Treehouse Brewing Julius Clone

[Little_Lebowski]

My advice on the cold crash is to do it "gently" for lack of a better word. I use it to help the dry hop pellet remains still floating on top to sink down to the cake but that typically only takes a 5-10 degree drop in temp, a good swirl and a few hours time. I definitely wouldn't crash this type of beer in the 50s for 2-3 days as you'll drop out a lot of that yeast/hop bonding that was going on in your earlier dry hopping and it'll never make it into your keg. Now eventually this will drop out after weeks in a keg at serving temps but I'd rather have it drop out in the keg then in the fermenter

 

[Trillium]

How exactly are you bubbling CO2 into the Chronical? I always worry about making a huge mess by trying to do this.

I tig welded a ball lock gas fitting to a tri-clamp blank. SSBrewtech should sell them as an assessory.

 

[milldoggy]

I bubble c02 also. Brewhardware has a tri to ball lock. The pressure from the c02 and the slight amount you crack the dump valve prevents beer from coming out

 

[dude1]

Just wondering:

If I usually dry hop with 1oz Amarillo, 1oz Centennial and 1oz Simcoe for my Julius clone which is amazing, how much Amarillo and Mosaic should I add to this for the Alter Ego, which is a "Julius + some more dry hopping of these 2 hops"?

Thanks

 

[Ruckusz28]

Just wondering:

If I usually dry hop with 1oz Amarillo, 1oz Centennial and 1oz Simcoe for my Julius clone which is amazing, how much Amarillo and Mosaic should I add to this for the Alter Ego, which is a "Julius + some more dry hopping of these 2 hops"?

Thanks

It has not been cloned to the best of my knowledge. I don't believe that hop combination to be correct for Alter Ego. I know for a fact that Amarillo and Mosaic is all stone fruit, which is very different from Alter Ego.

For the record, Tired Hands Alien Church tasted damn close to Alter Ego. The hops within are Columbus, Citra, Mosaic, Chinook, Centennial. If I were to clone Alter Ego, I'd start there. Cheers.

 

[TheHairyHop]

It has not been cloned to the best of my knowledge. I don't believe that hop combination to be correct for Alter Ego. I know for a fact that Amarillo and Mosaic is all stone fruit, which is very different from Alter Ego.

For the record, Tired Hands Alien Church tasted damn close to Alter Ego. The hops within are Columbus, Citra, Mosaic, Chinook, Centennial. If I were to clone Alter Ego, I'd start there. Cheers.

Tree house's own description of alter ego professes that there is a bunch of Amarillo and mosaic added to the Julius dry hop. Take it for what you will.

I used to think that meant that Julius does not have mosaic in it, but there may be a little as I get some of that melon flavor I get from an all mosaic beer

 

[2005STi]

Do you guys use whirlfloc or some form of carrageenan in your hazy beers? I have been and always throw it in every brew regardless of a need for clarity.

 

[crusader1612]

Do you guys use whirlfloc or some form of carrageenan in your hazy beers? I have been and always throw it in every brew regardless of a need for clarity.

Its good practice.
IMO even when you going for a style such as this, you don't change your processes. same goes for a wit or wheat beer. i always throw some fining in at the appropriate point - same time as the yeast nutrient. because its normal, and why bother changing.
it may end up a tiny bit clearer but your still going to have sufficient haze.

When IO make these beers, I still fine with gelatin as well. I still have a good haze for the majority of the beer, and only towards the end of the keg does it clear up anyway.

 

[Little_Lebowski]

Its good practice.
IMO even when you going for a style such as this, you don't change your processes. same goes for a wit or wheat beer. i always throw some fining in at the appropriate point - same time as the yeast nutrient. because its normal, and why bother changing.
it may end up a tiny bit clearer but your still going to have sufficient haze.

When IO make these beers, I still fine with gelatin as well. I still have a good haze for the majority of the beer, and only towards the end of the keg does it clear up anyway.

When you say "these beers" what are you referring to? IPAs in general or New England style? Fining with gelatin just seems to be a good way to ruin all the work that went in to hit the style parameters which collectively lead to the haze and effectively deliver hop flavors and aromas noticeably different then clear west coast IPAs... ie active fermentation dry hopping, higher chloride ratios, high protein adjuncts.

 

[crusader1612]

When you say "these beers" what are you referring to? IPAs in general or New England style? Fining with gelatin just seems to be a good way to ruin all the work that went in to hit the style parameters which collectively lead to the haze and effectively deliver hop flavors and aromas noticeably different then clear west coast IPAs... ie active fermentation dry hopping, higher chloride ratios, high protein adjuncts.

Yeah NEPA and NEIPA.
It's part of my process, so I stick to it - I don't see the need to change a part of my process to hit a certain style parameter. If its comes out clear it comes out clear (it should still taste the same as if it was hazy IMO)

also the gelatin argument has always been a big thing on any beer, about whether it effects the aroma and flavour etc. I suggest a read of this.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/06/20/th...g-in-a-ne-style-pale-ale-exbeeriment-results/

 

[Little_Lebowski]

Yeah NEPA and NEIPA.
It's part of my process, so I stick to it - I don't see the need to change a part of my process to hit a certain style parameter. If its comes out clear it comes out clear (it should still taste the same as if it was hazy IMO)

also the gelatin argument has always been a big thing on any beer, about whether it effects the aroma and flavour etc. I suggest a read of this.
http://brulosophy.com/2016/06/20/th...g-in-a-ne-style-pale-ale-exbeeriment-results/

Yeah I'm familiar with that study. I personally feel from many attempts, and empty kegs, there is a direct correlation with increased clarity and decreased aroma over time in the keg. Don't know too many people that agree with brulosophy's findings, me included

 

[FlyDoctor]

Just so I understand - do you not agree with his data, the conclusions, the methodology? I am a scientist and one thing I say to myself every day - the data is the data...you can't argue with it, but you can argue with the methods and the conclusions. One would have to say here that they somehow didn't fine it in a way people call correct, or it didn't reflect a true NEIPA, or the judges were blinded to the variable, making it too difficult to determine a difference?

The guys at experimental brewing are working in the idea that tasters really aren't that good at detecting differences. Panels were unable to tell the difference between bud and bud light - beers with substantial gravity, alcohol, and IBU differences. Perhaps they are too close to each other, but how much of a change is the threshold? Would fining really cross that? Not sure on either.

 

[gbarron]

Just so I understand - do you not agree with his data, the conclusions, the methodology? I am a scientist and one thing I say to myself every day - the data is the data...you can't argue with it, but you can argue with the methods and the conclusions.

Ding ding! There is no quantitative data I've ever come across that suggests using finings such as gelatin in a beer appreciably change the perceived hop flavors or aroma. The Brulosophy results appear quite sound and a lot more reliable than personal anecdote.

Certainly, over time, as a beer naturally clears, hop flavors and aroma in highly hopped beers will naturally decrease - they fade. But that has nothing to do with finings or lack thereof.

 

[TheHairyHop]

Although I have no strong feelings about using or not using gelatin (I've never bothered to use it), I may as wel give my two cents because no one asked . I've said it perhaps in another thread, but the p-value is garbage.

The American Statistical Association released a statement in early 2016 about abandoning the p-value. The fact that brulosophy still uses it is fairly off putting.

On another note, they often generalize about a method when applied to a particular recipe. However, I do not think the gelatin example posted recently in this thread is one of them. What I will say about that experiment is that a triangle test is not entirely appropriate. Although my experience is not the law, it's rather pointless to directly compare two insanely hopped beers side by side. Hell, sometimes Julius tastes like one thing on one sip and another the very sip afterward! They sort of have one gun and stick to it, rather than spread out their experimental approach. Like everything (including my opinion) it should be taken as one part of a larger truth

 

[crusader1612]

Ding ding! There is no quantitative data I've ever come across that suggests using finings such as gelatin in a beer appreciably change the perceived hop flavors or aroma. The Brulosophy results appear quite sound and a lot more reliable than personal anecdote.

Certainly, over time, as a beer naturally clears, hop flavors and aroma in highly hopped beers will naturally decrease - they fade. But that has nothing to do with finings or lack thereof.

Nailed it! very nicely put
I've never tasted a difference between fined and non-fined beer. at least not enough to make me change any part of my process.

Something I don't understand about people who decide to make this style, is that people see the haze as an essential part of the style, where as in fact it is merely a "symptom" of the beer itself. Caused by the ingredients, how they are applied and their reactions with each other (e.g Low flocc yeast, late hops and flaked oats/what)
(i.e flour is not required) if you kettle fined previously, you continue to do the same, and in my case i you fine in the keg as well you continue to do the same.

a hunk of oats, a low flocc yeast and a S**T ton of late hops and ryhops will get you exactly where you need to be. (I'm yet to test out the high chloride ratio though - only because I've got my water profile for hoppy beers on point)

 

[TheHairyHop]

Something I don't understand about people who decide to make this style, is that people see the haze as an essential part of the style, where as in fact it is merely a "symptom" of the beer itself.

Would a hefe still be a hefe if it tasted and smelled the same but wasn't cloudy? Being so new, it's really hard to say about the NEIPA. In fact, some people get up in arms over whether or not it's actually it's own style. We taste with our eyes, so it is certainly possible to say that the haze is desired for a particular sensory experience

 

[gbarron]

Although I have no strong feelings about using or not using gelatin (I've never bothered to use it), I may as wel give my two cents because no one asked . I've said it perhaps in another thread, but the p-value is garbage.

The American Statistical Association released a statement in early 2016 about abandoning the p-value. The fact that brulosophy still uses it is fairly off putting.

Totally agree that people should do what they want regarding gelatin - but should it be based on a premise that has no demonstrated support? That was my only point.

On p-values, I don't think AmStat is arguing for abandoning it per se or saying it is garbage - but rather that it is frequently misunderstood and misused. However, on the scale of homebrew "mythbusting," I put a lot more value on an analysis supported by statistical significance over anecdotal evidence such as "my buddies and I can tell a difference."

 

[TheHairyHop]

I mean, they said it shouldn't be used to determine whether a hypothesis is true or false. Which is what Brulosophy basically uses it for. I had the pleasure to read all of the addendum letters from the statement in order to present to my boss and his team about the opinions and conclusions. There really weren't many that painted a picture other than that it really shouldn't be used.

Really, a better experiment would have been to get two independent sets of tasters and ask them to rate the strength of taste/smell and then compare averages and such. Their hop chronicles or whatever they are called are better studies. But this opinion of mine about p-value is just particularly strong because I do research in hypothesis testing and, well, almost a decade of research in a particular category can do that to a person. I completely agree with your notion of analysis over "well, when I tasted my last batch..." To go back to the hop chronicles, the flavor results on centennial are particularly enjoying to read, and a good case for sensory bias.

 

[crusader1612]

Would a hefe still be a hefe if it tasted and smelled the same but wasn't cloudy? Being so new, it's really hard to say about the NEIPA. In fact, some people get up in arms over whether or not it's actually it's own style. We taste with our eyes, so it is certainly possible to say that the haze is desired for a particular sensory experience

Not a big fan of hefe. lol.
but to use it as an example is good for me, as long as your usingthe appropriate ingredients for the style, and your sticking to your normal processes then yes, I'd call it a hefe.

Last one I made (about 3 years ago) cleared up within 2 weeks of kegging (prior to my exclusive use of gelatin) and still looked good in the glass.
was it to style? not based on the way it looked but it didn't matter to me.
Obviously as hefe is a recognised style when you enter a comp, the haze isa good idea, (but apparance is only 3 marks anyways)

I agree that we taste somewhat with our eyes as well, that makes plenty of sense. (if it looked like mud we wouldn't want to drink it.)

 

[TheHairyHop]

(if it looked like mud we wouldn't want to drink it.)

tell that to Bissell Brothers. Sheesh, they think I'll perceive it as juicy.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how these beers are "properly" judged in a few years once all the hubbub has died down. For now, I think haze is pretty essential, but it's hard to feel too strongly. I'm just glad I can get hop bombs that don't have 100 IBUs!

 

[crusader1612]

tell that to Bissell Brothers. Sheesh, they think I'll perceive it as juicy.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how these beers are "properly" judged in a few years once all the hubbub has died down. For now, I think haze is pretty essential, but it's hard to feel too strongly. I'm just glad I can get hop bombs that don't have 100 IBUs!

Just googled bissell brothers..... boy theres haze and then theres that.....

 

[FlyDoctor]

The American Statistical Association released a statement in early 2016 about abandoning the p-value. The fact that brulosophy still uses it is fairly off putting.

I think your being a bit unrealistic about this. I'm a scientist, both involved in clinical trials as well as molecular and cellular biology, and everyone in these fields uses the p value and I've never heard of it being abandoned. While the statisticians may moved on, science has not...expecting a group of guys trying to apply science to beer to be that in tune with the intricacies of stats is pushing the limits of reality IMO

 

[FruityHops]

I like the work being done by the guys at Brulosophy and I'll continue to follow them. There is one thing I would criticize about they way they perform their tests though.

I understand the idea of a random sample group, but I don't think they should be using group of random people for their tests. When testing for a difference in the presence of DMS for example, since DMS can't be detected by everyone I think the testers should be screened first and only those who are sensitive to DMS should be included.

I don't care if I can do something wrong or less than ideal and still have a beer that lots of people like, I can do that now. Investigating the science of beer should have us striving for a more perfect beer that virtually everyone will like, not just a beer that is good enough that most people won't notice some of the minor flaws.

In my opinion they should go out of their way to make sure the people being used as taste testers are competent tasters with decent beer pallets. It would be great if they worked up a profile on a bunch of testers to determine what variables those testers can be used for and expected to give meaningful results for.

Since Brulosophy is trying to test a potential change in a single variable by using people as testers instead of lab equipment to simply read the amount of the variable present in the sample (which I think is an awesome way to get real world insight and test the significance of a change), they need to make sure their testers are "calibrated" to give input that is more than just noise.

I think this explains why so many experiments seem to show no significance when you would expect otherwise. The intentional DMS dosing experiment (http://brulosophy.com/2016/09/05/off-flavor-series-pt-1-dimethyl-sulfide-dms-exbeeriment-results/) and the mash temp experiment resulting in a clearly measurable difference in FG (http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/) come to mind as examples where I suspect too many of the people used as taste testers were... less than ideal candidates.

 

[stickyfinger]

I'd recommend that you try the mash temp xbmt yourself. i mash at 165 for most beers, and i don't think anyone i know could tell the difference, including myself.

 

[FlyDoctor]

I like the work being done by the guys at Brulosophy and I'll continue to follow them. There is one thing I would criticize about they way they perform their tests though.

I understand the idea of a random sample group, but I don't think they should be using group of random people for their tests. When testing for a difference in the presence of DMS for example, since DMS can't be detected by everyone I think the testers should be screened first and only those who are sensitive to DMS should be included.

I don't care if I can do something wrong or less than ideal and still have a beer that lots of people like, I can do that now. Investigating the science of beer should have us striving for a more perfect beer that virtually everyone will like, not just a beer that is good enough that most people won't notice some of the minor flaws.

In my opinion they should go out of their way to make sure the people being used as taste testers are competent tasters with decent beer pallets. It would be great if they worked up a profile on a bunch of testers to determine what variables those testers can be used for and expected to give meaningful results for.

Since Brulosophy is trying to test a potential change in a single variable by using people as testers instead of lab equipment to simply read the amount of the variable present in the sample (which I think is an awesome way to get real world insight and test the significance of a change), they need to make sure their testers are "calibrated" to give input that is more than just noise.

I think this explains why so many experiments seem to show no significance when you would expect otherwise. The intentional DMS dosing experiment (http://brulosophy.com/2016/09/05/off-flavor-series-pt-1-dimethyl-sulfide-dms-exbeeriment-results/) and the mash temp experiment resulting in a clearly measurable difference in FG (http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/) come to mind as examples where I suspect too many of the people used as taste testers were... less than ideal candidates.

I agree with all of this...I also think for the purposes of getting great beer, a p value of 0.05 may be too strict. This being said - I love what they do, and it does influence how I brew for myself - which is honestly the most important target audience

 

[Little_Lebowski]

I like the work being done by the guys at Brulosophy and I'll continue to follow them. There is one thing I would criticize about they way they perform their tests though.

I understand the idea of a random sample group, but I don't think they should be using group of random people for their tests. When testing for a difference in the presence of DMS for example, since DMS can't be detected by everyone I think the testers should be screened first and only those who are sensitive to DMS should be included.

I don't care if I can do something wrong or less than ideal and still have a beer that lots of people like, I can do that now. Investigating the science of beer should have us striving for a more perfect beer that virtually everyone will like, not just a beer that is good enough that most people won't notice some of the minor flaws.

In my opinion they should go out of their way to make sure the people being used as taste testers are competent tasters with decent beer pallets. It would be great if they worked up a profile on a bunch of testers to determine what variables those testers can be used for and expected to give meaningful results for.

Since Brulosophy is trying to test a potential change in a single variable by using people as testers instead of lab equipment to simply read the amount of the variable present in the sample (which I think is an awesome way to get real world insight and test the significance of a change), they need to make sure their testers are "calibrated" to give input that is more than just noise.

I think this explains why so many experiments seem to show no significance when you would expect otherwise. The intentional DMS dosing experiment (http://brulosophy.com/2016/09/05/off-flavor-series-pt-1-dimethyl-sulfide-dms-exbeeriment-results/) and the mash temp experiment resulting in a clearly measurable difference in FG (http://brulosophy.com/2015/10/12/the-mash-high-vs-low-temperature-exbeeriment-results/) come to mind as examples where I suspect too many of the people used as taste testers were... less than ideal candidates.

Well said. In the end of the day, the experiment is based solely on HUMAN tasting perceptions and subjective results are being quantified. By doing research this way it still leaves the community with the option to be skeptical which, in this specific case, I still tend to be skeptical as well.

 

[Sbe2]

Any newer recipes on a Julius Clone? Tips or tricks?

Or is the BYO recipe ~20 pages back a good place to start?

 

[Little_Lebowski]

Any newer recipes on a Julius Clone? Tips or tricks?

Or is the BYO recipe ~20 pages back a good place to start?

Yeah I think it's a good place to start. The water profile needs addressed and the mouthfeel was a little thin (these would probably go hand in hand). Color is nice and the hops are a solid start but Not exactly that citrusy orange Julius vibe going on. So a bump or addition in that realm to the hop bill would improve.

 

[lilbova3]

I'd recommend that you try the mash temp xbmt yourself. i mash at 165 for most beers, and i don't think anyone i know could tell the difference, including myself.

A brewer friend was talking to me about this and he believes that the yeast will do their job no matter what with attenuation. He doesn't feel mashing temperatures affect mouthfeel too much. He believes its more adjuncts and crystal malts that provide the mouthfeel and sweetness rather than higher mashing temps.

 

[stickyfinger]

A brewer friend was talking to me about this and he believes that the yeast will do their job no matter what with attenuation. He doesn't feel mashing temperatures affect mouthfeel too much. He believes its more adjuncts and crystal malts that provide the mouthfeel and sweetness rather than higher mashing temps.

I think that a beer within a pretty broad gravity range will taste just as dry mashing high as long as the yeast eat all of the simple sugars. That is way more important than what the FG is. More sweetness, to me, comes from a higher OG, certain yeasts, and less sulfate. If you keep increasing the OG, the beer will come off as more sweet. Some yeasts just don't eat as much of the sugars, leaving a little sweetness there, and less sulfate results in a much less dry flavor. I have been using this trick for months now to get a fuller flavored beer with the same alcohol as a beer mashed at a lower temp. I highly recommend it.

 

[JoeMamasIPA]

Any newer recipes on a Julius Clone? Tips or tricks?

Or is the BYO recipe ~20 pages back a good place to start?

Thats a good recipe but recommend low generation Conan for yeast as it leaves the beer a bit fuller. Also, make sure to use name brand hops (YCH, Union, etc.) for the last dryhop which I recommend as a keg hop. Sometimes repackaged LHBS hops just don't cut it for the final hopping which I feel is the most important for nose/flavor.

 

[lilbova3]

I think that a beer within a pretty broad gravity range will taste just as dry mashing high as long as the yeast eat all of the simple sugars. That is way more important than what the FG is. More sweetness, to me, comes from a higher OG, certain yeasts, and less sulfate. If you keep increasing the OG, the beer will come off as more sweet. Some yeasts just don't eat as much of the sugars, leaving a little sweetness there, and less sulfate results in a much less dry flavor. I have been using this trick for months now to get a fuller flavored beer with the same alcohol as a beer mashed at a lower temp. I highly recommend it.

Very much agree. I had a Monkish beer the other day and compared to my brews had more sweetness and softer mouthfeel. The Monkish beer was a DIPA and I primarily make pale ales. I would bet FGs were similar but there are lots more sugars to go through for yeast in a DIPA.

 

[stickyfinger]

Very much agree. I had a Monkish beer the other day and compared to my brews had more sweetness and softer mouthfeel. The Monkish beer was a DIPA and I primarily make pale ales. I would bet FGs were similar but there are lots more sugars to go through for yeast in a DIPA.

Maybe the accumulated leftover unfermentable sugars just start reaching "sweetness" levels in big beers. Not sure. The yeast eat everything they can, so, in theory, it should be no sweeter than a low alcohol beer, but it is. So, there must be a critical mass of unfermentable sugars that starts tasting sweet at some point. you can easily make a 1.075 IPA with a mash of 165F that will not be super alcoholic and will not be sweet either.

I've also found that if your beers are too sweet, you can dry hop with even more hops, and it will dry it out, must be the tannins and such in the hops. You can easily dry out a sweet beer with tons of dry hops!

 

[Sbe2]

I do not have a keg system set up, yet. Would I be able to get that awesome haze while bottling?

I would still be doing the massive dry hop in the primary before bottling, so I am banking on obtaining that aroma and flavor.

 

[stickyfinger]

I do not have a keg system set up, yet. Would I be able to get that awesome haze while bottling?

I would still be doing the massive dry hop in the primary before bottling, so I am banking on obtaining that aroma and flavor.

A friend of mine bottles, and he gets quite a bit of hop haze from a heavy dry hop. He uses at least 2 oz / gallon in the dry hop.

 

[Mordhaus]

Brewed this last night using the BYO recipe as a baseline. I changed up the hops a bit as I really wanted to hop the hell out of this thing and Citra gets "cat pissy" to me in anything more than a moderate dose. The grain bill is the same, adjusted to my equipment.

Hops are:

1 oz. Columbus @ 60

30 minute hop stand:
3 oz. Galaxy
3 oz. Mosaic
2.5 oz. Simcoe

First dry hop same as above at tail end of fermentation.

Second dry hop four days after, 2 oz. each of the above. That's 24 oz. of hops in a six gallon batch. Fingers crossed.

 

[Gustatorian]

Brewed this last night using the BYO recipe as a baseline. I changed up the hops a bit as I really wanted to hop the hell out of this thing and Citra gets "cat pissy" to me in anything more than a moderate dose. The grain bill is the same, adjusted to my equipment.

Hops are:

1 oz. Columbus @ 60

30 minute hop stand:
3 oz. Galaxy
3 oz. Mosaic
2.5 oz. Simcoe

First dry hop same as above at tail end of fermentation.

Second dry hop four days after, 2 oz. each of the above. That's 24 oz. of hops in a six gallon batch. Fingers crossed.

Sounds legit. Keep us posted!

 

[Sbe2]

A friend of mine bottles, and he gets quite a bit of hop haze from a heavy dry hop. He uses at least 2 oz / gallon in the dry hop.

Wow 2 oz/gal. I have never gone above 1.5.

Gunna have to restock my inventory!

 

[stickyfinger]

Wow 2 oz/gal. I have never gone above 1.5.

Gunna have to restock my inventory!

I like 2 oz/gal dry hop, but I have been skipping any kettle hops except for bittering ones recently. I like the results. I buy so many hops in bulk that I don't mind loading up on the dry hop. The results are great.

 

[crusader1612]

I like 2 oz/gal dry hop, but I have been skipping any kettle hops except for bittering ones recently. I like the results. I buy so many hops in bulk that I don't mind loading up on the dry hop. The results are great.

man 2oz dryhop is huge!!! thats 10ounces in 5 gal
283Grams!! holy Crap on a cracker!