talk about my new system (single sparge 74%), color, flavor, specialty grains, union jack rebrew experiment
I recently tried my Union Jack clone for the first time, and it is a great IPA. The problem is that it isn't Union Jack. It's close, but not quite right.
What's wrong with it? Well, not much. I don't taste any phenols or other off flavors. Hop character is good and bitterness level is also good.
First off, I subbed Columbus for Warrior. I didn't think much of it at the time, but after learning a bit more I know that isn't a great idea. Columbus gives a harsh, lingering bitterness. If you have had Green Flash West Coast IPA, you know what I'm talking about. West Coast IPA uses a lot of Columbus and it shows - it is a powerful, bitter, grassy IPA that hits you in the face and lingers long after you stop drinking. Union Jack is the opposite - smooth bitterness and citrus-resin sweetness make it seem way less bitter than its 75 IBUs advertise.
So, I'll be using Warrior next time. Magnum might also be a good sub, but I'll go with Warrior.
Second, mine turned out drier than expected. I mashed at 145-146 and used WLP002, but I got 84% attenuation instead of 80%. I also made a slightly bigger beer with an OG of 1.072 instead of 1.070. Overall, the ABV was 7.9% instead of 7.5%. I may have to mash at a higher temperature than the original recipe calls for, which is probably just some difference with my system (or my thermometer) that I can't explain.
Finally, my version lacks much of the malt sweetness. The hops are bigger and the malt is drier and more subtle. This may partly be due to the WLP002 - it may have attenuated more than expected, thus leaving less sweetness in the final beer. However, there's another big difference between my recipe and the original - efficiency. Specifically, I got an 85% brewhouse efficiency (88% mash efficiency), while the recipe was designed around 70%.
Why does this make a difference? Can't you just scale all of the grains so you end up with the same OG and that's that? Well, that's what I thought, but now that I've been thinking about it I'm not so sure.
Imagine an extreme situation where Jimmy the Noob finds a great recipe, but that recipe assumes 100% efficiency. Alas, Jimmy only get 50% efficiency in his no-sparge BIAB setup. Jimmy really wants to make this beer, though, so he says 'fuck it, I'm going to double all of my grains. What difference will it make, anyway?'.
What difference? Well, just imagine if that recipe uses black barley or black patent malt. British crystal 165. Special B. Have you figured it out yet?
Efficiency is a measure of how much starch is converted to sugar (conversion efficiency) and how much of that sugar is rinsed out of the grain and into your kettle (sparge efficiency?), minus any losses you might get (absorbed by hops, spilled, etc), which leads to your final Brewhouse Efficiency (TM). Having a higher efficiency will lead to more sugars (both fermentable sugars and dextrins) being extracted, my hypothesis is that it does not significantly affect the extraction of secondary characteristics: flavor, color and proteins (body/head retention).
In other words, it is my supposition that doubling your efficiency will double the amount of sugar present in your wort, but will not make your wort twice as dark, have twice the head head retention or have twice as much 'flavor' (whatever that means).
What does this mean in practice? Jimmy will double all of his grains, both base malts and specialty grains. His base malts already don't add much flavor, especially if he uses American 2-row, but now he is using twice as many flavorful caramel and roasted malts. He ends up with a WAY maltier/roasted/caramel/raisin/coffee/whatever flavor. He can barely taste the hops, and it turns out super sweet because of all the crystal malt. It ends up black instead of brown. The chocolate malt becomes overpowering. It is a completely different beer. Jimmy still drinks it, and doesn't care, because Jimmy is a noob.
What if Jimmy left all of his specialty grains the same, but only increased his 2-row? He more than doubles the amount of two-row so that the OG of his new recipe matches the original. His beer comes out a little better, but not quite as flavorful as he expected. He's making progress though; perhaps he isn't such a noob after all.
The problem with the opposite extreme is that your base malt is normally a clean, neutral canvas that you paint with specialty grain. American 2-row is so neutral that it doesn't really contribute much flavor on its own. Imagine if you more than doubled all of your 2-row while leaving everything else the same. Instead of an 80/10/5/5 split, you end up with an something more like a 95/3/1/1 split. Your specialty malts suddenly pale in comparison. You can't even taste the chocolate malt anymore. The small percentage of crystal means you have very little sweetness or mouth-feel. If you are using highly kilned malts like Maris Otter, the problem will be much worse.
The color is probably about right, though.
As you have probably guessed, the real answer is somewhere in between these two extremes. There might be a recipe that will convert the 100% efficiency recipe down to 50% and result in a near perfect clone. The problem is that your perception of flavor and body is inexact and/or subjective. There is no formula that will take one recipe and convert it exactly. Your recipe will be completely different from the original, and you will have to arrive at it by trial and error over perhaps dozens of batches.
The first solution is to always shoot for 65-75% efficiency, as a homebrewer. Getting a really high efficiency can lead to a lower quality of wort (I'll leave that discussion for another day), but it also means there's a large difference between the recipe you use and the one written in the book. You end up making Jimmy's beer and placing last in your local homebrew competition because you ended up making an American Stout instead of an American Brown.
The second thing to do, once you have your efficiency in the 65-75% range, is to leave all of your specialty grains in the same amount as the original recipe (scaled to your batch size, of course). Then you want to increase or decrease only your base malt (2-row, pilsener, whatever) until you match the recipe's OG. If you are within 5-10% of the original efficiency, this shouldn't require much more or less malt and the overall character should match what the recipe designer envisioned.
Let me repeat, however, that this is just a hypothesis. I plan to try this on my next brewing of my Union Jack clone. Ultimately, you have to design recipes to match your own system, even if you are following someone else's recipes, and it will take a lot of experience and trial & error to get exactly what you want.
, page 64, the amount of water trapped in the spent grain is predictable: 80% water, 20% spent grain. He says that while you can weigh your spent grain, it is safe to assume that the grain weighs 40% of its original weight after mashing and sparging. You then multiply this value by 4, since there is 4 times more water in their than grain.