stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
Wow, I've never done a beer with mostly Galaxy. That sounds pretty intense. I hope I can try that sometime. I totally agree with putting more and more into the dryhop. I get a lot of bang for my buck from doing that.
Treehouse Brewing Julius Clone
- Thread starter kaz4121
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Wow, I've never done a beer with mostly Galaxy. That sounds pretty intense. I hope I can try that sometime. I totally agree with putting more and more into the dryhop. I get a lot of bang for my buck from doing that.
I looked up some research journals on hop oils and it really convinced me that anything but dry hopping may be very inefficient at adding flavor to a beer. Oil content absolutely plummets during primary fermentation
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
Can you share a link to the paper? Also, was there any sensory analysis or just oil content analysis?
Scott goes over it fairly well
http://scottjanish.com/examination-...s-for-achieving-maximum-hop-aroma-and-flavor/
He just covers oil content. I believe the papers do not have much for sensory analysis. However, these facts combined with the fact that JC was saying to save all Galaxy for dry hop, is pushing me to focus on the dry hop
Cavpilot2000
Well-Known Member
I respectfully disagree that we will see significant variations like "black"NEIPAs. The reason being that another of the prominent features of the style (at least looking at the ones made by the breweries most known for the style like Alchemist, Treehouse, Trillium, Hill), is that light yellow to orange color that imparts the visual compliment to the "juice" perception.
That, and I am one of those who has a strong linguistic distaste for the style "Black IPA".
There is no such thing as black IPA - it is a hoppy porter. Think about it: Black India Pale Ale. It is simply not possible to have a beer that is both black and pale at the same time. Maybe it could be called an India Black Ale (Dogfish Head has had their India Brown Ale out for some time - at least they get it), but the name IPA refers to its historical origins, and there is no known historical precedent for an India Black Ale. Without the historical context of shipping beer to British troops in India, you simply have a hoppy black ale (porter).
---off soapbox---
crusader1612
Well-Known Member
The style name of a beer is really irrelevant IMO. Its all a bit silly, in the simplest of terms, a black IPA, Red IPA Brown IPA all have characteristics from 2 styles of beer the easiest way to describe these beers is to give hte a hybrid style name. (i.e and IPa that just so happens to be black)
For me, it can't be a hoppy porter either.... as many lack the character to actually be a porter anyway.
what people have coined is a newer hybrid style, which has officially been recognised.
You could essentially say something similar about NE IPA, its simply an IPA that has a morerounded juice character, and often has an orange hazy appearance.
FYI I'd be interested to see a NE Black IPA - I suspect many would take the hazy aspect of that over to it, and it would literally look like chocolate milkshakes or.....mud. lol:fro:
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
You never know how things will go. Marketing, if nothing else, can create new styles to appeal to bored drinkers. I don't see how a spectrum of colors and flavors can be avoided in the general NEIPA genre, but time will tell.
Black IPA is an accepted style already as you know
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say it is silly. I think of it more as a linguistic tool, as you seem to point to with your comment on "easiest way to describe." If we have a shared basic set of guidelines on what a name implies, we will come to expect certain flavors from a beer. I at least want to have a slight frame of reference when ordering a beer at a bar. If someone said, "This is a White NEIPA," I would have a decent idea of what I might expect and would also have an idea about whether I'd rather have it or a beer from another of the clusters of flavors.
Yes, I agree with this completely.
The problem with ditching more defined names is that it makes it harder to point out what it is in a concise format. I see the style as a first bracket that prepares you for what you are discussing/ordering at a bar. Then, you can go on to read the specific description. I like categorizations though! It may become cumbersome having so many names though. "NEIPA-like" may be folded into the description of the beer if someone cares to read the description!
I think my next beer will be a Black IPA now that I have an NEIPA fermenting away. My last Black IPA was in the vein of NEIPA but was not right on the hopping and was too roasty. It looked most like coffee to me. It was SO creamy though, the best mouthfeel from the dark malts.
Regarding categorization, it may happen that things move up the evolutionary tree some as well, going from many IPAs to a simple clustering of shades of IPA and they can vary dramatically from NEIPA-like to mouth-crushingly-bitter and dry WC IPA and whatever else the future holds for IPA.
Cavpilot2000
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I understand the drive to be descriptive, and I also agree that a hoppy porter isn't really a porter - that was a poor comparison on my part.
In all reality, it would be an aggresively hopped dark ale, which of course, also is not a recognized style, though it is the best descriptor one could apply.
You never know how things will go. Marketing, if nothing else, can create new styles to appeal to bored drinkers. I don't see how a spectrum of colors and flavors can be avoided in the general NEIPA genre, but time will tell.
Black IPA is an accepted style already as you know
Sure, and I agree that marketing is the biggest determining factor. Again, a black IPA is an impossibility, but it is a recognized style because people brewing hoppy dark ales wanted to piggyback off of the massive market share for IPAs. So why call your beer a "hoppy dark ale", which would not resonate with the average non-brewing consumer, when you could tack on the IPA designation and cash in because literally anything with those three letters on the label will sell.
My objection is simply from a linguistic point of view in that Black Pale Ale is an oxymoron. I'm a writer, and a student of the English language, so to me, words mean things.
It's like the appliance called a "Hot water heater". It isn't a hot water heater at all - it's a cold water heater. If the water were hot, it wouldn't need heating, and the appliance would be unnecessary.
Oh well, it looks like my hope for a career in the Language Police may never come to fruition.
It
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
My objection is simply from a linguistic point of view in that Black Pale Ale is an oxymoron. I'm a writer, and a student of the English language, so to me, words mean things.
It's like the appliance called a "Hot water heater". It isn't a hot water heater at all - it's a cold water heater. If the water were hot, it wouldn't need heating, and the appliance would be unnecessary.
Oh well, it looks like my hope for a career in the Language Police may never come to fruition.
It
Ha ha! Keep trying! You're not a Classicist by any chance, are you! This fits the bill for a classic argument about linguistic prescription. I tend to side with descriptive linguistics (as I find it more interesting, creative and useful for society) but appreciate your aversion to this sacrilege!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
In defense of descriptive linguistics (and, more importantly, Black NEIPA (!) ), I will post a quote from the 2015 BJCP Style Guidelines regarding IPA. In fact, "IPA" is not an initialism when referring to the broad category of "IPA":
The IPA category is for modern American IPAs and their derivatives. ... The term IPA is intentionally not spelled out as India Pale Ale since none of these beers historically went to India, and many arent pale. However, the term IPA has come to be a balance-defined style in modern craft beer.
We'd better not carry this on too much longer or we're bound to get a nasty rebuking for being off-topic. There may be a forum thread on style guidelines and such that would welcome our banter though!
Cavpilot2000
Well-Known Member
crusader1612
Well-Known Member
Little_Lebowski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2016
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 39
Gustatorian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2015
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 23
Interesting. What recipes do you think Trillium uses this base for?
Most of their pale ales, IPAs and dipas. If you go to their website they list the grains and hops for every beer which I believe for IPAs are 2 row, c10 or 15, white wheat, carapils, and some have oats or they use dextrose in their dipas. Cool thing about that tweet is you can now see where they lean towards the actual quantities. And in another tweet posted they mention how they only use a bittering charge and then a massive single or double dry hop.
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
This is so awesome. It's basically close to what my own process has come to after reading on this thread, Braufessor's thread, Brulosophy XBMTs and trial and error! My only difference is that I stopped using carapils due to the Carapils XBMT, and I've only used wheat malt once or twice. I also just do a single dry hop and no kettle character hops.
Does anyone have a really firm idea about/comparison using wheat malt vs no wheat malt in one of these and what you really get from the wheat malt?
Ya know I use white wheat in all my IPAs and pale ales, anywhere from 1/2lb to 3 lbs and I'm not sure I notice a ton of difference in the larger quantities but then again everything is so hop forward only the slightest bit of grain can be tasted plus my palate ain't that refined for me it's all about the hops anyway.
My last nine batches of this type of beer were all Breiss 2-Row brewers malt and anywhere from 15-20% flaked oats. For my last batch, I made the grain bill slightly Trillium-style by adding dextrine and white wheat to my usual malt bill to get more mouthfeel, primarily. That batch actually had worse (thinner) mouthfeel and a weird astringency that could even be tasted as the wort went into the kettle. It was also the longest it ever took for a batch to start drinking good. Mouthfeel improved over several weeks in the keg, but it was never any better than the batches brewed with all 2-row and oats. I will probably never use dextrine or white wheat again!
Cavpilot2000
Well-Known Member
I like to add Vienna to my NEIPA for a little more malt backbone (and to pretty much everything else I brew too) because I fine just pale malt, even with wheat and/or oats, to be too bland, even though the malts are supposed to be in the background if noticeable at all in NEIPA.
Plus, you get a nicer color than just pale malt can provide.
Go Vienna!
Plus, you get a nicer color than just pale malt can provide.
Go Vienna!
Mordhaus
Well-Known Member
View attachment ImageUploadedByHome Brew1486177834.600911.jpg
Still a bit green and early to tell, but at a touch over 4 oz per gallon, I'm leaning towards there being a point of diminishing return on hop additions. Don't get me wrong. This was my first attempt at this beer and this style. I'm very happy with the outcome and excited to see how it develops on the next week or so. Came in a hair over 8% and it hides it well. Scary well.
I'm glad I ditched the citra because I think it would have ruined it in such a large dose. This is dark citrus like tangerine with mango and peach mixed in. Fresh oj bitterness on the back end. Some dank from the simcoe. I think the turbinado dried it out a bit combined with the 100:100 chloride:sulfate. I need to play with that. Maybe 50:100 next time.
This one will get brewed a lot. I want to do an all galaxy and galaxy/amarillo version next. So many options.
Still a bit green and early to tell, but at a touch over 4 oz per gallon, I'm leaning towards there being a point of diminishing return on hop additions. Don't get me wrong. This was my first attempt at this beer and this style. I'm very happy with the outcome and excited to see how it develops on the next week or so. Came in a hair over 8% and it hides it well. Scary well.
I'm glad I ditched the citra because I think it would have ruined it in such a large dose. This is dark citrus like tangerine with mango and peach mixed in. Fresh oj bitterness on the back end. Some dank from the simcoe. I think the turbinado dried it out a bit combined with the 100:100 chloride:sulfate. I need to play with that. Maybe 50:100 next time.
This one will get brewed a lot. I want to do an all galaxy and galaxy/amarillo version next. So many options.
ultravista
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the pro-brewers that take the time to help us out. It means a lot to me.
Has Trillium shared their water profile?
Gustatorian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2015
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 23
Wow! Share the full recipe if you can! What did your final water specs look like?
Little_Lebowski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2016
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 39
I'm not sure if I remember ratios but I think I recall seeing they leaned more to the sulfate side. Seems counterintuitive though because as I pushed the chlorides to 2:1 over sulfates (~200:100) my beers started getting stellar creaminess and softness.
To note: I was a guy who always chucked a whirfloc tablet into the boil because it was simply something I've always done. I did read the article by brulosophy about whirfloc, specifically that there was no significant contribution to haze. Well, let me tell you... this last brew I did without any whirfloc and simply expected it would just take more time during fermentation to precipitate out. I'm about a week in at this point sitting around 60F now for the start of my second dry hop wave. This brew is straight up pineapple juice opaque. Beautiful looking NEIPA. Bye bye whirfloc for this style. I'll stand behind my results thus far and proclaim there is definitely a relationship between whirfloc and post fermentation haze... not simply just a brew day clarifier.
spreemotion
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2017
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey All-
Hope this is not to far off topic, I am mildly confused. In the page or two back one poster mentions, dextrine then dextrose a couple posts later in a malt bill. Are these actually being added to the malt bill pre-mash? Just trying to understand where the sugars come in, I thought this was post ferm.
Also, can anyone give me a one liner on the diff of dextrine and dextrose?
Hope this is not to far off topic, I am mildly confused. In the page or two back one poster mentions, dextrine then dextrose a couple posts later in a malt bill. Are these actually being added to the malt bill pre-mash? Just trying to understand where the sugars come in, I thought this was post ferm.
Also, can anyone give me a one liner on the diff of dextrine and dextrose?
Dextrine is a malt and also known as carapils, it's used for head retention and adds a touch of sweetness but mostly like I use it for head retention while dextrose is corn sugar and that's used for two things, one to drive up alcohol but it will also drop the fg so it helps with yeast attenuation because it's pure sugar and it'll dry a beer out by driving the fg down. So as an example I use 1318 a lot a lower attenuating yeast so if I mash at 152 my predicted fg per beersmith may be in the 1.015-16 range if I add 1/2lb of dextrose it'll increase the og some but also drop the fg atleast a couple points into the 1.012-13 range hence increasing the final abv. It's not always needed just depends on what your going for in the finished product and I don't use it any other time unless I'm making a higher abv IPA/dipa and using 1318 because you'll have to alter your grain bill to accommodate for the dextrose addition. Hope this helped.
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
just to clarify, dextrose can be used to replace some if the malt in a beer if u want a drier beer. i think if u just add dextrose to a recipe, you should get the same FG and higher alcohol.
Rzlblrt417
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2016
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 1
I feel like that's way too many hops in the boil. I bet it's like just one ounce of each at 60 and then nothing until whirlpool and dry hopping. That and doing the mash and a lower temp to make it a little dryer
ultravista
Well-Known Member
What temp post-flameout for the whirlpool hops? Does it make a difference if it is one large charge (e.g., 5 ounces) vs. two smaller (e.g., 2.5 ounces each)?
I'm not 100%, but they may be just adding dextrose for keeping the environment continuously low on 02. it seems a bit counter intuitive to have dextrine and dextrose
Gustatorian
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2015
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 23
Wait, are people thinking they add dextrin in it's powder form to boil, or in the form of carapils? I'm getting really lost now...
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
Carapils claims to add head retention while dextrose will make a dryer beer for a given OG.
I was wondering the same thing. Although, I've seen commercial beers with like 7 or more lbs per BBL so that's right in range.
to be fair, they just list an ingredient as "dextrine". I just interpreted it as a dextrin malt
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
Whoa! That is huge! It's 3.5 ounces/gallon if I'm not mistaken! Who uses that much?
My last batch had 10.5 lbs/BBL in the whirlpool and dry hop (most went in the dry hop).
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
commercial brewery?
No, homebrew.
stickyfinger
Well-Known Member
never heard of anyone using that many hops. how many were in the whirlpool and how many in the dryhop? do you think you can tell a difference b/w using more and more at a certain point?
crusader1612
Well-Known Member
I'm more impressed that his homebrewery is 1BBL....
thats a whole lot os Hazy Hoppy IPA to drink...
Sorry, math error. It was actually 4.3 oz/gallon. I would have to do two identical batches back to back with the same hops from the same harvest/supplier to be able to answer your question, and I have not done that yet. Probably never will. I do generally see a benefit to using more, but I've found that variety has much more of an influence than quantity. It was 19.5 oz in 16 gallons of wort split up between FO and two hopstands at different temps. I lose 3 gallons in the BK due to hops, so the dry hop was 40 oz in 13 gallons. I lose 3 gallons in the fermenter and am left with 10 gallons of finished beer. I also use a very little bit of Hopshot in the BK.
I have no idea how real breweries figure lbs/BBL. Hops suck up a lot of wort/beer. Is it lbs of hops per BBL of finished beer or lbs of hops per BBL of the volume of liquid that the hops went into like I calculated it? That makes the most sense and is the most meaningful to me. If the former, I guess my rates would be even higher... almost 6 oz/gallon.
