Northeast Pales/IPA/DIPA

Finings will subtract some flavor and aroma. Some finings are better than others. Biofine works well and leaves behind plenty of flavor and aroma, but it does subtract some. I use it occasionally.

 

Homebrewed hoppy beers can be produced where they are not too hazy without the utilization of finings.

Below is a photograph of my hydrometer sample I took at bottling of a recent DIPA (my version of Pliny the Elder using US-05). The beer was 3 weeks post brew day (one week primary fermentation and two weeks dry hopping) and for this beer I used 4 ounces of hops for dry hopping; 1 ounce each of Columbus, Centennial, Simcoe and Amarillo. I used absolutely no finings when brewing this beer.

The finished beer (after several weeks of bottle conditioning) was even brighter in appearance.

Cheers!

 

I disagree...wholeheartedly

 

Yeah, I don't think anyone is doubting that. Here's a DIPA I brewed a few months back after 1 month in the keg. 16 oz of hops for a 5 gallon batch. Not quite brilliantly clear, but pretty damn clear considering. Of course I used all West Coast techniques and 1272 for the yeast, and no finings.

 

It took an entire month in the keg to get your Midwestern Caramel Bomb DIPA clear? Not really something to brag about.

Try to use the same amount of hops to make a highly aromatic, low bitterness juicy IPA that doesn't look like gravy. You might get there eventually. I could tell you how to get there, but you told me to put up or shut up so...

 

So much butthurt in this thread. RDWHAHB.

Also, split batch yeast expiriment is on deck next. I will be making a 1.055 american pale ale utilizing pale malt, munich, and wheat with minimal bittering hops and copious amounts of dryhop. Brewing in 2 weeks, answers 4 weeks after that. Half the batch is getting london, the other getting chico.

 

@drewbage, see post above.

Cheers!

 

Just wanted to point out one thing. Trillium recommends using whirfloc in the last ten minutes. I do so and still end up w a cloudy beer, but short of gravy beer. Just right for me

 

Sorry if you already addressed this it's hard to keep up to date with this thread... Why not dry hop after you fine?

 

Things escalated quickly in here. I appreciate and often strive for clear beers. I think some of the thinking from the anti gravy beer side is a little flawed though. There is no question that you can make a flavorful, well hopped beer with powerful aroma that is clear or at least not murky. That being said, every process that leads to clear beer also strips hop oil and aroma. Cold crashing to get yeast to drop out does also strip hop oils and particulate from the beer. Fining, centrifuges, filtering all remove flavor and aroma. I can appreciate all ends of the spectrum. I have no problem drinking a murky beer or a hazy beer but can see why some don't agree. Yeast in suspension definitely impacts flavor and mouthfeel, sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it isn't.

Brew and drink what you like but realize that there are pros and cons of each approach.

 

As you know, hops fade with time... and making a hazy super aromatic IPA at home is difficult, and time is the enemy. These beers often get dry hopped while the yeast is still active, at least partly active. I think waiting for the yeast to finish, then waiting for finings to do its trick, then dry hopping is just adding too much time and oxygen exposure to the beer.
Now I think the technique you mentioned is a good technique if your trying to make a nice clear West Coast IPA. This Hazy NEIPA involves some different techniques, and I'm pretty sure finings are not gonna be able to clear this beer, especially with certain yeast strains at play. Utah beer dude has a NEIPA that has been in a cold keg for 5 months, and its still very hazy. Thats ample time for a more traditional beer style to drop Brite.

I'm not sure of the science, but by adding large dry hopping doses, with yeast still in suspension, that somehow creates a haze, and turbidity in some cases, and it gives the beer an amplified hop aroma and possibly adds to the creamy full mouthfeel.

I'm very excited to see what @SFACRKnight discovers with his side by side batches he has coming up. I wonder if he should even take it one step further and go ahead and fine the Chico batch??

 

I would recommend against this for two reasons:

• It is possible to obtain a non-murky hoppy beer using the Chico yeast strain without adding finings
• If you add finings you are inordinately influencing the comparison of the split batch since as has been discussed the use of finings can strip flavor/aroma

Cheers!

 

Good points Jack. I agree.

 

What I really want to see here is if yeast is the culprit for this haze and turbidity. I want an equal process outside of yeast choice. My hypothesis is that specific strains of sacc can inflience biotransformation and hop oil suspension in the beer. I expect to see the london 3 produce a beer with more opacity than the chico.

 

I agree with that hypothesis. I'm interested in seeing what differences there are in mouthfeel and hop flavor and aroma as well.

 

FWIW I have the same thoughts. My theory is that there is some sort of synergistic effect between certain English yeast strains (e.g., Wyeast 1318, Wyeast 1098, WLP007,...) and the abundance of essential oils that come from using a lot (e.g., 4-5 ounces for a 5 gallon batch) of dry hops using hops which have have levels of essential oils (e.g., Citra, Galaxy, etc.).

It would be useful to 'confirm' this via observation via split batch brewing. Once this observation is in hand the next step would be to hypothesize about the science here. Why does a yeast strain like Wyeast 1318 (London Ale III) produce a clear beer when brewing a traditional English beer style like an English Bitter Ale but when used to produce an American style IPA which uses a lot of late hops it produces a hazy/murky beer? Does the yeast flocculate readily for a less hoppy beer but that same yeast strain stays in suspension when there is a 'boatload' of hop essential oils?

Cheers!

@Peter_Wolfe @telejunkie @drewbage @Sixpoint @bulletrain76

 

Its purely correlation and not causation. The haziness is a result of the beer being unfiltered and the polyphenols from abundant dry-hopping.

Jack -

The English yeasts produce noticeably higher levels of VDKs during fermentation. They are carrier compounds for the essential oils in hops. Which is why its critical to drink those beers (especially English cask ales) fresh!

 

Shane,

The two VDKs that I am familiar with are diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione as regards beer/brewing. Diacetyl is a concern to me in my brewing since perceptible levels of diacetyl are unpleasant to my palate; I do not like a butter/butterscotch flavor in my beers.

It is my understanding that during primary fermentation yeast produces ‘elevated’ levels of diacetyl but at the end of fermentation the yeast process the diacetyl (diacetyl -> acetoin -> 2,3-butanediol).

I have homebrewed with a number of various English yeast strains to make English Ales and with adequate time in the primary the resulting beers all resulted in levels of diacetyl which were unperceptible (and I have a sensitive palate to diacetyl).

I have a homebrewed English Ale that I bottled in June 2015 and those beers are still drinking great now (9 months later). Granted those beers are in bottles (bottle conditioned) and not on cask where the beer is exposed to air (oxygen) but a beer brewed with English yeast strain can result in a very stable beer.

So, what is the exact science between VDKs and essential oils that you made reference to in your post? For the case where you provide adequate time in the primary for chemical processes of diacetyl -> acetoin -> 2,3-butanediol to occur, how would this manifest itself?

Cheers!

Jack

 

Jack -

Its much easier to monitor if you have HPLC and/or GC capabilities. The WLP 002 and WLP 007 yeast strains will produce noticeably more VDKs during fermentation. Yes, they can be reduced with a proper rest at the end, but as you pointed out, with agitation of oxygen you can get higher-than-threshold levels in finished beer.

However, since the VDKs are carrier compounds for essential oils, brewers who use excessive levels of dry hops can mask these aromas with a beautiful bouquet of hops. The problem occurs though when the hops fade, and all you are left with is the buttered popcorn aroma.

 

Let's discuss this statement a bit. I am not a chemist and while I had several terms of chemistry in college (a very loooong time ago) I never took organic chemistry.

What does the term "carrier compound" mean? Would the fact that "VDKs are carrier compounds for essential oils" result in a hazy/murky appearance? Should we expect other qualities from this aspect? For example, would the fact that VDKs are 'carrying' the essential oils to result in a beer with enhanced hop aroma/flavor? Also, would the fact that VDKs are 'carrying' the essential oils to result in a beer with enhanced mouthfeel? Any other qualities beyond what I have previously mentioned?

Cheers!

Jack

P.S. Is there any reason to think that breweries like Trillium, Tree House, Tired Hands, etc. would not conduct a 'complete' primary fermentation such that the VDKs were not adequately processed towards the end of primary fermentation?

@pweis909