Let's talk about Barley. I'm serious. I wanted this series to be basic and there is arguably no ingredient more basic and essential to beer than barley. Barley is a cereal grain, and while any and all cereal grains can (and are) used to make beer, barley has become the most common for several reasons.
For most fermented drinks like wine or cider, fruits are pressed and their sugary juices are fermented. Beer is more complicated, since beer is made from grain and grain is a simple seed with no sugary juice or meat like an apple. So to turn barley's starches into sugars, we have to engage in a fair bit of trickery. That trickery, and variability in that process is part of what lends beer its incredible variety.
In order to make beer from it, a simple grain like barley has to be malted, kilned, and mashed. At each step along the way we can change things to have huge effects on the finished beer. In addition to simple differences in the taste based on where the barley is grown, the way that it's kilned will change it drastically.
Kilning grains is a process very similar to roasting coffee, and just like coffee the more you roast the grains the less effective they are at actually making beer but the stronger roasty flavors they'll have. Really heavily roasted coffee beans actually have far less caffeine than lighter roasts, so really heavily roasted barley has far less starch, protein, and enzymes. You need starch to turn into sugar to make alcohol, so if you have no starch you can't have alcohol. You need protein and starch to give beer body, so if you don't have both of those you can't have a thick, heavy beer. Basically, this debunks the common myth that dark beers are always strong or always heavy.
Styles like stout and porter are built around lots of roasted barley, and from the roasted barley they gain their characteristic burnt flavors. Porters, in my experience, tend to be more astringent and biting from the roast while stouts have tended to be smoother. If you roast barley with the husk on it becomes bitter like coffee, but some brewers will use a malt called Carafa which gives the same flavor as heavily roasted barley with the astringency or bitterness because its husk has been removed prior to kilning. For this reason Carafa is also called Debittered or Dehusked malt. So if you see that on a beer you know you're in for smooth roastiness rather than robust bitter darkness. Roasted barley also comes in "Chocolate" and "Coffee" variants, which indicate that the grains taste a lot like dark chocolate or actual coffee.
There are other styles that use smaller amounts of dark roasted malts to lend complexity. Darker Scotch Ales and Wee Heavies spring to mind, but Irish Red ales will often use a little bit of the same type of roasted barley you'd find in an Irish Stout. In these beers rather than lending bitterness or strong roast flavor, the dark malt increases the depth of the malt character and makes for a richer beer. You can always tell that a beer has included a roasted malt of some sort if the head of the beer is an off-white or tan color.
Normally kilning is done while vented, meaning the water from the malting step has the ability to steam off and leaves the malt dry. You could also close the vents, letting the grains stew for a time in a super-hot sauna. This has the effect of converting the starches in the grains to sugars, which is normally done in the mashing step by the brewer rather than the person making the malt. Then they're vented and dried. This type of malt is called Crystal or Caramel malt and comes in degrees of darkness based on how long it was kilned, just like regular malt. However because of the heat treatment of the sugars, they tend not to ferment as completely leaving more sweetness in the beer. Caramel malts start with slight nutty flavor, then move into caramel and raisin-y sweetness as they get darker. These malts are common in styles like English Bitter, again Scotch Ale and Wee Heavy, and also American and English Brown Ales. Some more traditional IPAs or English IPAs will include a bit of Crystal malts, but the current trend in American IPA is to discourage their use in order to create a very dry beer. Some people really dislike Crystal malts, but they tend to be a bit hard to avoid in medium colored beers. However, German or Belgian beer styles are unlikely to include Crystal.
So that Myth busted, an some basic discussion of how barley's treatment and types affect a beer's flavor.
Showing posts with label beerening. Show all posts
Showing posts with label beerening. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
The Beerening: Beer 101
I had originally begun writing a much different article to follow up my last beer op-ed about the problematic aspects of exposing non-beer people directly into the previously insulated internal conversation of the beer geek community. As a quick summary, I felt that as nerds in love with the flavors of beer we tended to gravitate the conversation towards extreme styles with the current trend being extreme degrees of hop aromas and flavors. This, coupled with the popular myth that hoppy == bitter, can lead people dipping a toe into the ocean of craft beer we're producing now getting a really skewed impression of what good beer is.
I once saw someone refer to Heady Topper as ho-hum because it's just another West-Coast-Style Double IPA, like any produced by a dozen other local breweries on that side of the country and the only reason it was being paid attention was because it was produced in Vermont instead of San Diego. My own feelings about the beer aside, we have to admit that Double IPA is an extreme style and there are people complaining that this beer is not extreme enough to stand out in its category and warrant as much praise as it gets. I can't even begin to imagine how I would have reacted to something with that much raw hop power 6 years ago, but now I'll gladly sip a can of it and pick it apart and feel like I know what I'm talking about.
So anyway, I began writing a follow up, setting out to educate the non-initiated about the whats and hows of beer. Thinking it would be a great idea to try to talk in a clear and easy way about how what goes into a beer affects what it tastes like, that knowing about these things would help people nail down some flavors they liked and find other beers with similar builds. After all, everyone knows that wine is made of grapes and no one thinks twice about ordering a wine while out for dinner: "I like red wine and robust seems like a good word, please give me this red wine". But after reworking that about 3 times I felt like I was at an impasse. And I think that's because I forgot to answer something very important: Why beer?
Because beer is cool, and I like it.
Alright so that's a cop out, but the fact that beer exists at all is pretty amazing, given the process. Especially when you consider that people have been making beer intentionally or not for some 7000-9000 years and the act predates the written word. There is a lot of cool history that follows the making of beer. But really drinking it is what makes it fun. Beer is a phenomenal confluence of so many little details that produce an incredibly tasty beverage, and there's so much variety in beer that I really think there's something for everyone. Nothing tastes like beer and one beer can not resemble any other beer at all.
Beer is a simple thing that becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Beer is so simple that in the late 1400s the Germans were able to decree that only 3 ingredients were to be used in the brewing of beer: Water, Hops, and Malted Barley. Yeast hadn't been discovered yet, we just knew that beer fermented. But that's it, and for the most part these ingredients still make up the majority of any beer brewed in the world.
And that's the beauty of it to me...that I can decide on any given day that I would like to drink a beer that tastes like sweet orange zest and go to the store and buy a Belgian Witbier. The next day, maybe I want a beer that tastes like caramel and toffee and get a Scotch Ale, or maybe I've decided that I'm an adult so if I want to, I can have an entire wedge of brie for dinner so I go out and buy a bottle of a Rauchbier (a German style known for using heavily smoked malts, giving the beer a profoundly smokey and meaty flavor) which pairs great with creamy cheeses.
That variety is why I think beer and the associated community is such a great thing to be part of, but also what makes me a little sad when people get turned off to beer because they're not aware what they're drinking is actually an extreme representation of one facet of beer. There's so much else going on that I feel like so much focus on the one style does beer a disservice. And that's why I wanted to do a Beer 101 post/series, to talk simply about the "how" of all the different kinds of beer and hopefully give people an idea of beer beyond simple styles.
So that's why. See you in another 12 re-writes.
--PXA
I once saw someone refer to Heady Topper as ho-hum because it's just another West-Coast-Style Double IPA, like any produced by a dozen other local breweries on that side of the country and the only reason it was being paid attention was because it was produced in Vermont instead of San Diego. My own feelings about the beer aside, we have to admit that Double IPA is an extreme style and there are people complaining that this beer is not extreme enough to stand out in its category and warrant as much praise as it gets. I can't even begin to imagine how I would have reacted to something with that much raw hop power 6 years ago, but now I'll gladly sip a can of it and pick it apart and feel like I know what I'm talking about.
Because beer is cool, and I like it.
Beer is a simple thing that becomes greater than the sum of its parts. Beer is so simple that in the late 1400s the Germans were able to decree that only 3 ingredients were to be used in the brewing of beer: Water, Hops, and Malted Barley. Yeast hadn't been discovered yet, we just knew that beer fermented. But that's it, and for the most part these ingredients still make up the majority of any beer brewed in the world.
And that's the beauty of it to me...that I can decide on any given day that I would like to drink a beer that tastes like sweet orange zest and go to the store and buy a Belgian Witbier. The next day, maybe I want a beer that tastes like caramel and toffee and get a Scotch Ale, or maybe I've decided that I'm an adult so if I want to, I can have an entire wedge of brie for dinner so I go out and buy a bottle of a Rauchbier (a German style known for using heavily smoked malts, giving the beer a profoundly smokey and meaty flavor) which pairs great with creamy cheeses.
That variety is why I think beer and the associated community is such a great thing to be part of, but also what makes me a little sad when people get turned off to beer because they're not aware what they're drinking is actually an extreme representation of one facet of beer. There's so much else going on that I feel like so much focus on the one style does beer a disservice. And that's why I wanted to do a Beer 101 post/series, to talk simply about the "how" of all the different kinds of beer and hopefully give people an idea of beer beyond simple styles.
So that's why. See you in another 12 re-writes.
--PXA
Friday, August 16, 2013
The Beerening: Bagel Beer thoughts and tasting notes
However, I got a bad cold afterwards and didn't want to wait so long to get a tasting notes video up.
Tasting Notes:
Bagels were very good. Not having any real basis for comparison between homemade bagels, I would say they were very nice. Slightly sweet, not too doughy. Not dense but not exactly fluffy, the inside seemed to rip more like pretzel than bread. Also chewy but not too much so. One interesting thing I noticed was spots of the outside where hot break material got stuck to the bagels didn't cook like the rest of the outside and make the shell you'd expect. It didn't effect the inside or have much of a noticeable flavor.To the beer: As I mentioned in the video, I went a bit off style with the inclusion of the roasted barley. It's just a bit past the dark end of what the BJCP called ESB, maybe more into Brown ale territory. As I said though, I don't mind the color too much. I like ESB more when it's toward the darker end and a bit chewier, which is what I was hoping to get with the roast barley and oats.
It's slightly cloudy and brown (though not quite as dark as my Brown Ale), and forms a nice white head. However the head retention hasn't been very good for a beer with a pound of oats, though it may just be an effect of being under-carbonated. I'm still dialing in the PSI and had it too low for a while so it might just be pouring aggressively and off-gassing instead of more natural head. Though maybe this is a side effect of using the wort for bagels? Jury's out, which means both this bitter and bagel making need to be done again. In the name of the scientific method.
There's a lot of chocolatey flavor from the roast malt in there, which I was expecting, but it is much more dominant than I wanted. I was hoping that it would be there but with some sweetness and caramel behind it as well, which is lacking. Overall, it is a very nice beer that has a clean flavor and is quite easy drinking and I am powering through the pints.
Notes for the future:
The bagels were delicious, but as you can see in the video they fell apart. I need to investigate alternate methods of forming the ring shape. 2 of the 6 bagels held together very well, and I think those were done by working water into the ends of the joint before working it together and smoothing the outside of it very well. I was worried they were too wet, but that may just be what's required. Another idea is to form balls and then poke a hole through and stretch the dough. Again, I'll just need to make more bagels.I'm enjoying the beer but I think it can get closer to my original intent with a few small changes. Dropping the roast barley to even less should tone down the chocolate to a more manageable level and increasing the range of crystal malts and mashing higher should help raise the Final Gravity. I'm beginning to think I measured wrong when I was at the store and bought half a pound of it. I'll still use less next time I brew this, but it's amazing that at only 2% of my total grain bill a heavily roasted grain had such a profound impact on my beer.
Anyway, I may re-iterate this later in another tasting video.
Cheers!
--PXA
Thursday, May 16, 2013
The Beerening: On craft beer, beer styles, and how to "get into" beer
I've been thinking about the topic of introducing what I think is good beer to my friends for a long time, however it's very relevant at the time of writing since there have recently been a slew of articles with insider and outsider perceptions of what craft beer looks like and what it's like to get into. The actual points of view range from "Why does beer have to be so fancy, what have you guys done?" to "Craft beer has too many snobs, we need to chill" to a recent article that "Craft beer's obsession with extreme beers is giving craft beer culture a bad rep". But the point is that it's interesting, it's generating discussions which could get people into beer. Advertising and beerfests and brunches and all that, I don't think, get people into beer. Other people who genuinely like beer are what get people into beer.
But specifically I wanted to address some points I had about what seems to have been a pretty contentious style recently: The American IPA.
IPA stands for India Pale Ale, the history of it has a few origin stories, and some conflicting marketing and research complicating things. From what I've heard a great book that straightens the whole mess out is "IPA!" by Mitch Steele. However, I haven't had a chance to read it. Mitch's presentation at last year's NHC was very good though. I don't want to get too historic but basically the strength of the IPA as a style is dependent on the strength of your regions hop plants, and America has done some crazy things with hops between great growing conditions and breeding programs. It was a great way we could call beers "ours", by using our fresh great new American hops that smelled like pine trees and oranges and mangoes (and onions and cat pee depending who you ask). I don't know specifically what the IPA was like in pre-prohibition America but I know that post-prohibition we basically made American Lager and copied a few UK styles (like the IPA). But the IPA of the time wasn't what people wanted. It had morphed into a lower ABV, maltier, more subtle thing and lager was easier to drink. So as Lager became The American beer other beers fell to the wayside, and eventually we hit rock bottom in 1980.
When the US craft brewing scene began to resurrect itself it effectively did it with the Pale Ale and the IPA. A lot of people credit Sierra Nevada with beginning the resurgence, though I've also heard some of the credit go to Anchor Steam. It obviously appealed to a lot of people and now IPA is the most popular style of beer in the country. With that popularity comes a lot of breweries hoping to make themselves a reputation on a flagship IPA. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it flops, but the net result is a lot of creative people doing whatever they can think of the make their mark on IPA. I love the variety and a lot of it is regional which harkens back to a pre-modern notion of styles as beer brewed to the tastes and strengths of a particular region. But where I take issue is that the significant buzz around a single style like this has a tendency to obscure other, just as worthy, beers.
If you follow the larger online beer discussion the most extreme beers continually dominate the conversation. Which is fine since to a degree we're all beer nerds trying to find the next must-have, but when you picture yourself on the outside looking in it's a very different picture.
We're in a position now where craft beer is a big deal. Newcomers are hearing about craft beer and trying to find a good inroad. This is an huge contrast to when I got into beer 7-8 years ago when an "amazing" beer section was 3 shelves in the back of the store. I got into beer by spending a ton of money on beer I knew nothing about, and it was a really expensive way to learn about my tastes and styles. But I was young, just turned 21 and had my first real job so I was Capital-S Stupid with my money. I still spend a ton of money on beer, but I know what I'm getting into now. There are a lot of people who are looking at craft beer who are way smarter than I was and they won't do that, they're the people who want to look around the clubhouse a little and tour the gym before they decide if they want to join. And our club looks like a bunch of folks swimming around in a giant pile of green, sticky, hop cones.
The majority of our internal conversation is over hoppier beers. Specifically a very certain type of IPA, the majority of which is produced on the West Coast of the country. Where can I find Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger is about to be tapped. Green Flash puts hops in the beer 8 times. This bar is using a randall (a device which is used to force pressurized carbonated beer through a chamber of hops or other herbs/spices on the way to the glass for the freshest flavor)! I'll never claim that's all there is, because there's also a lot of discussion about new beers, seasonals (especially summer), oaked stuff, wild & sour beers, etc. And that's fine, but from the outside looking in you'd get a very skewed picture.
Further complicating the issue is beer rating sites, beer blogs and people's top 10 beer lists. If you, as a novice, wanting to see what's good you might look at a list of someone who seems to know what they're talking about. Odds are you will find extreme IPAs and Double IPAs. I'm not going to say that this is incorrect by any stretch but there's an element of hype that pushes these highly rated beers even higher on community sites (though personal lists may be more even-handed). Someone with context seeking out these beers because they're rated so highly could have a rough surprise.
While I do agree that the insane hype surrounding the Double IPA is not warranted, I'm not going to say we should stop talking about it so we don't turn people off. Just maybe stop talking about it so loudly so it doesn't look like we're saying it's the best beer in all creation.
Put another way: We in beer have a tendency to think of "beer" as it stands in the public consciousness as pale and bland, while craft beer is flavor. We tend to want to impress other people with the great flavors we have in craft beer and so try to trot out what we think our best flavors are, and a lot of people really like IPAs. But we forget that variety and quality is what makes craft beer something we enjoy, not always amazing and unique flavors. So we bungle the attempt at putting our best foot forward by putting our favorite beer forward, and that's not always the best approach.
So since this post thus far has been mostly reiteration, what do I think is the right way to go about this? Friendly guidance. People need to know that craft beer is about quality and variety, they need to be able to figure out ways to relate the flavors present in that variety to things they already know. Everyone knows that wine is made of grapes, but people have less of an idea of the variety of grains you can make beer out of. When people are interested in our beer we can't be absolute with them since it's all about taste. My favorite beer probably isn't yours. We cannot say "This IPA is AMAZING" to someone who doesn't have the context to understand IPA in the realm of beer, we have to know what flavors they might like and then can point out great beers in those styles. We also need to do away with misconceptions like hoppy == bitter and dark == heavy. But telling people they are wrong isn't going to work. If you're drinking with someone and they say they don't want your dry Irish stout because dark beers are too heavy, offer them a contrast like a black IPA that is generally crisp and refreshing with a touch of roastiness or something lighter colored that they might be more receptive to but still shares some flavors with stout like a scotch ale or an Irish red.
In short, beer is about dialog and for once people outside of craft beer are starting that dialog. We have a great chance not to blow it by setting aside our personal favorites and using our knowledge to find the beer for them.
Drink on!
And, Cheers!
--PXA
(p.s. my favorite beer is Trappist Rochefort #8)
But specifically I wanted to address some points I had about what seems to have been a pretty contentious style recently: The American IPA.
IPA stands for India Pale Ale, the history of it has a few origin stories, and some conflicting marketing and research complicating things. From what I've heard a great book that straightens the whole mess out is "IPA!" by Mitch Steele. However, I haven't had a chance to read it. Mitch's presentation at last year's NHC was very good though. I don't want to get too historic but basically the strength of the IPA as a style is dependent on the strength of your regions hop plants, and America has done some crazy things with hops between great growing conditions and breeding programs. It was a great way we could call beers "ours", by using our fresh great new American hops that smelled like pine trees and oranges and mangoes (and onions and cat pee depending who you ask). I don't know specifically what the IPA was like in pre-prohibition America but I know that post-prohibition we basically made American Lager and copied a few UK styles (like the IPA). But the IPA of the time wasn't what people wanted. It had morphed into a lower ABV, maltier, more subtle thing and lager was easier to drink. So as Lager became The American beer other beers fell to the wayside, and eventually we hit rock bottom in 1980.
When the US craft brewing scene began to resurrect itself it effectively did it with the Pale Ale and the IPA. A lot of people credit Sierra Nevada with beginning the resurgence, though I've also heard some of the credit go to Anchor Steam. It obviously appealed to a lot of people and now IPA is the most popular style of beer in the country. With that popularity comes a lot of breweries hoping to make themselves a reputation on a flagship IPA. Sometimes it's great, sometimes it flops, but the net result is a lot of creative people doing whatever they can think of the make their mark on IPA. I love the variety and a lot of it is regional which harkens back to a pre-modern notion of styles as beer brewed to the tastes and strengths of a particular region. But where I take issue is that the significant buzz around a single style like this has a tendency to obscure other, just as worthy, beers.
If you follow the larger online beer discussion the most extreme beers continually dominate the conversation. Which is fine since to a degree we're all beer nerds trying to find the next must-have, but when you picture yourself on the outside looking in it's a very different picture.
We're in a position now where craft beer is a big deal. Newcomers are hearing about craft beer and trying to find a good inroad. This is an huge contrast to when I got into beer 7-8 years ago when an "amazing" beer section was 3 shelves in the back of the store. I got into beer by spending a ton of money on beer I knew nothing about, and it was a really expensive way to learn about my tastes and styles. But I was young, just turned 21 and had my first real job so I was Capital-S Stupid with my money. I still spend a ton of money on beer, but I know what I'm getting into now. There are a lot of people who are looking at craft beer who are way smarter than I was and they won't do that, they're the people who want to look around the clubhouse a little and tour the gym before they decide if they want to join. And our club looks like a bunch of folks swimming around in a giant pile of green, sticky, hop cones.
The majority of our internal conversation is over hoppier beers. Specifically a very certain type of IPA, the majority of which is produced on the West Coast of the country. Where can I find Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger is about to be tapped. Green Flash puts hops in the beer 8 times. This bar is using a randall (a device which is used to force pressurized carbonated beer through a chamber of hops or other herbs/spices on the way to the glass for the freshest flavor)! I'll never claim that's all there is, because there's also a lot of discussion about new beers, seasonals (especially summer), oaked stuff, wild & sour beers, etc. And that's fine, but from the outside looking in you'd get a very skewed picture.
Further complicating the issue is beer rating sites, beer blogs and people's top 10 beer lists. If you, as a novice, wanting to see what's good you might look at a list of someone who seems to know what they're talking about. Odds are you will find extreme IPAs and Double IPAs. I'm not going to say that this is incorrect by any stretch but there's an element of hype that pushes these highly rated beers even higher on community sites (though personal lists may be more even-handed). Someone with context seeking out these beers because they're rated so highly could have a rough surprise.
While I do agree that the insane hype surrounding the Double IPA is not warranted, I'm not going to say we should stop talking about it so we don't turn people off. Just maybe stop talking about it so loudly so it doesn't look like we're saying it's the best beer in all creation.
Put another way: We in beer have a tendency to think of "beer" as it stands in the public consciousness as pale and bland, while craft beer is flavor. We tend to want to impress other people with the great flavors we have in craft beer and so try to trot out what we think our best flavors are, and a lot of people really like IPAs. But we forget that variety and quality is what makes craft beer something we enjoy, not always amazing and unique flavors. So we bungle the attempt at putting our best foot forward by putting our favorite beer forward, and that's not always the best approach.
So since this post thus far has been mostly reiteration, what do I think is the right way to go about this? Friendly guidance. People need to know that craft beer is about quality and variety, they need to be able to figure out ways to relate the flavors present in that variety to things they already know. Everyone knows that wine is made of grapes, but people have less of an idea of the variety of grains you can make beer out of. When people are interested in our beer we can't be absolute with them since it's all about taste. My favorite beer probably isn't yours. We cannot say "This IPA is AMAZING" to someone who doesn't have the context to understand IPA in the realm of beer, we have to know what flavors they might like and then can point out great beers in those styles. We also need to do away with misconceptions like hoppy == bitter and dark == heavy. But telling people they are wrong isn't going to work. If you're drinking with someone and they say they don't want your dry Irish stout because dark beers are too heavy, offer them a contrast like a black IPA that is generally crisp and refreshing with a touch of roastiness or something lighter colored that they might be more receptive to but still shares some flavors with stout like a scotch ale or an Irish red.
In short, beer is about dialog and for once people outside of craft beer are starting that dialog. We have a great chance not to blow it by setting aside our personal favorites and using our knowledge to find the beer for them.
Drink on!
And, Cheers!
--PXA
(p.s. my favorite beer is Trappist Rochefort #8)
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
The Beerening: Decoction Mashing, Take 2
Recently, my boss went on a business trip to meet with out clients in Germany and while he was there discovered Kellerbier. Kellerbier, sometimes referred to as Zwicklebier or Zoiglbier, is sort of a German lager version of British cask ale. It's a very young, fresh beer, often served just a few weeks out of primary fermentation with very little carbonation. Unlike cask ale, to which a fining agent like isinglass is added, kellerbier is usually very cloudy due to a lack of extended secondary fermentation. It contains much more proteins and yeast than traditional lager which has been filtered or aged for weeks or months at very low temperatures.
Not much kellerbier is produced commercially and even less of it makes its way to the states, but I did manage to find a bottle of Mönchshof Kellerbier at my local liquor store. After drinking this and reading about the style a little, I set about trying to make my own because I found it an interesting challenge to try to duplicate a traditional style with origins dating back to the middle ages by description alone. Also, trying to impress my boss with a home-grown version of a beer he really liked would probably not go amiss.
What I had tasted was a beer towards the dark side of golden, pretty well balanced without much overt hop character. The beer had a pale malty backbone, evoking buttermilk biscuits. It had a slight aroma of the herbal character European hops are known for as well slightly sulfurous twang of lager yeast. With all this in mind I started to think about a recipe.
Since the unfortunate Wee Heavy incident I've been favoring simple grists and using the process or other means to achieve certain kinds of complexity. This is really similar to Drew Beechum's "Brewing on the 1's" idea from his NHC lecture, see the video here.
When I got to the homebrew supply store I found that at some point during the week a crowd of thirsty brewers intent on making their Marzens for Oktoberfest had descended on the shop and cleared it of Munich malt. So I had to modify my malt bill. So, err...ahem
One thing I should mention, since I didn't know this when I was just reading about decoction mashes. When you pull the thick mash it will be very dry looking, like a porridge without enough water. It will have very deep cracks and seem like it'll scorch long before it bubbles. It's not needed to add more water because as the mash sits on the heat getting stirred it will soften up and liquid will come out of it. It's similar to making egg nog, when you add the sugar to the yolks it's very dry and crackly, but as you mash it it slowly becomes a thick syrupy liquid.
Also, this took me by surprise as well. When you decoction mash, I think because of the protein rest you get this weird film that settles on your grain bed. It looks kindof like break material from the boil, which it sort of is since it's also coagulated proteins and peptides. It's nothing bad, it just looks really weird.
As my punishment for misplaced trust, I was mashing for almost 5 hours. When I finally went to sparge, it was absurdly cloudy. I normally don't recirculate, but I felt like I had to this time. Also, it was draining incredibly slowly. I'm not sure if there is something wedged in my braid/valve or if the sparge was sticking as a result of degrading the grain husk material by boiling it. Eventually I managed to collect just over 6 gallons of 1.049 SG wort, which slightly undershoots the volume I was hoping to collect, but is a slightly higher gravity than what I was predicting. I probably could have drained a little more but it was taking forever.
I've yet to have a problem with DMS from using pilsner malt, but I decided to err on the side of caution and extended my boil to 75 minutes. I hit my boil, waited 15 minutes and started my regular boil schedule adding Northern Brewer, Irish Moss, and Perle at the appropriate times.
When the boil was done I chilled down, but after running for about an hour I was only down into the 70s. By this point I'd been at it for almost 9 hours, so I decided to just rack to the ferment, leave the sediment in the kettle instead of trying to strain it out and call it a day. I wound up pitching a 2L starter of Wyeast Bavarian Lager into 4 gallons of 1.053 OG wort. If I leave the fermenter directly in front of an air conditioning vent I discovered I can get down into the mid 50s, which is perfectly adequate for a primary lager fermentation. Since this is a kellerbier, I won't be doing a long and cold secondary fermentation.
It's taken about 40 hours to start showing signs of life, so I'm going to let it ferment as cold as I can justify keeping my apartment for about 14 days. Then I think I can let it rise to the high 60's, maybe 70 for 2-3 days for something resembling a diacetyl rest before racking it to the keg where I'll probably condition while carbonating under about 8PSI at 45F for a week before starting to serve. Here's hoping it works out.
Drink on!
--PXA
Not much kellerbier is produced commercially and even less of it makes its way to the states, but I did manage to find a bottle of Mönchshof Kellerbier at my local liquor store. After drinking this and reading about the style a little, I set about trying to make my own because I found it an interesting challenge to try to duplicate a traditional style with origins dating back to the middle ages by description alone. Also, trying to impress my boss with a home-grown version of a beer he really liked would probably not go amiss.
What I had tasted was a beer towards the dark side of golden, pretty well balanced without much overt hop character. The beer had a pale malty backbone, evoking buttermilk biscuits. It had a slight aroma of the herbal character European hops are known for as well slightly sulfurous twang of lager yeast. With all this in mind I started to think about a recipe.
Since the unfortunate Wee Heavy incident I've been favoring simple grists and using the process or other means to achieve certain kinds of complexity. This is really similar to Drew Beechum's "Brewing on the 1's" idea from his NHC lecture, see the video here.
Schloss Westtor zweikatzen mit zweimaischverfahren altbier im kellerAs I mentioned in the last post a decoction mash is a mash where you pull an amount of the thick mash and boil it in a separate vessel before adding it back to the main mash to raise the temperature. This is a good way to do a mash with rests at multiple temperatures when you're not able to directly heat your mash, like if you're mashing in a wood vat or...a Rubbermaid cooler. Beersmith's default double decoction schedule includes a 35 minute protein rest at 122F before adding the first decoction, which is why I included the pound of flaked barley. Low protein rests like this can sometimes be detrimental to modern malts, actually breaking down too many proteins and ruining the beer's head and mouthfeel while having the opposite affect on older, less modified malts. A low temp protein rest like this is recommended when working with significant amounts of flaked grains, so I added some. I would use decoction boils to step up to 147F and then 156F before mashing out at 168F. All this would get me an OG of 1.052 with 36 IBUs. Also, I'm using the Bohemian Lager yeast because of the Lager Workarounds episode of Brewing TV, where they fermented that strain at ale temperatures and still had the beer turn out very lager-like. Or at least, that was the plan.
10lbs Munich
1lb Flaked Barley
1oz German Northern Brewer @ 60 minutes
1oz Perle @ 5 minutes
Ferment with Wyeast Bohemian Lager (2124)
When I got to the homebrew supply store I found that at some point during the week a crowd of thirsty brewers intent on making their Marzens for Oktoberfest had descended on the shop and cleared it of Munich malt. So I had to modify my malt bill. So, err...ahem
Schloss Westtor zweikatzen mit zweimaischverfahren altbier im kellerMy mash was a downright disaster. Unfortunately instead of using Dawson's 1qt thick mash/1lb grist formula from the Brewing TV Decoction Day episode, I elected to trust Beersmith's decoction volumes and only pulled 7 quarts for my first decoction instead of 11. I boiled the decoction during the protein rest, but when I added it back in I didn't quite hit 147F. I had to pull a few more quarts and boil again to make up the difference before starting the beta-saccrification rest. My second decoction, which I started just a few minutes later was plagued by similar conditions. So while I've technically performed a viermaischverfahren, I'm going to continue calling this the double decoction it would have been had I listened to Michael Dawson.
2.5lbs Munich
3.75lbs Vienna
3.75lbs Pilsner
1lb Flaked Barley
1oz German Northern Brewer @ 60 minutes
1oz Perle @ 5 minutes
Ferment with Wyeast Bohemian Lager (2124)
One thing I should mention, since I didn't know this when I was just reading about decoction mashes. When you pull the thick mash it will be very dry looking, like a porridge without enough water. It will have very deep cracks and seem like it'll scorch long before it bubbles. It's not needed to add more water because as the mash sits on the heat getting stirred it will soften up and liquid will come out of it. It's similar to making egg nog, when you add the sugar to the yolks it's very dry and crackly, but as you mash it it slowly becomes a thick syrupy liquid.
Also, this took me by surprise as well. When you decoction mash, I think because of the protein rest you get this weird film that settles on your grain bed. It looks kindof like break material from the boil, which it sort of is since it's also coagulated proteins and peptides. It's nothing bad, it just looks really weird.
 |
| Check it. |
As my punishment for misplaced trust, I was mashing for almost 5 hours. When I finally went to sparge, it was absurdly cloudy. I normally don't recirculate, but I felt like I had to this time. Also, it was draining incredibly slowly. I'm not sure if there is something wedged in my braid/valve or if the sparge was sticking as a result of degrading the grain husk material by boiling it. Eventually I managed to collect just over 6 gallons of 1.049 SG wort, which slightly undershoots the volume I was hoping to collect, but is a slightly higher gravity than what I was predicting. I probably could have drained a little more but it was taking forever.
I've yet to have a problem with DMS from using pilsner malt, but I decided to err on the side of caution and extended my boil to 75 minutes. I hit my boil, waited 15 minutes and started my regular boil schedule adding Northern Brewer, Irish Moss, and Perle at the appropriate times.
When the boil was done I chilled down, but after running for about an hour I was only down into the 70s. By this point I'd been at it for almost 9 hours, so I decided to just rack to the ferment, leave the sediment in the kettle instead of trying to strain it out and call it a day. I wound up pitching a 2L starter of Wyeast Bavarian Lager into 4 gallons of 1.053 OG wort. If I leave the fermenter directly in front of an air conditioning vent I discovered I can get down into the mid 50s, which is perfectly adequate for a primary lager fermentation. Since this is a kellerbier, I won't be doing a long and cold secondary fermentation.
It's taken about 40 hours to start showing signs of life, so I'm going to let it ferment as cold as I can justify keeping my apartment for about 14 days. Then I think I can let it rise to the high 60's, maybe 70 for 2-3 days for something resembling a diacetyl rest before racking it to the keg where I'll probably condition while carbonating under about 8PSI at 45F for a week before starting to serve. Here's hoping it works out.
Drink on!
--PXA
Thursday, April 5, 2012
The Beerening: Review: The Alchemist's Heady Topper
Heady-Topper is a pure and beautiful exploration of American hops, with almost nothing getting in the way. The style, Double (or Imperial) IPA is defined as a strong malt backbone balanced by a high to absurdly high hop bitterness. Heady-Topper is really neither of those things, as it is not bitter and not malty. It's pure, unfettered hops.
The beer recommends drinking it from the can, so I had one from the can and then another a day later poured into a pint glass, and I can definitely understand the recommendation.
Aroma
Even from the small opening in the can the beer is overwhelming fragrant. Just a gorgeous collection of American hops, particularly the ones that smell like tropical fruits. The beer smells like oranges, and mangos, and tangerines. Very juicy.
Flavor
Taking a taste of the beer is a cool, smooth, explosion of hops. It's not sticky, or bitter, it barely tastes like beer. There's a small amount of a light grainy maltiness to provide a slight sweetness behind all those fruity hop flavors, but it's barely noticeable. The same flavor persists pretty much all the way through the can, albeit with a diminishing explosion each time you drink. What's interesting is that it doesn't get sweeter as it warms up, which is often the case with beers with really strong flavors. It keeps a surprisingly refreshing smoothness the entire can. At no point does it hint at its 8% ABV.
Body
The beer has a very light body but at no point does it feel thin or prickly. The carbonation is very light and just lifts the hop aromas out of the beer but doesn't try to make the beer feel fuller than it is.
The next day I poured the beer from the can into a pint glass.
Look
The beer is a little hazy, which is very unsurprising given how much hops are obviously in it. What is worth noting is how light it is. The color is a pale golden yellow more like a regular Pale Ale, or a Wit.
Flavor & Aroma - Part 2
When poured the effect of the beer is noticeably more subsided. It's still a wonderful, juicy, hop bomb but feels a little more dull. One advantage of pouring is that the aroma spreads out more, so it becomes a gift that keeps on giving. Since the hops have calmed down a little bit, the malt character is a little more present. It's still a very light flavor and is just slightly sweeter than from the can.
Overall
I am far more impressed with this beer than most other ultra-hoppy beers, which tend to feel very thick and bitter. This is so clean and easy drinking while also having a tremendous amount of flavor and aroma, it offers me absolutely nothing not to enjoy. It's not something to drink every day, besides its price point this amount of glorious hop aroma is too much to have very often.
But it's definitely worth it to find, haven't really had anything like it.
--PXA
Sunday, April 1, 2012
The Beerening off-topic: The three tier system and the rise of a craft
I think it's time we sit down and have a bit of a serious chat.
A bit of background
From 1920 to 1933 the United States was under a period of alcoholic prohibition. A result of the Temperance movement, the 18th amendment prohibited the production or sale of alcoholic beverages except for medicinal purposes. After several years, and the rise of organized crime, the noble experiment was abandoned.
Prior to prohibition the limited ability to transport beer prevented national distribution, as such there were over 1,500 breweries in the U.S. These breweries served small geographic areas and were often the only brewery in that area. Also, bars in the area were often either owned or wholly supplied by a single brewery.
In the 13 years prohibition was in effect, refridgeration technology improved quite a bit. This meant that beer lasted longer and could be transported further. When prohibition was repealed, the surviving breweries wanted to increase their range and influence, and also bars needed access to beer.
And so, the 3-tier system was created. Effectively, the system created Producers, Distributors and Retailers. A brewery was a producer and not allowed to sell to retailers, which is to say liquor stores and bars. Bars could now buy whatever they wanted from distributors and sell that to their customers. Neither bars nor brewers had to focus on distribution infrastructure as there was a whole other industry that was now dedicated to moving beer from brewer to customer.
What went wrong
Success, of course. Of the 1,500 breweries, only 750 or so survived the prohibition. By 1945 this number was down to 468 and in 1980 there were only 101 operating breweries in the U.S. How do you consolidate an industry that much, that quickly without a few major winners? It's simple economics: A product with less competition in a market does better in that market, and any company producing something invariably wants to produce more and sell more. Since brewers had to rely on distributors to get their products to consumers, it became the brewer's best interest that distributors not sell their competition.
Think about the beer delivery trucks you see on the road. How many have their own logos, and how many are just advertisements for "their brand". These are Miller trucks, or Budweiser trucks...not really just beer trucks. And they can do this because the effectively own the distributors.
Back in 2010 AB InBev, the company that owns Budweiser, tried to buy 70% of the distributor City Beverage. This is pretty bad already, but is made worse by the fact that AB InBev already owned 30% of the distributor. Luckily, this was widely regarded as a bullshit move and the state blocked the buy out. The matter is still under review, but this is highly indicative of the way the large companies behave.
Why it matters
Check it: Since the low point in 1980 the number of breweries in America has been increasing. Craft breweries have gained a ~6% market share in 2011, up .71% from 2010 while the overall beer sales have gone down 1.32%. Craft beer is still growing even while the industry itself shrinks. In order to continue to do good business, even major distributors have begun to carry craft beers. Obviously, a trend like this interferes with InBev's profits, and obviously they don't like that.
Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal have noted AB InBev's plans to recoup some of their lost U.S. market. Some of their plans involve funneling money into craft labels like Shock Top, and making malt liquors that aren't even beer. Disturbingly, is the decision to lean on major distributors that have begun carrying craft beer due to the increased demand for it.
The new head of Bud has said that since he shows 'loyalty' to Budweiser's distributors those same distributors should show 'loyalty' to Budweiser...by dropping the craft beers that are on the rise to sell more InBev.
How do you show loyalty to a distributor as a brewer? You're legally obligated to sell them your beer if you want to get it to people. Apparently by allowing distributors to acquire other distributors.
That's perverse. In the 3-tier system distributors are supposed to be the independent agents who provide the beers consumers demand. A producer like AB InBev should not have a say in how a distributor runs its business. If it does, how is it different than the brewery selling directly to the retailer?
If AB InBev does have this level of control over their distribution tier, it is unfair to the point that it should be illegal. Smaller brewers, people I know personally, are not allowed to dictate how any other business is run and AB InBev should not be allowed to do so in order to save their brands.
If Budweiser is no longer profitable it should be allowed to fade without interfering with breweries like Harpoon, or Oberon, or New Glarus, or Real Ale Brewing Co., or Alesmith, or Goose Island, or anyone. AB InBev should learn to make their money brewing beer people want to drink instead of punishing businesses who are providing that beer.
These small, local breweries are on the rise because they're making a product people are literally thirsty for and this massive international conglomerate is trying to legislate them out of the possibility of making a living just to protect a few fractions of a percentage of the market share of a company that sells 20% of all the beer sold on the entire planet.
Fuck that.
A bit of background
From 1920 to 1933 the United States was under a period of alcoholic prohibition. A result of the Temperance movement, the 18th amendment prohibited the production or sale of alcoholic beverages except for medicinal purposes. After several years, and the rise of organized crime, the noble experiment was abandoned.
Prior to prohibition the limited ability to transport beer prevented national distribution, as such there were over 1,500 breweries in the U.S. These breweries served small geographic areas and were often the only brewery in that area. Also, bars in the area were often either owned or wholly supplied by a single brewery.
In the 13 years prohibition was in effect, refridgeration technology improved quite a bit. This meant that beer lasted longer and could be transported further. When prohibition was repealed, the surviving breweries wanted to increase their range and influence, and also bars needed access to beer.
And so, the 3-tier system was created. Effectively, the system created Producers, Distributors and Retailers. A brewery was a producer and not allowed to sell to retailers, which is to say liquor stores and bars. Bars could now buy whatever they wanted from distributors and sell that to their customers. Neither bars nor brewers had to focus on distribution infrastructure as there was a whole other industry that was now dedicated to moving beer from brewer to customer.
What went wrong
Success, of course. Of the 1,500 breweries, only 750 or so survived the prohibition. By 1945 this number was down to 468 and in 1980 there were only 101 operating breweries in the U.S. How do you consolidate an industry that much, that quickly without a few major winners? It's simple economics: A product with less competition in a market does better in that market, and any company producing something invariably wants to produce more and sell more. Since brewers had to rely on distributors to get their products to consumers, it became the brewer's best interest that distributors not sell their competition.
Think about the beer delivery trucks you see on the road. How many have their own logos, and how many are just advertisements for "their brand". These are Miller trucks, or Budweiser trucks...not really just beer trucks. And they can do this because the effectively own the distributors.
Back in 2010 AB InBev, the company that owns Budweiser, tried to buy 70% of the distributor City Beverage. This is pretty bad already, but is made worse by the fact that AB InBev already owned 30% of the distributor. Luckily, this was widely regarded as a bullshit move and the state blocked the buy out. The matter is still under review, but this is highly indicative of the way the large companies behave.
Why it matters
Check it: Since the low point in 1980 the number of breweries in America has been increasing. Craft breweries have gained a ~6% market share in 2011, up .71% from 2010 while the overall beer sales have gone down 1.32%. Craft beer is still growing even while the industry itself shrinks. In order to continue to do good business, even major distributors have begun to carry craft beers. Obviously, a trend like this interferes with InBev's profits, and obviously they don't like that.
Recent articles in the Wall Street Journal have noted AB InBev's plans to recoup some of their lost U.S. market. Some of their plans involve funneling money into craft labels like Shock Top, and making malt liquors that aren't even beer. Disturbingly, is the decision to lean on major distributors that have begun carrying craft beer due to the increased demand for it.
The new head of Bud has said that since he shows 'loyalty' to Budweiser's distributors those same distributors should show 'loyalty' to Budweiser...by dropping the craft beers that are on the rise to sell more InBev.
How do you show loyalty to a distributor as a brewer? You're legally obligated to sell them your beer if you want to get it to people. Apparently by allowing distributors to acquire other distributors.
That's perverse. In the 3-tier system distributors are supposed to be the independent agents who provide the beers consumers demand. A producer like AB InBev should not have a say in how a distributor runs its business. If it does, how is it different than the brewery selling directly to the retailer?
If AB InBev does have this level of control over their distribution tier, it is unfair to the point that it should be illegal. Smaller brewers, people I know personally, are not allowed to dictate how any other business is run and AB InBev should not be allowed to do so in order to save their brands.
If Budweiser is no longer profitable it should be allowed to fade without interfering with breweries like Harpoon, or Oberon, or New Glarus, or Real Ale Brewing Co., or Alesmith, or Goose Island, or anyone. AB InBev should learn to make their money brewing beer people want to drink instead of punishing businesses who are providing that beer.
These small, local breweries are on the rise because they're making a product people are literally thirsty for and this massive international conglomerate is trying to legislate them out of the possibility of making a living just to protect a few fractions of a percentage of the market share of a company that sells 20% of all the beer sold on the entire planet.
Fuck that.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The Beerening: Scotch Ale + Brown Ale brewday
Scotch Ale Tasting:
Initial tastings of the ale are downright offensive. It tastes like cat urine. The first bottle is acrid, and burns all my senses. It's pretty awful. After a few weeks it's managed to upgrade itself to "bland", which still isn't too great to drink but at least isn't as awful as it used to be. Moving on from that, it went through a stage where it smelled really yeasty but didn't give up a lot of hints regarding the beer itself.
I was originally shooting for a very low level of carbonation to approximate English pub ales. After the first few tastings I decided to try to re-carbonate to a higher level of carbonation to attempt to make the flavor a bit less bland. I tried to add additional carbonation using pre-measured conditioning tablets. I opened every bottle, added 2 tablets, and quickly recapped using sanitized caps. I had a few gushers, which is probably similar to the mentos+coke effect and could have been avoided by putting all the bottles into the fridge for a few hours first. CO2 dissolves better in cold liquid.
After a week it was more carbonated, which helped the blandness but still tasted the same. Another week or so after that something odd happened...the flavors "rounded out", for lack of a better term.
What used to be really thin and sharp flavors, not metallic but with a bit of that character, became much warmer and everything seemed a lot more cohesive. It almost feels like I can actually judge it as a beer and not just relegate it to the bin of things that taste awful. I can't quite identify everything in it, which is still troublesome but I can definitely pick out a light maltiness with a toffee like body. Something in there is very similar to Werther's candies, but not quite as buttery. I definitely didn't manage to get the fruity yeast esthers I was trying for, which might have helped this beer a lot.
It's still a very light beer, which disappoints me because I really wanted something with more character and complexity, but it's actually shaping up to be something quaffable. I've learned a few things from this, even if the beer is less than stellar:
#1 I tried too many new things. All-grain, decoction, Belgian Aromatic Malt, brown sugar. I tried a lot of new stuff and I don't know what's making up the flavors I really don't like.
#2 My ability to hold a mash temp is freaking terrible. If I were to shoot higher to begin with or take more intermediate steps to maintain a temperature, I might do better.
Brown Ale brewday:
Moving on from that, I decided to step back and make a really simple beer to try to refine my technique. I also bought the Beersmith software, since I figure it could help me with some mash calculations.
I decided to shoot for a Brown Ale using only 3 malts, 2 hops, and a basic yeast I've used before.
This time, to try to mitigate that I wrapped the bucket tightly in a blanket. I also told Beersmith I was using plastic, so it could take the thermal properties of my mashtun into account while calculating my strike water temperature. Since the Scotch Ale was so bland and light bodied I decided to mash a bit higher as well.
Unfortunately, I'm still trying to figure out Beersmith's interface so I screwed up and misread the temperature and used a strike temp that was way too low. I wound up in the high 140's instead of the mid 150's, and realized I'd screwed the pooch. I pulled off a bit of my mash immediately and also added some additional water from the tap, totaling about 1-2 gallons of water, and boiled it. As soon as it was boiling I poured it back into the mash and stirred up, which got me to a lot more respectable temperature.
Even with the wrapping I still lost a decent amount of heat so I might need to upgrade to actual insulation, or just sack up and do an actual Coleman Cooler MLT conversion.
I just let the mash rest, and then lautered to another bucket. I managed to get about 1.062 gravity from my first "gyle". I added my sparge water and let it sit, then lautered again. According to my refractometer readings of the runnings, at 1.020, I could have kept going but I had way more wort than I'm actually capable of boiling so I decided to leave it be. Generally you can lauter all the way down to about 1.008 before you start extracting tannins. In all I collected 5.5 gallons of wort with a combined pre-boil gravity of 1.052.
In the past I've topped up my boil kettle during the boil to maintain volume, so I have to top off less once the wort is in the fermenter. This time I knew I had too much wort and wasn't going to boil off enough over the hour, so I got the 2nd largest kettle in my apartment and filled that with wort hoping the extra boil off would let me use all my wort. I followed my hopping schedule as advertised, with the only real exception being I tossed a few pellets into the secondary boil, which I started a little earlier than the primary boil.
Prior to this brew I'd built my own immersion wort chiller, basically following what this guy did:
It's really easy and really cheap, there is pretty much no reason not to do it.
I chilled with that, and it took about 15 minutes to get to a pitchable temperature.
Post-boil I had 4 gallons of wort and topped back up to 5.5 gallons and pitched yeast. My Original Gravity was 1.048
I actually brewed this on Dec 5th, it's taken me this long to get around to writing this. The beer is about ready for bottling, so hopefully this goes better than the last. The krausen has fallen, and I hope to get around to bottling this weekend.
--PXA
Initial tastings of the ale are downright offensive. It tastes like cat urine. The first bottle is acrid, and burns all my senses. It's pretty awful. After a few weeks it's managed to upgrade itself to "bland", which still isn't too great to drink but at least isn't as awful as it used to be. Moving on from that, it went through a stage where it smelled really yeasty but didn't give up a lot of hints regarding the beer itself.
I was originally shooting for a very low level of carbonation to approximate English pub ales. After the first few tastings I decided to try to re-carbonate to a higher level of carbonation to attempt to make the flavor a bit less bland. I tried to add additional carbonation using pre-measured conditioning tablets. I opened every bottle, added 2 tablets, and quickly recapped using sanitized caps. I had a few gushers, which is probably similar to the mentos+coke effect and could have been avoided by putting all the bottles into the fridge for a few hours first. CO2 dissolves better in cold liquid.
After a week it was more carbonated, which helped the blandness but still tasted the same. Another week or so after that something odd happened...the flavors "rounded out", for lack of a better term.
What used to be really thin and sharp flavors, not metallic but with a bit of that character, became much warmer and everything seemed a lot more cohesive. It almost feels like I can actually judge it as a beer and not just relegate it to the bin of things that taste awful. I can't quite identify everything in it, which is still troublesome but I can definitely pick out a light maltiness with a toffee like body. Something in there is very similar to Werther's candies, but not quite as buttery. I definitely didn't manage to get the fruity yeast esthers I was trying for, which might have helped this beer a lot.
It's still a very light beer, which disappoints me because I really wanted something with more character and complexity, but it's actually shaping up to be something quaffable. I've learned a few things from this, even if the beer is less than stellar:
#1 I tried too many new things. All-grain, decoction, Belgian Aromatic Malt, brown sugar. I tried a lot of new stuff and I don't know what's making up the flavors I really don't like.
#2 My ability to hold a mash temp is freaking terrible. If I were to shoot higher to begin with or take more intermediate steps to maintain a temperature, I might do better.
Brown Ale brewday:
Moving on from that, I decided to step back and make a really simple beer to try to refine my technique. I also bought the Beersmith software, since I figure it could help me with some mash calculations.
I decided to shoot for a Brown Ale using only 3 malts, 2 hops, and a basic yeast I've used before.
12 lbs. US 2-rowSince one of my major problems has been holding a mash temperature I decided to use the same basic technique as last time and improve upon it instead of trying something totally new. In the Scotch Ale writeup I mentioned using an "improvised mashtun" but didn't really go into detail about that. My improvised mashtun was a ginormous nylon grain bag in my bottling bucket with a spoon wedged inside between the bag and the inside opening of the spigot. Even with the top on, the plastic is just too good at giving off heat to hold the temperature for the length of the mash.
2 lbs. Briess Special Roast
.5 lb US Chocolate Malt
1 oz cascade @ 60 minutes
1 oz cascade @ 30 minutes
1 oz glacier @ 10 minutes
Yeast: Wyeast 1272 - American Ale II
This time, to try to mitigate that I wrapped the bucket tightly in a blanket. I also told Beersmith I was using plastic, so it could take the thermal properties of my mashtun into account while calculating my strike water temperature. Since the Scotch Ale was so bland and light bodied I decided to mash a bit higher as well.
Unfortunately, I'm still trying to figure out Beersmith's interface so I screwed up and misread the temperature and used a strike temp that was way too low. I wound up in the high 140's instead of the mid 150's, and realized I'd screwed the pooch. I pulled off a bit of my mash immediately and also added some additional water from the tap, totaling about 1-2 gallons of water, and boiled it. As soon as it was boiling I poured it back into the mash and stirred up, which got me to a lot more respectable temperature.
Even with the wrapping I still lost a decent amount of heat so I might need to upgrade to actual insulation, or just sack up and do an actual Coleman Cooler MLT conversion.
I just let the mash rest, and then lautered to another bucket. I managed to get about 1.062 gravity from my first "gyle". I added my sparge water and let it sit, then lautered again. According to my refractometer readings of the runnings, at 1.020, I could have kept going but I had way more wort than I'm actually capable of boiling so I decided to leave it be. Generally you can lauter all the way down to about 1.008 before you start extracting tannins. In all I collected 5.5 gallons of wort with a combined pre-boil gravity of 1.052.
In the past I've topped up my boil kettle during the boil to maintain volume, so I have to top off less once the wort is in the fermenter. This time I knew I had too much wort and wasn't going to boil off enough over the hour, so I got the 2nd largest kettle in my apartment and filled that with wort hoping the extra boil off would let me use all my wort. I followed my hopping schedule as advertised, with the only real exception being I tossed a few pellets into the secondary boil, which I started a little earlier than the primary boil.
Prior to this brew I'd built my own immersion wort chiller, basically following what this guy did:
It's really easy and really cheap, there is pretty much no reason not to do it.
I chilled with that, and it took about 15 minutes to get to a pitchable temperature.
Post-boil I had 4 gallons of wort and topped back up to 5.5 gallons and pitched yeast. My Original Gravity was 1.048
I actually brewed this on Dec 5th, it's taken me this long to get around to writing this. The beer is about ready for bottling, so hopefully this goes better than the last. The krausen has fallen, and I hope to get around to bottling this weekend.
--PXA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
