This IPA is brewed using 100% spent fresh hops for a smooth bitterness.

Like all of Weldwerks’ hazy IPAs, DDH Transmountain Diversion does not include any hops during the boil. The only hops added on the hot side is a minimal addition into the whirlpool. However, the hop load is more than made up for with significant double dry hopping.

Juicy Bits is an iconic hazy IPA and makes up more than 40% of Weldwerks’ production. The juicy aroma and flavor is attributed to equal additions of Citra®, El Dorado®, and Mosaic® hops added during the whirlpool and as dry hop additions.

There have been so many ways developed to impart different hop notes in beer. Two of the ways I have explored recently are dip hopping and coolpooling. They are similar in that neither method isomerizes hop alpha acids. Without isomerization, the hops do not impart bittering but can add a great deal of flavor and aroma. 

In this article I will break down how the two processes work, how they are similar and how they are different, and the impacts I have seen from both. My hope is you will be curious enough about the two techniques to try them in your brewing. The reward for those who do will be unique hop expression and increased aroma in your homebrews.

In 2021, when I first learned about dip hopping from an article in Brew Your Own, I was immediately interested in exploring what it had to offer a homebrewer like myself. A newer process that can increase aromatics and open up flavors in hops not normally tasted? How could I not look into it? 

I immediately started a discussion with my brewing partner about the process and in a short time we had our first beers in production using dip hopping techniques. We did a parallel brew of a double IPA and were very impressed with the results. The bittering seemed “softer,” and the hop profiles and aromatics were much more pronounced. We continued our own experiments to make five beers that were dip hopped. This experimentation led to the best double IPAs either of us had ever made. In the last four years I have used this process in over 20 different brews. It’s offered me a way to easily pasteurize the strange herbs and addends I use as a farmhouse brewer while at the same time releasing flavors that I had never encountered before.

The Science Behind Dip Hopping

Dip hopping is a method that helps accentuate pleasant hop aromas while suppressing off-flavors. First developed by brewers at the Kirin Brewery in Japan in 2012, dip hopping involves removing a portion of the wort early in the boil, cooling it, and adding hops to it in a sealed fermenter before fermentation starts. Kirin kept the results of their study very close to the vest for quite some time but revealed some of their results at a brewers’ conference in 2018. The variables they experimented with were temperature, volume of liquid, amounts and types of hop products added, and time of contact.

This technique is believed to produce a few notable effects. The main one is the volatilization of myrcene (β-myrcene), a hop monoterpene that can contribute harsh flavors to beer. Myrcene is a naturally occurring compound found in various plants like hops and cannabis and is known for its grassy, earthy, and sometimes musky aroma. It is one of the key components of hop aroma so it might seem counterintuitive to reduce this hydrocarbon. But by suppressing this component in the liquid and holding it in the wort as a gas, other much more pleasant aroma components are brought to the forefront. Some brewers have reported amplified linalool and geraniol through reduction of myrcene in their own experiments.

One of the most exciting discoveries for me has been the unlocking of new flavors from familiar varieties of hops. Azacca^® and Enigma^® are two hop varieties that typically offer spicy notes. The flavor notes in my own trials were significantly changed in these two varieties of hops through the dip-hop process. Other hops that will benefit from this process are the hop varieties already rich in geraniol or linalool.

Popular geraniol-rich hop varieties:

Cascade
Mosaic^®
Citra^®
Bravo
Amarillo^®
Comet
Pacific Hallertau
Southern Cross
Centennial
Chinook
Motueka
Styrian Golding (Celeia)

Popular linalool-rich hop varieties:

Amarillo^®
Cascade
Columbus
Centennial
Mt. Hood
Nugget
Pacifica
Willamette
Cluster

The dip-hop process can also suppress the production of 2-Mercapto-3-methyl-1-butanol (2M3MB), an off-flavor that can make beer taste onion-like. The suppression of this compound is partly due to lower hydrogen sulfide content in the beer, which is typically associated with the development of off-flavors. There are other things brewers do to reduce the formation of this chemical like controlling oxygen levels during wort preparation, but dip hopping really seems to do the job.

My Experience with Dip Hopping

I have always used boiled wort for my dip-hop additions and have experimented extensively with a contact time of 20–30 minutes with good results. The variables I’ve played with are choice of hops, quantity and types of additions, volume of liquid for steeping, and time in contact. Brewing 5-gallon (19-L) batches, I typically dip hop using 1–2 gallons (4–8 L) of wort (enough to cover the addition with liquid). Keep in mind, pellet hops will absorb liquid and solidify, so be sure to add enough wort to overcome this absorption. I finish the boil and transfer wort at 180 °F (82 °C). At this temperature I am effectively pasteurizing anything that is added to the beer while staying below the temperature where isomerization of the hops occurs. With my system, the dip-hop addition will free fall in temperature to about 150 °F (66 °C) while the remaining wort is cooling. Myrcene volatilizes at 150 °F (66 °C) so this temperature drop works throughout the steeping time. In my studies I have put an airlock on the fermenter to see how long the off-gassing continues, but I now seal the fermenter to hold as much in the way of aromatic compounds as possible in the wort.

I bag what is added to the fermenter, and pull it out prior to transferring the larger volume of cooled wort. I have been successful top cropping yeast if the dip-hop addition is small, (2 oz./56 g or less). But be prepared to lose the ability to harvest yeast if you decide to dip hop. I calculate the IBUs by considering the dip hop as a whirlpool addition. The dip-hop bitterness is softer — very much like a mash-hop addition. This is ideal for hazy IPAs and some less bitter styles, though at times, this soft bitterness has proven to be a bit too soft for my palate and I have adjusted some of my West Coast IPA recipes for a sharper hop note.

Coolpooling

When I started seeing the positive results of dip hopping firsthand, I could not for the life of me understand why more commercial brewers were not doing it. Shortly after starting my journey with dip hopping, Lagunitas made a beer called, “Dip Trip, Free Ride IPA.” In promotional material accompanying the beer at the time, it stated: “The wizard brewers of Lagunitas invented a brand-spankin’-new style of IPA just for IPA Day.” The “brand new” part, which is up for debate, was free rise (no temperature control and dip hopping). After this beer, I heard very little about commercial brewers using the process, but I did hear and see mentions of “coolpooling” from quite a few pro breweries.

Coolpooling is adding hops to cooled wort. Sometimes this addition is in the brew kettle, and other times it is in a secondary vessel. Many commercial brewers do it at 170–180 °F (77–82 °C), but some are known to do it at much cooler temperatures. Some brewers do it in place of whirlpooling in recipes (which consists of adding hops at flameout), and others do both; but either way the goal seems to be the same: Add full hop flavor and aroma without adding bittering.

“We do tend to get better fruit character from the hops with what I’d call a more refined aroma and flavor (through coolpooling),” explains Vinnie Cilurzo, of Russian River Brewing Co. “Bitterness is also lower due to less isomerization, so that needs to be taken into account.”

To learn more about the process of coolpooling, I asked some of the brewers doing it to share how they coolpool with me:

“We get down to about 180–185 °F (82–85 °C) using approximately 10% filtered room temperature water. One of the biggest keys to coolpooling is what temperature water you use. Some brewers will use cold liquor water, which allows you to get a cooler wort by using less diluting water to get to 180–185 °F (82–85 °C).  We are careful to not go below 180 °F (82 °C) as this is the temperature known to keep things sterile.”

– Vinnie Cilurzo, Russian River Brewing

“We don’t add any hops until the coolpool. When we finish our boil (we shorten this to 60 minutes vs. 90 for most of our beers), we run the wort through our counterflow heat exchanger until it reaches 170 °F (77 °C). Then we add a heavy hop addition. We double the contact time we normally use (30 minutes vs. 15 minutes). 

– J. Shilling, Dirt Road Brewing

“I use that technique on a select few of my beers. I pre-chill the entire batch and generally take it to 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) depending on what I am trying to achieve. We begin our 30-minute wort chill about 20 minutes after the whirlpool is complete.”

– John Kimmich, The Alchemist

“I personally haven’t found a big difference in the hop aromatics; we just use whirlpool temperature as a tool for controlling bitterness. Originally, we whirlpool in the kettle, so we’d recirculate through the heat exchanger and back into the kettle to get to the target temperature. Then we’d bypass the heat exchanger and pump for 20 minutes with the hops in there. Then settle for 20 minutes, then run off for ~30 minutes depending on how quickly we could knock-out. We now have a dedicated whirlpool, so we go through a shell and tube heat exchanger onto the hops. Now it’s just the momentum of the transfer that keeps it spinning. Closer to 10 minutes going in, 20-minute rest, 30-minute knockout.”

– Michael Tonsmeire, Sapwood Cellars

Whirlpooling vs. Coolpooling

Whirlpooling hot wort after boiling is used to remove hop material added during the boil. Because the wort is hot enough to isomerize alpha acids, heavy late additions of hops add significant bitterness. When coolpooling, the wort temperature is reduced before the last hot-side hop addition so hop aroma is extracted but alpha acids are not isomerized. Some brewers cool their wort by adding cold water to the kettle and others slightly cool their wort with a wort chiller. With a quicker wort cooling process in coolpooling, brewers are able to preserve terpene compounds and more of the delicate hop flavors and aromas in this hop addition. Rapid cooling also helps prevent the formation of dimethyl sulfide (DMS), a compound that can impart a “cooked vegetable” flavor to beer. In addition to these benefits, the process also aids in settling solids (trub) in the kettle, leading to a clearer beer to transfer out of the fermenter.

With recent products such as Abstrax^® terpene extracts hitting the market, we have more ways to add terpenes to beer later in the process, but if a brewer could avoid the additional expense of these additives, why not? These products still seem like a good thing to have in the brewer’s toolbox to really “dial in” the desired hop flavor profile, but getting a head start helps and many brewers use both to really pack an aromatic punch.

How is Dip Hopping Different Than Coolpooling?

I have found between these two processes that dip hopping suppresses off-flavors while opening up the possibility of accessing new flavors, while coolpooling maintains and enhances more subtle flavors already present in the wort. The big difference in these techniques is that hop solids are removed from wort when coolpooling — as the wort is transferred after a period of coolpooling, leaving the majority behind. Because hop solids remain in the wort/beer when dip hopping, more nucleation sites are added to the fermenting beer. This is why Kirin believes that dip hopping suppresses less desirable “grassy” characteristics of myrcene. Another difference is dip hopping requires sealing the fermenter, ideally preserving more of the aroma compounds.

For commercial brewers, dip hopping can be problematic — which is likely why is isn’t utilized more on the larger scale. Either their systems are not set up to transfer wort to a separate vessel or they lose the ability to harvest yeast due to it, which can be a significant cost factor. Coolpooling seems to be much more easily done on a commercial system. Both methods amplify hop taste and aroma while minimizing bitterness additions, but the science and processes to achieve these results seem very different. Coolpooling is a gentler method for drawing out hop character while preserving subtler flavors that could be overwhelmed by more aggressive methods.

For brewers looking for a harmonious beer, blending the two could help create something more complex with many layers of hop expression, including more subtle flavors that you may have never tasted before. Dip hopping could give that fresh hop hit, while coolpooling could round out the flavors and help integrate them into a more cohesive whole. This approach would definitely require careful consideration of timing and amounts to ensure that the combination isn’t overwhelming, but it’s certainly an interesting avenue to explore.

I see these two processes this way: Dip hopping offers access to new flavors/aromas. Coolpooling gives the brewer a tool to access more subtle flavors/aromas while rounding them out.

My Experience with Coolpooling

In the last few years, I have become focused on the idea of balance in my beers. With IPAs and double IPAs I work with the bitterness units-to-gravity units (BU/GU) ratio as a starting point when designing recipes. A commercial brewer told me he looks at balance using a simple formula of 8–10 IBUs per percentage of alcohol in his finished IPAs. This formula is a quick and easy way to look at the hop balance in my beers, but there is a mathematic formula available to calculate it more precisely. This works with the addition of a “perceived bittering” calculation in addition to the somewhat simpler BU/GU formula. This perceived ratio takes into account the finishing gravity of the beer; sweeter beers do not manifest as bitter on the palate as drier beers do. Neither of these calculators take into account that bittering could be added to the beer with ingredients other than hops, nor do they account for bitterness from hop compounds other than iso-alpha acids.

Since I started looking at this balance ratio, the IBUs in my beers have consistently come down. Some of it is due to a change in my palate, but much of it has to do with the different late-addition processes I now use adding hops to beers. For my test beer I decided to shoot for the low end of the IBU range and see if coolpooling really enhanced the hop expression of flavors and aromatics.

I would commonly design a double IPA recipe like the one to the right with 80 IBUs. However, the Coolpooled IPA calculates to 58, (this results in a BU/GU of 0.725). The IBU range for DIPAs according to the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) is 60–120, so looking at their scale I am at the low end of the range. The final gravity of this beer also did not finish as low as expected, with fermentation stopping at 1.018, which means that it is sweeter than I normally get. I usually hit 1.012–1.014 FG on these styles. If I would have hit these finishing numbers, I would have had an even greater hop punch. I’ll add my reflections on the results following the recipe.

While pineapple from SultanaTM hops are a huge part of Bear Hop IPA, those flavors are complemented by notes of mandarin orange from Centennial and Amarillo® hops.

For homebrewers and consumers of a certain age, we have experienced the IPA style going from maltier English IPAs to beers we’d today refer to as pale ale with much lower hop usage than modern craft brewers use, to extremely bitter West Coast IPAs, to hazy IPAs that fall on the other end of the bitterness spectrum. There have been numerous detours with other sub-styles along the way, of course. More than any other style, IPA seems to constantly be evolving, and each iteration has been popular with consumers. As such, the question being asked by homebrewers once again is, “What will emerge as the next really popular IPA for homebrewers to make?”

I know it is presumptuous for one homebrewer to make the leap thinking he/she knows what the next great homebrewed beer will look like, but I have an opinion. I am pretty sure that anyone who would have predicted the craft beer revolution three decades ago would have been considered crazy. And who thought at that time that hazy beers would become what they are now? 

Today, we find ourselves living in the first few years of a flattening of the growth curve of craft beer and wondering what might come next. We have seen the tip of the beverage iceberg with the growth of ciders, low- or no-ABV beers, hard seltzers, gluten-free options, canned cocktails, and other similar beverages. But there are still many people like us out there who love — and make — beer. And we aren’t going away any time soon.

The last decade has filled the homebrewers’ beer making toolbox with new yeasts, hops, grains, and science. Ten years ago, we never talked about hops adding much in flavor; we only talked about bittering and aromatics. Now, new products and beer science have provided a cornucopia of new flavors for brewers to dive into. How can these advances be used differently to make something new and different?

I believe the next great homebrewed IPA trend will be a well-balanced American IPA; assertive bittering balanced by a solid malt build and hoppy fruit/spice notes on the finish that is enhanced by local products, giving it a nuanced terroir. It will be fresh and taste like the place it was made. And I’m not alone in this prediction — as I interviewed numerous brewers who have helped form, and narrow, my definition of the next great IPA.

OK, so there are some parameters. But how did I come by this prediction, you ask? Let me explain.

Localism

I started sourcing my water from a local spring about five years ago. I have it tested by Ward Labs yearly and have built all of my water chemistry based on this testing. I use dandelion leaves, roots, and flowers from my yard as well as other local flora like wild chamomile, nettle, and candy cap mushrooms. I also grow my own hops. I like to think that all of these add to the local nature and flavor of the beers I make. We’ve already seen the trend of increased attention to local foods, and I think beer has the same appeal for local ingredients.

Michael Ivanicic has been brewing professionally for 13 years, nine of those at Logboat Brewing Company in Columbia, Missouri. Logboat recently went through a major expansion and now distributes beer throughout the state. In regards to the changes in craft beer, Ivanicic believes a greater focus on localism has already begun. “The pub idea has always thrived off of this concept. Beer made right here; in the space you are drinking it.”

Logboat Brewing works hard to have all of their beer consumed as fresh as possible and really believes that the place it is made matters. “I think one of the biggest changes in craft beer is the reversion to localism. I think most consumers who are into craft beer, have their favorite local brewery, and for a good reason, it’s probably their freshest option,” Ivanicic said.

This is one area where homebrewers really shine; we usually drink the freshest beer.

Another way to look at “localism” is using local ingredients to make something distinctive and unique. When you love where you live you want to make something that speaks to that love; it becomes more than just beer. Beer that speaks to the place where it is made will always resonate with the lovers and makers of beer.

Each year, in Northern California where I live, we have a release of Pliny the Younger at Russian River Brewing Company. The success of this limited release triple IPA has spurred a competition of sorts amongst local brewers who try and have their best triple IPA released around the same time. One of the breweries to do this is Henhouse Brewing, which has gained a large following of local beer enthusiasts in a very short time. The promotion of their 2023 “Big Chicken” release hits to the point of localism. From the brewery:

“As we are about to launch our smaller pub brewery in Fairfax, California, our brewers are excited about the fact that the smaller scale of these batches, and less mechanized processes we will be using in Fairfax, will open them up to working with smaller local producers of malts and hops. With this on the horizon (and on our brewers’ minds) our Big Chicken 2023 recipe is indicative of the locally sourced West Coast Style IPAs they plan to make a large part of our West County Pub brewery output. Big Chicken 2023 will feature: Barley grown in Petaluma by our friends at Crane Ranch. This barley will then make the short trip to Alameda, California, where it will be malted by our friends at Admiral Maltings. (It) will feature Mosaic^® hops from Loftus Ranches, Simcoe^® hops from Coleman Agriculture, Cascade hops from Green Acre Farms, and Centennial hops from our friends at Crosby Hop Farm.”

Brewers across the country have released beers with similar themes — locally grown malts, hops, and other ingredients. Tim Decker from Admiral Maltings thinks grains could be the key for many brewers to make their next IPA more “local.”

“Hops have always been at the forefront of IPA, and continuous research and development have unlocked diverse hop expressions. New England IPAs, for example, sparked conversations around water chemistry and non-barley malts, while West Coast IPAs pushed for leaner, paler base malts to emphasize hop flavors. However, this hop-centric approach often overshadowed the importance of a complex malt foundation. Today, there’s a growing awareness among brewers about the role of malt in shaping IPA’s flavor profile.”

While we homebrewers in Northern California do not have access to many locally grown grains, there are some that are more local than others. We have a maltster based in Sonoma County called Grizzly Malts that offers small batches of California-grown grains. The beers I have had using these grains do have a unique quality to them, which is a common trend I’ve heard from homebrewers across the country, and beyond, about products from small-scale maltsters who are often working with grains grown outside of the most popular areas where the big maltsters’ grains come from. Unique flavors and, again, a sign of your terroir in ever glass.

The American IPA Returns

To better grasp where the future of IPA lies, we need to get a feel for what trends are happening in tasting rooms.

“Currently we are seeing a shift back to traditional styles from consumers, which is validating for being a stalwart for more traditional styles and methods. Styles and traditions that exist for so long continue to thrive because they work,” Ivanicic said.

J Shilling, Head Brewer at Dirt Road Brewing in Philomath, Oregon, says he’s noticing a similar trend. Shilling has been brewing professionally for eight years, during which time the beers being consumed, and made, have evolved. The juicy and hazy IPAs used to be the majority of the IPAs being sold at Dirt Road.  “I can report that the pendulum has swung back. We are about 50/50 on sales of our West Coast vs. our juicy/hazy IPAs,” Shilling said. 

Brian Rooney, who along with his wife owns BKS Artisan Ales in Kansas City, Missouri, says he has seen a shift from what used to be extremely bitter West Coast IPAs and hazy IPAs with very little bitterness to a balance somewhere between the two. “I think we are seeing both West Coast and hazy becoming much paler in color and I’m also seeing an interesting trend with softer bitterness in IPA. What I mean by ‘softer bitterness’ is the IBUs aren’t as ‘grippy’ on the tongue. They’re still there, and balance the entire beer, but come across the taste buds much smoother and softer,” Rooney said. 

These trends are significant to the homebrewer because we are guided and influenced by the beer we drink in our particular area. Sometimes, what we have at our local watering hole makes us pine for something different. Sometimes, we love what we have available and want to make a beer like it. Clones of favorite local beers are spoken about with pride amongst local brewers and unusual addends attract the attention of those who taste our beer. Often, we think we can make them better.

New Science

Another development in beer science that might find its way into the next IPA might be an even greater focus on biotransformation. This topic has been discussed with excitement for the past decade and continues as more is being learned all the time. Thiol-producing yeasts from Escarpment, Omega, and Lallemand have the potential to unleash new hop flavors and aromas during fermentation, and this trend seems to be continuing to grow.

Steve Thanos, a primary contributor to the Brülosophy blog, believes this is the area that will continue to gain steam as IPAs evolve. “Maybe this ‘new IPA’ will contain some biotransformation when it comes to yeast,” he mused.

Lance Shaner, from Omega Yeast, thinks so: “From a yeast perspective, thiol-producing yeasts are certainly one thing to mention. And it’s not just on how to maximize thiols but instead how to work thiols into the overall profile so that they’re not dominant, but complementary.”

Thiol enhancement has been the buzz for a while now but is talked about very little by commercial makers. I think this technology has the ability to change the face of what we know about hop flavors and aromatics in a significant way. Products like Phantasm powder and thiol-enhanced yeasts are becoming the subject of stories in the craft beer world more and more these days and the target of these conversations is IPAs. 

Other new hop products that pack a punch of hoppiness without the green matter are also changing the IPA landscape. “What I am seeing is the refinement of West Coast IPA and hazy IPA through the use of new hop products, new types of malts, and yeast products. Things like Incognito^®, HyperBoost^TM, SubZero Hop Kief^®, hop terpenes, modified yeast strains, and integrating lighter-colored Pilsner malt into hoppy beer to continually pull back malt character and put hops at the forefront as much as possible,” says Rooney, of BKS Artisan Ales. 

I did some experiments with my brew partner a few years ago with thiol-enhanced products. Between the two of us, we made eight different thiol-enhanced IPAs in a two-year period using Omega Cryo Pop, Omega Cosmic Punch, and Omega Helio Gazer yeasts. We became convinced that these beers maintained enhanced aromatics over a longer period of bottle time. This alone makes the whole thiol trend worth exploring. Add to this the possibility of opening up new flavors from older, less expensive varieties of hops and it is very appealing.

I have also had good results boosting aroma using Lallemand’s Aromazyme^TM, a food-grade enzyme preparation derived from Aspergillus niger to help release additional volatile aroma compounds. Biotransformation offers a lot of possibilities and many of them have yet to be fully explored. Thiols and terpene adjustments add other powerful elements to the homebrewers’ toolbox. It will be interesting to see how these tools will impact the beers of the future.

So how does all this information affect the homebrewer and what they might make as the next great homebrewed IPA? I believe craft beer makers are driven by what is commercially available in their part of the world. Sometimes they want to make something very different from what is available, but more often than not, what is in the market leads them towards clone recipes and attempts to duplicate their favorite beers or make them even better. We are innovators and experimenters. With our smaller volumes we can push the boundaries.

The key word I am hearing from many different brewers right now regarding IPAs is “balance.” The days of beers boasting about containing 100 IBUs is done and gone. The days of BU/GU (bitterness units divided by the gravity units ) ratio is here to stay. 

Evolution

“Through all this change — the evolution of IPA, advances in technology, access to unique ingredients, and shifting industry dynamics — brewers are beginning to approach IPA recipes holistically. Every ingredient must earn its place, working together to create a beer greater than the sum of its parts. Looking ahead, I believe IPAs will continue to reflect a diverse range of approaches shaped by individual brewers’ philosophies,” Decker said.

These individual philosophies will drive us homebrewers to experiment with new products and techniques and lead to the discovery of new flavors.

Craft beer took off because consumers wanted something different from the monoculture of light American lager. Ironically, one could argue, many of these brewers who wanted to diversify what is available to beer drinkers have created the same paradox today with non-descript hazy IPAs that fill out a tasting room’s menu. This, in turn, could create the next wave of brewers bringing a different approach.

Marika Josephson, Owner of Scratch Brewing in Ava, Illinois, believes the way to change what’s available today may require the next generation of craft brewers (today’s homebrewers). “(Today’s brewers) are fighting a monoculture of hazy IPA and sticky imperial stouts. To make craft beer relevant to a wider net of people requires a diversity of voices. That’s just a fact. Without that diversity we’ll only be able to keep courting the same small demographic, and quite frankly that demographic is getting burned out by the same flavors.”

I am hopeful that what we are seeing and hearing about in the commercial beer world is true; a return to the American IPA. An IPA that has balance and full flavor. An IPA that can incorporate everything we have learned, and continue to learn, about enzymes, yeasts, hops, grains, and processes. An IPA with new twists, unique local flavors and aromas, and the freshest ingredients. An IPA that will have broad appeal to all the craft beer lovers of the world; both makers and consumers. I look forward to the next great homebrewed IPA, and leave you with a few bullets on how one may design that beer:

1. Recipe Development

Begin by making your recipe. A typical American IPA might have an OG (original gravity) around 1.055–1.070, with a moderately high ABV (around 6–7.5%). You can adjust the bitterness (IBUs) to your preference, but aim for a balanced approach.

2. Terroir

Highlight the local characteristics in your flavor profile. For example, if your region is known for citrus fruits, consider incorporating those flavors through the hops or adjuncts. Is there a small maltster nearby? Check out their offerings and how the unique flavors they offer may shape your beer.

3. Experimentation

Don’t hesitate to brew small test batches with different combinations of hops, adjuncts, and thiol-enhancing products to find the perfect balance. This is a great way to refine your recipe before scaling up.

4. Fermentation

Use a clean-fermenting yeast strain (like the Chico strain, or even the Lutra kveik strain from Omega) that allows the hop flavors to shine through, or consider a thiol-enhancing yeast for an added boost. 

With this approach, I took a stab at creating a very pleasant IPA that hits on many of the factors discussed in this story, which you can find below. Will it be representative of the next great IPA homebrewers are enjoying in years to come? Only time will tell, but I’m enjoying it today!

I shouldn’t be so conflicted writing about a style I really enjoy, but I’m a bit uncertain how to characterize cold IPA. My basic dilemma is whether to talk about it as a new, distinct style, or to think about it more as the natural evolution of American IPA. While it’s tempting to present it as a distinct style — especially given its clean, dry finish and crisp hop profile — I suspect it may actually represent what IPAs are becoming. With a flavor profile reminiscent of a West Coast IPA, yet paler, drier, and often smoother, cold IPA typically lands in the mid-6% to nearly 8% ABV range. Whether it’s a reinvention or a refinement, its growing popularity suggests it’s worth paying attention to.

Cold IPA absolutely has an origin story, but how other brewers are making it can be seen as the complicating factor. One mistake I would rather avoid making is describing the style based on how the original example was made since that ignores the range of the style. When I think about the changes to make to the American IPA style to allow it to encompass cold IPA, the changes are actually fairly minimal. But when I drink the beer, it seems like something a bit different.

OK, I’ve teased you enough. Cold IPA is not currently recognized as a Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP) style. It could be entered in the 21B Specialty IPA category, with an explanation that it is a cold IPA. A short explanation of the recipe changes from an American IPA (21A) could be sufficient, or judges may insert their own judgment about what constitutes a cold IPA (admittedly, a risky choice, depending on the competition and the experience of the judges).

History

I’ve written extensively in these pages about the history of IPA, the original English IPA, and how IPA evolved into more modern American forms such as the popular West Coast IPA (which covers much of the current American IPA style). I’ve also written about the other current American IPA, the hazy IPA. Cold IPA is essentially a tweak of West Coast IPA using some process and ingredient changes inspired by lager brewing.

Cold IPA was a project of Kevin Davey while he was Brewmaster at Wayfinder Beer in Portland, Oregon. They first released the beer in October 2018 as Relapse IPA, but it has since been renamed to Wayfinder Original Cold IPA. It became very popular and trendy in the times when we were emerging from the COVID pandemic, especially in 2022 and 2023. While no longer having the newness buzz it once had, it remains a popular style of beer even if it is not consistently named.

After I judged at the Great American Beer Festival in 2022, I sought out Kevin Davey at Wayfinder for his firsthand take on the style and what he thought of other examples. I found it notable that he had high praise for Firestone Walker’s Hopnosis IPA, even though Matt Brynildson used another path to get to a similar result. Remember this moment, since it is the basis of my problem with characterizing the style, as I discuss later.

Many articles were written introducing the style, offering recipes, and discussing the origin. Perhaps with the recent memory of brut IPA still fresh, the messaging around the beer and the style was noticeably different. However, the comparison with brut IPA is apt because it shared the same goal of cold IPA — to be a drier, more drinkable, clearer counterpart to the hazy IPA juggernaut. 

Wayfinder themselves describes cold IPA as “Wester than West Coast,” implying that the essence of a great West Coast IPA is at the heart of the style. It also introduces lager yeast (potentially) but tries to avoid the issues that surrounded the so-called India pale lager, or IPL — most notably how the sulfur from lager yeast and fermentation would often clash with the sulfur in many modern hops. Stan Hieronymus had previously described to me that beers had a kind of sulfur limit or budget that couldn’t be exceeded without having detrimental sensory effects (meaning, that it becomes unpleasant to drink). It’s a concept that I think has merit and I hope to explore more in the future.

The original cold IPA at Wayfinder was distinguished from a West Coast IPA by using rice or corn adjuncts like an American lager or cream ale, using a clean, low-sulfur lager yeast fermented warmer than is typical, fermenting totally dry with a lower final gravity, and using some biotransformation methods with hopping during fermentation. The lower final gravity means that overall bitterness should be reduced (as in brut IPA) to achieve a more drinkable balance. 

Sensory Profile

A cold IPA has a similar profile to a West Coast IPA, but is often paler, drier, and smoother. The alcohol strength is similar, from mid-6% to nearly 8%, but the starting and finishing gravities are often lower to gain the additional dryness. The apparent bitterness level is similar, but measured IBUs could be a little lower (45–70) due to the dry finish. 

The beer can be quite pale, especially in variations using rice. The color can be as low as 2.5 SRM, but shouldn’t get into the gold colors. Clarity can be excellent, although a light haze is possible in unfiltered versions. 

The malt profile is relatively neutral, and caramel flavors should be absent. Bitterness is significant, in the medium-high to high range, but a clean bitterness profile without harshness is most desirable. The hop flavor and aroma should be substantial, and can take many directions. Many versions feature biotransformation effects with additional tropical fruit character, but all classic American IPA hop descriptors could be used. A fresh dry-hopped character is typical.

The body is low to medium-low (possibly a shade lighter than West Coast IPA), and the beer is well-carbonated. The palate seems smooth, and any alcohol should not be too evident. Fermentation character can seem relatively neutral to lightly fruity and should complement the hops, not clash with them. The sulfur content (from any source, including water) should be relatively low to not fight with the hops.

From a sensory standpoint, the beer is slightly different from a West Coast IPA, but not so different that a reworked American IPA style description couldn’t cover it. I worry more about the potential overlap between a hypothetical cold IPA style and the American or West Coast IPA style, and whether judges could reliably distinguish these differences in competitions.

Brewing Ingredients and Methods

This is where the differences between excellent commercial examples comes into play. If we examine Wayfinder’s version, they use corn or rice adjuncts — which have the same starch composition as barley with 75% amylopectin and 25% amylose, but the absence of a husk leads to a lighter resulting beer with less soluble protein. Firestone Walker, on the other hand, uses an all-malt grist with a German-inspired step mash. Which is correct? Both are, since they each lead to a similar sensory result. But this causes problems if attempting to define the beer by its use of adjuncts since there is such a notable counter-example.

Malt is generally a pale North American variety without too much flavor. I think some German Pilsner malt could be used in the grist as well, but I wouldn’t want it to add a dominant flavor. Adding too much additional character malt could give the beer too much color as well. The modern West Coast IPA trend of avoiding crystal malts at all costs is fully in play. Anything dark has no place in this style.

Lager yeast is typically used for fermentation, but with a warmer fermentation to help drive off sulfur. The classic German SafLager W-34/70 strain is frequently mentioned as suitable for this style. Neutral ale yeast or a Kölsch yeast are often mentioned as possible substitutes, especially when used with a cooler than standard ale fermentation regime. Again, multiple paths to get to the same sensory goal — a low-sulfur, clean, well-fermented beer.

Water composition eschews the Burtonization methods and sulfate-rich composition for a more neutral profile. Any calcium additions to aid mash performance should be done with the goal of keeping the finished sulfur levels low, which leads me to choose calcium chloride more frequently.

The hop methods pick up some modern methods from hazy IPAs that are more frequently being applied to American IPAs, including biotransformation through dry hopping during active fermentation. Various late hopping techniques can be used, with nothing ruled out. Hop choices are up to the brewer, as long as they display modern American IPA characteristics, even if they come from New World locations such as New Zealand. Again, the sensory goal is the target more than the method. New hop forms and products may be used if they are increasing hop character while minimizing detrimental effects of overhopping, such as hop burn.

I realize these descriptions are not very explicit in the path, but that is intentional since I am trying to characterize the goal is more important than the many possible methods and ingredients to reach it. Finding an approach that works on your system is the key to success. 

I would like to emphasize that the methods I’m describing really do illustrate the ways that modern ingredients and techniques used in other styles (even hazy IPA) are finding their way into this style. This helps support the notion that the American or West Coast IPA may be evolving, as it did in the late 1990s and early 2000s when brewers started moving away from crystal malts and started developing (or rediscovering) additional methods of late hopping.

Homebrew Example

My example uses some of the modern IPA techniques advocated by Kevin Davey and Matt Brynildson, while using some of my tried-and-true favorite IPA methods. It uses a neutral pale American base malt and rice, but without any cereal mashes. I use step mashing for extra attenuation as well. The hopping is all Mosaic®, something I have used to great success in double IPAs, with the nod to Firestone Walker by making some of them Cryo^TM hops. Lager yeast is fermented warmer than typical, with both fermentation hopping for biotransformation and traditional dry hopping.

There is some wiggle room on this recipe, of course. Any pale, neutral malt combination can be used as the base. Corn can be used instead of rice, but I’m not looking for any corn flavor or impression of sweetness, so I stick to rice, which also helps keep the color light. Step mashing is my preferred choice for dry, well-attenuated beers, but if you can only do a single infusion, keep it low, like at 149 °F (65 °C).

Cold IPA is indeed a blank canvas for hops, so you can use your own choices as well. I’m not going super bitter since it is a dry beer, and I’m emphasizing the late additions for maximum aroma and flavor. Normal hops can be substituted if Cryo^TM hops are unavailable, but I would still use the two-stage dry hopping approach.

Other yeast can be used, as long as it is a low sulfur producer. A clean, neutral ale yeast can be used. Some use a Kölsch yeast, although I find they can be a bit sulfury. The warmer lager fermentation temperature is more for reducing sulfur than producing esters, and can be conducted slightly warmer if desired (64–68 °F/18–20 °C).

The goal here is for a very light colored, dry, clean, and crisp beer with a strong hop character and a smooth palate. The hop aroma should be substantial, but the overall profile should seem relatively neutral. For those who like lagers, especially hoppy lagers, this beer should be appealing. Just don’t tell me what it’s called or ask me how to categorize it; I’m still thinking about how best to handle it. In the meantime, bring me another one of these. The last one is gone.