Hop Water v1.0

Posted on by

I enjoy hop water as a non-alcoholic option, but it can be pricey and sometimes even hard to find at my usual grocery store. With my hop stash, it should be easy to make at home, right? There are plenty of recipes for hop water out there (e.g., in the March/April 2024 Zymurgy), but most of them require you to make a keg’s worth and carbonate in the keg. I don’t really have the space for that (beers are the primary thing in my keezer!), and I don’t really want 2, 3, or 5 gallons of hop water that may or may not taste good. For carbonated non-alcoholic beverages, I’m a huge fan of making concentrates that can then be purpose-mixed by the glass (see my tonic syrup and soda syrup recipes).

Photo by Donovan Kelly on Pexels.com

I’ve been keeping an eye out for just this kind of recipe, and recently saw one on the NABeer reddit forum. It fit my most important criterion–a recipe that could be made as a concentrate and mixed with sparkling water–and also gave very specific directions. So, I made some slight adjustments and crafted a batch! The recipe is below.

Hop Water v1.0

  • 500 mL of tap water, heated to 170°
  • 5 g of Centennial hop pellets
  • 1 tsp. of white sugar
  • 1 tbs. of freshly squeezed lime (or lemon) juice
  • carbonated water (12 oz. per serving, approximately)

Procedure

  • I put the white sugar into my Pyrex, and then set my pour-over coffee setup (carefully washed to reduce coffee aroma) on top of the Pyrex.
  • I put the hop pellets inside a tea bag, set inside the pour-over coffee setup. Then, I slowly poured the water over the hop pellets, stopping once I had collected around 500 mL of hop water concentrate.
  • Next, I poured the hoppy goodness into a mason jar, closed it up, and set it in an ice bath to chill. This ice bath isn’t required, but I was impatient and wanted to sample my hop water quickly!
  • Once the concentrate was chilled, I added the lime juice, shook it all up well, and then got ready to serve.
  • To prepare a serving, I mixed 1 shot (~30 mL) of the concentrate with 12 oz. of carbonated water.

Initial Impressions

This is pretty respectable hop water! It’s not overly sweet, and the hoppy bitterness and aroma come through prominently. A recipe on Zymurgy called for 2 oz. of hops cold (1 oz. each of a hop like Citra and Centennial) steeped overnight for a 1 gallon batch, so I might try that to see how it compares.

I’m going to use this as a jumping-off point for some variants — I would like to try a “dip-hopped” version, and I’ll definitely attempt a version with a greater amount of hops. It will be fun to explore this new world, and I’m so glad I have found a hop water I can mix as I need it, without having to tie up a keg.

AHA Next Steps…Vision and Priorities

Posted on by

The AHA’s re-launch as a 501(c)(3) is apparently well underway. I think “they” (the founding board) have done an excellent job in communication and transparency so far, with a newsy update on the website, forum Q&A, and upcoming virtual town hall. In my opinion, we’ve seen more transparent communication about AHA in the past month than I’ve seen in the past decade. Serious kudos to the founding board for enabling this. At least so far, it feels like things are heading in a good direction, and that there is a genuine attempt to move along from “how we always did things,” the bane of so many organizations.

Photo by vedanti on Pexels.com

AHA has now posted and invited comment on its draft vision statement, as follows:

We celebrate, educate, and promote the art, science, and joy of fermentation, championing a united community of today and tomorrow’s homebrewers.

As I submitted to AHA, I really like this version of the vision statement. My initial (half-comprehended) take was that this was way too broad, but I think the use of “homebrewers” at the end brings the vision back to AHA’s roots while also allowing a big tent for fermentation in the future.

AHA also provided their draft strategic priorities, as follows:

1) Organizational Strength & Health
2) Knowledge & Learning
3) Community, Collaboration & Competition

My submission to AHA: I have no significant feedback on these; all are on-target and appropriate. I think my main curiosity is what they envision being encompassed within each. Organizational strength and health is a logical first priority, as AHA gets its feet under itself. I view #3 (community, collaboration, and competition) as essential for strength and health. What is AHA’s value proposition now, and how does it engage new members and retain old members? Members who are invested and feel like they have a voice will continue their membership and also be more open to philanthropic support. There will need to be some additional thought around how to shift member culture from the “old way” (minimal communication, little engagement in decision-making, one big in-person event annually, homebrewers viewed implicitly are primarily useful for marketing craft beer, philanthropy something we do for other organizations) to a new way that encourages dialogue, creates meaningful opportunities for participation in decision-making, creates a community where as many people as possible feel like they have a voice, where they have a connection, and all in a way that gets people to think about chipping in a little extra support for AHA. This is a culture shift — but one I think AHA can do! The transparent communication is a HUGE first step; keep up that great work!

Let There Be Rauch!

Posted on by

Smoked beers can be nice as an occasional treat (especially in the winter), and I have made a few over the years. One classic style that has escaped my brew log to date, however, is rauchbier. I remember trying one years ago, from a fellow homebrewing paleontologist, and it is still one of the most memorable beers I have ever sampled! The combination of smoke and maltiness was unlike anything I had tried previously, and the beer lives on in my memory, well over a decade later (and probably closer to 15 or 20 years now).

After years of thinking about rauchbier but never making one, I was spurred into action by Dan Jablow’s article (“Making Friends With Smoked Beer”) in the November/December 2024 issue of Zymurgy. He included a 1 gallon recipe called “Let There Be Rauch!”, and the approach seemed simple enough. So, I scaled it up to 5.5 gallons and adjusted the hops slightly to move the bitterness level into the higher end of the style’s range in the BJCP guidelines.

Let There Be Rauch!

  • 5 lb. beechwood smoked malt (Weyermann)
  • 3 lb. Munich light malt (BESTMALZ)
  • 3 lb. pilsner malt (Rahr)
  • 1 lb. Caramunich II malt (Weyermann)
  • 0.5 tsp. BrewTanB, added to mash
  • 1 oz. Hallertauer Mittelfrueh (5.5% alpha), 60 minute boil
  • 1 oz. Hallertauer Mittelfrueh (5.5% alpha), 15 minute boil
  • 0.5 tsp. BrewTanB, 10 minute boil
  • 1 WhirlFloc tablet, 5 minute boil
  • 3 pkg. SafLager West European Lager dry yeast (Fermentis S-23)

Target Parameters

  • 1.054 s.g., 1.015 f.g., 29 IBU, 11 SRM, 5.2% abv
  • Full volume mash with 60 minutes at 154° and 10 minutes at 168°; 60 minute boil
  • Water built from RO and tap water to hit target water parameters of 59 ppm Ca, 4 ppm Mg, 29 ppm Na, 56 ppm SO4, 88 ppm Cl, 52 ppm CaCO3, RA=-2

Procedure

  • I collected 2.5 gallons of tap water (with Campden tablet) and 5 gallons of RO water, with 3 g CaCl and 2 g gypsum, to hit the target water parameters.
  • I heated the strike water to 161° and added the grains to hit a mash temperature of 154°. I added 2 mL of 88% lactic acid, to adjust the pH. I held the mash at 154° for 60 minutes, with recirculation, before I raised the temperature to 168° for 10 minutes.
  • Upon removing the grains, I had a total of 6.6 gallons at a gravity of 1.045, for 68% mash efficiency.
  • I brought the runnings to a boil and added finings and hops per the schedule.
  • After 60 minute boil, I turned off the heat, did an initial chill to ~70°, and then transferred the beer to the fermenter. I chilled it further to 52° before pitching the yeast.
  • I brewed the beer on 24 November 2024, with a starting gravity of 1.055. I fermented the beer at 54°, and let it free rise to 60° on 3 December 2024.
  • I cold crashed to 35° on 5 December 2024, and kegged the beer with a closed transfer on 8 December 2024. The beer had a very nice and subtle smoke flavor/aroma.
  • Final gravity was 1.018; this works out to 4.9% abv.

Tasting

  • Appearance
    • Beautiful! It is a brilliantly clear light amber beer, with a creamy and persistent off-white head
  • Aroma
    • Bready malt with a touch of toastiness at a moderate level, a medium level of smoke–almost lightly bacony, Very pleasant balance.
  • Flavor
    • Bread crust and malty flavor at a moderate level; smoky flavor, somewhat bacon-like, at a medium level. Moderate hop bitterness with a slightly spicy quality. The smoke balance is perfect against the malt; not overwhelming at all, but pleasantly alongside each other!
  • Mouthfeel
    • Medium carbonation, medium body, only slightly dry finish.
  • Would I Brew This Again?
    • It’s not often I nail something on the first batch, but this is just a great recipe! It dodges the peaty phenolics of some versions, and is both interesting and drinkable. I am pleased!
  • Overall
    • 10/10

Denny Kong-ish West Coast IPA

Posted on by

I made my first version of this new-style West Coast IPA last year, and learned some lessons about hopping techniques in the process. During that previous batch, I used a hop bag that was too small for the dry hopping addition, and as a result the hop flavor/aroma were pretty underwhelming. This time around, I opted to let the hops float free in the fermenter. I use a BrewBucket 7.5, which has a rotating pickup arm, so I could do a closed transfer into the keg without excessive hop particles clogging things. The hop choices on this version used up some of my hop stash–three-quarters of a pound of hops went into the final recipe!

Denny Kongish West Coast IPA

  • 12 lb. 5 oz. pilsner malt (Rahr)
  • 1 lb. Vienna malt (Weyermann)
  • 0.5 tsp. BrewTanB, added to mash
  • 4 oz. dextrose, added to boil
  • 0.85 oz. Enigma hop pellets (17.9% alpha), 60 minute boil
  • 0.5 tsp. BrewTanB, 10 minute boil
  • 1 Whirlfloc tablet, 5 minute boil
  • 2 oz. LUPMOMAX Cashmere hop pellets (13.5% alpha), 30 minute whirlpool
  • 1 pkg. California ale dry yeast (WLP001, White Labs)
  • 4 oz. Idaho #7 hop hash (31.4% alpha), dry hop in primary fermenter
  • 2 oz. Azacca hop pellets (12.2% alpha), dry hop in primary fermenter
  • 2 oz. LUPOMAX Sabro HBC 438 hop pellets (19.0% alpha), dry hop in primary fermenter
  • 1.15 oz. Enigma hop pellets (17.9% alpha), dry hop in primary fermenter

Target Parameters

  • 1.063 s.g., 1.010 f.g., 7.0% abv, 64 IBU, 5 SRM
  • Full volume infusion mash, held at 149° for 120 minutes and 168° for 10 minutes
  • Neutralized Claremont tap water with Campden tablet, RO water, and mineral salts added to mash to achieve 51 ppm Ca, 8 ppm Mg, 33 ppm Na, 104 ppm SO4, 53 ppm Cl, 8 ppm CO3.

Procedure

  • Starting with 3 gallons of tap water, I added 2.5 mL of 88% lactic acid as well as a Campden tablet, along with 5 gallons of RO water, 0.75 CaCl, 1.5 g epsom salt, and 3.5 g gypsum to hit the target water parameters.
  • I heated the water to 155° and added the grains, along with 17.2 mL of 10% phosphoric acid for pH adjustment, to hit an estimated pH of 5.35.
  • I held the mash at 149° for 120 minutes, with recirculation, and then raised the mash to 168° for 10 minutes before pulling the grains.
  • In total, I collected 6.9 gallons of runnings with a gravity of 1.050, for 69% mash efficiency.
  • I brought the runnings to a boil, with a 90 minute total boil. After 30 minutes, I added the first round of hops, and then proceeded following the recipe.
  • After the 90 minute boil, I chilled to 170° before adding the whirlpool hops and letting them sit for 30 minutes while whirlpooling.
  • Next, I chilled to 68°, transferred to the fermenter, and chilled down to 64° before pitching the yeast.
  • I brewed the beer on 1 January 2025, and it had a starting gravity of 1.066.
  • I added the dry hops on 11 January 2025, loose into the fermenter.
  • I cold crashed the beer on 15 January 2025.
  • I kegged the beer on 18 January 2025, into a CO2 purged keg. Final gravity was 1.007–that’s wonderfully dry and works out to 7.8% abv. I had a similar experience last batch, so this mash regime works wonders!

Tasting

  • Appearance
    • Light gold beer, slight haze, which pours with an exceptionally persistent and creamy white head–it’s like a meringue! This head leaves beautiful lacing down the side of the glass. The beer is surprisingly clear. As a result, I am feeling good about my decision not to use post-fermentation finings; this likely helped with oxidation reduction.
  • Aroma
    • Citrus and dank hop aroma at a high level, neutral yeast profile, and no malt character to speak of in the aroma.
  • Flavor
    • Very bitter, citrus pith and dank hop character, with a bit of grapefruit along the way, and a long-lingering hop aftertaste. The hop flavor is a bit one-note; it has the usual issue with Azacca to my tastebuds, which is an orange pith quality on the edge of rotten orange. I’ve never understood the appeal of that hop! Low level of maltiness, but it is there. Clean fermentation character.
  • Mouthfeel
    • Medium-high carbonation, medium-light body, very dry finish.
  • Overall
    • 7.5/10
  • Would I Brew This Again?
    • I really like this recipe as a template for a double IPA; it is a clean background to let the hops shine. This is the first time in awhile that I have let the hops float free for dry hopping, and with the Brew Bucket’s rotating pickup arm, things worked well. Thanks to the closed transfer (and perhaps the BrewTanB?), the hop character has held up well. The beer is clear enough without finings, so I think there is no need to use Biofine Clear as the original recipe stipulates. Azacca, as usual for my experience, gives a harshness in the citrus note that I don’t care for. This formulation is a bit one-note on the hops. But, it’s okay overall! In a beer like this, a different hop combo would be the ticket to hoppiness.
      • Interesting note: when I tasted this again last night, after a rauchbier, I got more tropical notes, and the unpleasant orange wasn’t as apparent. I would rate the beer higher in that case – perhaps a 8.5/10.

Re-Envisioning the American Homebrewers Association

Posted on by
logo for the American Homebrewers Association

The big news of late was that the American Homebrewers Association is being spun off from the Brewers Association as a stand-alone non-profit! I view this as nearly entirely a net good; the BA has increasingly treated the AHA as an unwanted guest during the past few years, and I don’t think the combination was making much sense anymore. The AHA had a reduced voice in BA governance, Homebrew Con was vastly scaled back (and cancelled for this year), AHA membership numbers were down from their peak, and there is a general sense that the hobby is ebbing versus the heady days of the early 2010’s. The vibe I got from the forums, likely at least in part from the aforementioned decisions, was that the AHA wasn’t able to provide a level of engagement or service that made it a compelling need for homebrew hobbyists.

There was some initial discussion at the AHA forum and a bit on Reddit, but overall this news has had surprisingly minimal chatter in the spaces I normally frequent. Exceptions include an optimistic blog post from Beervana, and an overview from Stan Hieronymus on Appellation Beer’s Monday links (including some important context and history that I haven’t seen much mentioned in the various AHA hagiographies). The AHA also posted some Q&A’s, which provide additional information.

AHA has asked for members to comment on what we’re hoping for in the newly independent organization, as well as a suggested vision statement. I have submitted my thoughts there, but in the meanwhile I also wanted to post them here in case they are useful for others.

“Please provide comments to consider on the future planning of the AHA.”

pint glass of amber beer
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
  • AHA will need to decide its target membership — is it just for the USA? USA+Canada+Mexico? Worldwide? AHA can’t be everything to everyone, which on the one hand will be a disappointment for some, but on the other hand is necessary for organizational focus.
  • On the topic of target membership, who is that? There is sometimes an implicit assumption that brewers are homeowners who work as engineers, and that’s not helpful. I really like the way that AHA has made things like 1 gallon stovetop batches more visible lately; let’s keep that energy going! (but don’t forget those making the 5 gallon batches)
  • Similarly, what sort of fermentations does AHA support? Beer is the obvious core. Does mead stay as a part of this? They seem to be linked at least at an organizational level. Does it make sense going forward? My gut on this is “yes,” but I think it’s a question that needs to be asked! Are the legal frameworks for mead different from those for beer? I would argue against distilling becoming a core of the organization — it’s a very different process, community, and legal framework — and wine also doesn’t make much sense.
  • I would love to see AHA target issues that matter to homebrewers. A big one in my book is that competitions like the NHC require many entrants to ship their entries in a semi-clandestine manner that contravenes shipping company policies! The NHC website itself states, “Shipments brought directly through UPS or FedEx may get denied, as shipping alcohol is against policy. Indicate ‘glassware’ or ‘samples’ if asked to provide such information.” Similar instructions are given for customs guidance for international entries. Maybe I’m too much of a rules follower, but this is inviting future disaster, and I don’t think the NHC should feel great about asking its entrants to lie, especially in a public forum. I’ll just be blunt and say that this is a stupid thing for a non-profit to do.
  • With the disconnect between AHA and BA, I foresee a need for AHA to step up and advocate for homebrewers in brewery spaces–especially holding club meetings or organizing general events. Although laws vary from locality to locality, a “toolkit” for homebrewers or homebrewing clubs who want to meet up and share homebrew at public spaces would be very helpful. I think it could also be a potential collaboration between AHA and BA to communicate to the commercial industry about this ongoing desire from hobbyists.
  • What is the future of Zymurgy? Personally, I like having a physical magazine; I spend too much time with electronic devices as it is, and I enjoy sitting with a homebrew and reading it cover-to-cover. I also recognize that print media is a mixed bag at best these days, not everyone shares my love of printed publications, and even the membership may be split on this. That said, I think any decisions should include both current membership (which I expect skews conservative in wanting a printed publication) and potential membership (which may or may not share those views).
  • Who owns Zymurgy? That is, where does the copyright for the back issues reside? There is a ton of great content in there, and I am hoping it won’t be locked up by BA. If this hasn’t been outlined yet, it needs to be done ASAP — don’t hope for a future resolution. What other IP will matter?
  • Consider apps carefully. If well designed, they are useful; but do we need another app for homebrewers? They are expensive to build and maintain, so I would somewhat argue against them.
  • The recipe archive at the AHA website and in Zymurgy is valuable. I’ve seen a lot of people say, “But there are so many recipes online! I don’t need that archive.” So many of the recipes online are awful. I trust the recipes that the AHA produces, because they have at least minimal vetting.
  • How does AHA confront the currently changing relationship of society with alcohol? I think it will continue to evolve and ebb and flow, but I do think we need to meet all potential hobbyists where they are.
  • Community is important. I really love the AHA forum, and find it (for my needs) to be the kind of community I want overall. That said, I really would like to see the AHA help with informal meetups. Not everyone is a club member, or wants to be a club member, or can be a club member, and not everyone has capacity to attend a national conference. But, many folks (me included) would welcome a chance to meet up, swap brews, and hang out with fellow homebrewers. Years ago, AHA used to sponsor rally days. Could something like that return?
  • What will membership guidelines / rules be? Most member-based organizations will have some kind of code of conduct / member expectations / etc. I don’t feel great about “litmus tests” for members, but I think we’ll want a process for removing someone who is acting counter to the aims of AHA or who grossly violates the norms of a healthy organization.
  • Members need to feel like we have voices. This hasn’t happened with the BA in recent years. I recognize that there are many potentially competing interests, but yet another survey isn’t necessarily going to be what we need. There should, eventually, be a clear process for volunteering and participating in governance of the AHA. It can’t just be those with the cash to pay to attend HomebrewCon (or its equivalent) every year; that’s only partially representative of the membership.
  • Speaking of fundraising, I suspect there is going to be heavy lifting to change the philanthropic nature of our homebrewing community. We are conditioned to “doing it for charity” at brew fests and such, but haven’t yet been primed to think of the AHA as one of those charitable options. Fortunately or unfortunately, many (most?) will think that the buck stops with their annual membership dues. We’re going to have to change that thinking. AHA will need to make a compelling case for why members should donate above and beyond their annual dues. Part of that is making initiatives that all members feel they might benefit from. That does not mean there shouldn’t be more focused initiatives (I support those!), but we need to have options. Don’t forget unrestricted donations, either! It doesn’t have to be an immediate donation — estate gifts are equally important. For that matter, make estate planning an option for members!
  • What other hobbyist groups are important to link up with? If we have similar needs or potentially at least small overlaps in audience, that could be mutually beneficial. Can we learn something from other hobbyist organizations? Have they noted trends or opportunities that might parallel needs for the AHA?
  • Speaking from a position of ignorance, what is the plan for after the BA? At least initial statements have said that connections for GABF, etc., will remain. What happens when BA says “no more” on that? (perhaps they have promised otherwise, but let’s be realistic here; if it’s not in writing, it’s going away) Would that scenario have a major impact? Or minor impact? Are there members who sign up just for GABF early access, and who would disappear if that disappeared?
  • For those who have followed things, there is a general distrust and dissatisfaction with the BA. I suspect that is part of why AHA is going independent. BUT…we probably want to have some form of working relationship, at some level. What will that look like?
glass of pale yellow beer in front of dark green plants
Photo by Michelle Riach on Pexels.com

“Suggested Vision Statement for the AHA“

  • “Relax, Don’t Worry, Have a Homebrew.” (only partly kidding)
  • “The American Homebrewers Association will create a community of home brewers of beer and beer enthusiasts, promoting the fun of the hobby, building opportunities for sharing knowledge and camaraderie, and advocating for homebrewers of all locations, backgrounds, and brewing approaches.”