Author: Marshall Schott
Hazy when most are clear, juicy when others are merely hoppy, New England IPA’s (NEIPA) unique take on a classic style has taken the world by storm with drinkers pining for something new. In speaking with those who have embraced this relatively novel style and brew it often, it seems a key component to achieving the qualities it possesses has to do with the yeast used to ferment it. Breweries on the left coast have tended to focus on accentuating the hoppiness of their Pale Ale and IPA by using yeasts known for taking a back seat in the character department, for example WLP001 California Ale and Wyeast 1056 American Ale. However, many believe NEIPA demands the use of a narrow selection of yeasts mostly of English heritage, not only for the character they impart, but for their biotransformation effects as well.
Heady Topper, a hazy Double IPA brewed by The Alchemist viewed by many as the beer that started the NEIPA craze, is fermented with the lauded Conan yeast that was recently made available to brewers under a few different monikers. The version HOP has been using is called Vermont IPA by GigaYeast, which they say was sourced “from one of the best examples of an east coast IPA” and produces a beer “with more body and a slight fruity ester that is amazing with aromatic hops.”
Wyeast 1318 London Ale III has also gained popularity among NEIPA brewers, which I trust is due in part to rumors it’s used by Hill Farmstead to ferment their highly sought after examples of the style. Of the homebrewers I know who brew the style often, WY1318 is the one most seem to prefer, at least based on the recipes I’ve seen that feature it.
I was surprised to learn that hazy NEIPA has become one of the most requested styles from House Of Pendragon Brewing Company (HOP), situated smack in the center of California. I was recently chatting with owner/brewmaster Tommy Caprelian and assistant brewer Brad Gaines about this curious phenomenon when the topic turned to yeast. They mentioned they’d been playing with two aforementioned strains in an attempt to determine which will become their go-to. xBmt borned!
| PURPOSE |
To evaluate the differences between two beers fermented with either GigaYeast GY054 Vermont IPA yeast or Wyeast 1318 London Ale III yeast.
| METHODS |
Since the purpose of this xBmt was to evaluate the differences between yeast strains, we developed a recipe with a very simple grain bill while maintaining a standard NEIPA hop schedule
BrüDragon NEIPA
Recipe Details
| Batch Size | Boil Time | IBU | SRM | Est. OG | Est. FG | ABV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.5 gal | 60 min | 76.5 IBUs | 3.7 SRM | 1.066 | 1.014 | 6.9 % |
| Actuals | 1.066 | 1.01 | 7.4 % | |||
Fermentables
| Name | Amount | % |
|---|---|---|
| Pale Malt, 2-Row (Rahr) | 11 lbs | 80 |
| Oats, Flaked | 2.75 lbs | 20 |
Hops
| Name | Amount | Time | Use | Form | Alpha % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Magnum | 13 g | 60 min | Boil | Pellet | 11.2 |
| Citra | 60 g | 30 min | Aroma | Pellet | 12 |
| Simcoe | 60 g | 30 min | Aroma | Pellet | 12.3 |
| Citra | 78 g | 12 days | Dry Hop | Pellet | 12 |
| Simcoe | 40 g | 12 days | Dry Hop | Pellet | 12.3 |
Yeast
| Name | Lab | Attenuation | Temperature |
|---|---|---|---|
| London Ale III (1318) | Wyeast Labs | 73% | 64°F - 74°F |
Notes
| Water Profile: Ca 104 | Mg 6 | Na 4 | SO4 100 | Cl 150 |
Download
| Download this recipe's BeerXML file |
Given the variable, this xBmt did not require separate batches, so Brad brewed a 45 gallon batch on the brewery’s continuous/fly sparge pilot system. Once the strike water was to the appropriate temperature, the milled grains were added to the mash tun.
The mash was stirred to fully incorporate the grains.
Once the temperature stabilized at the target, it was left to rest for a full hour.
With the mash rest complete, Brad performed a continuous/fly sparge to collect the expected volume of sweet wort that was brought to a rolling boil. The first hop addition was relatively small, just enough to impart a little bitterness.
While the wort was boiling, brewing assistant Rodger Castro began the incredibly fun task of cleaning out the mash tun.
Given the small size of this batch, at least relative to the beers brewed on the normal 15 BBL system, we agreed that starters weren’t in order.
The individual packs of yeast were brought out to warm up mid-boil, each Wyeast 1318 was also smacked at this point.
The whirlpool hop addition was just a tad bigger than the bittering charge.
The hoppy wort whirlpooled for 30 minutes.
After passing through a heat exchanger, equal amounts of 66˚F/19˚C wort were transferred to identical conical fermentors.
Brad started by pitching the GY054 Vermont IPA yeast into one batch.
He then immediately moved onto pitching the Wyeast 1318 London Ale III into the other fermentor of wort.
The conicals were positioned next to each other in a temperature controlled room set to maintain a steady 67˚F/19˚C.
At 2 days post-pitch, each beer received the large biotransformation dry hop charge and were left alone for another week to continue fermenting. With both beers showing signs of completed fermentation about a week later, initial hydrometer readings were taken that showed the beer fermented with GY054 had attenuated slightly more than the WY1318 beer; a final hydrometer measurement after 2 weeks of fermentation confirmed the beers had reached FG with the GY054 and WY1318 beers at 1.010 and 1.012, respectively. At this point, the beers were cold crashed, racked to brite tanks for carbonation, then kegged less than 3 weeks after being brewed. I first sampled the beers at the House Of Pendragon tasting room just prior to data collection and while they looked similar, it seemed the GY054 beer had dropped slightly more clear than the batch fermented with WY1318.
| RESULTS |
A panel of 75 people with varying levels of experience participated in this xBmt. Each taster, blind to the variable being investigated, was served 2 samples of the beer fermented with Wyeast 1318 London Ale III yeast and 1 sample of the beer fermented with GigaYeast 054 Vermont IPA yeast in different colored opaque cups then instructed to select the unique sample. A total of 33 correct selections (p<0.05) would have been required to achieve statistical significance, though only 28 tasters (p=0.27) chose the different beer, suggesting participants in this xBmt were unable to reliably distinguish a beer fermented with GY054 Vermont IPA yeast from one fermented with WY1318 London Ale III yeast.
The following information is being shared purely to appease the curious and should not be viewed as valid data given the failure to achieve significance. Of the 28 tasters who were correct on the triangle test, 15 preferred the beer fermented with GY054 Vermont IPA yeast, 10 liked the WY1318 London Ale III beer more, 2 reported no difference, and 1 said they had no preference despite noticing a difference.
My Impressions: First off, both of these beers were really damn tasty, which is nothing surprising, as I feel this way about most of what House Of Pendragon makes. In the 5 triangle tests I attempted, I was only correct once, and in every instance, I felt forced to guess which was different. In my experience, both beers shared the same flavor, aroma, and mouthfeel, despite the GY054 fermented batch being slightly clearer than the WY1318 beer.
| DISCUSSION |
Yeast selection is one of the various components said to contribute to the unique character found in New England style Pale Ale and IPA, with aficionados purporting only certain strains are capable of the biotransformation that’s so quintessential for the style. Two yeasts believed to have this ability that have gained a large following among NEIPA brewers are Conan variants, which GigaYeast sells as GY054 Vermont IPA, and Wyeast 1318 London Ale III. Indeed, both strains are of English origin and hence known for producing a stronger ester profile than cleaner American strains, though my prior experience using them in less hoppy pale beers left me convinced the difference would be quite noticeable. The fact tasters were unable to reliably distinguish the beer fermented with GY054 Vermont IPA from the same beer fermented with WY1318 leaves me wondering if perhaps the biotransformation process by each strain creates a similar level of the same “new” compounds, thereby serving to equalize the overall character of each beer.
A curious observation of the beers over the few days they were on tap at the House Of Pendragon tasting room– the beer fermented with GY054 Vermont IPA continued to clear while the WY1318 London Ale III beer maintained the characteristic NEIPA haze. In follow-up informal triangle test trials, I remained unable to reliably distinguish the unique sample, they maintained the same aroma, flavor, and mouthfeel to me.
Having compared these two yeasts popularly used by NEIPA brewers, I think it’s only prudent to replicate this xBmt using a more common IPA yeast, a strain known for its clean fermentation profile that some have claimed doesn’t have the biotransformation abilities present in GY054 and WY1318. It is on the list!
If you’ve used GigaYeast GY054 Vermont IPA (or any other Conan strain) or Wyeast 1318 London Ale III to ferment NEIPA, please share your thoughts and experience in the comments section below!
Support Brülosophy In Style!
All designs are available in various colors and sizes on Amazon!
Follow Brülosophy on:
FACEBOOK | TWITTER | INSTAGRAM
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!
52 thoughts on “exBEERiment | BrüDragon Collaboration: Wyeast 1318 London Ale III vs. GigaYeast GY054 Vermont Ale (“Conan”) In A Hazy IPA”
Great experiment! I’ve used both yeasts…..1318 being my go to and I’ve only used the Gigayeast Vermont strain once. While having similar results from the GY054 as the experiment, I’ve read in a couple Homebrewtalk.com threads that the 3rd or 4th generations really throw off the desired esters and performance. Having had Heady and Hill Farmstead (if Shaun is using 1318) beers multiple times the esters seem pretty different.
i’ve had trouble telling differences b/w yeasts in these beers as well. the exception is Chico, much drier, bitter perception. i don’t like it in neipa
To each their own, but I’ve had great results with NEIPA using WY1056. I prefer it over 1318 in this style.
I brewed a NEIPA a month ago using S-04 and it’s still cloudy. I decided to use S-04 after reading about others who used it successfully. (Hops added 70 hrs after pitching)
What’s even weirder is I recently brewed a small batch of NEIPA using S-05 (added hops 48hrs after pitching) and it came out hazy. Granted, it may drop out quicker than the S-04 batch, but this has raised questions for me about biotransformation and yeast selection.
I’ ve used wy1318 with good results (only one time though), and wlp095, somewhere heard that it also comes from “conan” family, have to brew more with 1318 to get more experience, but it should be the go-to strain for these style of beers.
Has anyone fermented neipa with dry S-04 yeast with good results? As a homebrewer in north-east Europe (Latvia) i get infrequent access to liquid yeasts, but we just started gypsy brewing project where we brewed neipa for the first time and used s04 for the sake of cost/accessability and cant say for sure (will be packaging this sunday) but samples looked promising!
Sveiks! My wife is pure-bred Latvian, we’ve been together since high school, visited Latvia in 2003 before we married. Prozit!
Yeah, you’ve said it before, cool that you’re lets say 1/2 latvian, considering we’re under 2 million here. 🙂
Any plans on visiting her homeland? We have a homebrewers national event at 20-21st may. It’s usually laid back party in countryside with couple competitions.
We are hoping to head back when our youngest is old enough to enjoy it, maybe 6 years from now. I can’t wait!
I use s-04 for all my IPAs, whether it’s a west coast or NE style. I always liked the fruitier note it brought out in my west coast IPAs, so it worked wonderfully in my NE IPA. The restrained bitterness in comparison to the west coast style allowed the fruit character of the hops to come even more forward.
Lovely! Positively amazing 🙂 Ain’t there a typo in the recipe, where no whirlpool additions seem to have been included?
Those 30 min additions are whirlpool additions! I don’t know why the BeerXML plugin is changing that :/
Edit: “Aroma” = whirlpool.
The 30 minute additions threw me too. This makes way more sense.
For what it’s worth, the commercial examples of conan (not including the yeast bay vermont ale or imperial organic barbarian) left me disappointed when compared to a culture I grew from cans of heady. The Omega DIPA yeast left most to be desired with the gigayeast 054 slightly better. In my beers, the difference was night and day using my house strain which is why I switched. To me, the crucial factor in a good NEIPA vs. a “just okay” neipa is in the yeast esters, which is why I prefer my house conan strain over 1318. 1318 will make a pretty good NEIPA. As the market becomes saturated with this style over the next year or so, brewers will need to put their best foot forward to stand out from the herd.
Perhaps on the next xbmt you can use a subsequent generation of Conan as I see it commented often that the first generation’s characteristics are somewhat muted. On a similar note, I brewed up a Citra IPA a couple months ago, which had a relatively small dry hop charge of 2oz in 5gal. These hops were pitched into the US-05 induced high kreusen. I fined with gelatin and even now, after over a month in the keg, it is still hazy.
I have used both strains numerous times. I starting out using the GY054 regularly and while it did produce some great fruity aromatics I always picked up a little too much of an estery note that to me gave it a touch of a belgian character (made large starters, fermented in mid 60’s etc.). No one else (including BJCP judges) I let sample it ever picked it up so i just chalked it up to me being a little too sensitive to esters. I then tried WY1318 and haven’t looked back, same great fruity aromatics but to me really soften and rounds out the beer and no hints of belgiany esters.
Just my subjective experience but i’ll be sticking with Wy1318.
Great article BTW.
I know exactly what your talking about, but I just used 1318 and I am picking up that Belgian character. My fermentation started really slow, then halted, and I had to re-pitch a starter at high krausen to get it going again. It worked and it fermented out, but that Belgian ester character is there. Too much so for me. I do not like Belgian esters in the least, so I am probably sensitive to it. I love British esters, but the ester 1318 just threw out for me, was nothing like any British ester I have ever come across. It is very much like a Belgian yeast…well not very much, but too much for me. I fermented this at my Mom’s, I didnt have a good place to put it at my place. But I think the temperature may have gotten a little too high during the fermentation a few times, I dont know. Anyone else detect a Belgian ester character for Wy1318 or other Conan type yeasts?
A question about your recipes with water chemistry profiles.
Is the listed values the PPM targets for the water volumes for the recipe?
I.e. for a 6 gallon batch I would scale my water additions to match the Water Profile: Ca 104 | Mg 6 | Na 4 | SO4 100 | Cl 150 values in ppm?
Cheers and thank you for the great work you are doing.
What else would it be? Of course it is the water profile for the batch volume.
Anthony,
No, the profile should have the same PPM.
Nice xbmt! I’ve personally used both of those yeasts as well as wlp007. The wlp007 tends to be my favorite with this style of beer.
I followed the recipe from the last NEIPA experiment except I used WLP007 (because I used it for every English and American style and I was curious if it would work here). Even though this isn’t my favorite sub-style (not crisp enough for me) the recipe came out great. Exact mouth feel and fruitiness I expect from the style and still opaque after 3 weeks in the keg. Really good beer.
Is everyone really falling for all the marketing? Biotransformation (glorified dry hopping), Juicy (not touching that one), cloudy, special yeast, chloride/sulfate chemistry? It reads like a bunch of brewers getting together saying what can we do different then a west coast IPA. while tweeking a few other things, they basically backed way off on the early hops and added more late. Everyone is trying to find the new thing and the NEIPA is it. Sours have been trying to be the new thing and it isn’t working so far.
If everyone was “falling for the marketing” they’d be drinking Bud. Have you brewed a NEIPA yet? Brew one, try it. There is a reason they are some of the most sought after beers these days. They are delicious. If you like West Coast IPA’s more, just brew and drink those.
Your issue seems to boil down to “people are brewing beers differently than West Coast IPA’s” and then complaining that the beer isn’t different enough for you.
I don’t think I believe in the bio-transformation Mumbo jumbo, but the choice of yeasts (if that didn’t affect beer, why would we use different yeasts), the chloride/sulfate ratio (I don’t think it’s the ratio, it’s just the higher chloride does leave a fuller body), and the wheat and pats for the cloudy appearance (not unlike a witbier or hefe).
I’m planning to attempt a hybrid NE/west coast using the higher chloride for mouthfeel, but using zero oats, wheat, or rye that could cloudy it up. A simple 2-row and carapils grain bill to hopefully make a crystal clear NE style. This will show me just how much the cloudy is from those adjuncts, or whether it’s the hop haze people say. It will also tell me how much he mouthfeel comes from the adjuncts or whether it’s the higher chloride in he water.
I’m starting to think the massive amount of dry hops is the main reason these beers are usually cloudy. I know you don’t need any adjuncts like wheat/oats.
Take a look at my comment above. I brewed a very mild IPA with 2-row and a little crystal, then just a 2oz dry hop charge at high kreusen. This was using US-05. I fined with gelatin as usual and it has been at serving temperature for over a month without clearing.
I’ve brewed a beer similar to what you’re thinking many times. No oats just two row, crystal, and honey malt with a neipa hop bill and while it comes out a bit hazy at first after about three weeks it drops almost crystal clear with us-05. It is possible, Though I don’t add a dry hop charge during high krausen. I’ve also brewed one with about a 20% adjunct in the grist and adding a high krausen dry hop charge and it came out hazy as hell with us-05. I’m not sure about my water chemistry so that could be a factor as I live in n.e. But I’ve achieved both hazy and clear with it so I’m not so sure how much chloride affects the haze as much as maybe the “juicy” character.
http://scottjanish.com/researching-new-england-ipa-neipa-haze/
not necessarily the grist that causes the haze, i’ve confirmed this with 20% oat pale that dropped bright after a few weeks in the bottle
A little bitter this morning, huh? Maybe you need to back off on those “west coast IPAs.” You know, that marketing ploy that you clearly didn’t take the bait on. How foolish we are…
Marketing or not, if I tell my beer brethren that I’m pouring them a NEIPA or a West Coast IPA, they are going to have different expectations on what they’re about to drink. There are no bright lines or BJCP definitions. But it’s a heck of a lot easier to preface “IPA” with a few syllables than to try to fully articulate the attributes of each beer. Efficient communication, IMO.
Take this posted recipe and simply “tweak” the yeast by pitching a Chico strain and tell us it is the same beer. (Because you seem to suggest that yeast selection barely plays a part in the end product of a beer.) Then make this beer with the Chico strain, again, and “tweak” it a little more by subbing out Citra for Centennial or Cascade. Still the same beer as version 1 or version 2?
Part of the beauty of home brewing (to me) and as highlighted in many of these xBmts is tweaking parts of our recipes and processes. Then, we both objectively and subjectively assess the results and use these data points to incorporate into our next brew day. Sounds like a path to progress for me.
I’m skeptical on the aspects of biotransformation. But science has suggested that “something” is there. Water treatment is a very important aspect of brewing, IMO. Is the chloride/sulfate aspect THAT important? Try it out for yourself.
TL;DR – Drink what you like. Brew what you like. And believe what you want to believe. But don’t diminish those of us that do it differently than you do.
Oh dear……
Coming from a country that doesn’t have a huge amount of NEIPA’s (the west coasts side is still going strong) 1 brewery has released one, and its pretty good, grapefruit juice is the best way to describe it.
compare this to their most 2 most popular ipa’s and its significantly different. so much so, you’d argue that the hazy beer wasn’t an ipa at all given the lower bitterness. but iwth the additional saturation of hop character its definitely an ipa.
Like you i was skeptical to begin with. but now i understand and realise the differences, and good exmples of thestyle are hazy without having that horrible yeastiness or other problem some breweries have ( they then deicde to call it an NEIPA and it gives the sub-style a bad name)
I will agreethat at this stage i am skeptical of biotransformation, but i’ll keep an open mind until io try it for myself.
hah, this did not age well
Nice xbmt! I have used both yeasts and have liked them. However, I have gone back to cleaner strains and have liked them more. In fact, I am making another NE IPA now with lager yeast. On homebrewtalk, The current line of thought about making a good NE IPA seems to be the water profile, the residual sweetness, and the hops used.
I’m just breaking the surface in the depths of yeast, but the little I do know leads me to believe that the breweries that create these orange juice looking IPAs must be using 2nd and 3rd+ generations of their yeast. To add to that, I imagine they are washing their yeast in such a way that they are selecting the least flocculant yeast, while still attenuating.
From what I’ve heard from pros and in my own experience, later generations to clear quicker than earlier generations. Perhaps this is yeast dependent?
Again, I’d like to disclaimer that I am new to advanced yeast practices and yeast science in general, but I just got through reading Chris White and Jamil’s book Yeast and from how I understood the section on Yeast Growth, Handling, and Storage, it depends on how you rinse / collect your yeast. If you bottom crop to collect yeast you have the opportunity to select the attributes of the yeast you desire, whether you are aware of it or not. I.e.: If you select the yeast that settles to the bottom fastest, this is generally the dead and highly flocculant / low attenuating cells. The middle layer, which is typically the desired / healthy yeast is what you really want. This leaves me wondering if whether or not breweries like The Alchemist, Tree House, Hill Farmstead, etc. have been rinsing their yeast and selecting the less flocculant yeast that will still attenuate from the top-middle? Again, this is me thinking out-loud.
Here comes an anecdote: I just used my 3rd gen of WLP007 to make an opaque NEIPA and the 4th gen to make a completely clear (geletin fined) pale ale.
Like I said, I am just thinking out-loud…It wouldn’t be out of the norm for me to be wrong.
Marshall, I’m curious why you cold crashed this beer given it’s a NEIPA? Is your intent fining or something else? Great xbmt!
Cold crash is to drop the yeast… I don’t want a yeasty beer! I truly don’t think NEIPA haze, at least the kind I enjoy, is caused by yeast.
Also, the beer would end up going through a sort of cold crash in the brite tank and keg anyway, way as well reduce the sludge.
Marshall, do you think that Danstar Windsor yeast could be a good dry substitution yeast for a NEIPA? I mean, English yeast, moderate attenuation, low flocculatión?
Thanks in advance.
P.S.: greetings from Spain! you have a lot of avid readers here.
Huh, hadn’t thought of that. I’ve never been a big fan of Windsor, but perhaps it would work well for NEIPA!
I’m am not convinced at all that the flavors unique to NEIPA are the result of biotransformation. I have been able to produce them consistently without dry hopping until the yeast has dropped and beer is racked off of it.
I’ve adopted 1318 as my house strain for the past four months or so mostly due to what an amazing top cropping yeast it is. Two days after pitching I scoop out about a third of the krausen into a sanitized pint jar, top off with boiled water and when it all settles out I have a beautiful, creamy white 200ml or so pitch of yeast. I’m probably on the 12th generation at this point, and it’s still going strong with no attenuation or infection problems… what I have found interesting is that if I dry hop a beer with this yeast (even 7-10 days after pitching, which should be outside the window of biotransformation) the beer just won’t clear, even with gelatin. However on styles that I don’t dry hop, such as a best bitter, Porter or mild, it clears beautifully. I love clear beer, but none of my IPAs or pales will ever clear with this yeast despite no wheat, oats etc in the grainbill… take from that what you will..
I’ve always heard that Conan adds a light apricot flavor, but I’ve never heard that about London III. Did you perceive any apricot flavor in either of the beers? I’m curious if in the recipe the apricot from the Conan is not perceptible, but perhaps in other recipes it would be noticible.
I’ve been planning on making a NEIPA have been considering if I should buy Conan online (more expensive) or just use the London III from the LHBS.
I’m about to brew my first NE IPA and my LHBS didn’t have WY1318, so i picked up WY1028 London Ale instead. Does anyone happen to know if this yeast will work as a substitute for 1318? Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!
I’m going to clone this one, and I’m curious about the whirpool temperature and time… Thank you in advance, kind regards from Holland!
Hey Dirk! Whirlpool hops tossed in at flameout and left throughout chilling. On the homebrew scale, you might consider reducing your 60 min charge and upping your flameout addition, or reducing the whirlpool temp to below 160F.
Thanks Marshall, I’ll fiddle around a bit with my brewing software so I get somewhere near the IBU’s. Will let know how it turned out in a few weeks. Cheers!
Had you considered the pitch rate on these two brews, from the picture above you have 15 billion cells of the Vermont and 9 billion for the 1318. considering the gigayeast is the gold pitch which is twice that of a wyeast smack pack?
I’ve read that alchemist apparently under pitch heady significantly (0.50) to get the ‘peach/apricot’ character to come through using the conan strain. something I’ve yet to play with the pitch rate for conan but definitely planning it 🙂
Could the pitch rate explain why the Vermont attenuated slightly higher than the 1381 ?
I brewed a neipa using wy1318 this spring for a good deck beer into the summer. It never made it into May; friends devoured it. I plan to make it again for tailgating season but will use wlp008 instead just because I have it on hand. Should work, eh?
i love these experiments. Thank you for doing them… a couple questions i’m hoping you can answer in time for my brew:
1) what temp are you holding the grains at in the mash is it 149F/ 65C OR 160F/71C?
2) is the hop profile really that huge? you say “The whirlpool hop addition was just a tad bigger than the bittering charge”but its actually 4.6X”S bigger so was that comment meant to be a tongue-in-cheek or a mistake? is the hop bill really 251Grams for a 5.5 gallon batch? or is it typos and errors?
3) the water profile doesn’t mention the alkalinity rating / measurement or the HCO number needed for brewing calculation software im using any info you can add?
4) I’m limited to brew in a bag (BIAB) any suggestions or tips to adjust?
Thank you for this great article and anyone willing to take the time to help me answer my questions/ address my concerns. Thank you!!!
1. 149˚F
2. I was being cheeky, it was that huge 🙂
3. pH 5.4
4. This works great BIAB!
Cheers!