Author: Marshall Schott

Of the many beer styles humans have come up with over the centuries, none seem to require a more narrow set of methods and ingredients as the relatively novel New England IPA. Purported by advocates as distinguishing itself from typical IPA in its juiciness and soft mouthfeel, an apparent function of its characteristic haze, ensuring the presence of said features is paramount. From the first time I heard of this style, yeast has been a topic of much consideration, with brewers tending to prefer specific strains not only for the ester profile they impart, but their ability to convert certain hop compounds into new compounds via the biotransformation process.

The first yeast that seemed to get the most attention when hazy IPA became a thing was the much lauded “Conan” used by The Alchemist to ferment it’s popular Heady Topper. It wasn’t long after that I began to see references to other yeasts of English origin being used to make NEIPA with success including Safale S-04, WLP007 Dry English Ale, and perhaps the most common of late, Wyeast 1318 London Ale III. Though different in their own right, anyone looking to make an up-to-snuff NEIPA can use either of these strains to achieve good results.

In a recent xBmt on the same topic, tasters were unable to reliably tell apart a NEIPA fermented with Conan from one fermented with WY1318, both strains said to have biotransformation abilities. In my quest for greater clarity on this murky style, and having noticed quite a few NEIPA recipes popping up with the popular Chico strain variants on the ingredients list, I decided to see for myself just how big of an impact yeast has on NEIPA!

| PURPOSE |

To evaluate the differences between a New England IPA fermented with Wyeast 1318 London Ale III yeast and the same beer fermented with Wyeast 1056 American Ale yeast.

| METHODS |

The recipe for this xBmt was the same as the one for the biotransformation xBmt, which was based on the NEIPA I made for the flaked oats xBmt with some minor changes.

Pond Hopper NEIPA

Recipe Details Batch Size Boil Time IBU SRM Est. OG Est. FG ABV 5.5 gal 60 min 42.8 IBUs 3.7 SRM 1.056 1.013 5.7 % Actuals 1.056 1.015 5.4 % Fermentables Name Amount % Pale Malt (2 Row), Rahr 11 lbs 88 Oats, Flaked 1.5 lbs 12 Hops Name Amount Time Use Form Alpha % Columbus/Tomahawk/Zeus (CTZ) 8 g 30 min Boil Pellet 13.1 Centennial 30 g 15 min Boil Pellet 8.8 Centennial 30 g 5 min Boil Pellet 9.9 Citra 30 g 5 min Boil Pellet 14 Mosaic 30 g 5 min Boil Pellet 10.5 Citra 60 g 6 days Dry Hop Pellet 14 Centennial 30 g 6 days Dry Hop Pellet 8.8 Mosaic 30 g 6 days Dry Hop Pellet 10.5 Citra 33 g 4 days Dry Hop Pellet 14 Centennial 22 g 4 days Dry Hop Pellet 8.8 Mosaic 20 g 4 days Dry Hop Pellet 10.5 Yeast Name Lab Attenuation Temperature London Ale III OR American Ale (1318/1056) Wyeast Labs 73% 64°F - 74°F Notes Water Profile: Ca 135 | Mg 1 | Na 10 | SO4 71 | Cl 186 | pH 5.4



Starters with both yeasts were prepared a couple days ahead of brewing.

I prepared the water, which was adjusted to a common NEIPA profile high in chloride, and milled the grain the night prior to brewing.

I awoke early the next morning and lit the burner under my kettle full of liquor.

Once heated to just above my target strike temperature, I transferred the water to my mash tun, let it sit for 5 minutes to preheat, then incorporated the grist to hit my desired mash temperature.

I used the no sparge method for this beer and let the mash rest for 60 minutes.

At the completion of the mash step, I collected the sweet wort and transferred it to my kettle.

The wort was boiled for 60 minutes with hops being added at the times listed in the recipe.

I hastily chilled the wort once the boil was complete.

A refractomer reading at this point showed the wort to be right at my target OG.

I transferred equal amounts of wort to separate fermentors, gently stirring occasionally to ensure both batches received a similar amount of kettle trub, then pitched the yeast.

Two days post-pitch, both beers were rocking hard enough that I had to replace the airlocks with blowoff rigs.

It was at this point I added the biotransformation dry hop charges to each batch. The beers were left to ferment for another 2 days before I raised the temperature from 66˚F/19˚C to 72˚F/22˚C to encourage complete attenuation. After 2 days at the warmer temperature, with signs of fermentation all but absent, I took hydrometer measurements that revealed a rather drastic difference in overall attenuation.

A second measurement 30 hours later revealed no change, so I cold crashed the beers at 32˚F/0˚C for 2 nights before racking to kegs, forgoing my typical gelatin fining process given the style.

The beers were burst carbonated for a hair over 20 hours before I reduced the CO2 to serving pressure and let them condition for a few more days before serving to participants. At this point, a difference in appearance was fairly noticeable to my eyes, making me all the more curious if tasters would be able to perceive a difference in aroma, flavor, or mouthfeel.

| RESULTS |

A panel of 21 people with varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each taster, blind to the variable being investigated, was served 1 samples of the beer fermented with Wyeast 1318 London Ale III yeast and 2 samples of the beer fermented with Wyeast 1056 American Ale yeast in different colored opaque cups then instructed to select the unique sample. A total of 12 correct selections would have been required to achieve statistical significance, which is precisely the number of tasters of accurately identified the unique sample (p<0.05; p=0.02), suggesting participants in this xBmt were able to reliably distinguish a NEIPA fermented with Wyeast 1318 from one fermented with Wyeast 1056.

The 12 participants who made the correct selection in the triangle test were instructed to compare only the 2 different beers, still blind to the variable in question, and asked about their preference. In all, 8 tasters reported preferring the Wyeast 1318 beer, 3 said they liked the beer fermented with Wyeast 1056 more, and 1 person felt there was no difference between the beers.

My Impressions: From my very first triangle test attempt a couple days after the beers were kegged to my last try once the data was collected, I was capable of distinguishing the odd-beer-out. To me, the beer fermented with Wyeast 1318 was more characterful in a way I can only describe, hesitantly, as juicy. The Wyeast 1056 beer, on the other hand, was notably cleaner with more recognizable hop character, which I experienced as sort of odd given the high chloride to sulfate ratio; it felt like a normal IPA trying to be a New England IPA. To be honest, I wasn’t a huge fan of either of these beers, which isn’t say they were bad, I think I just miss having a classically clear IPA on tap. Still, of the two, the one I drank most often was the batch fermented with Wyeast 1318.

| DISCUSSION |

I approached this xBmt with a hunch based on my belief that the primary character of IPA is hops, and given the liberal dosing in this beer along with the non-significant results from the biotransformation xBmt, figured any yeast character would be well enough hidden to make the beers indistinguishable. Clearly, I was wrong. Not only were tasters able to reliably distinguish the NEIPA fermented with Wyeast 1318 from the one fermented with Wyeast 1056, but I found the task rather easy myself.

Looking at these results in light of past NEIPA xBmts, I’m left even more convinced the style truly is the result of combined forces– high chloride to sulfate water profile, a grain bill consisting of a decent percentage of flaked oats, biotransformation dry hop, and fermentation with specific yeast strains such as Wyeast 1318 London Ale III. I expect this sentiment won’t be shared by everyone, as I’ve seen many NEIPA recipes lately that don’t fit this rubric, and that’s okay, perhaps continued experimentation will allow us to eventually settle on a working definition of this newfangled style.

If you have any experience making NEIPA with different yeasts or you have thoughts about this xBmt, please don’t hesitate to share in the comments section below!

Support Brülosophy In Style!

All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!

Follow Brülosophy on:

If you enjoy this stuff and feel compelled to support Brulosophy.com, please check out the Support Us page for details on how you can very easily do so. Thanks!

Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Tumblr

Email



Like this: Like Loading...