Northeast Haze through a microscope

I'm really enjoying the super technical turn this thread has taken. I am learning a lot!

 

Is not the true test of how must unused yeast is left in the brew, if you are sleeping on the couch or in the bedroom?

The pics are awesome btw. Super pro. I don't have a microscope capable of taking pics though.

 

Great thread.

 

I've definitely noticed the same thing, that my IPAs are better at 5-6 (sometimes 8) weeks post bottling than freshly carbonated at 2-3 weeks. I'm not sure why it is, but I've often been disappointed by an IPA I've made only to come back to a random bottle two months after bottling and find it's the best one of the batch.

 

See if this image thing works (loathe BA's approach to images but I guess it means less space required). Here is a homebrewed red IPA that is now over 5 months old vs a fresh Trillium Congress St. HB was brewed with Conan....yeast starter meanwhile dropped crystal clear in a two days. Could the polypenols hold certain yeast in suspension better than other strains?

 

The one comment I'd make about that question, though, is that some of the brewers of these styles have been very emphatic that the haze is NOT yeast. I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not a brewer, so I feel pretty unqualified to remark on what's causing the haze. On the other hand, as a drinker, I've definitely had a few such brews that had that astringency I attribute to yeast presence + hops.

If the haze is, in fact, yeast + polyphenols or whatever other hop compound, I'm not sure why there needs to be such a need to defend it/deny the presence of yeast. Hefes have tons of yeast present. That's just the style. Maybe NEIPAs are the same way? Quite frankly, to my mind, that would better explain why everyone gets "peach" or "apricot" or whatever in their du jour NEIPA -- it might not be the hops, it's the contribution of the yeast. I dunno. YMMV. All that jazz.

 

I just had an "organism" reading this thread....

 

If people are describing fruity flavors (peach, apricot) the most likely explanation is that esters (the compounds providing the fruity flavors) are present. The esters would have been a chemical byproduct of fermentation (i.e., created by the yeast) but the presence of yeast is not necessary once the esters are created.

I have yet to hear a description for the 'flavor' of yeast that is present in solution other than the word "yeasty". A not very useful descriptor IMO since I personally do not know what yeast actually tastes like (presuming it has a flavor).

You alluded to "whatever other hop compound" and my latest theory is that the haze is a combination of yeast cells and hop essential oils. Weedy (@honkey) has postulated that the root cause here is that the yeast cells get 'coated' in essential oils and this consequently inhibits the ability of the yeast cells to flocculate like they normally would do at the end of fermentation. This certainly sounds like a reasonable explanation to me. I am uncertain how this could be confirmed by scientific testing. Maybe some BA microbiologist could provide further input here.

Cheers!

 

I think the yeast definitely plays a role, though I can't say exactly to what extent. A couple years ago I made a split batch of cider, two with champagne yeast and one with conan from a can of Heady. The other two ciders dropped crystal clear but the conan one remained hazy, even after a few months.

 

Yeast definitely plays a big role with clarity, flavor, ect.. although what is significant about these hoppy & hazy IPA's is process. Breweries are basically taking protein rich wort/beer and dry hopping with very large amounts of hops when there is still significant yeast presence and activity. That is the important part. The principal reaction is polyphenol-protein, but yeast and other hop compounds also play a role in creating that haze. Humulinones probably have a lot to do with it, but there isn't much data to say exactly how. On a whole, there has not been much research into how/why this type of reaction happens in beer. Most breweries spend a lot time trying to prevent hazy beer; both for aesthetic and quality reasons.

That said, you can achieve the same turbid-hazy beer using totally different yeasts. In lab trials, I've seen the same results with extremely high flocculating English yeasts and ones that physiologically do not flocculate under normal conditions. You should always choose yeasts that provide for good flavor and beer stability. This whole thing about choosing 1318 or Conan to achieve a hazy look, or because they retain more yeast in suspension, is totally asinine.

Lastly, in terms of overall quality and beer flavor, we don't want a lot of yeast in beers, hoppy or not. You can have achieve a hazy beer without it being full of yeast. As consumers we should not tolerate shoddy or rushed brewing practices for the sake of 'flavor overload' or 'juicy' or whatever the term is nowadays.

 

Have you been following the homebrewing thread on this topic: http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/northeast-pales-ipa-dipa.319817/

There is lots of discussion there including input from professional brewers who think the haze of a New England IPA is very much a function of yeast selection (e.g., Wyeast 1318).

On one point I am in total agreement with you: "...there has not been much research into how/why this type of reaction happens in beer."

That includes the statements that you are making in your post that you are representing as being 'facts'.

Cheers!

 

How do you explain hefeweizens? Do you consider hefe's to be "low quality?"

Choosing yeast strains like Conan and 1318 is not just to make a hazy beer. If the yeast cells are coated with hop oils, then if the yeast settles out, you lose those oils. Furthermore, these are yeast strains that have very unique flavor profiles. It is easy to mistake some of the esters of Conan for tropical hop flavors. Using Conan in SMaSH beers, I have not seen it flocculate when dry hopped, even with extra conditioning. It is not a protein haze, it is yeast in suspension. As far as flavor stability, I have found that the beers I've brewed with Conan have a better flavor stability than beers fermented with American Ale Yeast.

 

so you are then assuming that a hazy beer = shoddy or rushed brewing practices. have you even brewed beer before? do you have anything to back this statement up?

 

I used 2lbs in a 6 gallon batch once, and I ended up with slightly less than 4 gallons of beer on bottling day.

 

Well, my first brewing job was for an international company that made around 5 million barrels of beer a year. Most of my time was spent optimizing yeast flocculation and solving for collodial (protein) stability. The current brewery I work for makes around 450,000 bbls. When I'm not brewing or wasting time on BA forums, I run tests on hops and yeast for glycoside activity. Maybe I'll share some of that data.

 

you've never tasted a bit of your yeast cakes? I (almost) KNOW you have :>) I tasted the one from the primary of the first beer I ever made, now 13 years ago.

My limited playing around with this leads me to agree with your theory until disproven; it's certain ly my working hypothesis. Specifically, an early and substantial dry hop, while there is still krausen even, or it's just barely fallen and the beer is still turbid.

BTW--it does eventually fade from that milky look to just a slightly heavier than normal haze, with the yeasts I've been messing with, which are NOT 1318 or Conan, but rather WL 550 and WY 3711, so far. But it takes like 4-6 weeks in the keg, refrigerated, to get to that point.

 

you're immediate assumptions don't coincide with your experience then... let me elaborate. I home brewed one of these beers and fermentation was two weeks long going from 1.066 down to 1.017 (73% attenuation). This is spot on for the 1318 yeast I used. This certainly doesn't reflect that I used "shoddy or rushed brewing practices," yet my beer is very murky and clooudy. is there something I am missing?

 

I'd love to see data. Do you mind sharing the names of the companies you have worked for? I am the brewmaster at the Blue Pants Brewery from Madison, Al. We are on track to brew 7,500 BBL this year. I prefer to go by Weedy. It appears that my results do not align with yours. I will concede though that our lab is not as capable as that of a company of which it appears you work.

 

I work for a brewery that has very high clarity standards and my initial reaction to this trend was along the lines of your last paragraph. But recently, I've had to concede that beer flavor has to guide us here. If the beer tastes how you want it to and has a shelf life that is acceptable to you, then is there something objectively wrong with having more yeast than usual present? And many hazy IPAs don't actually have that much yeast, with more haze due to colloidal suspension, which I know you already know.

We filter all of our IPAs but they are sometimes very turbid pre-filtration, even though cell counts aren't very high. I'm at the point where I can accept that a brewer philosophically chooses to be completely hands-off when it comes to appearance but can still do everything else right and end up with considerably hazy beer. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.

I haven't audited all of these newer breweries that are putting out turbid IPA, (and I'm sure I would see some things that raise an eyebrow--that happens at most breweries) but I'm not going to assume that something is inherently wrong if the end result is good. My feeling is that some of it is due to all the new brewers that don't understand clarity terribly well (much less how to run a DE filter) but that donsn't mean their approach is inherently wrong or inferior. I see a lot of blowback in the industry right now from (mostly more experienced) brewers that make clear IPAs, all with the tone that brewers must be doing something wrong if they make IPA that isn't clear. Clarity is (well I guess not always) a stylistic choice, not a measure of quality. If the beer is turbid because of a quality issue, that issue will manifest in aroma, taste, and mouthfeel. If a beer hits the right mark on those three areas, then I think it is a matter of prejudice that needs changing, not necessarily the beer's appearance.