Well, yeah it does, but that is kind of my point. And I have had more than one brewer making this style like this, and when they start putting stuff in the mash specifically to cause haze they really aren’t brewing to style either. The originators of the style very likely just use british pale malt and the haze is a result of the way the hops are used and the water treatment (high chloride in the water and dry hopping during active fermentation) vs adding flour/apple juice etc.
I certainly understand, and agree with your point to an extent. If an addition to beer is food safe, tasteless, odorless, and helps to achieve a target goal then I cannot see a reason why that beer would NOT be to style. A few beer additions that are readily used are for the opposite purpose of clearing beer are: irish moss, whirlfloc, brewtan b, PVPP, gelatin, biofine, isinglass, etc, and their use does not make the determination if the beer is “to style” or not. As an hypothetical example of such an idea: If some form of pectin (or pectin derivative) can be added to beer to set it a shelf-stable benign beer haze, I’d like to know about it because it could be a tool I’d have available for those times when I’m searching for the perfect hazy wit… or for some other hazy beer.
I agree with you that without any extra additions, and through process refinement, that the perfect level of (semi-)permanent haze can be achieved in an NEIPA. I also think many folks are aiming for “muddy” when the goal should really only be “hazy”.
[/quote]
I certainly understand, and agree with your point to an extent. If an addition to beer is food safe, tasteless, odorless, and helps to achieve a target goal then I cannot see a reason why that beer would NOT be to style. A few beer additions that are readily used are for the opposite purpose of clearing beer are: irish moss, whirlfloc, brewtan b, PVPP, gelatin, biofine, isinglass, etc, and their use does not make the determination if the beer is “to style” or not. As an hypothetical example of such an idea: If some form of pectin (or pectin derivative) can be added to beer to set it a shelf-stable benign beer haze, I’d like to know about it because it could be a tool I’d have available for those times when I’m searching for the perfect hazy wit… or for some other hazy beer.
I agree with you that without any extra additions, and through process refinement, that the perfect level of (semi-)permanent haze can be achieved in an NEIPA. I also think many folks are aiming for “muddy” when the goal should really only be “hazy”.
[/quote]
Eh, not sure I agree with the comparison of adding fining agents and adding apple concentrate to set a pectin haze. Finings can help with long term shelf stability whereas pectin haze only sets a haze, it will effect mouthfeel (which to be fair it could be argued some finings do as well) and it will effect flavor (if using apple concentrate, if just using refined pectin I redact this part of the debate) but it will NOT help in long term shelf stability. It just makes the haze hang on, but the proteins that stale first will still be present (especially in your wit example) and won’t add any time onto shelf life of the beer. Plus we are comparing apples (pun intended) to oranges here because much (if not all) of the haze in a hefe comes from the yeast not the wheat as wheat beer will drop clear in time. And indeed that is the flavor, mouthfeel and haze you are looking for, not a pectin haze. It is purely a marketing gimmick similar to British and Scottish brewers adding brewers caramel colorant to their milds to make them dark. Really no impact on flavor and no reason to other that to market more beer. As a homebrewer we really don’t have a need to make an inferior product just to add to marketing hype. It is more useful to get your processes in check first before resorting to gimmicks and my guess that will result in much more enjoyable beer.
Haze for the sake of haze is more like those zero roast black IPAs. People were interpreting minimal roast as zero roast. The beers were black for no reason other than being black.
This wasn’t all black IPAs. Some were well made and had an appropriate mild roast character.
I agree.
Nailed it.
No, apple concentrate would be dumb - agreed. Pectin was only used as a hypothetical example due to someone bringing it up previously, so I kept it as the example. Pectin would be a problem in beer long-term, however there are refined additives for beer to set in a haze that I would assume would not be (as much of) a problem long-term. Agreed about hefe’s being yeast derived, but many folks have issues with them dropping clear in kegs, and I’d prefer a hazy hefe-with-benign-agent than a clear hefe-without-benign-agent, especially if I ordered one from a bar.
I’m not sure what “gimmick” you’re referring to? Hazy NEIPAs? Cloudy hefe’s? Dark milds? While I may not choose a NEIPA for drinking, I also don’t presume it’s a “gimmick” to sell more beer. The majority of the beer drinking world associates hazy/cloudy/muddy beers with an inferior product and won’t purchase one based on appearance alone. It would be a foolhardy gimmick if it was produced that way simply to sell more beer. You’ll have more bearded men buying beer - sure - but less sales overall, IMO.
Your last couple sentences strike a chord in me, and I agree 100%. Have you had the pleasure of experiencing the results from a beer brewed using low oxygen brewing practices? It’s eye-opening in terms of what’s possible on the homebrew level - to say the least. It’s also extremely controversial in these forums and HBT.
To the gimmickiness, yes an artificially hazed hefe, NEIPA and artificially darkened mild are all marketing gimmicks. Now a yeast cloudy hefe does have a wonderful flavor addition and a process derived haze in a NEIPA looks nice and doesn’t bother me, but once you start pushing the boundries from haze to murk and artificialness then you are doing it just to sell beer. One check around beer groups on forums and the book of faces will show that murky is now an attractive quality in beer once you say it is a NEIPA, so I guess we can agree to disagree on that point.
In regards to the LODO I have been reading up a lot on it as one of the guys in my club is planning on diving in, so I am kinda letting him to the initial experimenting, but I imagine that it does make a difference when combined with other good brewery practices. I imagine that it helps to achieve and intangible quality to the best beers. And if we are honest that probably has a ton to do with the most famous of NEIPA as his dissolved oxygen levels in his finished beer is less than 1ppm which is german lager territory. That said, my guess (totally 100% conjecture) is that it won’t make that of a noticeable difference unless all other areas of your processes are even slightly out of check. Though on a related note I have taken to putting campden back into my brewing liquor even though I switched to RO cuz hey, if it can scavenge some hot side aeration probably doesn’t hurt.
Interesting take on the gimmickiness of those styles. I wouldn’t have thought of it that way, but I can see your point and where you’re coming from.
I’m also very much in agreement about the difference between a murky beer and a hazy beer. I’m okay with hazy, and as a homebrewer who’s made plenty of hazy beer, it doesn’t dissuade me from purchasing commercial beers that are also hazy. Murky is something else. I also prefer naturally derived haziness as opposed to artificial haziness, if given a choice.
As far as low oxygen stuff, I’m still surprised as how much of a difference just implementing some of the basics can make to the finished beer. I have not found the “screw one thing up and you’ve lost it all” statement to be true at all, with the exception of starting from a virtually-zero point of oxygen (there’s not much room for movement with that step).
Yeah, I definitely am looking forward to trying some LODO stuff from the guy in my club.
Also apologies are due to the OP I didn’t intend to hijack the thread and be the angry guy yelling at the clouds. As a guy who actually really enjoys a well made NEIPA was just voicing what I though was important to the style and got carried away.
So the general thesis, I guess as it relates to the OP, try water treatment and biotransformation hops with just a flavorful british malt (pearle/optic/golden promise etc (probably not maris otter)) to see if you can get the haze you want first, if you still want more, I would definitely go oats of some sort (malted will integrate into the flavor a little better whereas flaked can get a little aggressive and greasy) as oats seem to stay hazy much longer than a wheat based beer.
FTFY ;D
HA! Indeed!
I have an idea, I’ll share with everyone when I go pro. I’ve already got an amazing name. It’s kind of an in crowd joke.
JuicyGirl Bitters. Made by Juicy girls. Vets out there keep it quiet, no one else should understand why that’s hilarious.