I’ve been catching up on some of the blogs I keep tabs on, and I’ve come across a series of articles on Brut IPA over at Beer and Wine Journal (here’s a link to the first post in the series). I have to admit A) I’ve never heard of this style before and B) I was intrigued. (That combo is rare when I typically read about a “new beer style”)
Has anyone tried a commercial version of the style? Are they dry and bitter, or crisp and fruity? I’m certainly interested in trying my hand at something in this style, has anyone else brewed one?
Here’s a stab at a recipe off the top of my head
80% Base malt
20% D-45 Candi Syrup
1.055 OG
~50 IBU at 60 min (from Hopshot, Magnum, etc.)
1 oz/gal flameout (Simcoe/Citra)
2 oz/ gal dry hop (Simcoe/Citra)
Big pitch of WY3787 or WY1214, second dose of O2 after ~12 hours, ferment low 60’s
Ahh…one of the greatest shows in our life time. What’s not IPA like about it? I haven’t seen a lot of sugar in standard IPA recipes, but its pretty common in double IPA recipes. Or are you arguing about the style?
I’d drop out the bittering hops completely, use some Amyloglucosidase enzyme, do a long mash at 145 and a short boil, dry hop and flameout only. Seems interesting for a small batch to test, but I’d be worried about it coming off as astringent or too dry.
Here’s the article mentioned on Beer and Wine Journal, Chris Colby has some thoughts (even if he hasn’t brewed one). Amyloglucosidase
It’s my understanding that the “original” IPAs, after a year or more of ageing at extreme temperatures at the brewery, semi-intentional Brett inoculation in the shipping cask en route to the bottler abroad, and a year or so in the bottle, finally reached the consumer with a SG in the range of 0.090, brilliant clarity, considerable carbonation, virtually no malt character or bitterness – just sort of sparkling water with some hop flavor and aroma, a little funk, and quite a kick. This interesting idea might give the most IPA-like IPA around (depending on what we mean by IPA anymore.) I wouldn’t brew one, but I’d sure like to try one.
EDIT yeah I meant FG of 0.900 but you knew that…
Funny, when I was first reading the article I was thinking that the style reminded me of a Brett IPA, minus the Brett character.
I wonder if my 162/145 iterated mash schedule would get close enough without using exogenous enzymes.
And I can appreciate that the style may not seem like an IPA if you’re going by the traditional IPA definition. I’ve started to accept that it has become common parlance to refer to any highly hopped beer as “____ IPA”, even if the amount of hops used is the only thing it has in common with an IPA.
What’s “traditional?” In the last 10, 100, or how many years?
It also occurs to me that the popularity of IPA in its original iteration depended on its refreshing quality. This may have been almost accidental. Had the original brewers been able to produce a beer with the same crisp, dry quality without the Brett, mightn’t they have jumped at the chance? Dry it out any way you can, see what you get. But how you get to FG below 1.000 is going to be challenging.
I’d drop out the bittering hops completely, use some Amyloglucosidase enzyme, do a long mash at 145 and a short boil, dry hop and flameout only. Seems interesting for a small batch to test, but I’d be worried about it coming off as astringent or too dry.
Here’s the article mentioned on Beer and Wine Journal, Chris Colby has some thoughts (even if he hasn’t brewed one). Amyloglucosidase
[/quote]
It it was table sugar or even light candi syrup, no problem. But D45 and Belgian yeast takes it out of IPA style IMO.
D45 makes for a passable substitute for light Crystal malt while having the fermentability of simple sugar. It doesn’t necessarily push a beer into Belgian territory on it’s own.
I did mean to say 1469 rather than 1214 in my original post. With a big pitch and a lot of oxygen you can end up with a dry beer and a relatively clean ester profile.
I’m drinking a brut IPA from bearded owl brewing in Peoria. It’s the heaviest light beer I’ve had… Malt character is non-existent. Not sure if it’s quite as carbonated per “style”. Hop aroma is there, but not as big as I’d think. It tastes like a less astringent hop tea. It’s definitely easy enough to drink, but not sure if you want to.
This fits with what Gordon Strong said in the 2015 BJCP guidelines. At first the “colored” IPAs had different names like Cascadian Dark Ale, Northwest Red, but those weren’t as clear to understand as Black IPA and Red IPA. Of course, traditionalists balked at a Black Pale Ale or a Red Pale Ale, but Gordon said that for all intents and purposes, in the American market IPA, the acronym for India Pale Ale, doesn’t exist anymore. ‘IPA’ as a word is any hoppy bitter beer with tons of hop aroma and flavor (and newer styles are even dialing back the bitter part).
The only thing I’ve read about the Brut IPA is that it was specifically formulated to be a regional style. Someone is trying really hard to make a “San Diego-style” IPA. They just want to be different.
Brut IPA really seems like a stab at bringing the west coast, clear IPA style back into marketability by making a new version of it.
I can’t claim to be an expert on the emerging style but the few I have had reminded me of a really thin pale ale with the low bitterness of those early 2010s hop burst pale ales. It’s not dry, just really thin.
Doesn’t scratch any itch for me. I’ll take a regular pale ale over it any day.
Not sure, but I have a couple recipes from various magazines (one of which I believe was touted as the original from Social Kitchen and Brewery) that I may try out sometime soon if time permits. I know a local brewery (with a huge homebrewing background) has brewed at least one but I did not try it. Saw this thread and was hoping to find more info or experiences. Don’t like the sound of too thin, no malt presence, etc so maybe I won’t be brewing one of these.
