Perhaps the Alter Ego sample came from Tree House’s Monson brewery where starting water profile was different from current-day Charlton? Or maybe Tree House has continued to tweak the water profile of these beers over the last two years? Or perhaps Julius and Alter Ego aren’t truly the same base beer after all? Who knows. Most interesting are the differences between Julius and Alter Ego, despite Tree House claiming “Alter Ego is a member of the Julius family, taking the base of Julius and adding a tremendous amount of Mosaic to the dry hop with a kiss of Amarillo.” I doubt the dry hops are entirely responsible for the differences. There are notable differences among the four beers.
So how does the mineral analysis of Julius compare Tonsmeire’s Cryo Lupulin NEIPA? And what about carvetop’s Heady Topper and Ryan Crook’s Alter Ego results? Below is a comparison of the mineral analyses of the four beers: Various Beer Mineral Analyses *Converted Ward Labs measured SO4-S to SO4 by multiplying by 3 The results can be found in the table below: Ward Labs W-5A Brewer’s Test for Tree House Julius On my latest trip back east to Massachusetts, I purchased a three-day-old can of my favorite NEIPA, Tree House Julius, and shipped it to Ward Labs for mineral analysis of my own. How would the mineral analysis of my favorite commercial NEIPA compared to Tonsmeire’s homebrewed version? After all, starting water profile was only part of the equation – different malt, hop, and yeast combinations would yield a different finished beer profile. These results encouraged me to reexamine the water chemistry for my Mountain IPA recipe. All increases were attributed to malt, hop, and/or yeast contributions – with notable, significant increases in sulfate (228 ppm/253%) and chloride (186 ppm/71%), respectively.
The 59 ppm (36%) decrease in calcium was attributed to precipitation of calcium phosphate during the mash. Tonsmeire found the mineral profile changed drastically from water to beer. The chart below summarizes the test results: Tonsmeire Homebrew Experiment He sent a sample of the treated water and finished NEIPA to Ward Labs for mineral analyses. He brewed a 1.060 OG NEIPA with 79% Rahr 2-Row, 14% Weyermann Pale Wheat, 4% Gambrinus Honey Malt, 2% Bairds Light Carastan, 1% Weyermann Acidulated Malt, BRU-1 and Experimental Stone Fruit hops, WLP007 Dry English Ale yeast, and treated water (see below). In the September 2017 issue of Brew Your Own, Tonsmeire wrote an article that examined how water minerals change throughout the brewing process.
On BeerSmith Podcast #166 – Brewing New England IPAs, Tonsmeire confirmed that he has been really happy with that profile at Sapwood Cellars. That beer is currently regarded as one of his favorite NEIPA batches. Similarly, Mike Tonsmeire ( The Mad Fermentationist) brewed a Cryo Lupulin NEIPA using a target water profile of 150 ppm calcium, 150 ppm sulfate, and 150 ppm chloride. recommends 125 – 150 ppm calcium, 75 – 100 ppm sulfate, and 175 – 200 ppm chloride.įor his popular Tired Hands HopHands clone, Ed Coffey (Ales of the Riverwards) uses 132 ppm calcium, 146 ppm sulfate, and 147 ppm chloride.īraufessor’s NEIPA water profile found in the “Northeast” style IPA thread on HomeBrewTalk recommends calcium, sulfate, and chloride levels of 105, 120, and 120 ppm, respectively. Scott Janish’s research on NEIPA has led to a recommended target water profile consisting of less than 200 ppm chloride and a sulfate/chloride ratio of 1:1. Specifically, calcium, sulfate, and chloride levels are considered important in NEIPAs due to their ability to influence clarity, dryness, and maltiness, respectively.įor example, Brülosophy found tasters were able to reliably distinguish beers made with water consisting of opposite sulfate/chloride ratios (150/50 ppm compared to 50/150 ppm). Water is an important contributor to the mouthfeel softness of New England IPA. Total Grain Weight: 6,01 kg Total Hops: 297,00 g oz.: I sent a second can of Julius to Ward Lab for mineral analysis! (BeerSmith Steps above)ĭo you have a clue on whats i’m doing wrong? I dont know whats going on, but when I load the bsmx file in my BeerSmith, keeping your original equipment profile and without changing anything, the profile of the beer shown by beersmith if very different, like 102 IBU and 5.3% ABV. Congrats for the blog, this recipe looks great, I will try to brew it here in Brazil.
0 kommentar(er)
