In the previous post I mentioned my thermometer problems. I have a new thermometer on the way that will solve my thermometer issues. For now, I have beer that's too thick. I can live. I'll have to make a session beer soon, since the amber that I was looking forward to appears to have stopped fermentation at a dextrinous 1.020. That session beer will either be inspired by Rogue's American Amber or Left Hand's Sawtooth Ale. The former case will involve dark crystal and special B malts on a 2-row base with a neutral but strong bitterness, the later, lighter crystal, munich and 2-row and less bitterness. I'll probably do the finishing hops as I desire, rather than try to imitate their finishing hop profiles exactly.
Anyway, there's a certain liberation that comes from these failures, as I'm now re-commited to my step-mashing program but, since I've yet to implement it, I can reconsider how I will go with it. The plan is that each beer have a two-step conversion, one at 145 and one at 155 followed by a mash out (protein rest optional.) The 155 rest is invariably 45 minutes, while the 145 rest time is varied to control the fermentability of the mash. It seems to me that in practice, the 155 rest need not be so long if the 145 rest is long; most mashes don't need to exceed 1 hour. The thought I'm toying with is that once I've established the results of these various step-mash procedures, I'm going to trying reducing the length of the 155 step for those mashes with a 30+ minute 145 step.
I've considered reducing the temperature of the 145 step. The goal of that step is primarily to use beta-amylase to produce maltose; secondarily it is to gelatinize the barley. There's no reason to be bothered by the other amylase activity. Then I decided against this while trying to find a curve of activity of limit dextrinase as a function of temperature; I discovered this while following a citation in Palmer. The conclusion of this article is that limit dextrinase activity is more strongly correlated with wort fermentability that either alpha- or beta-amylase activity, and the abstract quotes 63-65 degrees C (145-149 F) as maximizing limit dextrinase activity in actual mash conditions. I didn't order the article, so I can get into the details of it, however, I suspect that because of the low levels of limit dextrines available during the early parts of a 145 rest, the activity of limit dextrinase will be less important. However, for a long mash, it will become very important. This also suggests the importance of the rest to 155 for conversion completion: limit dextrinase activity will quickly cease because it is 5 degrees from it's preferred temperature range and two degrees warmer than its denaturing temperature.
I want to make a beer now.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
What the fuck is going on? Three straight beers have underattenuated. I think my step mashing program is fucked. Stormtrooper is its last chance. If it doesn't hit middling for the attenuation range for White Labs California Ale Yeast, then I'm fucking scraping all the step mashing unless my new thermometer tells a tale that convinces me that the problem was temperature.
That reminds me: where is my new thermometer?
Update, about one hour later:
Curiosity is nagging at me. Could the whole problem be my thermometer? I've "calibrated" it recently, but for all I know, that fucked it up. I have another thermometer. I don't trust it, but if the two are close to one another, like within a few degrees, well, that's reason to think they're not nuts.
Tap water test. Cold tap water. Hot tap water. Coffee pot water. Seven. Seven degrees. Seven fucking degrees. That's like mashing way too fucking hot. It's like it because indiscernable from it because identical with it. If I thought it was 145, it was 152. If I though 155, 162. Too fucking hot. Oh god, oh god. Or else, too cold--way too cold. But I think too hot. Too hot explains my recent, dramatic, underattenuation problems. Soon, that new thermometer I ordered will arrive and I will verify this all... And we shall see.
I still hold hope for Stormtrooper. It may have been mashed as hot at 153 for an hour, followed by 162, but 153 for an hour is a decent rest for a single step infusion. Enough to make a pretty good beer, if not the well attenuated IPA I was seeking.
That reminds me: where is my new thermometer?
Update, about one hour later:
Curiosity is nagging at me. Could the whole problem be my thermometer? I've "calibrated" it recently, but for all I know, that fucked it up. I have another thermometer. I don't trust it, but if the two are close to one another, like within a few degrees, well, that's reason to think they're not nuts.
Tap water test. Cold tap water. Hot tap water. Coffee pot water. Seven. Seven degrees. Seven fucking degrees. That's like mashing way too fucking hot. It's like it because indiscernable from it because identical with it. If I thought it was 145, it was 152. If I though 155, 162. Too fucking hot. Oh god, oh god. Or else, too cold--way too cold. But I think too hot. Too hot explains my recent, dramatic, underattenuation problems. Soon, that new thermometer I ordered will arrive and I will verify this all... And we shall see.
I still hold hope for Stormtrooper. It may have been mashed as hot at 153 for an hour, followed by 162, but 153 for an hour is a decent rest for a single step infusion. Enough to make a pretty good beer, if not the well attenuated IPA I was seeking.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
I have a new fun thing to think about, The Menu. Basically, the story is that you imagine yourself owning a pub and you try to figure out six beers you'd serve, justify that menu, and consider how you would describe them. Now, the challenge is to have a menu that has broad appeal without ever once even for a moment sacrificing one iota of integrity. Indeed, the menu should testify to your integrity.
Here's the menu I have and my descriptions of the beers as I imagine them, not necessarily as I would describe them to a customer.
-Pale Ale: the flagship beer, the finishes dry and clean with bitterness counteracting the malt. A slightly fruity yeast character, honey and light caramel in the malt, subtle hints of american citrus hops complimented by floral and earthy hop flavors and aroma. Imagine the love child of AleSmith X and Fuller's London Pride. O.G. 1.044, 38 IBU
-Amber Ale: an american amber with more in common with a british best bitter than an american pale. Well bittered, but balanced by solid base malt and caramel flavors; finished with british hops. Malty yeast. O.G. 1.052, 34 IBU
-Oatmeal Stout: a serious stout with the smoothness of oatmeal, this is a bitter, roasty beer, the kind of thing tough guys order because they think "dark beer have alcohol more!" Fermented with a fruity yeast that compliments the roast character of the beer. O.G. 1.059, 43 IBU
-Porter: a brown porter in the spirit of Fuller's London Porter, caramel character comes through to balance the roast character of chocolate malt. Fermented with an oaky, malty yeast. O.G. 1.047 29 IBU
-Weiss Bier: bavarian wheat beer, true to the style. 60% wheat, 40% pale malt. The character comes from a bavarian wheat ale yeast. 1.044, 17 IBU
-IPA: thoroughly american in style, citrusy hops, solid malt, but finishing dry and assertively bitter. Clean, dry yeast. O.G. 1.066 55 IBU
Notes and justifications: The pale ale should be light in color; this beer is a session beer and should suggest as much. I want a beer too reserved for San Diego, but too dry for Seattle. The amber is a chance for the lover of british beer; let the malt shine, but never forget balance and drinkability. The choice to include two black beers is risky, but I think it's high time american respect that black in beer is not one thing; a side-by-side tasting of these two beers is going to reveal the difference. The oatmeal stout is going to be full bodied, while the porter will be light, the porter oaky while the stout is fruity, the porter will balance the roast character with caramel dark crystal malts, while the oatmeal stout lets roast rule with support from hop bitterness. Weiss Bier is Bavarian Weizen; in my mind this style involves little latitude for interpretation, and plenty of longetude for appreciation. The IPA is familiar to you if you know American IPA.
Here's the menu I have and my descriptions of the beers as I imagine them, not necessarily as I would describe them to a customer.
-Pale Ale: the flagship beer, the finishes dry and clean with bitterness counteracting the malt. A slightly fruity yeast character, honey and light caramel in the malt, subtle hints of american citrus hops complimented by floral and earthy hop flavors and aroma. Imagine the love child of AleSmith X and Fuller's London Pride. O.G. 1.044, 38 IBU
-Amber Ale: an american amber with more in common with a british best bitter than an american pale. Well bittered, but balanced by solid base malt and caramel flavors; finished with british hops. Malty yeast. O.G. 1.052, 34 IBU
-Oatmeal Stout: a serious stout with the smoothness of oatmeal, this is a bitter, roasty beer, the kind of thing tough guys order because they think "dark beer have alcohol more!" Fermented with a fruity yeast that compliments the roast character of the beer. O.G. 1.059, 43 IBU
-Porter: a brown porter in the spirit of Fuller's London Porter, caramel character comes through to balance the roast character of chocolate malt. Fermented with an oaky, malty yeast. O.G. 1.047 29 IBU
-Weiss Bier: bavarian wheat beer, true to the style. 60% wheat, 40% pale malt. The character comes from a bavarian wheat ale yeast. 1.044, 17 IBU
-IPA: thoroughly american in style, citrusy hops, solid malt, but finishing dry and assertively bitter. Clean, dry yeast. O.G. 1.066 55 IBU
Notes and justifications: The pale ale should be light in color; this beer is a session beer and should suggest as much. I want a beer too reserved for San Diego, but too dry for Seattle. The amber is a chance for the lover of british beer; let the malt shine, but never forget balance and drinkability. The choice to include two black beers is risky, but I think it's high time american respect that black in beer is not one thing; a side-by-side tasting of these two beers is going to reveal the difference. The oatmeal stout is going to be full bodied, while the porter will be light, the porter oaky while the stout is fruity, the porter will balance the roast character with caramel dark crystal malts, while the oatmeal stout lets roast rule with support from hop bitterness. Weiss Bier is Bavarian Weizen; in my mind this style involves little latitude for interpretation, and plenty of longetude for appreciation. The IPA is familiar to you if you know American IPA.
I have a new fun thing to think about, The Menu. Basically, the story is that you imagine yourself owning a pub and you try to figure out six beers you'd serve, justify that menu, and consider how you would describe them. Now, the challenge is to have a menu that has broad appeal without ever once even for a moment sacrificing one iota of integrity. Indeed, the menu should testify to your integrity.
Here's the menu I have and my descriptions of the beers as I imagine them, not necessarily as I would describe them to a customer.
-Pale Ale: the flagship beer, the finishes dry and clean with bitterness counteracting the malt. A slightly fruity yeast character, honey and light caramel in the malt, subtle hints of american citrus hops complimented by floral and earthy hop flavors and aroma. Imagine the love child of AleSmith X and Fuller's London Pride. O.G. 1.044, 38 IBU
-Amber Ale: an american amber with more in common with a british best bitter than an american pale. Well bittered, but balanced by solid base malt and caramel flavors; finished with british hops. Malty yeast. O.G. 1.052, 34 IBU
-Oatmeal Stout: a serious stout with the smoothness of oatmeal, this is a bitter, roasty beer, the kind of thing tough guys order because they think "dark beer have alcohol more!" Fermented with a fruity yeast that compliments the roast character of the beer. O.G. 1.059, 43 IBU
-Porter: a brown porter in the spirit of Fuller's London Porter, caramel character comes through to balance the roast character of chocolate malt. Fermented with an oaky, malty yeast. O.G. 1.047 29 IBU
-Weiss Bier: bavarian wheat beer, true to the style. 60% wheat, 40% pale malt. The character comes from a bavarian wheat ale yeast. 1.044, 17 IBU
-IPA: thoroughly american in style, citrusy hops, solid malt, but finishing dry and assertively bitter. Clean, dry yeast. O.G. 1.066 55 IBU
Notes and justifications: The pale ale should be light in color; this beer is a session beer and should suggest as much. I want a beer too reserved for San Diego, but too dry for Seattle. The amber is a chance for the lover of british beer; let the malt shine, but never forget balance and drinkability. The choice to include two black beers is risky, but I think it's high time american respect that black in beer is not one thing; a side-by-side tasting of these two beers is going to reveal the difference. The oatmeal stout is going to be full bodied, while the porter will be light, the porter oaky while the stout is fruity, the porter will balance the roast character with caramel dark crystal malts, while the oatmeal stout lets roast rule with support from hop bitterness. Weiss Bier is Bavarian Weizen; in my mind this style involves little latitude for interpretation, and plenty of longetude for appreciation. The IPA is familiar to you if you know American IPA.
Here's the menu I have and my descriptions of the beers as I imagine them, not necessarily as I would describe them to a customer.
-Pale Ale: the flagship beer, the finishes dry and clean with bitterness counteracting the malt. A slightly fruity yeast character, honey and light caramel in the malt, subtle hints of american citrus hops complimented by floral and earthy hop flavors and aroma. Imagine the love child of AleSmith X and Fuller's London Pride. O.G. 1.044, 38 IBU
-Amber Ale: an american amber with more in common with a british best bitter than an american pale. Well bittered, but balanced by solid base malt and caramel flavors; finished with british hops. Malty yeast. O.G. 1.052, 34 IBU
-Oatmeal Stout: a serious stout with the smoothness of oatmeal, this is a bitter, roasty beer, the kind of thing tough guys order because they think "dark beer have alcohol more!" Fermented with a fruity yeast that compliments the roast character of the beer. O.G. 1.059, 43 IBU
-Porter: a brown porter in the spirit of Fuller's London Porter, caramel character comes through to balance the roast character of chocolate malt. Fermented with an oaky, malty yeast. O.G. 1.047 29 IBU
-Weiss Bier: bavarian wheat beer, true to the style. 60% wheat, 40% pale malt. The character comes from a bavarian wheat ale yeast. 1.044, 17 IBU
-IPA: thoroughly american in style, citrusy hops, solid malt, but finishing dry and assertively bitter. Clean, dry yeast. O.G. 1.066 55 IBU
Notes and justifications: The pale ale should be light in color; this beer is a session beer and should suggest as much. I want a beer too reserved for San Diego, but too dry for Seattle. The amber is a chance for the lover of british beer; let the malt shine, but never forget balance and drinkability. The choice to include two black beers is risky, but I think it's high time american respect that black in beer is not one thing; a side-by-side tasting of these two beers is going to reveal the difference. The oatmeal stout is going to be full bodied, while the porter will be light, the porter oaky while the stout is fruity, the porter will balance the roast character with caramel dark crystal malts, while the oatmeal stout lets roast rule with support from hop bitterness. Weiss Bier is Bavarian Weizen; in my mind this style involves little latitude for interpretation, and plenty of longetude for appreciation. The IPA is familiar to you if you know American IPA.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
If I ask where my fantasies come from, I'm apt to get a response; I don't really want to know.
Yes, Mr. Nextweek, this is going to be the magical batch with leftovers! Here's something I know about my brewing process: there are no leftovers, ever.
Yes, Mr. Nextweek, this is going to be the magical batch with leftovers! Here's something I know about my brewing process: there are no leftovers, ever.
Stormtrooper
A ProMash Recipe Report
BJCP Style and Style Guidelines
-------------------------------
14-C India Pale Ale, Imperial IPA
Min OG: 1.075 Max OG: 1.108
Min IBU: 60 Max IBU: 100
Min Clr: 8 Max Clr: 15 Color in SRM, Lovibond
Recipe Specifics
----------------
Batch Size (Gal): 5.20 Wort Size (Gal): 5.20
Total Grain (Lbs): 16.00
Anticipated OG: 1.083 Plato: 20.06
Anticipated SRM: 8.1
Anticipated IBU: 93.5
Brewhouse Efficiency: 75 %
Wort Boil Time: 60 Minutes
Pre-Boil Amounts
----------------
Evaporation Rate: 15.00 Percent Per Hour
Pre-Boil Wort Size: 6.12 Gal
Pre-Boil Gravity: 1.071 SG 17.23 Plato
Grain/Extract/Sugar
% Amount Name Origin Potential SRM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
79.7 12.75 lbs. Pale Malt(2-row) America 1.036 2
14.1 2.25 lbs. Munich Malt Germany 1.037 8
6.3 1.00 lbs. Crystal 20L America 1.035 20
Potential represented as SG per pound per gallon.
Hops
Amount Name Form Alpha IBU Boil Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00 oz. Cascade Pellet 5.30 6.0 First WH
1.00 oz. Willamette Pellet 4.60 5.2 First WH
2.00 oz. Magnum Pellet 11.72 75.5 60 min.
1.00 oz. Willamette Pellet 4.60 5.4 10 min.
2.00 oz. Cascade Pellet 5.30 1.5 1 min.
1.00 oz. Centennial Pellet 8.50 0.0 Dry Hop
Extras
Amount Name Type Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.08 Oz Irish Moss Fining 15 Min.(boil)
Yeast
-----
White Labs WLP001 California Ale
Mash Schedule
-------------
Mash Name: 45-45-out
Total Grain Lbs: 16.00
Total Water Qts: 24.00 - Before Additional Infusions
Total Water Gal: 6.00 - Before Additional Infusions
Tun Thermal Mass: 0.00
Grain Temp: 80.00 F
Step Rest Start Stop Heat Infuse Infuse Infuse
Step Name Time Time Temp Temp Type Temp Amount Ratio
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Conversion 5 45 145 145 Infuse 153 24.00 1.50
2nd Conversion 5 45 155 155 Direct --- ------- ----
Mash Out 5 5 167 167 Direct --- ------- ----
Total Water Qts: 24.00 - After Additional Infusions
Total Water Gal: 6.00 - After Additional Infusions
Total Mash Volume Gal: 7.28 - After Additional Infusions
All temperature measurements are degrees Fahrenheit.
All infusion amounts are in Quarts.
All infusion ratios are Quarts/Lbs.
A ProMash Recipe Report
BJCP Style and Style Guidelines
-------------------------------
14-C India Pale Ale, Imperial IPA
Min OG: 1.075 Max OG: 1.108
Min IBU: 60 Max IBU: 100
Min Clr: 8 Max Clr: 15 Color in SRM, Lovibond
Recipe Specifics
----------------
Batch Size (Gal): 5.20 Wort Size (Gal): 5.20
Total Grain (Lbs): 16.00
Anticipated OG: 1.083 Plato: 20.06
Anticipated SRM: 8.1
Anticipated IBU: 93.5
Brewhouse Efficiency: 75 %
Wort Boil Time: 60 Minutes
Pre-Boil Amounts
----------------
Evaporation Rate: 15.00 Percent Per Hour
Pre-Boil Wort Size: 6.12 Gal
Pre-Boil Gravity: 1.071 SG 17.23 Plato
Grain/Extract/Sugar
% Amount Name Origin Potential SRM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
79.7 12.75 lbs. Pale Malt(2-row) America 1.036 2
14.1 2.25 lbs. Munich Malt Germany 1.037 8
6.3 1.00 lbs. Crystal 20L America 1.035 20
Potential represented as SG per pound per gallon.
Hops
Amount Name Form Alpha IBU Boil Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00 oz. Cascade Pellet 5.30 6.0 First WH
1.00 oz. Willamette Pellet 4.60 5.2 First WH
2.00 oz. Magnum Pellet 11.72 75.5 60 min.
1.00 oz. Willamette Pellet 4.60 5.4 10 min.
2.00 oz. Cascade Pellet 5.30 1.5 1 min.
1.00 oz. Centennial Pellet 8.50 0.0 Dry Hop
Extras
Amount Name Type Time
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.08 Oz Irish Moss Fining 15 Min.(boil)
Yeast
-----
White Labs WLP001 California Ale
Mash Schedule
-------------
Mash Name: 45-45-out
Total Grain Lbs: 16.00
Total Water Qts: 24.00 - Before Additional Infusions
Total Water Gal: 6.00 - Before Additional Infusions
Tun Thermal Mass: 0.00
Grain Temp: 80.00 F
Step Rest Start Stop Heat Infuse Infuse Infuse
Step Name Time Time Temp Temp Type Temp Amount Ratio
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Conversion 5 45 145 145 Infuse 153 24.00 1.50
2nd Conversion 5 45 155 155 Direct --- ------- ----
Mash Out 5 5 167 167 Direct --- ------- ----
Total Water Qts: 24.00 - After Additional Infusions
Total Water Gal: 6.00 - After Additional Infusions
Total Mash Volume Gal: 7.28 - After Additional Infusions
All temperature measurements are degrees Fahrenheit.
All infusion amounts are in Quarts.
All infusion ratios are Quarts/Lbs.
"Stormtrooper" is the name of the Imperial IPA.
What I am now wondering is whether I will make Jawa, the smallbeer from the final runnings of Stormtrooper's wort. I have some california V ale yeast I harvested a week or ten days ago. I'll use that to ferment jawa. I have also some challenger hops in the fridge. They'll be an ingredient in Jawa as well.
What I am now wondering is whether I will make Jawa, the smallbeer from the final runnings of Stormtrooper's wort. I have some california V ale yeast I harvested a week or ten days ago. I'll use that to ferment jawa. I have also some challenger hops in the fridge. They'll be an ingredient in Jawa as well.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The brew store inventory decided it for me: I'm using California Ale Yeast for the Imperial IPA. I no longer need to worry about the attenuation of this beer. It will finish dry, allowing the bitterness to assert itself on what I hope is an interesting though-not-sweet malt character.
About the hops, I'm of a different minds. What I've been considering mostly is magnum to bitter, cascade for aroma and cascade and willamette for flavor, with an emphasis on willamette. But I still haven't settled. I'll probably go buy the ingredients today, so we'll know soon what the recipe was.
About the hops, I'm of a different minds. What I've been considering mostly is magnum to bitter, cascade for aroma and cascade and willamette for flavor, with an emphasis on willamette. But I still haven't settled. I'll probably go buy the ingredients today, so we'll know soon what the recipe was.
Monday, September 25, 2006
I bought a copy of ProMash today.
I think I've settled on a recipe for the Imperial IPA. At least, I'm getting very close to one that I like. Something like this:
12 lbs. Briess American 2-row
2.5 lbs. Weyermann munich
1 lb. 20L Briess crystal
1 oz. Cascade FWH
1 oz. WIllamette FWH
2. oz. Magnum 14.4% AA 60 minutes
1 oz. Willamette 10 minutes
1 oz. Cascade 1 minute
1 oz. Willamette 1 minute
1 oz. Centenial dry
WLP 051 California V Ale or WLP 001 California Ale
I'm waffling about yeast now. I was set on Cali V, but now I'm less sure; I like it alot but it attenuates less than Cali and I want no less than 80% apparent attenuation on this beer. I'm thinking I can get it with the right mash and the Cali V. I'll know better once I see the results of an amber that's nearly through with primary. I'll be transfering that to seconday shortly and when I see the gravity on that, I'll know better what I can expect from the 051. I've definitely hit 85% attenuation from 001--5% greater than its supposed upper bound--but whether I can get so much more from 051, especially as the beer approaches 9% alcohol, remains an open question.
The mash will be a 125, 145, 155, 167 step mash at 15, x, 45, and 5 minutes respectively. x is either 1 hour or 45 minutes, depending on how that amber comes out. (That beer was mashed with a 30 minute rest at 145. I'm assuming that will get around the upper bound for cali V. I'll mash a little longer at 145 to get even more attenuation in the Imperial IPA.)
I think I've settled on a recipe for the Imperial IPA. At least, I'm getting very close to one that I like. Something like this:
12 lbs. Briess American 2-row
2.5 lbs. Weyermann munich
1 lb. 20L Briess crystal
1 oz. Cascade FWH
1 oz. WIllamette FWH
2. oz. Magnum 14.4% AA 60 minutes
1 oz. Willamette 10 minutes
1 oz. Cascade 1 minute
1 oz. Willamette 1 minute
1 oz. Centenial dry
WLP 051 California V Ale or WLP 001 California Ale
I'm waffling about yeast now. I was set on Cali V, but now I'm less sure; I like it alot but it attenuates less than Cali and I want no less than 80% apparent attenuation on this beer. I'm thinking I can get it with the right mash and the Cali V. I'll know better once I see the results of an amber that's nearly through with primary. I'll be transfering that to seconday shortly and when I see the gravity on that, I'll know better what I can expect from the 051. I've definitely hit 85% attenuation from 001--5% greater than its supposed upper bound--but whether I can get so much more from 051, especially as the beer approaches 9% alcohol, remains an open question.
The mash will be a 125, 145, 155, 167 step mash at 15, x, 45, and 5 minutes respectively. x is either 1 hour or 45 minutes, depending on how that amber comes out. (That beer was mashed with a 30 minute rest at 145. I'm assuming that will get around the upper bound for cali V. I'll mash a little longer at 145 to get even more attenuation in the Imperial IPA.)
Saturday, September 23, 2006
The beer in the keg is one of the most drinkable I've made in awhile. It has one fault that keeps it from being excellent. Here's the recipe:
I don't remember exactly how I did the mash, except that I did a protein rest and two conversion steps and that it got too hot during one of them.
The result is a beer with a pleasant base malt character complimented by the caramel of the 80L crystal. The aroma and flavor have subtle citrusy american hops. The yeast provides a nice fruitiness. There's one fault in the beer: the final gravity was 1.016, too high, higher than intended, and the beer is thick. And if it weren't for that thickness, it would be a very good beer. I may do it again without botching the mash and see how I like it 72% attenuated. (Answer: a lot.)
- 5.5 lbs. american 2-rox
- 2.5 lbs. Munton's Maris Otter
- .75 80L crystal malt
- 1 oz. Ahtanum 5.1 HBU for 60
- .5 oz. Ahtanum 2.55 HBU for 30
- .5 oz. Ahtanum for 1
- California V ale yeast
I don't remember exactly how I did the mash, except that I did a protein rest and two conversion steps and that it got too hot during one of them.
The result is a beer with a pleasant base malt character complimented by the caramel of the 80L crystal. The aroma and flavor have subtle citrusy american hops. The yeast provides a nice fruitiness. There's one fault in the beer: the final gravity was 1.016, too high, higher than intended, and the beer is thick. And if it weren't for that thickness, it would be a very good beer. I may do it again without botching the mash and see how I like it 72% attenuated. (Answer: a lot.)
Friday, September 22, 2006
The cool part about beers I haven't brewed yet is that I can change them. That Imperial IPA recipe has seen three variations. There's the one below, which I thought sounded maybe too crystally after listen to this big mp3 file. Whether these guys know what they're talking about, I don't know. I'm a bit sceptical of anyone that thinks you should pretty much ignore malt in a Double IPA, as I think the secret to IPA (imperial, american, english) is devising a malt basis that goes with a desired hop profile. It's easy to hop the fucking balls off a wort, the trick is having a foundation for all that hops. Don't get me wrong: the style is about hops; the artistry is their compliment.
So, I'm obsessed with the malt of this beer. (The hops are simple. Cascade: 2 oz. FWH, 1 oz. 15 min, 2 oz. 1 min, 1 oz. dry. Chinook: .5 oz. 60 minutes. Magnum: 1 oz. 60 minutes.) First I play around with lots of crystal in blends 20 and 40L. Then I consider some victory of toasty flavor. The base malts should blend american with vienna. Then, no, the base malt should be american and maris otter with a little munich, but abandon the victory and only 20L crystal. That's where I am now. Maybe I should say screw the british pale malt; 11.5# american 2-row, 1.5 # vienna, 1.5 # munich! "Ah hah!," he thinks, "now we have a malt bill that will emphasize base malt character--no need for these honey, caramel and toast flavors from specialty malts. Just a little 20L crystal to round it out, and wah-lah" Heh. give it twenty minutes and "wah-lah" will be "nah". Heh.
So, I'm obsessed with the malt of this beer. (The hops are simple. Cascade: 2 oz. FWH, 1 oz. 15 min, 2 oz. 1 min, 1 oz. dry. Chinook: .5 oz. 60 minutes. Magnum: 1 oz. 60 minutes.) First I play around with lots of crystal in blends 20 and 40L. Then I consider some victory of toasty flavor. The base malts should blend american with vienna. Then, no, the base malt should be american and maris otter with a little munich, but abandon the victory and only 20L crystal. That's where I am now. Maybe I should say screw the british pale malt; 11.5# american 2-row, 1.5 # vienna, 1.5 # munich! "Ah hah!," he thinks, "now we have a malt bill that will emphasize base malt character--no need for these honey, caramel and toast flavors from specialty malts. Just a little 20L crystal to round it out, and wah-lah" Heh. give it twenty minutes and "wah-lah" will be "nah". Heh.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
I'm way ahead of the game right now in terms of beer supply. I have ten gallons in primary and I think I will have carbonation on my first amber ale with the Cali V yeast by tonight. That may not pan out tonight, but soon enough it will be carbonated. I also have that all-beligian malt IPA that turned out cloudy and a little boring.
It is hence time for an Imerial IPA. I've been waiting and waiting to do this but the time was never right. I wanted a supply of homebrew around before starting on this because I didn't want to be find myself drinking two 9% beers everyday. I wanted even to be able to bottle rather than keg the beer. (This last bit bugs me just a little since I fear the vagaries of natural carbonation and dislike the use of keg space just to carbonate before bottling.)
Anyway, what's the goal of the Imperial IPA I plan? The goal is to make a malt backbone that will stand up to a huge but smooth hop profile. The hops are the dominant feature of the beer, but it's the malt that makes those hops good.
I haven't decided on a hop bill exactly. There will be a 60 minute addition of .5 ounces of Chinook. I don't want the chinook character of the beer to be extreme, just there. Let's first wort hop (it's supposed to do a make a less astringent hop character) 1.5 ounces of cascade hops FHW? An ounce of centenial at 15 minutes. 2 ounces of cascade at 1 minute. 1 ounce of cascade or centenial dry hopped. Magnum hops to bring the beer to 100 IBU, addition at 60 minutes.
Here's the proposed grain bill:
12# american 2-row
3# american vienna
1.25# 20 L crystal
.5# 40L crystal
1# victory
Sound like that's gonna do it?
It is hence time for an Imerial IPA. I've been waiting and waiting to do this but the time was never right. I wanted a supply of homebrew around before starting on this because I didn't want to be find myself drinking two 9% beers everyday. I wanted even to be able to bottle rather than keg the beer. (This last bit bugs me just a little since I fear the vagaries of natural carbonation and dislike the use of keg space just to carbonate before bottling.)
Anyway, what's the goal of the Imperial IPA I plan? The goal is to make a malt backbone that will stand up to a huge but smooth hop profile. The hops are the dominant feature of the beer, but it's the malt that makes those hops good.
I haven't decided on a hop bill exactly. There will be a 60 minute addition of .5 ounces of Chinook. I don't want the chinook character of the beer to be extreme, just there. Let's first wort hop (it's supposed to do a make a less astringent hop character) 1.5 ounces of cascade hops FHW? An ounce of centenial at 15 minutes. 2 ounces of cascade at 1 minute. 1 ounce of cascade or centenial dry hopped. Magnum hops to bring the beer to 100 IBU, addition at 60 minutes.
Here's the proposed grain bill:
12# american 2-row
3# american vienna
1.25# 20 L crystal
.5# 40L crystal
1# victory
Sound like that's gonna do it?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
My friend that brews with me wanted to brew Monday. The result of his desire was a british E.S.B. What I remeber about the recipe was 9 pounds american 2-row, 1 pound 80L crystal, and .5 pounds of 20L crystal, and EKG hops to finish, target to bitter. It was my first chance to try out my new brix refractometer. The wort came in under gravity, which I think was mostly because of smaller than anticipated boil-off. Both of us are excited about a very crystal-heavy beer.
I'm considering buying ProMash, which I've been half using for the last few recipes.
Today I made an amber ale. The mash went exactly as anticipated: 15 minutes at 125, 30 minutes at 145, 45 minutes at 155 and mash out at 167. Well, okay, I think I mashed at 154 for the forty-five mintes stage and I only hit 166 for the mash-out. Since my evidence suggests that going over 155 can inhibit sachrification, I'm okay with that and the mash out is just a control step--make sure enzymes are stopped or damn near, which is to say 166 is good enough for that. The next question is what attenuation I get. I'd like about 73 or 74%, since that's the upper end of the yeast's range. I'm trying to use the time of the rest at 145 to control fermentability, while leaving the rest constant; I hope that 15 minutes usually gets me right at the bottom end of the range for a yeast and 30 minutes to get the upper end with 45 getting me a couple percent beyond that. (My experience with long 149 mashes is that one can exceed a yeast's attenuation range by as much as 5%. My than one IPA went from 67 to 8 with a long cool single step mash like that.) The orginal gravity of this beer was 1.0516. The recipe was as below.
I'm considering buying ProMash, which I've been half using for the last few recipes.
Today I made an amber ale. The mash went exactly as anticipated: 15 minutes at 125, 30 minutes at 145, 45 minutes at 155 and mash out at 167. Well, okay, I think I mashed at 154 for the forty-five mintes stage and I only hit 166 for the mash-out. Since my evidence suggests that going over 155 can inhibit sachrification, I'm okay with that and the mash out is just a control step--make sure enzymes are stopped or damn near, which is to say 166 is good enough for that. The next question is what attenuation I get. I'd like about 73 or 74%, since that's the upper end of the yeast's range. I'm trying to use the time of the rest at 145 to control fermentability, while leaving the rest constant; I hope that 15 minutes usually gets me right at the bottom end of the range for a yeast and 30 minutes to get the upper end with 45 getting me a couple percent beyond that. (My experience with long 149 mashes is that one can exceed a yeast's attenuation range by as much as 5%. My than one IPA went from 67 to 8 with a long cool single step mash like that.) The orginal gravity of this beer was 1.0516. The recipe was as below.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Today I introduced a friend to brewing. It was a batch of this. It was the first good recipe I ever brewed and I liked it a lot. Hence, well, I made it again today. Exact same recipe. I even used old equipment to replicate the original process as well as possible.
Extract brewing does not smell as good.
Tomorrow I'm doing an amber ale:
6.5 # domestic pale malt
2.5 # munich malt
.75 # 80L crystal
.25 # 120L crystal
Mashed @125 for 15, @145 for 30, @ 155 for 45, @ 167 for 5
.25 oz. Cascade First Wort Hopped
.5 Willamette First Wort Hopped
.5 Northern Brewer 60 min
.5 Northern Brewer 30 min
.25 Cascade 1 min
.5 Willamette 1 min
White Labs British Ale yeast
Extract brewing does not smell as good.
Tomorrow I'm doing an amber ale:
6.5 # domestic pale malt
2.5 # munich malt
.75 # 80L crystal
.25 # 120L crystal
Mashed @125 for 15, @145 for 30, @ 155 for 45, @ 167 for 5
.25 oz. Cascade First Wort Hopped
.5 Willamette First Wort Hopped
.5 Northern Brewer 60 min
.5 Northern Brewer 30 min
.25 Cascade 1 min
.5 Willamette 1 min
White Labs British Ale yeast
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Well you can do an experiment like the one I'd intended in more than one way. The firs way is described below, twice.
The second way is just to do it in the brewery. This is not the impatient way. But, what it lacks in instant satisfaction, it makes up for in producing beer I want to drink. Yes, there will be more variables. But so what? Most variables are outside my control in the brewery anyway.
So, that's what I'm going to do: do it in the brewery. My next beer will be another american amber ale, something like this:
7# Briess two-row pale
3/4# 40L Crystal
3/4# 90L Crystal
1/2# American Wheat Malt
Mashed 15 min @ 125, 30 min @ 145, 45 min @ 155, mash out @ 167.
1 oz. Perl 7.7% for 60 minutes
1 oz. Willamette FWH
1 oz. Willamette 1 minute
White Labs WLP051- Califonia Ale V
O.G. ~1.047
F.G. ~1.012
I.B.U. 44
This beer will all be a fun experiment. First, it will be a mash experiment that should produce a nicely fermentable wort, and we will test that hypothesis. Second, it will be my first First Wort Hopped batch and we'll see what the result of that it. Third, I've never tried that thing where you use wheat to improve head retention; I will here; we'll see what that does for me.
The second way is just to do it in the brewery. This is not the impatient way. But, what it lacks in instant satisfaction, it makes up for in producing beer I want to drink. Yes, there will be more variables. But so what? Most variables are outside my control in the brewery anyway.
So, that's what I'm going to do: do it in the brewery. My next beer will be another american amber ale, something like this:
7# Briess two-row pale
3/4# 40L Crystal
3/4# 90L Crystal
1/2# American Wheat Malt
Mashed 15 min @ 125, 30 min @ 145, 45 min @ 155, mash out @ 167.
1 oz. Perl 7.7% for 60 minutes
1 oz. Willamette FWH
1 oz. Willamette 1 minute
White Labs WLP051- Califonia Ale V
O.G. ~1.047
F.G. ~1.012
I.B.U. 44
This beer will all be a fun experiment. First, it will be a mash experiment that should produce a nicely fermentable wort, and we will test that hypothesis. Second, it will be my first First Wort Hopped batch and we'll see what the result of that it. Third, I've never tried that thing where you use wheat to improve head retention; I will here; we'll see what that does for me.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
Oh man, I'm kinda broke right now and also I'm busy. I really want to play around with mashing on the single variable process I describe below.
First, I have for the first time set up not one but two kegs of beer in my place. An IPA and a Pale Ale. The second was the first aniversary beer--I brewed it one year from the first nextweek brewing ever. The pale ale is known as Return to Ale Pale, since it was the first beer I had brewed in ages. It was a pale ale. I also have an amber ale in secondary.
The Return to Ale Pale is pretty good. Troube in the carbonation hurt it a bit, I think. I've learned a thing or two about kegging recently, though. Not everything there is as promised, but it sure helped prevent glasses of foam.
What's all this talk about playing around with mashing? I'll tell you: experiementation. I'm going to make several small mashes controlling as much as I can every variable except the mash process. The result will be several worts that I will ferment with the same yeast, thereby enabling me to infer the effect of the mash process on the basis of the attenuation of each sample.
Each mash will be conducted in four steps:
During the rests, each mash will be monitored for temperature drops. Heat will be added to bring the mash back to the rest temperature if it falls below the specified temperature. The first stage of the mash will be an infusion of the crushed grain with water at The mash will be raised to the next steps by the application of direct heat to the mash vessel (a pot on a kitchen stove.)
An iodine test for starch conversion will be condcuted at the beginning of each rest, plus once every fifteen minutes during stage 3 of the mash. This information may be useful in determining whether, as a part of actual mash practice, a rest at 155 degrees will benefit from the full 45 minutes of the rest; however, the results of these iodine tests suggest further experiementation rather than offering a conclusive determination of the value of the 45 minute duration.
The mash constitution will in every case be 1 pound of breiss 2-row pale malt and 1.5 quarts of water. This will remain constant throughout the mash.
Extraction of the fermentable matter after the mash presents a slight challenge. It would be nice if each the extraction from each mash were identically prepared because to do so controls for unforseen variables and makes it possible to measure the extraction effciency of each mash. One hopes that this will remain constant across mashes, however, such variation as mash proceedure induces should be recorded. And here the experimenter must be judicious, for the potential extract of the mash is 38 ppg, which is 152 pp quart, or a specific gravity of 1.101 in 1.5 quarts. With 75% efficiency, we have a SG fo 1.075. While such a mash gravity may be high for ordinary brewing purposes, such a gravity suggests itself for the present experiment, for it allows greater precision in attenuation calculation--a difference of .001 in SG for a wort of gravity 1.040 amounts to a 2.5% difference in attenuation; a difference of .001 for a wort of graity 1.075 amounts to a 1.3% difference in attenuation. This means that small differences in attenuation will be more detectable with a higher gravity wort. All this, I believe justifies a spargeless method of extraction: simply add the entire volume of mash to a strainer and allow the liquid to run-off until 1.1 quarts of liquid are extracted. The extra .1 quarts being useful for measuring th gravity of the initial extract.
Fermentation will be conducted in such fermenters as are available. Originally, I had thought to use slurry from a batch of completed beer to ferement each wort, however, this strikes me as perhaps undesirable because it would reduce the repeatability of the experiement, thererby making the results less verifiable and confounding slightly further experiments to extend the results of this one. Instead, yeast will be prepared from one packet of dried ale yeast and a uniform amount (likely 15mL) added to each wort for fermentation.
The rest is pretty much up to the yeast. I will allow all the fermentations to proceed for the same amount of time, probably two weeks. Then I will test the net attenuation.
Oh, how many test mashes will there be and what will the mashes look like? Keep in mind the only variable will be the time alloted for stage two above. I will probably do 0 minute, 15 minute, 30 minute and 45 minute batches.
First, I have for the first time set up not one but two kegs of beer in my place. An IPA and a Pale Ale. The second was the first aniversary beer--I brewed it one year from the first nextweek brewing ever. The pale ale is known as Return to Ale Pale, since it was the first beer I had brewed in ages. It was a pale ale. I also have an amber ale in secondary.
The Return to Ale Pale is pretty good. Troube in the carbonation hurt it a bit, I think. I've learned a thing or two about kegging recently, though. Not everything there is as promised, but it sure helped prevent glasses of foam.
What's all this talk about playing around with mashing? I'll tell you: experiementation. I'm going to make several small mashes controlling as much as I can every variable except the mash process. The result will be several worts that I will ferment with the same yeast, thereby enabling me to infer the effect of the mash process on the basis of the attenuation of each sample.
Each mash will be conducted in four steps:
- A rest at 125 degees for 15 minutes.
- A rest at 145 degrees. The time of this rest is the independent variable of the experiement.
- A rest at 155 degrees for 45 minutes.
- A rest at 167 degrees for 5 minutes
During the rests, each mash will be monitored for temperature drops. Heat will be added to bring the mash back to the rest temperature if it falls below the specified temperature. The first stage of the mash will be an infusion of the crushed grain with water at The mash will be raised to the next steps by the application of direct heat to the mash vessel (a pot on a kitchen stove.)
An iodine test for starch conversion will be condcuted at the beginning of each rest, plus once every fifteen minutes during stage 3 of the mash. This information may be useful in determining whether, as a part of actual mash practice, a rest at 155 degrees will benefit from the full 45 minutes of the rest; however, the results of these iodine tests suggest further experiementation rather than offering a conclusive determination of the value of the 45 minute duration.
The mash constitution will in every case be 1 pound of breiss 2-row pale malt and 1.5 quarts of water. This will remain constant throughout the mash.
Extraction of the fermentable matter after the mash presents a slight challenge. It would be nice if each the extraction from each mash were identically prepared because to do so controls for unforseen variables and makes it possible to measure the extraction effciency of each mash. One hopes that this will remain constant across mashes, however, such variation as mash proceedure induces should be recorded. And here the experimenter must be judicious, for the potential extract of the mash is 38 ppg, which is 152 pp quart, or a specific gravity of 1.101 in 1.5 quarts. With 75% efficiency, we have a SG fo 1.075. While such a mash gravity may be high for ordinary brewing purposes, such a gravity suggests itself for the present experiment, for it allows greater precision in attenuation calculation--a difference of .001 in SG for a wort of gravity 1.040 amounts to a 2.5% difference in attenuation; a difference of .001 for a wort of graity 1.075 amounts to a 1.3% difference in attenuation. This means that small differences in attenuation will be more detectable with a higher gravity wort. All this, I believe justifies a spargeless method of extraction: simply add the entire volume of mash to a strainer and allow the liquid to run-off until 1.1 quarts of liquid are extracted. The extra .1 quarts being useful for measuring th gravity of the initial extract.
Fermentation will be conducted in such fermenters as are available. Originally, I had thought to use slurry from a batch of completed beer to ferement each wort, however, this strikes me as perhaps undesirable because it would reduce the repeatability of the experiement, thererby making the results less verifiable and confounding slightly further experiments to extend the results of this one. Instead, yeast will be prepared from one packet of dried ale yeast and a uniform amount (likely 15mL) added to each wort for fermentation.
The rest is pretty much up to the yeast. I will allow all the fermentations to proceed for the same amount of time, probably two weeks. Then I will test the net attenuation.
Oh, how many test mashes will there be and what will the mashes look like? Keep in mind the only variable will be the time alloted for stage two above. I will probably do 0 minute, 15 minute, 30 minute and 45 minute batches.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Damn it! That the third beer in a row that's underattenuated: only 70% on an IPA, which I had expected to be at least 75% and the result is a FG of 1.019, outside of style specs.
I'm waffling about on how to do step mashes that will control fermentability in the way that I want. As I've already said, I'd like to change they way that I do this to make it involve a single varriable in the sachrification period. I also want to include a protein rest for clarity on (especially) lighter beers.
To move to single variable mashes, we vary either time or temperature but not both in our mashing procedure. One could either decide (following a study cited by John J. Palmer) to do mashes with sachrification periods of 50 minutes and 15 minutes, where the former stage varies in temperature and the later is always 158. Alternatively, one could vary time by always mashing at two stages, say 145 degrees followed by 155 degrees, where the first mash is conducted for a variable amount of time and the second always for 30 minutes, or 45 minutes, or whatever. I think that the second program is actually preferable.
The protein rest at 125 should
-make the final beer clear by degrading large haze forming proteins.
-improve hydration and promote later enzyme activity.
The first sachrification at 145 should:
-promote gelatinization, making later beta-amylase activity more efficient.
-create maltose from beta-amylase activity.
The second sachrification should:
-create maltose and other fermentable sugars by alpha- and beta-amylase activty.
-complete startch conversion.
The mash-out should:
-terminate enzyme activity
-give me confidence that sparge rates and temperature did not affect the sugar profile of the mash because of continuted enzyme work.
The reason is that one knows that a 45 minute mash at 155 degrees acheives complete or nearly complete conversion with a wort that will produce a full body but medium or medium-low attenuation. The addition of the 145 step before hand means, approximately, that one increase the available maltose by beta-amylase activity without any risk of alpha-amylase denaturing. So, approximately, the first sachrification stage just increases fermentability while conmensuratly reducing dextrins that result from the later stage. The only potential problem I see is that the curve is too steep or too flat--i.e. that the difference five minutes makes to the fermentability of the wort is too large for this to be an effective way to control the fermentability of the wort, or that the difference made by a five minutes variation is too small. But my experience with 90 minute low temperature mashes seems to indicate that the curve will have the right first derivative.
What I'd like is for the slope of the curve to approximate a scalar function with 12 minutes difference in the rest-time making a 2% difference in fermentability; that would allow a control of 7.5% fermentability by 45 minutes of mashing. My guess however is that the curve isn't so scalar. Up to about 30 minutes, I think the rate will be fairly constant, beyond that, I think mash starts to approach complete conversion during the initial rest, and this will affect the results of the alpha-amylase rest. I'm not sure whether that's what I'll get, but I'm going to play around shortly to see what results this will get.
Here's the amber ale that I'm making to test this out:
8 # American two-row
.75 # American 80L crystal
.25 # American 20L crystal
.25 # Belgian Special B
.25 # American Victory
Step mashed 125 (20 mins)-145 (30)-155 (45)- 167(5 mins).
Hops:
Northern Brewer.75 oz. (7.6% AA) 60 mins
Norther Brewer .25 oz. (same AA) 15 mins
Willamette .66 oz for 1 mins
Re-pitch with white labs California V ale yeast from previous brew.
I.B.U. 27
SRM 12.5
O.G. 1.048 @ 75% efficiency
F.G. 1.012 @ 75% apparent attenuation
Of course, the real question here is what's the apparent attenuation is.
I'm waffling about on how to do step mashes that will control fermentability in the way that I want. As I've already said, I'd like to change they way that I do this to make it involve a single varriable in the sachrification period. I also want to include a protein rest for clarity on (especially) lighter beers.
To move to single variable mashes, we vary either time or temperature but not both in our mashing procedure. One could either decide (following a study cited by John J. Palmer) to do mashes with sachrification periods of 50 minutes and 15 minutes, where the former stage varies in temperature and the later is always 158. Alternatively, one could vary time by always mashing at two stages, say 145 degrees followed by 155 degrees, where the first mash is conducted for a variable amount of time and the second always for 30 minutes, or 45 minutes, or whatever. I think that the second program is actually preferable.
The protein rest at 125 should
-make the final beer clear by degrading large haze forming proteins.
-improve hydration and promote later enzyme activity.
The first sachrification at 145 should:
-promote gelatinization, making later beta-amylase activity more efficient.
-create maltose from beta-amylase activity.
The second sachrification should:
-create maltose and other fermentable sugars by alpha- and beta-amylase activty.
-complete startch conversion.
The mash-out should:
-terminate enzyme activity
-give me confidence that sparge rates and temperature did not affect the sugar profile of the mash because of continuted enzyme work.
The reason is that one knows that a 45 minute mash at 155 degrees acheives complete or nearly complete conversion with a wort that will produce a full body but medium or medium-low attenuation. The addition of the 145 step before hand means, approximately, that one increase the available maltose by beta-amylase activity without any risk of alpha-amylase denaturing. So, approximately, the first sachrification stage just increases fermentability while conmensuratly reducing dextrins that result from the later stage. The only potential problem I see is that the curve is too steep or too flat--i.e. that the difference five minutes makes to the fermentability of the wort is too large for this to be an effective way to control the fermentability of the wort, or that the difference made by a five minutes variation is too small. But my experience with 90 minute low temperature mashes seems to indicate that the curve will have the right first derivative.
What I'd like is for the slope of the curve to approximate a scalar function with 12 minutes difference in the rest-time making a 2% difference in fermentability; that would allow a control of 7.5% fermentability by 45 minutes of mashing. My guess however is that the curve isn't so scalar. Up to about 30 minutes, I think the rate will be fairly constant, beyond that, I think mash starts to approach complete conversion during the initial rest, and this will affect the results of the alpha-amylase rest. I'm not sure whether that's what I'll get, but I'm going to play around shortly to see what results this will get.
Here's the amber ale that I'm making to test this out:
8 # American two-row
.75 # American 80L crystal
.25 # American 20L crystal
.25 # Belgian Special B
.25 # American Victory
Step mashed 125 (20 mins)-145 (30)-155 (45)- 167(5 mins).
Hops:
Northern Brewer.75 oz. (7.6% AA) 60 mins
Norther Brewer .25 oz. (same AA) 15 mins
Willamette .66 oz for 1 mins
Re-pitch with white labs California V ale yeast from previous brew.
I.B.U. 27
SRM 12.5
O.G. 1.048 @ 75% efficiency
F.G. 1.012 @ 75% apparent attenuation
Of course, the real question here is what's the apparent attenuation is.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Well, the new method was a mess. I mean literally a mess. Everything got stuck during the sparge and I was forced to move everything to another vessel for sparging, and that spread a lot of stuff everywhere. Efficiency was less than anticipated. I forgot to mash out on account of trying to get the arm from the false bottom to the spigot valve. It was what I kinda like about brewing: a usual first time around fuck-up. Next time I'll be doing the protein rest with 1.25 quarts to the pound of grain so that the temperature is actually consistent. 1 quart to the pound was far too thick and the temperature what different in every spot I checked. I'll know the temperature when adding water to get to the desired first rest temperature for the mash if the mash is thin enough that it mixes up well, which is to say I'll know how to get to the temperature for the next step, or near enough that direct heat quickly gets me there. Also, I should pay more attention to what I'm doing. Anytime there is heat on the kettle, stir and know the temperature.
The process highlighted some things for me. First, I should be aiming to produce 5.25 gallons of what I want, and planning on loosing .25 gallons to the transfer to the fermenter. I'm pretty sure that I'm boiling off 1.25 gallons per hour. I'm getting almost exactly five gallons off (when I'm using pellet hops) but my gravity has been a little below expetations. What I've been doing is boiling off a little less than I expect, giving me a lower gravity than I expect and getting five gallons of 5.25 that should have been five, about 95% of the beer that was planned.
The process highlighted some things for me. First, I should be aiming to produce 5.25 gallons of what I want, and planning on loosing .25 gallons to the transfer to the fermenter. I'm pretty sure that I'm boiling off 1.25 gallons per hour. I'm getting almost exactly five gallons off (when I'm using pellet hops) but my gravity has been a little below expetations. What I've been doing is boiling off a little less than I expect, giving me a lower gravity than I expect and getting five gallons of 5.25 that should have been five, about 95% of the beer that was planned.
Monday, September 04, 2006
All I ever think about is beer. Seriously.
I moved into a place with a room called 'the brewery'. I've brewed two beer since August 21st and my partner in brewing has made one since then as well. I'm brewing again tomorrow. The new hotness around this place is a temperature controlled freezer that will house two cornelius kegs at once. My last three brewing sessions have been transitions to step mashing. I have had the capacity to do this for awhile and never enganged it, but I will now. I now mash in a kettle, which means that I can add just a bit of heat any time I like. My brew program will from now on always include a mash out to 167 to cease all enzyme activity. Tomorrow is my first experiment in a protein rest, which I'm introducing to reduce chill haze. I don't know how well this will work but since I'm fucking sick of very cloudy beers, I'm giving it a try. Also, I think I'm going to start using a two stage sachrification rest as part of what I'm calling "single-variable step mashing." Basically, the sachrification will compose two stages, one at a varriable temperature for fifty minutes and one at 158 for 15 minutes. The later mash will teminate beta-amylase activity, leaving only alpha-amylase to complete startch conversion. The earlier mash temperature, since it is the only variable, will determine the composition of sugars in the wort and thus the fermentability of the wort. A high temperature initial sachrification rest will give a less fermentable, more dextrinous wort, a lower temperature will yeild greater fermentability. Maximum fermentability will arrise from a 149 mash. At least, that's what going to happen in theory.
Tomorrow's brew is 2.5 pounds Munton's Marris Otter, 5.5 pounds Briess pale malt and .75 pounds of 80 L crystal; 5.1% AA Ahtanum hops only, with 1 oz. at 60, .5 at 30 and .5 at 2--that's 31 IBU. I'm calling the style american amber, but it rides the lines between amber and pale american ale. I figure the darker crystal, which should be notable, and the relatively low bitterness to OG ratio make this closer to amber than pale, but if you called it pale you'd probably not be wrong. The mash program calls for a protein rest at 130 degree for 20 minutes followed by 50 minutes at 149, followed by 15 minutes at 158, mash out at 167. (In my short experience with mashing out, I'm not ready enough with sparge water to count the time of the mash out too carefully, but since the only point is for it to be long enough to end enzyme operation, I don't think that matters.)
Do I have concerns about the mash program I'm conducting? Sure. The big concern is that the protein rest changes the effect of the sachrification rests. In particular, the period at 130 degrees should cause some gelatinization which might make for some more rapid acitivity during the rest at 149. Alternatively, some amount of sachrification may occur during the protein rest at 130, since this is close to the activity range for beta-amylase. We shall see what happens.
I moved into a place with a room called 'the brewery'. I've brewed two beer since August 21st and my partner in brewing has made one since then as well. I'm brewing again tomorrow. The new hotness around this place is a temperature controlled freezer that will house two cornelius kegs at once. My last three brewing sessions have been transitions to step mashing. I have had the capacity to do this for awhile and never enganged it, but I will now. I now mash in a kettle, which means that I can add just a bit of heat any time I like. My brew program will from now on always include a mash out to 167 to cease all enzyme activity. Tomorrow is my first experiment in a protein rest, which I'm introducing to reduce chill haze. I don't know how well this will work but since I'm fucking sick of very cloudy beers, I'm giving it a try. Also, I think I'm going to start using a two stage sachrification rest as part of what I'm calling "single-variable step mashing." Basically, the sachrification will compose two stages, one at a varriable temperature for fifty minutes and one at 158 for 15 minutes. The later mash will teminate beta-amylase activity, leaving only alpha-amylase to complete startch conversion. The earlier mash temperature, since it is the only variable, will determine the composition of sugars in the wort and thus the fermentability of the wort. A high temperature initial sachrification rest will give a less fermentable, more dextrinous wort, a lower temperature will yeild greater fermentability. Maximum fermentability will arrise from a 149 mash. At least, that's what going to happen in theory.
Tomorrow's brew is 2.5 pounds Munton's Marris Otter, 5.5 pounds Briess pale malt and .75 pounds of 80 L crystal; 5.1% AA Ahtanum hops only, with 1 oz. at 60, .5 at 30 and .5 at 2--that's 31 IBU. I'm calling the style american amber, but it rides the lines between amber and pale american ale. I figure the darker crystal, which should be notable, and the relatively low bitterness to OG ratio make this closer to amber than pale, but if you called it pale you'd probably not be wrong. The mash program calls for a protein rest at 130 degree for 20 minutes followed by 50 minutes at 149, followed by 15 minutes at 158, mash out at 167. (In my short experience with mashing out, I'm not ready enough with sparge water to count the time of the mash out too carefully, but since the only point is for it to be long enough to end enzyme operation, I don't think that matters.)
Do I have concerns about the mash program I'm conducting? Sure. The big concern is that the protein rest changes the effect of the sachrification rests. In particular, the period at 130 degrees should cause some gelatinization which might make for some more rapid acitivity during the rest at 149. Alternatively, some amount of sachrification may occur during the protein rest at 130, since this is close to the activity range for beta-amylase. We shall see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)