41 replies to this topic

[SchwanzBrewer]

I still disagree with this. Malts don't fight with each other as much as they add to each other. If you wanted to make a similar beer but make it lower gravity I think the specialty grains should in large part be left alone. base malt adds very little flavor wise on the per pound basis. crystals add a lot. they don't really cancel each other out.

go ahead gang - COME AT ME!!!

I'll have to think on that one. You still have the same amount of wort... I think the apparent flavor will change and it will unbalance in favor of more apparent crystal flavor even though the actual amount is the same.

[positiveContact]

I'll have to think on that one. You still have the same amount of wort... I think the apparent flavor will change and it will unbalance in favor of more apparent crystal flavor even though the actual amount is the same.

what is there to unbalance? if you reduce the base malt only all you've done is make the beer slightly less malty/sweet. I think lower ABV beers in general need more crystal by percentage.

[Big Nake]

Ken is infecting us! I don't make many big beers. 6% is big for me, 4.8 to 5% is the norm.

I was going to say... 8 lbs is just slightly under what I would make on a regular basis. Actually, I'm bumping my ABVs up slowly but surely, reducing my bittering additions and looking into more flavor and aroma so this sounds interesting. I would not turn my nose up at a 3.25% ABV beer. Brew it!

[SchwanzBrewer]

what is there to unbalance? if you reduce the base malt only all you've done is make the beer slightly less malty/sweet. I think lower ABV beers in general need more crystal by percentage.

When you create a recipe you have a profile. Changing any of the ingredients changes the profile. Base malts add one certain character, crystal another. They interact for the overall impression. If you cange the amount of one then that overall impression changes and one thing, in this case the crystal, will dominate a little more over the other. May not even be enough for most people to notice, but it is a change.

[positiveContact]

When you create a recipe you have a profile. Changing any of the ingredients changes the profile. Base malts add one certain character, crystal another. They interact for the overall impression. If you cange the amount of one then that overall impression changes and one thing, in this case the crystal, will dominate a little more over the other. May not even be enough for most people to notice, but it is a change.

I guess if you want to scale back flavor all around this makes sense but I'd like even my smallish beers to have some character and residual sugar for body. This idea of maintaining a balance doesn't really mean much to me here b/c when you start seriously dropping the OG you are going to get a very different product anyway.

[HVB]

Finally got around to brewing this one. I decided to go no-sparge so I pumped the Vienna up to 6# assuming I would take a efficiency hit. With the 6# I would hit my numbers with an efficiency of 65%. Well, that did not go as planned because I came out with 78% efficiency and an OG of 1.040. Not sure if this was a fluke or not but I will have to try a no-sparge beer again soon to see if I get the same results. Beer is in the fermenter sitting at 63 and now I just need to wait.

[positiveContact]

Finally got around to brewing this one. I decided to go no-sparge so I pumped the Vienna up to 6# assuming I would take a efficiency hit. With the 6# I would hit my numbers with an efficiency of 65%. Well, that did not go as planned because I came out with 78% efficiency and an OG of 1.040. Not sure if this was a fluke or not but I will have to try a no-sparge beer again soon to see if I get the same results. Beer is in the fermenter sitting at 63 and now I just need to wait.

where do you measure efficiency? I'm looking into no-sparge so I always have to ask. I measure going into the fermentor which means I've lost liquid in the kettle (hops absorb some, shputz in the kettle, dead space). I think it's more common to measure pre-boil since this accurately captures how well you did at converting and rinsing.

[HVB]

Pre-boil was supposed to be 6.6 and I got 8. I measured again in the fermenter and it was supposed to be 8.3 and I got 9.6. All of this done with a refractomter. My volume was correct. I plan to brew again next weekend and I want to try another no-sparge beer to compare results, maybe a mild or Scottish ~60. I did let the mash go for 90 minutes but I have done this before and not seen that kind of increase. Not complaining at all, just wish I knew why!

[positiveContact]

Pre-boil was supposed to be 6.6 and I got 8. I measured again in the fermenter and it was supposed to be 8.3 and I got 9.6. All of this done with a refractomter. My volume was correct.

I plan to brew again next weekend and I want to try another no-sparge beer to compare results, maybe a mild or Scottish ~60. I did let the mash go for 90 minutes but I have done this before and not seen that kind of increase. Not complaining at all, just wish I knew why!

didn't weigh the grain accurately?

[HVB]

didn't weigh the grain accurately?

I do not think that is the issue, but it was 5am and I did not have coffee yet ..LOL

For the next one I will just leave it as a 70% eff recipe and see what happens, not make any changes.

[HVB]

didn't weigh the grain accurately?

Thinking about this for a second I do not think it could be the grain amount seeing I hit my pre-boil amount on the dot. If I had too much grain the pre-boil volume would be less.

[positiveContact]

I do not think that is the issue, but it was 5am and I did not have coffee yet ..LOL

For the next one I will just leave it as a 70% eff recipe and see what happens, not make any changes.

ultimately a little more gravity rarely upsets me

[MtnBrewer]

where do you measure efficiency? I'm looking into no-sparge so I always have to ask. I measure going into the fermentor which means I've lost liquid in the kettle (hops absorb some, shputz in the kettle, dead space). I think it's more common to measure pre-boil since this accurately captures how well you did at converting and rinsing.

Both methods do but if you measure in the fermenter then you really need to know your kettle losses accurately.

[HVB]

Took a reading last night and looks to be at 1.015, so that comes out around 3.2%. The sample tasted good, not as hoppy as I expected though. This was the first batch that I waited till 175* to put in the whirlpool hops, most of the time I put them in once I shut the boil off. This one will be getting kegged today or tomorrow so we will see how it tasted cold and carbonated.

Edited by drez77, 15 November 2012 - 07:49 AM.

[HVB]

Time to bring this one back from the dead.  hard to believe it was over 2 years ago I started working on this beer.  Well, I am did a few variations following the theme in the OP but never got really what I wanted.  I am going to keep the grain bill in the same neighborhood as the original with Vienna doing most of the heavy work but I am going to lose the honeymalt and carastan, the hops will be completely different.  I have never used this combination but I am hoping it works out OK.

 

Swagger – Baby Pale Ale

6g batch

Mash Temp – 154*

OG – 1.040

 

Grist

53% - 5# Vienna (Gambrinus Vienna5-7l)

21% - 2# Pils

11% -1# Caravienne

11% - 1# Flaked Barley

5% - ½# Carahell (may swap this for something like C-40 or even Victory)

 

Hops

7g Apollo – 60 Minutes

14g Citra – 10 Minutes

14g Galaxy – 10 Minutes

14g Simcoe – 10 Minutes

28g Citra – 30 Minute steep

28g Galaxy – 30 Minute steep

28g Simcoe – 30 Minute steep

28g Galaxy – Dry Hop

28g Simcoe – Dry Hop

 

Water

Ca – 120ppm

Mg- 3ppm

Na – 24ppm

SO4- 160ppm

Cl- 95ppm

 

Yeast

S-05

London Ale III

Conan

 

I would like to do a 3 ways split and test this against S-05, I have used that so many times I know what to expect but also try Conan, AKA Heady Topper yeast, and London Ale III what is rumored to be the Hill Farmstead yeast.

[neddles]

A couple thoughts. I don't think you will be unhappy with that hop blend… but thats obvious.

 

It looks like you are going for some pale ale malt-like complexity/bready with that Vienna/Pils mix, no? I've never tried that but it seems like that's what you would get. 

 

Also, Carahell has got to be very similar to Caravienne so unless you are out of Caravienne and are subbing in the Carahell to make up the shortfall I would go with something else as you suggested.

 

Victory to me is nice in a pale ale and can play nice a supporting role to your malt bill and emphasize dryness. Maybe it's just me but I have found that the lower the OG the more victory/biscuit seems to come through. I have used as much as 3/4# in APA/IPA OGs of 1.056-1.065 for 6 gallons post boil and liked it. But 5oz (4%) in a recent 1.043 beer was just a hair too much (would back down to 4oz. next time in that grist.)

 

Also you mentioned HF and their yeast (~WY1318). Never had their beer, do they filter/fine or is their hoppy stuff a bit hazy?

[HVB]

I am using the Vienna to give the small beer more of a backbone,complexity as you call it.  I have decided to go 50/50 on those two, so 3.5# each.  I have done a 50/50 blend of MO and pils before and really like what I get out of that.  I decided Vienna this time just for a bit more flavor.  I mainly picked carahell because it is about 10l and I was looking for a lighter colored beer but wanted a bit more crystal in there to give the beer a bit more body.  Carahell is said to help increase body, similar to Carpils I guess.  In all honesty I am still on the fence with the carahell and have to see what I have in stock that may work with what I have in mind.  I keep caravienne as a standard in my inventory so I have about 20#'s of it.  My biggest concern is a thin beer, I want this small beer to have a nice body and not be thin and watery.

 

HFS does not filter to my knowledge .. their hoppy beers are cloudy.  Here is a shot of Abner from HFS.  From some recent beers with 1318 I expect to have more clarity.

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: Not my picture but representative of what I have had.

 

 

A couple thoughts. I don't think you will be unhappy with that hop blend… but thats obvious.

 

It looks like you are going for some pale ale malt-like complexity/bready with that Vienna/Pils mix, no? I've never tried that but it seems like that's what you would get. 

 

Also, Carahell has got to be very similar to Caravienne so unless you are out of Caravienne and are subbing in the Carahell to make up the shortfall I would go with something else as you suggested.

 

Victory to me is nice in a pale ale and can play nice a supporting role to your malt bill and emphasize dryness. Maybe it's just me but I have found that the lower the OG the more victory/biscuit seems to come through. I have used as much as 3/4# in APA/IPA OGs of 1.056-1.065 for 6 gallons post boil and liked it. But 5oz (4%) in a recent 1.043 beer was just a hair too much (would back down to 4oz. next time in that grist.)

 

Also you mentioned HF and their yeast (~WY1318). Never had their beer, do they filter/fine or is their hoppy stuff a bit hazy?

Edited by drez77, 24 February 2015 - 01:57 PM.

[positiveContact]

drez - victory was present in the two transatlantic pale ales I sent you.  just something to keep in mind.

 

I find it's a nice grain for introducing some toasty aspects.

Edited by Evil_Morty, 24 February 2015 - 02:02 PM.

[neddles]

Thanks. Some other thoughts… I am no expert, as you know, but my experience is that with your OG you may want to try to keep the FG at 1.010 or above to avoid that dreaded wateriness. I have not yet made a watery low OG beer with 002/1968 or 1469. I think the 1318 could be used in that same way here. Obviously US-05 will require more dextrinous malts and higher mash temp to get you there, kind of a pick your poison type situation but I think you can make it work well. 

 

I am going to be making a similar OG beer soon to be the inaugural brew to go in my new pin cask. I plan to employ 002 as described above to a grist of MO and about 7% Carastan (33-37L english crystal) Likely Amarillo and Citra in the showcase.

[HVB]

Thanks. Some other thoughts… I am no expert, as you know, but my experience is that with your OG you may want to try to keep the FG at 1.010 or above to avoid that dreaded wateriness. I have not yet made a watery low OG beer with 002/1968 or 1469. I think the 1318 could be used in that same way here. Obviously US-05 will require more dextrinous malts and higher mash temp to get you there, kind of a pick your poison type situation but I think you can make it work well. 

 

I am going to be making a similar OG beer soon to be the inaugural brew to go in my new pin cask. I plan to employ 002 as described above to a grist of MO and about 7% Carastan (33-37L english crystal) Likely Amarillo and Citra in the showcase.

 

[font="calibri, sans-serif;"]I did have 9% carastan in my first go of this beer and decided I just did not care for it in the beer.  I agree that it has to finish about 1.010.  I hope to have this finish about 1.013.  I think I have done 4-5 renditions of this beer, one time it was a black APA with 1# of midnight wheat and Nelson hops, that was the best version yet but I do not want it on tap all the time.  I really want a lighter colored beer.[/font]