Unfiltered Hoppy Beer: Floaties vs. Hazy

You create a NE style IPA once you create the hype.

It's only NE style if its 95% hype.

 

Not sure you ever really did but after careful consideration---


NO.

 

Imagine, schimagine. It's common knowledge that a "New England Style" IPA does not exist unless there is a picture of it in all its turbid glory. So no, you did not create one. Sorry.

 

If this is a legitimate style, then I would say that a New England style IPA requires more than just a cloudy appearance, and the best examples of the New England style IPAs (Trillium, Tree House) tend to have little or no floaties. There are plenty of brewers that make hazy unfiltered IPAs with loads of floaties and chunks, and while they may still be good, they simply aren't as good, and at this point it is basically common knowledge. Making an IPA hazy, unfiltered, with or without floaties does not automatically make it good, or even a New England style IPA. If you keep multiplying the floaties then you'd be drinking more of that than beer.

 

Long and short answer is NO.

Having had many examples of these beers, and as a homebrewer who is pushing normally clear clone beer recipes to a "hazy" perspective, I can say that it's a bit more complex than "excessive" dregs in a bottle.

Yeast is a good part of the equation, but it's not the only part. You need a ton of hop oil/particulate to achieve what some of these guys are doing on a commercial scale. "Hop hash" is something relatively new to home brewers and something I think will help make NE IPAs easier to make or micro and home brewers in the near future.

4 weeks ago I did a Stone Enjoy By Double IPA clone, but decided to use a healthy pitch of Conan (Heady Topper yeast), and cold dry hop in the keg. Everything purged with co2, I bottled the entire batch from the keg with the beer gun. Result? 1/4 of the bottles were incredibly cloudy, juicy, hoppy and utterly amazing! Simply stunning! The last 3/4 were good but severely lacked hop/yeast character. I would best describe the rest as boozy and slightly tart and reminded me of a Stone Ruination clone I made 3 years ago. Most people thought it was great, but having NE IPAs I knew the last 3/4 was "off the mark."

So did my huge pitch of Conan create a NE IPA? Kind of. But in the end, some was really close but the rest of the batch was way off. It's a combination of things that makes a NE IPA. Hopping rate, water chemistry, yeast, grains, lack of o2 (freshness) all make this style of beer that so many enjoy.

Longs story short, there are more than a few roads to a given destination. In terms of a NE IPA, you can rely on yeast, hop particulate, flaked oats/wheat etc., to arrive at the destination. Sorry, but what you suggested is more of a "cul-de-sac" than a "thoroughfare." Just increasing yeast "kind of" does it...but it's not really the same for an entire batch. Even in my situation.

 

My guess is it would lead to a beer that is half chunks/floaties/yeast and half liquid. Floaties are usually dense and white, not clear yellow/orange.

 

The murky/turbid/opaque appearance of the so called ‘NE’ style IPA is what some folks fixate upon but there is more to these sorts of beers than just a murky appearance.

There are no official style guidelines for the so called ‘NE’ style IPA and I am personally not specifically advocating for another style to be created but in a past thread posted:

“Permit me to take a crack at itemizing the necessary attributes for a beer to be considered a so called “NE” style IPA:

Appearance: The first thing that most people discuss is the hazy/murky/turbid/opaque aspect of these beers. This sort of makes sense since the appearance of these beers certainly do ‘jump out’ to lots of folks including me. I will frankly admit that I personally find a clear(er) beer to be more aesthetically appealing but I am able to drink these murky beers without too much trouble. The concept here is that the brewers are not specifically shooting for a turbid beer but that this appearance is simply an artifact of the overall brewing process. So, what exactly is the reason for this opaque appearance? I have a simple, but incomplete, theory here: the haziness is caused by using certain English ale yeast strains along with very heavy late hoping (including dry hoping) using aroma hops that are high in essential oils. Maybe these beers are so turbid because of high levels of proteins and polyphenols (from the hops)?

Hop flavor profile: One distinguishing feature of “NE” style IPAs is that they are typically not very bitter compared to some West Coast style IPAs. I have had a number of West Coast style IPAs which feature large amounts of hop aroma/flavor; one example I can offer up is Pliny the Elder. It seems to me the so called “NE’ style IPAs have a differing attribute which lots of folks like to describe using the word “juicy”. IMO the term of “juicy” has challenges since it has a fair bit of ambiguity. For example, for my palate apple juice is quite different to my palate vs. orange juice. Unfortunately I personally do not have an alternative word here so I feel compelled at this point in time to stick with the verbiage of “juicy”. So, in summary a so called “NE” style IPA should have the attributes of moderate (lower) bitterness accompanied by a very prominent hop aroma/flavor with a “juicy” character.

Mouthfeel: Besides the attributes of hazy/murky/turbid/opaque I think this attribute may be the most unambiguous character of a so called “NE” style IPA. A so called “NE” style IPA should have a nice soft, velvety mouthfeel which is distinctly different from West Coast style IPAs. For example, Pliny the Elder does not have a soft/velvety mouthfeel.”

Would the thought experiment of @DEdesings57 replicate all of the attributes I detailed above? IMO the answer is no.

Cheers!

 

Lol

 

I'll put it this way: every Treehouse beer I tried, I've rated below the average BA score, and that says a lot coming from someone who tends to get positive rDev percentages.

Still very fortunate and glad to try 6 of their beers, and I'm certainly open to trying more. I loved 'em. They just weren't a life altering beer that the hype would lead some to believe.

 

This was a beautiful discourse on the subject. Cheers Jack!

 

You keep thinking that and we'll keep drinking em.

 

I wonder how many folks proselytize about hazy/turbid beers being all wrong...while sipping a hefeweizen?

 

Some hazy beer is that way b/c of stable pectins added near the end of the boil. Larger particulates are drawn out using a centrifuge (instead of a plate filter) which then leaves some of the small parts and still creates desired "NE" haze.

 

Related to this topic... A while ago there was an interesting thread started by @djuhnk in which he posted photos of microscope slides of various "New England Style" IPAs and several professional brewers chimed into the discussion. It's worth reading through if you missed it: https://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/northeast-haze-through-a-microscope.397142/

I don't care too much whether or not people want to call "NE IPA" a new style. It's not my call. However, I find it amusing how intensely our community scrutinizes the categorization of IPA" sub-styles, while ignoring so many other beer styles. And many of those neglected beer styles have much greater variation in flavor than these subtle differences between IPAs that we argue on and on about.

 

Here's my take on it:

- I don't mind beer being hazy
- I do mind when NE IPA elitist folks complain about their hoppy beers being "too clear" or "too filtered."
- you don't have to filter a beer for it to become clear/ you can filter beer and still have it come out hazy
- haze does not equal great flavor
- there are so many delicious crystal clear beers out there