarelli]

yeah, i've been doing big dry hops for several months now. i like the long-lasting hop flavor. i am still debating whether the hop stand is critical for flavor or not.

How long does the hop flavor last in your beers? I also like some long lasting hop flavor [emoji41]

 

[stickyfinger]

How long does the hop flavor last in your beers? I also like some long lasting hop flavor [emoji41]

i haven't gone much beyond 6 wks, as the kegs usually kick, but 6 wks I still have awesome flavor. I haven't always though. Not sure why it is going so well lately. I am debating the no-whirfloc, no-finings, huge dry-hop, yeast choice. not sure what is most critical. i guess i also started trying to reduce O2 exposure to as low as i can without extraordinary means.

 

[tlucarelli]

i haven't gone much beyond 6 wks, as the kegs usually kick, but 6 wks I still have awesome flavor. I haven't always though. Not sure why it is going so well lately. I am debating the no-whirfloc, no-finings, huge dry-hop, yeast choice. not sure what is most critical. i guess i also started trying to reduce O2 exposure to as low as i can without extraordinary means.

Forgive me for asking because maybe you covered it already but are you using a dry hop keg or just dry hopping in a standard fermentor? Then which yeast did you choose? Thanks!

 

[stickyfinger]

Forgive me for asking because maybe you covered it already but are you using a dry hop keg or just dry hopping in a standard fermentor? Then which yeast did you choose? Thanks!

i dry hop in the primary only. i don't like the flavor of keg hops in general. great luck with wy1318, wlp095, and the gigayeast conan strain.

trying wlp002 now to see how it does. oh, used wy1450 with good results too.

 

[tlucarelli]

i dry hop in the primary only. i don't like the flavor of keg hops in general. great luck with wy1318, wlp095, and the gigayeast conan strain.



trying wlp002 now to see how it does. oh, used wy1450 with good results too.

I'm sure this is a dumb question but finding Conan yeast...is there a homebrew version available or are people only harvesting from breweries?

 

[crusader1612]

I'm sure this is a dumb question but finding Conan yeast...is there a homebrew version available or are people only harvesting from breweries?

the yeast bay, giga yeast
wyeast (1318)

 

[Jmash]

Just my .02 but I prefer the 1318 much more than the Conan

 

[Braufessor]

the yeast bay, giga yeast
wyeast (1318)

Just to clarify - 1318 is not Conan yeast. Lots of people use it and even prefer it, but it is not the same as conan.

I probably tend to use Yeast Bay Vermont Ale yeast more than Giga Yeast..... but, that tends to be primarily because giga yeast availability is more hit and miss than Yeast bay.

 

[tlucarelli]

Just to clarify - 1318 is not Conan yeast. Lots of people use it and even prefer it, but it is not the same as conan.

I probably tend to use Yeast Bay Vermont Ale yeast more than Giga Yeast..... but, that tends to be primarily because giga yeast availability is more hit and miss than Yeast bay.

This is what I was confused on. Are both giga yeast and yeast bay Vermont ale the same as conan? Or are they just similar yeast strains but not actually conan?

 

[stickyfinger]

This is what I was confused on. Are both giga yeast and yeast bay Vermont ale the same as conan? Or are they just similar yeast strains but not actually conan?

i would guess they are as similar to conan as many of the other yeast strains from wyeast or white labs are similar to their purported brewery of origin. omega yeast labs and imperial also put out conan strains.

 

[tlucarelli]

i would guess they are as similar to conan as many of the other yeast strains from wyeast or white labs are similar to their purported brewery of origin. omega yeast labs and imperial also put out conan strains.

Perfect. Thank you!

 

[olotti]

dude, sorry about the last 20 minutes of the State-Kansas game...

lol that's ok. I'm a Michigan fan anyway, now that was a game.

 

[Braufessor]

i would guess they are as similar to conan as many of the other yeast strains from wyeast or white labs are similar to their purported brewery of origin. omega yeast labs and imperial also put out conan strains.

Yep - I would say these are the 4 that I know of that seem to be billed as conan..... they are probably all very similar to each other, probably not exactly the same, and unlikely that they are precisely what the Alchemist is using too - as yeast will change over time. Even John Kimmich from the Alchemist talks about the differences in batches over the course of 10-15 generations of pitching the yeast..... so, even harvesting from cans of Heady Topper may get you different variations depending on what generation of yeast went into that particular batch.

But - Gigayeast, Yeast bay, Omega and Imperial all have a version of Conan I believe. I have not used Imperial, but I have used the other 3 without noticing a dramatic difference one from the other.

 

[plazola86]

Nice write up. I did a version of this with Funk Weapon #2 after I saw your post a while back. It has been in primary a week now. Looking forward to seeing how it comes out in a few weeks.

any update on this? Just brewed mine with FW#2 yesterday. No activity yet but I went back an read mintyice's bloq and he mentioned he didn't get activity until day three at 68 degrees. I bummed mine up to 70 degrees, to hopefully to it started and finished sooner. What has your experience been with it?

 

[Braufessor]

any update on this? Just brewed mine with FW#2 yesterday. No activity yet but I went back an read mintyice's bloq and he mentioned he didn't get activity until day three at 68 degrees. I bummed mine up to 70 degrees, to hopefully to it started and finished sooner. What has your experience been with it?

Mine is still sitting in primary. I did sample it the other day (4-5 weeks after brew day) for the first time and took a gravity reading. Gravity was at 1.006. Flavor was good - Although, I will say, there was no mistaking the fact that it was a Brett IPA.

I did the initial dry hop (citra/mosaic/galaxy) early in primary fermentation (day 4 or so). I have not done the second dry hop yet, but, will likely do that tonight or tomorrow and take another gravity sample to see if it has finished out.

I am looking at bottling it this weekend I think.

I think it is going to be quite good, and will get better over time. I have 3 Saisons I did in August/September. I fermented with normal yeast and bottle with Brett.... Sampled 2 of those this weekend and they were really great. Based on that, I would think that this Funk IPA will be a much better beer in June/July/August than it is right now.

Right now, it is good - but the brett is still the strongest aspect of this beer. It is a bit rough.... which I would expect. I am hoping a second dry hop will put hops more in the forefront and time will smooth it all out (as it has with other brett beers I have on hand.)

Thinking ahead..... I got another pack of Funk Weapon #2 last week. I am thinking I may brew this again, but pitch something like 1272 in Primary and add the Funk Weapon #2 at Day 4-5 maybe. I think that might be a good strategy as well.

 

[stickyfinger]

a quick update on my fining vs non-fining exbeeriment (although, in a WC IPA):

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7940070&postcount=17

 

[EndOfLine]

a quick update on my fining vs non-fining exbeeriment (although, in a WC IPA):

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=7940070&postcount=17

Nice post! Very interesting that the mouth feel is seemingly greater in your w c IPA. Strange.

 

[stickyfinger]

Nice post! Very interesting that the mouth feel is seemingly greater in your w c IPA. Strange.

always room for experimentation i guess...

 

[whovous]

Yep - I would say these are the 4 that I know of that seem to be billed as conan..... they are probably all very similar to each other, probably not exactly the same, and unlikely that they are precisely what the Alchemist is using too - as yeast will change over time. Even John Kimmich from the Alchemist talks about the differences in batches over the course of 10-15 generations of pitching the yeast..... so, even harvesting from cans of Heady Topper may get you different variations depending on what generation of yeast went into that particular batch.

But - Gigayeast, Yeast bay, Omega and Imperial all have a version of Conan I believe. I have not used Imperial, but I have used the other 3 without noticing a dramatic difference one from the other.

Yeah, they all have versions of Conan, but when you ask them if they do, they give you non-answers worthy of a politician. I suspect that is true of all commercial yeasts, and not just Conan.

 

[Cavpilot2000]

I think the obsession over / emphasis on Conan is overblown.
It's a fine yeast, but it is absolutely NOT necessary for a good NEIPA. Sure Kimmich uses it, but plenty of other great NEIPA breweries do not.
There are a million good yeast strains for this style that will do everything Conan will do.

I think worrying about using one particular yeast strain (which by the way is constantly evolving and mutating anyway, making it a moving target) is missing the big picture of what's really important: a good grain bill, a good hops bill/schedule, and to a lesser degree, appropriate water.

I've used WLP 001 and 007 to great effect (I think I prefer 007 slightly), and others have had success with other yeasts. Conan is not necessary.
If it's a hops-accenting yeast you're looking for, there are lots of them. If you are looking for that classic haze, well, the haze in these beers is absolutely NOT a function of the yeast, if the haze is your goal (which really should be a by-product, not a goal).

So use Conan if you've got it, but don't worry about it if you don't. There are at least half a dozen identified strains that work well with this style.

 

[Braufessor]

I think the obsession over / emphasis on Conan is overblown.
It's a fine yeast, but it is absolutely NOT necessary for a good NEIPA. Sure Kimmich uses it, but plenty of other great NEIPA breweries do not.
There are a million good yeast strains for this style that will do everything Conan will do.

I think worrying about using one particular yeast strain (which by the way is constantly evolving and mutating anyway, making it a moving target) is missing the big picture of what's really important: a good grain bill, a good hops bill/schedule, and to a lesser degree, appropriate water.

I've used WLP 001 and 007 to great effect (I think I prefer 007 slightly), and others have had success with other yeasts. Conan is not necessary.
If it's a hops-accenting yeast you're looking for, there are lots of them. If you are looking for that classic haze, well, the haze in these beers is absolutely NOT a function of the yeast, if the haze is your goal (which really should be a by-product, not a goal).

So use Conan if you've got it, but don't worry about it if you don't. There are at least half a dozen identified strains that work well with this style.

I agree with basically all of this. I actually like Conan for reasons other than some of what it is supposedly known for. I DO NOT find that it leaves beers "cloudy/hazy" ...... for me, it drops out quite well (which I like). I DON'T get any of the "peach" that people always talk about. I find it relatively clean to be honest. I think it does leave some nice fruity esters behind - so not as clean as say a 1056. However, way less yeast character than 1318 for instance.

I like it because I can repitch it to a lot of other beers - it is great in my blonde ale. I also like it in the various british beers I brew - milds, porters, bitters.

I like that it tends to not finish out as low as 007, but not as high as 002 can finish out sometimes.

I completely agree that there are many yeasts to use with confidence in this beer. The other yeast I find most similar in a lot of ways to what I get out of Conan is 1272. Over the last 6 months or so, I would say that I have used 1272 and Conan about equally. It gives me the same basic attenuation and a bit of a fruity ester accent, while remaining fairly clean. Drops out well - so there is "haze" from the hopping, but not "murkiness" from yeast in suspension.

Also - I think 1272 is a more consistent, reliable yeast than Conan.

 

[Cavpilot2000]

I like that it tends to not finish out as low as 007, but not as high as 002 can finish out sometimes.

Yeah, I actually like how "dry" 007 attenuates, but my recipe has an OG of 1.074, so there is still plenty of residual body even though my last FG was 1.012.
It really does depend on one's taste and goals with the beer.

 

[jekeane]

Got the day off today from watching my boys so I brewed this up. Used the updated recipe from the link in the OP.

Hit all your numbers so looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

I found it interesting that my wort was very clear going into the fermenter, is that generally the case? I used mostly pellets except for the citra which were whole. It was my first time with cone hops and I learned that pumps and cones don't mix... who knew.

My mash PH was 5.34 and end of boil was 5.25 so I suppose that could have an effect on the clarity.

@Braufessor what is your clarity into the fermenter like generally?

 

[Desertbrewer]

I agree with basically all of this. I actually like Conan for reasons other than some of what it is supposedly known for. I DO NOT find that it leaves beers "cloudy/hazy" ...... for me, it drops out quite well (which I like). I DON'T get any of the "peach" that people always talk about. I find it relatively clean to be honest. I think it does leave some nice fruity esters behind - so not as clean as say a 1056. However, way less yeast character than 1318 for instance.

I like it because I can repitch it to a lot of other beers - it is great in my blonde ale. I also like it in the various british beers I brew - milds, porters, bitters.

I like that it tends to not finish out as low as 007, but not as high as 002 can finish out sometimes.

I completely agree that there are many yeasts to use with confidence in this beer. The other yeast I find most similar in a lot of ways to what I get out of Conan is 1272. Over the last 6 months or so, I would say that I have used 1272 and Conan about equally. It gives me the same basic attenuation and a bit of a fruity ester accent, while remaining fairly clean. Drops out well - so there is "haze" from the hopping, but not "murkiness" from yeast in suspension.

Also - I think 1272 is a more consistent, reliable yeast than Conan.

I'm on about my 6th generation of Conan, used it in several hoppy beers and one porter and it's awesome. My beers always attenuate like crazy so I've preferred Conan to other American Ale strains so there's still some maltiness there. I have gotten clear beer as well, floccs pretty decent.

Perhaps you're right that the degree to which the "peach" ester has been purported is overblown. But I do get that ester pretty regularly. When I open a mason jar of washed yeast it smells like one of those Kern nectars. But that's for hoppy beers; my porter tasted very clean with a nice little English ester in the background.

Was thinking about doing a kettle sour, then pitch Conan and ferment with peaches in primary for a juicy Berliner style.

 

[crusader1612]

Was thinking about doing a kettle sour, then pitch Conan and ferment with peaches in primary for a juicy Berliner style.

This.
this is a good idea.

might i suggest dryhopping as well. a hoppy peach sour if you will.
(works well for me)

 

[Braufessor]

@Braufessor what is your clarity into the fermenter like generally?

Quite clear to somewhat hazy. I think most of the haze comes from the early dry hop addition.

 

[motosapiens]

that makes me thirsty.... only 3 weeks to go until i can have a beer again.

(FYI I blew out the ACL in my left knee awhile back, and just had a reconstruction done to repair it. a piece of the tendon from me knee cap drill and screwed into where the old one was)

to speed up my recovery, i decided i wouldn't drink any form of alcohol, until I've recovered to a certain point.

I had my acl reconstructed 5 years ago when I was 50. I didn't drink for about a week after surgery. After that I drank in moderation. Was back riding my dirtbike in 3 months.

 

[plazola86]

Was thinking about doing a kettle sour, then pitch Conan and ferment with peaches in primary for a juicy Berliner style.[/QUOTE]

This is my next beer actually! Not a Berliner but I was thinking of keeping the same NE style grain bill and kettle souring with sour weapon and pitching Conan. this would be my first sour so not sure how this type of grain bill would come out. What do you guys think? Keep it simple (maybe just 2 row & cara), or an NE sour....

 

[crusader1612]

Was thinking about doing a kettle sour, then pitch Conan and ferment with peaches in primary for a juicy Berliner style.

This is my next beer actually! Not a Berliner but I was thinking of keeping the same NE style grain bill and kettle souring with sour weapon and pitching Conan. this would be my first sour so not sure how this type of grain bill would come out. What do you guys think? Keep it simple (maybe just 2 row & cara), or an NE sour....[/QUOTE]

nothing beats a nice hoppy sour.

ive got one in ATM
Kettle soured with Plantarum
then my new (hopefully) house blend
WLP 648 / TYB Saison Brett Blend
I killed off the lacto after 48 hours
and brought up to pasteurise, added 1oz each of amarillo/simcoe, then i let sit for 8 weeks (post op) rack onto White peaches for another 2-3 months, then dryhop with 2oz each of simcoe/amarillo and keg.

 

[crusader1612]

I had my acl reconstructed 5 years ago when I was 50. I didn't drink for about a week after surgery. After that I drank in moderation. Was back riding my dirtbike in 3 months.

Yeah I thought about only take a couple of weeks off the booze. but figured it was a good time to take a short break (my wife's been pestering me to try dry july etc.) So I've done booze free march instead.

I'm 4 weeks post op, and I'm walking normally now, and im on the bike getting my movement etc all sorted.
just a personal choice i guess. that beer next weekend is going to taste amazing lol

funny thing is because ive not been drinking, ive been eating more, and the food hasn';t been good for my diet TBH.

I've organised a bottle share with some friend for my back to drinking day too, so there'll be plenty of lovely special one off beers to get me back into it.