The 5 Best Ways to Improve Your Brews

There are two extremes to learning to brew. 

You can buy yourself a 10 gallon, pump driven, all grain brew sculpture and conical for 20 grand. You'll make beer, but you won't know HOW to make beer. Then you'll get bored, and try to sell it on Craigslist for half it's worth.

You can start from the bottom, using a Mr. Beer kit and working your way up, making every mistake you can make and learning from it. If you don't make wise decisions up front, you can end up spending a lot of money in the long run, but you understand exactly how every upgrade you make will improve your beer. This is what I did, and I know that it can be extremely frustrating when you make that one key upgrade and wonder why the hell you spent the last year making substandard beer.

Wouldn't it be great if there was some incredibly smart person who already made all the mistakes and had a blog where they could write about it? Yeah, that would be swell. 

1. Pitch More Fucking Yeast

You probably don't. Even if you've been brewing for years, I bet you don't.

If you're a newbie, and aren't willing to make a starter, USE DRY YEAST. I cannot stress this enough. A packet of dry yeast has at least twice the number of yeast cells as a vial of liquid yeast, and it's cheap. Direct pitching a package of liquid yeast is not enough for anything. It wasn't even enough for a healthy fermentation of my 3 gallon batches until I started making starters.

Pitch one 11 gm packet of US-05 for a 5.5 gallon batch of average strength beer, and don't be afraid to pitch 1.5 - 2 packets, especially for stronger beers and lagers. Properly rehydrated in 100 F water, of course. Pitching an extra packet of yeast costs you a whole 2 extra bucks per batch, just do it.

If you want to step it up, go straight to a stir plate and 2 liter flask. A 2 liter starter, decanted and pitched warm, will give you a strong, fast, healthy fermentation, and using liquid yeast will give you greater flexibility in the styles you can brew. The flask can be boiled and fermented all in one container, won't break when cooled quickly and is easy to swirl and pour. A 2 liter starter made with half a vial of liquid yeast will give you just enough yeast for a 6 gallon ale of around 1.070, cutting your yeast costs in half. A stirplate and 2L flask can be had for less than $60 and is probably the best investment I have ever made.

PS. Some people say you can pitch too much yeast. If you can, I haven't seen the limit. I've racked a 1.100 OG imperial stout right on top of a dry irish stout yeast cake with no ill effects. It finished fermenting down to 1.030 in two fucking days and tasted great!

2. Just Fucking Buy BeerSmith Already

And I mean buy it, not pirate it. It costs what, half the price of a batch of beer, and you'll be supporting a guy who works hard to support your habit, both with podcasts and frequent software updates. BeerSmith is hands down the best brewing software I've ever used. I use it to maintain a detailed brew log, design recipes from scratch, scale other recipes for my batch size and efficiency, and calculate anything I could possibly need to when brewing up a batch. Just don't pirate it, you cheap asshole.

3. Don't Waste Your Time (Or Money) On Partial Boils

Brewing with extract is perfectly okay. You can and will make great beers with extract, but you absolutely need to do a full boil. Right from the get-go, no topping up. Why?

• Better hop utilization. Open up BeerSmith (you don't have it? Go back to number 2). Try designing a recipe where you top it up with 3 gallons. Look at your IBUs. Now change the top up water to 0 (i.e., full boil). Now look at your IBUs. You can make this better by adding most of your extract at the end, at least.
• Less chance for contamination. This should be obvious. Half of your water wasn't even boiled - probably right out of the tap. Add that to the fact that you're probably trying to save yeast by pitching half a packet of dry yeast and getting 2 day lag times, it's no wonder your beer is infected.
• Better taste. This one's obviously difficult to quantify, or even prove. Some people say the source of 'extract twang' is due to stale extract, but others attribute it to a concentrated boil followed by dilution. Regardless, you know who doesn't do partial boils? Jamil. Tasty. Pro brewers. People who win contests. People who make better beer than you do.
• Replicating recipes. See the last point. Do you think that brew you read about in Brewing Classic Styles or heard on Can You Brew It was topped up with tap water? No. Your beer may taste okay, but it won't taste like it's supposed to. Pretty much any recipe written by a professional or an advanced homebrewer assumes, at a bare minimum, that you're boiling everything at once.
• You're going to do it anyway. Come on, if you're even halfway serious about homebrewing, you'll go all grain sooner or later. And when you do, you're going to be doing a full boil. If you don't do all grain or full boils for the rest of your life, make sure you put a pound of hops in every brew so no one can taste how terrible it is.

This one will cost you. You'll need a larger brew pot, 8-10 gallons (a ball valve is nice, but not 100% necessary). You'll need a propane burner. You'll almost certainly need a wort chiller. Here's why it isn't as expensive as it sounds, and why it's totally worth it:

• Brewing on the stove top sucks. I ruined the electric stove at my last apart, and that was doing 3 gallon boils. The landlord charged me 50 bucks when I moved out for the cosmetic damage, but that's because she didn't charge me when she repaired the melted wires in the stove. If I had told her it was my fault due to brewing on the stovetop, she probably would have. The first time a repairman charges you $200 to fix your f'ed up stove, you'll wish you had just started on a propane burner. Plus, the gas stove at my new place takes about 45 minutes on high just to bring 3 gallons to mash-in temperature. Ugh, no thanks.
• You can buy 5 gallon pot for $50 now, then a 9 gallon pot with two welded ports for $90 later. Save yourself some money and just buy the bigger one right now.
• You can get a propane burner for $50 at Home Depot or wherever. When the rapture comes and you are cut off from all utilities, you'll be glad you have one. Plus, em, you can make a shit ton of chili on it with that big shiny new pot you have. You also probably already have a propane tank for BBQ - hell, I lived in a 500 square foot apartment and I already had one.
• Chilling wort in an ice bath REALLY sucks. I'd recommend a wort chiller even if you AREN'T doing full boils. Ice baths really just suck that much.
• Again, if you're going to go all grain, you'll have to buy all this stuff anyway. So it's basically free, right?

4. Fermentation Control

Keeping your fermentation temperatures under control is the number one most important thing you can do improve your brew. So why is it #4? 

The problem is, it's a huge pain in the ass and isn't always worth it. For example, if you keep your beer in the house and set the thermostat to 62, it's probably going to be fine. Most of the year, it won't even get hot enough to worry about. Plus, not everyone has the room in their house or the money to spare on a temp control solution, especially when the difference is between fermenting at 67 degrees and fermenting at 72. 

You can also solve the temperature problem by just not brewing in the summer. Make wine instead, I guess. That's how the Bavarians did it - their summer beer sucked balls, so they made it illegal to brew in the summer. Problem solved.

Finally, it just isn't exciting. There's no WOW factor to controlling your fermentation temperature. It isn't fun, or interesting, but if you're making hot, fuselly, estery, phenolic beers that are prone to infection, or if you want to make lagers, it is a game changer.

Unlike the first three items on the list, which you should do before even starting your first damn brew, I'd recommend getting a chest freezer as soon as you can spare the room and money for it. Keeping it in the house is best, where it won't get too cold at night and the temperature swings are less drastic. If you live in California, like me, outside it fine, but you still need to keep an eye on it so it doesn't get too cold or cycle on and off too much.

You can pick up a 5 CF chest freezer for $50-75 on Craigslist if you keep an eye out. A Ranco ETC-111000 will run you about $50 on ebay, unwired. You can see how to wire it yourself here and save yourself some money. It is digital and you can switch it from heating to cooling just by pressing a button. If you have huge temperature swings (100 during the day, 40 at night), you may need to use a dual stage controller like the Ranco ETC-211000, which lets you connect the freezer and a heating device at the same time.

5. Stop Storing Your Beer On a Hot Shelf in the Laundry Room

Stop it. And you wonder why that beer you sent to the local comp was hazy, infected, oxidized and had no hop character. Beer needs cold to settle out yeast and to keep it from premature aging. Putting your beer in the fridge is the best way to ensure it is clear and doesn't taste "young" (a.k.a., yeasty, green). It also doesn't cost you anything, though your significant other may object. 

I really wish the dumbasses at homebrewtalk.com had emphasized how terrible your homebrew tastes after you leave it warm for 3 months, instead of always claiming that time heals all wounds. It doesn't. Ferment it at the right temperature, with enough yeast, enough oxygen, enough nutrients and just enough time to clean up yeasty byproducts, then chill the shit out of it as soon as you can. Most well made beers taste great after about of month of total time fermenting and aging. Hell, it should taste pretty damn good right out of the fementor. If you have to let it age longer than that before it tastes good, either you made a big, aggressive beer (RIS, barleywine, scotch, etc) or you suck at brewing. Go back and read the first four points.

The next logical step here is to start cold conditioning your beer. My beer didn't stop tasting like 'homebrew' until I started kegging. But, it wasn't the kegging or the force carbonation that did it. The difference was that I was able to get my beer cold as soon as fermentation was done and keep it cold forever after. Not only will you settle out more of the yeast (and faster), thus eliminating common green/homebrew flavors, your homebrew will last you months (or years) before going south. Your IPAs will thank you especially.

If you can manage it, stick your carboy in a fridge for a week or two before bottling. Do it Sierra Nevada style - put it in the fridge to knock out all the yeast. Make sure it is crystal fucking clear. Then add about 1 gram of yeast (rehydrated) to your bottling bucket with the priming sugar. Make sure to let your beer warm back up to room temp before bottling. Say hello to clear, professional-tasting beer, and say goodbye to that enormous yeast plug in the bottom of your bottles.

The ultimate solution is to start kegging. I won't go into that now, but man guys it is so awesome. You have no idea.

6. ((Bonus)) Go All Grain

Okay, not on day one. I mean it. Take some time, learn to brew with what you've got. Maybe even win a comp or two with your extract beers. Really get to know your system as it is. Then step it up.

Brew in a bag pretty much costs less than 5 bucks to start. Just use your big-ass pot (you've got one now, right?) and a paint strainer bag. You'll be limited by how much grain you can fit into the bag you buy, and your wort will have much more 'crud' in it since you don't vorlauf. Your efficiency will also be lower if you don't sparge, but you can batch sparge with BIAB and get 75-80% efficiency.

The next step up isn't too expensive either. I mean, you already have the big pot, the wort chiller and the propane burner. You know what else you probably have? An ice chest. Something like this Coleman Xtreme. I bought it a few years ago for like...50 bucks on Amazon, to use when camping. Now, go to www.bargainfittings.com. Get this and this. Screw everything in according to their instructions. You now have a big enough mash tun to make 10 gallon batches of fucking Barleywine, and it probably cost you less than your brew kettle. Google "denny conn batch sparge".

PS. LEARN

Read every book you can find. Listen to everything The Brewing Network puts out (they put out a lot, if you know what I mean). Don't trust everything you read on homebrewtalk.com, but DO read homebrewtalk.com. Join the AHA, then read through all of their free back issues of Zymurgy. Subscribe to BYO. Find a local homebrew club and join it. Enter your beer in comps even if you don't think you'll win - you'll still learning something. Experiment. Most importantly, don't let an infection or a bad beer get you down - figure out what went wrong, fix it and keep brewing. 

All Grain Recipe: #28 Jamil's Chocolate Hazelnut Porter

Another damn infection!

Okay, I wanted to create some beers for Thanksgiving. Something holiday-ish but not necessarily 'holiday' or "christmas" beers. I decided to go with a chocolate hazelnut porter and a witbier - both are spiced, but not 'holiday' spiced. The porter would be the more interesting one, while the witbier would be for family with less adventurous palates.

I retired my Mr. Beer kegs for this batch, and have moved entirely to Better Bottles. I picked up an extra one at HopTech in Dublin while mashing.

The recipe calls for baking cocoa added at the end of the boil. This turned out to be difficult, and it didn't distribute evenly until it boiled for a while (even then it was chunky). It sunk to the bottom of the fermenter. During fermentation, the cocoa all went up to the top with the krausen. It was all very strange and made me uncomfortable. If I were to make another chocolate beer, I'd stick with cocoa nibs or chocolate extract!

True to my word, I didn't repitch yeast. I used a fresh vial of WLP001, but with no starter. After a month in primary, the FG was insanely high - 1.028. Even given the amount of specialty malt, the attenuation was way too low, about 57%. Out of fear that I'd get bottle bombs, I bottled these all in 1 liter PETs, which would bend instead of exploding if fermentation started up again in the bottle.

After 3 weeks in the bottle, carbonation was perfect, but the flavor was... off. Ashy, like a freshly burned candle or incense. Unpleasant, and the hazelnut and chocolate just made it worse.

One more week, and suddenly all of my bottles were bulging. Opening the bottles led to a fountain of beer.

Okay, so I did have underattenuation, which led to fermentation in the bottle. No big deal, right? Just let off pressure until the CO2 level hits the right amount, then drink. The problem is that the flavor got worse instead of better, and no amount of pressure relief led to a proper amount of CO2. I believe there was an infection that didn't manifest itself until after the beer was bottled.

After I realized it was likely an infection, I poured everything out. Yet another failure; I'm starting to get discouraged.

Anyway, as usual the recipes are after the break.

All Grain Recipe: #27 Mirror Pond Pale Ale Clone

For this recipe, I thought I'd make a clone of Deschutes Mirror Pond Pale Ale, from Can You Brew It.

Another not so great brew. This time, the problem was the yeast. I created a starter from a repitch of WLP007 (instead of the WLP002 the recipe called for). The first sign of trouble came when I smelled the starter, which was way more "Belgian" than it should have been. I thought it might just be the starter, so I pitched it.

I soon discovered it wasn't just the starter. Samples taken from the fermented beer tasted more like a Saison than an APA. They weren't bad, and the flavor mellowed over time. If it was an infection, they would get worse over time. I decided to roll with it, after letting it sit for twice as long as I normally would. I dry hopped it and bottled it, and when I tried it two things jumped out at me:

1) The carbonation was correct, unlike many of my other brews which were way overcarbed.
2) It wasn't bad! The Saison with citrusy cascade hops wasn't a bad combination.

After this brew I decided I'm going to stop repitching yeast. When it works, it is great, but it is too inconsistent. Yeast can mutate too much after only a few repitches, especially if the harvesting isn't done just the right way. I suspect the lack of attenuation in many of my beers may even be caused by less healthy yeast from repitching. It will only be fresh vials from here on out.

Recipes after the break.

All Grain Recipe: #26 Rogue Dead Guy Clone

This was an infected disaster. It was infected some time in secondary by my house wild yeast. It started fermenting again out of nowhere, and by the time I threw it out it had an astringent, Belgian-y flavor.

Let us never speak of it again.

For those curious, the recipe came from Can You Brew It, and is just after the break. I included notes I took while listening to the podcast, which is here.

Recipe Recap: #16 - #20

Today's Recipe Recap will cover brews #16 through #20. My brewing is definitely getting better. I improved my process, lowered my efficiency, corrected my pH, cleared my beer more, carbonated properly and controlled my fermentation better.

#16, Firestone Walker Union Jack IPA Clone
First, the bad news. This didn't really taste like Union Jack at all. I bittered with Columbus hops for 60 minutes instead of Warrior for 90, giving it a much harsher bitterness. My OG was off, and it attenuated more than it should have. My high efficiency led to a lack of strong malt character, so it was hop dominated (more like my pliny clone). My lack of pH control led to a little bit of phenolic off flavor and astringency, but very very little.

Finally, the carbonation was higher than I'd like, making the beer seem harsh. Oddly enough, I have to carb around 2 - 2.2 volumes, using BeerSmith's calculator, to reach a level of carbonation that is close to what you'd get from a commercial bottle or draught. This beer was carbed to around 2.6-2.7 volumes.

Also, I tried to dry hop without a hop bag. That was a huge mistake, and I lost almost a gallon of beer to hops before all was done.

The good news is that it was a pretty good beer. It just wasn't a clone, and it wasn't perfect.


#17, Janet's Brown Ale
Holy cow, this stuff was good out of the gate. I had one after only being in the bottle less than two weeks and it was fantastic. I carbed it properly, to around 2.3 volumes. The head was thick and creamy and lasted a long time. The hop aroma was strong and pleasant. The hop flavor and subtle roastiness of the chocolate malt went hand in hand. The mouth feel was nice and thick but never sweet, and very drinkable. My best beer so far!

If there was any complaint, it might be that the specialty malt flavor wasn't as pronounced as I expected and there was a hint of phenolics in the background. I only noticed it when I compared mine to a commercial Black IPA that had a similar flavor.

I'd love to try the real thing and compare! I've also rebrewed this one with some improvements to my process. I carbed to 2.3 volumes, and will probably reduce that to 2.0 - 2.1 next time I bottle.



#18, Stone Levitation Clone
Light, dry and orange-y. Drinkable and full of flavor, though more and more I prefer beers with a very thick body. I can't detect any off flavors, though.

Carbonation is a little high at 2.5, and I would reduce that to 2.3 next time. I had to sub Mt. Hood for the Crystal, which may have had significant impact on the flavor. Aroma and flavor are definitely dominated by the orange citrus of the Amarillo. Over time, the flavors have 'melded' together into a more cohesive single flavor, where before it felt like a combination of different flavors competing for my attention. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's the only way I can describe it.

This will probably taste closer to the original if I lower my efficiency and adjust my specialty malt percentages. Of course, I haven't compared it to the original. I'll come back and update this post when I do, or create an entirely new post.



#19, JZ's American Pale Ale
Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Pale Ales in general. They're usually pretty dry and boring. For me, a glass of beer is an event, not something I drink pints and pints of. It tastes decent, though a little young, and the carbonation feels higher than it should. I think the flavors need time to merge. It currently tastes like hops and malt, instead of a single combined 'pale ale' flavor, if that makes sense.

This is my first beer made with a lower efficiency, 5.2 pH stabilizer and gelatin finings. I can definitely tell. The beer is clearer and cleaner than any before it. I detected no off flavors. Very clean and very drinkable. The flavor is similar to Levitation, probably due to using the same base malt (Great Western American Pale Ale malt, a US version of British pale malt).



#20, Triple-X Sweet Stout
Heaven in a glass. This will be gone in no time, even though I'm only drinking on weekends on my diet. Thick but drinkable. Slight milk-like aftertaste. Creamy espresso and chocolate flavor, with a hint of alcohol. Not hot alcohols or off flavors that I can detect. This one has been in the bottles only two weeks and yet is nicely carbed, creamy and delicious. Proof that if you need to age your (lighter) beer more than a few weeks, you probably did something wrong.

I carbed to 2 volumes, and will probably reduce that to 1.8 or 1.9 next time. There *will* be a next time.

All Grain Recipe: #25 McQuaker's Oatmeal Stout

My first oatmeal stout, based on Jamil's Brewing Classic Styles recipe.

The resulting beer was unusually acidic and overcarbonated, even though I only carbed it to 2.0 volumes with corn sugar. I suspect that it wasn't fully attenuated, and may have finished attenuating in the bottle.

My wife loved it, and it tasted pretty damn good to me, even with the flaws.

I also sent it in to the Northern California Homebrew Festival competition, where it received a 27/50, with the following taste notes:


Aroma:
* Med fruity esters + med phenolics gives odd aroma like cola.
* Strong pear ester, some caramel. Light a weizenbock. Roasty notes as it warms.


Appearance:
* Dark, dark brown in color, opaque. Tall brown head, fine bubbles. Mouss-y w good retention.
* Rocky head, creamy dark brown, clear, med persistent creamy head, low CO2 (low???? later he says lots of CO2)

Flavor
* Malt sweetness, roasted notes (coffee+milk). Fruity esters, slight tartness. Low hop bitterness leaves the balance a little sweet. Roasted acid finish.
* Moderately sweet with caramel, not very roasty. Sharp fruity ester, finishes slightly dry. Slightly tart. Slightly oxidized? (no way)


Mouthfeel:
* Medium body, lighter due to carbonation. Slight creaminess but comes off as watery. Higher acidity in the finish.
* Med-full body, not as creamy as expected. Medium carbonic bite, tingly. Slightly dry, not huge or chewy.


Overall:
* An interesting beer that's difficult to describe. Hard to say the acidity is due to infection - it's almost like star san. My guess is that you lost temp control during fermentation, finishing and storage, which gave a bunch of esters. Maybe an older extract batch?
* It seemed like the fermentation wasn't clean enough, esters were too strong and reminiscent of wheat beers. Body was slightly low.

Recipes are after the break.

All Grain Recipe: #23 Pliny the Elder, v2.0

I decided to give the Pliny clone another go. The problems I had last time were these:

• Slightly fruity; maybe even hot alcohol. Possibly high fermentation temp.
• Bitterness was too harsh. I'm not a huge fan of Columbus for bittering. Something smoother like Warrior or Magnum would be better.
• Not dry enough. Needed to do something to dry it out: more sugar, less crystal, lower mash temps.
• Carbonation was too high. Reduce it to 2.2-2.3.
• Too dark. Not really a problem, per se, but Pliny is very pale and mine was more dark bronze.

I ended up following the MoreBeer pliny clone recipe pretty closely this time, here.

The recipe can be found here, if you search for "Pliny" on the page. Note that this recipe uses dry yeast, while I recommend the WLP001 liquid + starter. The recipe is also for 5 gallons. If you brew 6 gallons to account for a gallon of losses to trub and other stuff, you'll need to scale up.

This version definitely came out better, even if it still doesn't taste like Pliny. Even with my lowered mash temp, lowered Crystal amount and increased sugar, I still ended up with something pretty thick. My version is more like a typical Imperial IPA - more of a sipper. What makes Pliny different is that it is so dry and drinkable that you have chugged 2 pints of it and didn't even notice.

On the bright side, my newest brew has no off flavors or hot alcohols, and is very good regardless. It just isn't Pliny :P

All Grain Recipe: #22 Janet's Brown Ale, v2.0

AKA, Janet's Light Brown Ale

Janet's Brown is the next of my beer rebrews - beers that I liked, but didn't come out quite as perfect as they could have. Several process changes later and I'm ready to make them even better.

As a reminder, the main process changes involved a lower efficiency, a change in the way I scale recipes to my efficiency, racking to secondary with gelatin, the use of 5.2 pH stabilizer and yeast nutrient and lower carbonation across the board.

What I didn't intend was to use Pale Chocolate malt instead of Chocolate. It must have been a brainfart while I was measuring out ingredients at MoreBeer. I didn't even realize the mistake until I was racking into the fermentor and wondering why in the hell my beer was brown instead of black!

For all of you who are confused, let me make it clear.

YOU CANNOT SUBSTITUTE PALE CHOCOLATE MALT FOR CHOCOLATE.

Ever.

You don't sub twice as much pale chocolate for chocolate, or half as much chocolate for pale chocolate. It is about more than color -- the the two malts don't even taste alike.

So once again, no matter what the doofuses at homebrewtalk.com tell you, there are no subs. Use the right one or get out.

Of course, using a different version of chocolate malt won't ruin your beer. It will just be a different beer. Since I've brewed the original, this is a pretty good way to compare the two. The main difference I noticed is that the new version, besides being brown instead of black, has a toasted bread or cracker flavor. It still has a bit of the roasted coffee-like flavor from the regular chocolate malt, but it is much more subtle and hidden in the background. It's actually pretty damn good.

Recipe Recap: #11 - #15

Today's Recipe Recap will cover brews #11 through #15. This was a dark time in my brewing - of recipes #9 through #15, my only success was #12. It gets better though, and I won't be discouraged!

#11, Harold-is-Weizen Hefeweizen
A disaster in a bottle. I overpitched the yeast from a previous batch. Since the yeast didn't get a chance to grow and produce the characteristic clove & banana flavors, this beer ended up tasting like nothing. Nothing except cooked corn, that is. I forgot to do a 60 minute boil. Since this has a significant amount of Pilsner malt in it, the DMS levels in the final beer were very high. To top it all off, this beer was so overcarbed that half of the bottles I opened were gushers. I eventually gave up and dumped more than half of the batch to make room for new stuff.



#12, Pliny the Elder clone
There were definitely some problems. The massive amount of dry hopping left the beer a muddy brown-green color that took weeks in the fridge to settle out. The carbonation was just a little bit higher than I'd have liked (it gushed while warm but was fine when refrigerated). The body was thicker than the original Pliny, so my next attempt will use less Crystal, more Dextrose and mash at a lower temperature. The dry hop was pretty long, so I ended up with a more 'raw' hop flavor, though it wasn't so bad as to taste vegetal or grassy. I also used Colombus as the main bittering hop, which lent a harsher, oilier bitterness that made it less drinkable.

On the bright side, this was still a tasty beer, and definitely the best I had brewed so far. I'll definitely be iterating on this one, and intend to try a more updated recipe from MoreBeer (as opposed to the 'original' old school recipe I followed). The new recipe uses less Crystal, more Dextrose, more CaraPils, mashes at a lower temperature, bitters with Warrior and has a very slightly different ordering of hop additions. It also dry hops for a shorter time. This should lead to a smoother, drier, more drinkable beer.



#13, Arrogant Bastard clone
On the bright side, this does taste pretty close to the original.

On the other hand...

I accidentally bittered with Simcoe instead of Chinook (shame, since Simcoe costs twice as much). Read the labels on your hops!! My evaporation rate ended up way off, so I finished with around a quart and a half of extra wort and missed by OG by quite a lot. Worst of all, I overcarbonated this one by a ton. There were no gushers, but the flavors came out incredibly harsh due to the level of co2. Letting the beer flatten by swirling it constantly helped the taste. There may have been some astringent qualities to it, but that may have been a sensory side effect of the carbonation.

Not terrible, but not a success either. The ones in glass bottles can't be helped, but I was able to release some of the CO2 in the plastic bottles to improve the beer.



#14, English Apple Ale
Ugh, where do I begin. Lots of problems here. Tons of astringency from the apple juice - I'll probably use filtered apple juice next time in the hopes of getting less astringency from the apple matter. "Earthy" english hop flavor in the Mr. Beer kit didn't go well with the apple (frankly, I didn't expect any hop flavor in the Mr. B kit at all). Over carbonated, just like the last several batches, which combined with the English malt and apple astringency to create a beer that is super harsh and hard to drink.

Next time, I'd use filtered apple juice, American two-row (or some neutral, light extract), a clean bittering hop with no flavor hops and a way lower carb level (2.1 - 2.3). I'm not sure whether I'd use English or American yeast on the next batch. I went too crazy on this one, and should have started with a simple, neutral beer that happened to have apple juice in it.

On the bright side, the apple flavor was noticeable and there was a good residual sweetness in the beer.



#15, Munich Madness Oktoberfest/Marzen
Mistakes, mistakes, mistakes. Sensing a pattern yet?

First off, I 'innocently' adjusted the recipe with more hops because I had leftovers. I didn't want to leave just a few grams sitting around in the freezer, so I'd have tossed them out. I used 25 gm of bittering hops instead of 20 gm, and 15 gm of flavor hops instead of 7 gm. Yes, I used more in my 3 gallon batch than the original recipe calls for in 6 gallons (14 gm).

Then, I ended up with way too much pre-boil volume because I hadn't yet figured out the impact of grain absorption. I decided to boil longer instead. I ended up with too little wort and instead of topping it off, I thought I'd just have a stronger beer.

Finally, it's slightly overcarbed but not too bad. It doesn't gush, but I'd personally prefer something around 2.4-2.5 instead of 2.8.

Tastewise, the Hallertau character is way too dominant. I'm finding more and more than I'm actually not a big fan of Hallertau, and the fact that I used more than double what the recipe called for in the flavor addition is really obvious. The beer is also too big, with an alcohol warmth due to the high ABV (6.9% instead of 5%!!). It isn't as drinkable or dry as the style calls for, it is hard to detect the 'toasty' flavors that the style is supposed to have, and there is a very strong caramel flavor that reminds me of the recipes in which I used too much Crystal 15. I'm not even sure I can taste the munich malt behind the strong crystal flavor.

This one might still turn out to be okay with some cold conditioning, so I won't call it a failure, but I also won't call it a success.




On the bright side, my beers start getting WAAAAY better at #16 and beyond...

Hops: Mash Hopping

Mash hopping: the process of adding hops, usually pelletized, directly into the mash. It supposedly contributes very little to bitterness but produces a unique type of flavor and aroma that you can't get with standard late hop additions.

Mash hopping is a confusing thing. By all logic, it shouldn't work. One would expect most of the hops to be left in the grain bed, and any hops that make it into the wort to be isomerized during the long boil that follows.

I'm not sure anyone knows why it works, and many people will tell you it *doesn't* work, but let your own experiments be the judge of that.

The following is according to Paddock Wood Brewing Co, quoted from their blog:

Based on the research of De Clerck and Fix, the theory is that the aromatic oils react in a special way with wort at a higher pH than occurs with wort during the boil (the pH falls during a boil, and reduces the utilization of the hop oils) and at a lower temperature (150F). The complex reaction between hops and the wort results in the formation of more permanent flavour and aroma chemicals remaining in the beer than is the case with traditional hopping methods such as late additions to the brew kettle. It may be important to use pelletized hops in this situation, however, as the release of aromatic oils from whole hop cones is greatly assisted by the action of the boiling wort. The pelletized hops are not transferred to the kettle but remain behind as the mash bed acts as a filter. The hop usage appears to be about 90% less than what you could expect from a start-of-boil addition, but we have not performed any technical data gathering or analysis.

I've tried it once, since it is a standard part of Janet's Brown Ale. Russian River Brewing apparently also uses it in their Pliny the Elder. Until I'm convinced, I won't be mash hopping unless a great recipe calls for it. I haven't done a side by side comparison, but some day I'd like to brew two identical batches - one that has been mash hopped and one that hasn't. I encourage any readers to try it and let me know the results.

All Grain Recipe: #21 Union Jack IPA, v2.0

My original version of this recipe (here) had a lot of problems, but also a ton of potential. I've resolved to solve as many of those problems as possible in my first re-brew!

Recipe Recap: #1 - #10

Recipe Recap is a quick overview of where each of my recipes ended up: how they tasted, mistakes I made, how likely I am to brew it again and anything else that comes to mind.

Let's start with batches #1 through #10!


#1, Mr. Beer Classic American Blonde w/ Booster
My first beer ever. Thin, highly carbonated American-style blonde. Nothing special, but it wasn't completely terrible for a first attempt either. Chlorophenols from using unfiltered tap water and acetaldehyde (green apple flavor, due to using just one can of malt and one pouch of booster) dominated the flavor for a long time, but conditioned out. Not a terrible first try, and encouraging enough for me to continue the hobby.



#2, Mr. Beer Cowboy Honey Wheat
A much bigger, maltier beer than the Blonde, I ultimately didn't care for it. The honey left a flavor, despite what everyone claims, and the combination of high alcohol sweetness, honey flavor and the base flavor of the Cowboy Golden Lager recipe left a cloying kind of flavor that I couldn't get past. A couple months of conditioning made it decent, but further conditioning after that made it worse. I poured out half of the last PET bottle after drinking just a few sips.



#3, Mr. Beer Eye Opener Sumatra Stout
My first premium recipe and my first attempt at steeping grains. I'm not sure the half pound of crystal did anything, and I don't know what the bit of oatmeal I steeped at the last minute did. This came out as a very tart and thick beer with a nonexistent head and none of the creaminess you expect from a stout. It isn't bad, and I still drink it from time to time.

For reference, the 'tart' flavor is very much like the Alaskan Oatmeal Stout, so I don't think there was anything wrong with the recipe or process - it just isn't my style.



#4, Mr. Beer American Devil IPA
My second premium recipe, and the first time that steeping grains made a difference. In retrospect, I should have just steeped CaraPils. I didn't have an appreciation at the time for the flavor impact Crystal malt would have, even just the Crystal 15 variant. This as also my first time adding and boiling DME, and my first time using US-05.

This was my first indication that maybe the dipshits on the forums weren't quite as knowledgeable as their 3 years brewing and their matter-of-fact attitude would have you believe. Half a pound of Crystal is NOT appropriate for steeping in ANY Mr. Beer recipe, as it has a significant flavor contribution. This IPA wasn't bad - it was my favorite beer so far, and I went through it quickly. However, to this day I don't know what American Devil IPA is supposed to taste like due to the Crystal 15 I added.

As for the recipe, it was not hoppy at all, not even to me (I was not a hophead at the time). Bitterness was pretty high, but little to no hop character. A very malty, caramely beer.



#5, Mr. Beer Pilothouse Pilsner
Not a true czech pilsner, so I had no idea what to expect. My first time using CaraPils and my first time using Danstar Nottingham. I'd heard that if you fermented Nottingham cold, you'd get something close to a lager. I fermented too cold, and didn't do a diacetyl rest, and ended up with butterscotch flavored beer. It never went away. There was a slight hop bite, but not much hop flavor. Overall not great, but not terrible either.



#6, Mr. Beer Witty Monk Witbier
Unfortunately this turned out to be more Blue Moon than Hoegaarden, and more orange beer than white beer. The orange flavor was so powerful in the wort that it smelled like cough medicine. On top of that, I used  the Fermentis T-58 ale yeast, on the recommendation that it worked well with witbiers and other belgians. Perhaps that is the case with normal witbiers, but this was a Mr. Beer witbier and nothing like a real one. I can only describe the flavor as orange-y and salty, very phenolic from the yeast which clashes strongly with the sweet orange flavor of the beer. I try to pawn this off on guests but it's still not gone.



#7, Mr. Beer German Hefeweizen
Now THIS was a success. My first time boiling hops, though not exactly ambitious - it was just a quick 15 minute flavor/aroma addition of Hallertau. Also my first time using liquid yeast, and the WLP300 worked great, producing a very nice, dry, banana-flavored hefe. Very refreshing, and pretty close to what a hefe should taste like. It reminded me of Franziskaner hefe, but of course not as good. Still not bad though.



#8, Red Tail Ale Clone (aka Burnt Toast Ale)
My first all grain and half a disaster. My mash efficiency was terrible, my brewhouse efficiency was terrible and I was dumb enough to toast my own 2-row instead of just using Victory. It was also my first time using tap water in a long time, with campden, but I didn't use enough campden and ended up with lots of chlorophenols in this one. The toasted flavor was way too strong, and the ABV was about 2% lower than the real thing.

The worst part was that I used lots of Anchor bottles, and the ones that didn't outright snap at the neck or crack simply didn't seal well. At least 8 bottles of this were wasted because they weren't carbed at all. Don't use Anchor bottles. You've been warned.

On the bright side, after several months of conditioning this went from being a disappointment to being my best beer. The carbonation was medium (unlike my later brews), the head was nice and creamy and the toasted flavor mellowed out and ended up working really well. The first beer I really missed when it was gone. The best part is that the final bottle...turned out to be a dud. Au Revoir.



#9, Mr. Beer Oktoberfest Vienna Lager
Pretty meh, overall. I used 1/4 lb of Crystal 15, which I thought would've been better than 1/2 lb. Nope, shouldn't have done it. I also thought I'd use the rest of my Hallertau (left over from batch #7) as flavor and aroma hops. Nope, shouldn't have done it. At first it tasted a lot like Negra Modelo, but with a lot of chlorophenols in it. As it aged, it definitely got more caramel-y and the Hallertau character came out. It is drinkable, but not great, and I'm just trying to get rid of it at this point.



#10, Biere de L'inde English IPA
The worst yet. I was starting to get pretty discouraged at this point.

My efficiency was still terrible - turns out this was due to MoreBeer's grain mill being set so wide it did virtually nothing. I ended up extracting a buttload of tannins, and I don't know why. I followed the same process as batch #8, which had no tannins. The taste was off and worst of all, I carbonated way too high. I ended up with gushers, bottle bombs and injuries. If allowed to warm up and go flat, this becomes an okay but not great beer. It also had some chlorophenols early on, but not as bad as earlier batches.

This one is still around, but they are gushers as often as not. The liter-sized PETs can be opened to let the CO2 out, but the glass bottles are a lost cause.

All Grain Brewing: Adjusting for Efficiency

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.

All Grain Recipe: #20 Triple-X Sweet Stout

I'll confess that I'm a big fan of Stouts. Maybe it's because they were among the first complex, craft beers I ever had, and maybe it's because I love coffee and chocolate and all those other flavors that define a good Stout. Or maybe it's because back before I appreciated hops, Stouts were just the kind of malt-forward, mild but interesting experience I was looking for.

Now I'm brewing my own beer and I appreciate all styles of craft beer. I love hops and bitter, extreme beers. I made a Mr. Beer Stout recipe and was really disappointed - it didn't have the flavors or drinkability I expected, and I still haven't finished the batch from over 6 months ago. Do I still like Stouts?

Well, there's more to the style than just 'Stout'. There are dry stouts like Guiness Draught, which tastes like water and stale coffee. Add a little more body and you've got Guiness Extra Stout, which I think is pretty good. Beef it up even more and you've got the Foreign Extra Stout, a Stout brewed at higher gravity specifically for import (I haven't had this). Add oatmeal for a thicker, creamier texture and you get an Oatmeal Stout, of which Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout is far and away my favorite.

Then there's the Imperial Stout, a terrifying monstrosity that approaches or even surpasses 10% ABV and actually has late hopping. These things are thick, alcoholic and must be aged months or even years before they reach their prime.

Oatmeal stouts were my favorite. I say 'were' because I recently had a Milk Stout made by a brewery in Alaska (it might be Kenai River Brewing Co., but don't quote me on that). It was my first Sweet Stout, and it was a revelation. It combined my favorite things in the world: beer, espresso/chocolate and milk. Now, it didn't literally contain chocolate, espresso and milk, but I'll be damned if it didn't taste like having an alcoholic espresso!

In fact, the official BJCP guidelines agree:

A very dark, sweet, full-bodied, slightly roasty ale. Often tastes like sweetened espresso.

Damn right.

Sweet Stouts are actually not sweet. They are also called 'Milk Stouts' because of the use of unfermentable lactose (milk sugar). This thickens up the body and gives it a barely perceptible 'milk-like' character, especially in the finish. Lactose isn't sweet. Seriously, try some right out of the bag.

However, a Sweet Stout doesn't have to be made with lactose. It can be sweet or not. It can be astringent and start or smooth and chocolatey. The important thing is that it has a thick body, moderate alcohol, low hop bitterness, no hop flavor, is relatively clean with only a slight fruitiness and is dominated by 'roasty' flavors. Lactose just happens to be the easiest and most traditional way to get the perfect character for this style, and I wouldn't recommend doing it any other way.

If you insist on having a 'sweet' Sweet Stout, try using a yeast with low attenuation like WLP002. I used a more attenuative, less fruity strain, WLP007. If it still isn't sweet enough for you, tough luck - sweet is a relative term when it comes to beer.


Another thing about Milk Stouts: they have a nice creamy head upon pouring, but it disappears almost immediately. This is not a flaw. Bad head retention is a typical trait of commercial examples (rare as they are), no matter how good they are. You'll just have to get over it. Don't go on BeerAdvocate and ding a Milk Stout you just tried because the head was gone in five seconds!

Speaking of commercial examples, the only one I've personally found on store shelves is Young's Double Chocolate Stout. I remember it being quite good, and didn't know it was a Sweet Stout at the time. It isn't to style though, since it is made with chocolate. Some beers I'd like to try are Left Hand Milk Stout, Rogue Double Chocolate Stout (though the high ABV is suspicious) and a couple examples from Terrapin, none of which I have been able to find locally.

The recipe I used came from The Jamil Show episode on Sweet Stout. JZ gives the same recipe in his Brewing Classic Styles, where he calls it Triple-X. The name is an homage to JZ's favorite Sweet Stout, Mackeson's XXX. I can only assume that he modeled his recipe after that beer.

What will jump out at you immediately is the insane amount of Black Patent malt in this recipe. According to JZ, he prefers to use Black malt in sweet stouts and Roasted Barley in his other stouts. I was worried about this at first, especially when I tried a sample at bottling time and found it to be tart and bitter, even astringent, from the large amount of black malt.

Don't worry. Don't change the recipe. It turned out great, the best beer I've ever made. The lactose, thick body and bitter roastiness of the black malt all come together to make something you'd never expect. It is perfect, and I plan to brew this beer over and over again. In fact, this won't just be my house stout: it will be my house beer, period.

Also, the wife loves it.

Anyway, below is my recipe, followed by the 6 gallon original recipe from The Jamil Show and Brewing Classic Styles. The original recipe also includes my notes from the show, which you should definitely read.

All Grain Recipe: #19 JZ's American Pale Ale

You know what I haven't made yet? An APA. Seriously. I've made three IPAs and a load of other stuff, but not one good old fashioned Pale Ale.

Since I've been having some process issues and have been worried that my efficiency is too high, I'm changing things up. Thus the need for a simple beer, where I can focus wholly on my process. I'm switching to a single batch sparge BIAB, which should get me mid to upper 70s efficiency. Compare this to the 90+ efficiency double batch sparge BIAB that I've been using, but I feel like has been giving me slightly grainy or astringent flavors in some of my beers (not all, just some).

I've also picked up some 5.2 pH Stabilizer from Five Star. I never picked it up because it seemed too expensive, but when you do the math it turns out to cost about 25 cents per batch. That's perfectly reasonable. I don't want to buy a pH meter or add acid or acid malt to my mash, I just want it to work, and that's what this is supposed to do. Here's hoping.

I'm also standardizing my mineral additions. Hoppy beers get 3 grams of calcium chloride in the mash and 3 grams of gypsum in the boil. The calcium chloride in the mash is to get at least 50 ppm of calcium to aid in conversion, while the gypsum is there for flavor in hop forward beers. Lighter or maltier beers (low IBUs and little to no late hopping) will get a simple 4 grams of calcium chloride in the mash. No exceptions - I don't want differences in mineral additions between batches to confuse my results.

Next, I'll be adding gelatin to the secondary to help drop out yeast. Currently, it takes 2-3 weeks in the refrigerator to get a halfway clear beer. I hope that the addition of gelatin finings will speed that up. To use gelatin, combine a half cup of distilled or RO, chlorine-free water with about 1/4 - 1/2 TSP (that's teaspoon) for a 3 gallon batch, or 1/2 to 1 TSP for a 5-6 gallon batch. Heat it slowly until nice and evenly mixed and at around 150 - 170 F. DO NOT BOIL. Pour it into secondary (make sure the gelatin is at least 100 F at this time, don't let it cool more than that) and rack your beer on top of it. Let it sit for a week on the gelatin and gently rack off for bottling.

Finally, I'm setting 2.3 volumes of CO2 as my standard. I will not go over 2.3 volumes unless the style demands it (Hefeweizens or Belgians, for example). I've found that when bottle conditioning, the carbonation I get from a calculation for 2.3 volumes is different than one would expect from kegging to the same CO2 level, so I should aim for lower carbonation rather than higher.

As for the recipe itself, I'm using JZ's American Pale Ale recipe from The Jamil Show American Pale Ale episode. I estimated 75% brewhouse efficiency. I ended up getting 78% extract efficiency and 74% brewhouse efficiency after losses to flameout hops. I also dry hopped even though the recipe didn't call for it.

Here's my recipe, followed by the original 6 gallon recipe.

All Grain Recipe: #18 Stone Levitation Clone

Levitation is a 'light' session beer made by Stone Brewing Co. Like most other beers by Stone, Levitation doesn't really have a 'style'. If you had to assign a label to it, you could call it an American Amber, even though it consists of British malts, British yeast and American hops. Levitation is a pun: it is light and thus defies gravity.

Unlike Stone's other beers, Levitation bucks the 'more of everything' trend by being a 4.4% ABV session beer. It has a lot of malt flavor and a big focus on hops (45 IBU, 4 separate late hop additions), but low alcohol and a very light body. The big flavor almost clashes with the light, almost watery mouth feel of the beer, but overall it works.

Levitation is a great beer, but my main problem with it is that it costs the same as many other bigger, more impressive beers. For a session beer, that is a bad thing. Consider that you might go through a 6-pack of Levitation instead of a bomber of Arrogant Bastard. Still, sometimes that's exactly what you need: a beer that won't get you trashed when hanging out and drinking all night.

This ends up being a pretty cheap beer to clone. If you can perfect it, you can save a lot of money over the usual $10 per six pack price.

My recipe is below, followed by the original 6-gallon recipe from Can You Brew It (episode link here).

Off Flavors: DMS

I popped open a bottle of batch #11, my all grain wheat recipe from Brewing Classic Styles. I thought this batch was a disaster, at first because I overpitched, then because I thought it overattenuated, and yet again when I thought it was infected.

Things have definitely changed. It is by far the most beautifully pale beer I've ever made. The head is huge and fluffy and lasts forever. Before stirring up the yeast, it was beautifully clear. It looks great in my hefeweizen glass. The flavors are definitely different than my first wheat; my last one tasted very much like banana. This one doesn't taste like banana at all. Instead it has a spicy flavor and something else that is slightly funky that I can't put my finger on.

And one more thing.

It tastes slightly like cooked corn.

Sure, it is subtle. But I'm pretty sure it's there. Cooked corn flavor. I looked over my records, and I only boiled 60 minutes.

Listen up kids, here's the lesson for today.

Always boil any recipe with a significant percentage of pilsner malt for a minimum of 90 minutes!!!

DMS stands for Dimethyl sulfide. It has a pretty low taste threshold and tastes like cooked corn. The more lightly kilned a malt is, the more DMS precursors it has in it. A 60-minute boil is generally enough to drive off all DMS from darker malts like 2-row. Pilsener malt, however, is as light as you can get, and thus produces a ton of DMS when boiled.

What do I mean by 'drive off'? DMS precursors turn into DMS when heated. However, this is counteracted by a 'vigorous' boil. As it is created, the DMS is circulated up to the top of the water and driven off into the air. This only works if you have a rolling boil and you do not cover your pot while you boil. If you ever wondered why all the literature tells you to have an uncovered, rolling boil, now you know. It doesn't have to be leaping up at you, but the water has to be circulating in the pot and evaporating. For a pilsener malt, it takes at least 90 minutes to get all that stuff out of your wort.

Now I have a bunch of corn hefeweizen. Oh well, I'm probably the only one who can taste it. Besides, I boil *all* my beers for 90 minutes now in order to have more water for sparging.

Note: You can supposedly get DMS from cooling to slowly. I cool via ice bath, and have never had a problem with DMS before. Also, some people practice a no-chill method of cooling wherein they leave their wort overnight in a sealed container to cool. I haven't run into DMS from using an ice bath, but be aware that it is *possible* to end up with DMS in your beer if your cooling method is too slow and you use very light malts.

All Grain Recipe: #17 Janet's Brown Ale

Janet's Brown Ale is a hoppy American Brown Ale originally designed by famed home brewer Mike "Tasty" McDole. The story goes that this was a favorite of Mike's late wife, Janet, and he named it for her.

Mike also brewed this for the 2009 GABF ProAm and was invited as a guest brewer to Russian River Brewery in Santa Rosa, where they made a full sized batch of the stuff.

Style-wise, it is somewhere in between an American Brown and a Black IPA. Whether "Black IPA" should even be considered a style is up for debate, as some consider Black IPA to be nothing more than an American IPA with a bit of black patent thrown in. This recipe is definitely too hoppy to be a brown, and too 'roasty' to be an IPA.

I haven't had Russian River's or Mike's version of this recipe, but mine is definitely the best beer I've ever brewed. Flavor is incredibly clean with a light, roasted background flavor. The body is thick but drinkable and the bitterness is high but balances perfectly. Finally, the massive centennial flavor is presented so well here that it has now become my favorite hop. This is the first brew to make me consider 5 gallon batches, and my first beer that I think could win an award.

Below is the recipe scaled to my system, followed by the original recipe from Brewing Classic Styles.

All Grain: Grain Absorbtion

BeerSmith has incorrectly calculated my pre-boil volume for several batches now and I finally decided to figure out why.

Normally, I use the tools in the recipe screen to calculate water volume (i.e. equipment profile). I hunted around and I found the "Water Needed" tool under the Tools section. I plugged in all of my equipment profile data and saw that it was calculating grain absorbtion. Since that was the only place that water could mysteriously disappear, and I hadn't been considering it in the past, I figured that was the place to look.

According to Designing Great Beers, 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.

Let's use a recent batch as an example. I started with 7.03 lbs. of grain. After mashing, it should weight 2.812 lbs, and have absorbed 4 times that amount in water: 11.248 lbs. Water weights 8 lbs. per gallon (also according to Designing Great Beers, page 64), so that means I lost 1.406 gallons, or 5.624 quarts. I then used the BeerSmith "Weight to Volume" tool to find that water weighs 8.35 lbs. per gallon, and confirmed that value with a google search. So the real amount lost to grain is 1.347 gallons or 5.39 quarts. he also has a table that you can refer to (Table 8.1, page 64). When you look up '7' under 'pounds of grain mashed', you get 1.5 gallons, or 6 quarts. This is even more off than the hand calculation, which itself was pretty flawed.

Now let's try BeerSmith's "Water Needed" tool. I plugged in 7.03 lbs of grain and got 3.37 quarts of water lost. According to BeerSmith, they use a static amount of water lost per pound of grain and you can't change it. This is a shame because, as we are about to see, everyone's system loses different amounts of water to grain. BIAB, in particular, loses less water.

What did I actually get in practice? Let's go over my method. I mashed in with 10 quarts of water, lifted the bag out and held it over the pot while it drained. Then I placed it over a bowl on top of a cooling rack to drain while I poured the sweet wort into a bucket. Whatever drained into the bowl (a couple of ounces) gets tossed in too before I stirred and took a gravity reading. I repeated this same thing with both sparge batches. I did not squeeze, poke or otherwise fiddle with the bag.

I started with 20.5 quarts of water. I ended up with 17.75 quarts of water in the kettle. Loss to grains was thus 2.75 quarts: significantly less than either calculation. That means I lost 0.3912 quarts per pound, while BeerSmith assumed I would lose 0.4794 quarts per pound and Mr. Daniels suggested that I would lose a whopping 0.8 quarts per pound.

The lesson here is that you should not assume your system will *ever* produce the same results as someone else's, no matter how predictable they claim the value is. Take recommendations with a grain of salt, use them as a starting point and DO YOUR OWN EXPERIMENTS.

Why is this even important? If you end up with more water in your kettle after mashing, that means you either have to leave some out, thus lowering your efficiency, or boil longer, or end up with more beer with a lower gravity. Boiling longer is the only choice if you want to try and create the same beer you were aiming for, but that can be pretty unpredictable too.

edit: My new calculation of 0.3912 quarts of grain loss per pound worked flawlessly. On the very next batch, I got the exact boil volume predicted, give or take a few ounces measurement error.

All Grain Recipe: #16 Firestone Walker Union Jack IPA

I finally tried Firestone Walker's Union Jack IPA and I was floored. It has an incredible hop character, strongly pine-y and resin-y with hints of citrus. It is balanced by just enough malt sweetness to combine with the hops to create a candy-like, vanilla, date, cake sort of flavor. However, it is dry enough to not be cloying. It has a very similar character to Lagunitas Hop Stoopid and Green Flash Imperial IPA, but way drier. Where Hop Stoopid is thick and chewy and Green Flash is sweet to the point of cloying (I could barely finish the bottle), Union Jack manages to hit the same level of complexity without becoming overpoweringly sweet.

I immediately sought out a clone recipe and found that The Brewing Network did an episode of Can You Brew It on Union Jack. Huzzah!

Episode here.

It turns out to be a pretty complicated recipe.

The flavor is primarily tons of Cascade and Centennial in the boil, followed by a whirlpool aroma steep of more Cascade and Centennial, followed by two huge dry hop additions.

The mash is done really low (145) to dry out the beer, but then they use WLP002 English Ale yeast to maintain some residual sugar. Their mash is also a double infusion, where they raise the temp for the last 10-20 minutes to make sure it is fully converted.

Even their fermentation is complicated, requiring that you pitch at a low temperature and keep it there until yeast growth is complete (a day or so), probably to minimize ester production by the english yeast, then raise the temp (but still not too high).

The main thing I learned when making this beer is to always use a hop bag and make sure it is tied off super tight so no hops come out of the top. Holy shit was it a disaster!

The centennial I got from MoreBeer was not fully pulverized. Instead of a thick hop sludge, I had a chunky mass of hop leaves. Some got out because I didn't tie off my hop bag well enough and the hops clogged my siphon. I ended up just dumping the whole pot into the fermentor because I couldn't siphon it all out.

I also had the bright idea of dry hopping without a bag (note: I used a bag for batch #12, my last dry hop experience, and it was fine). I ended up losing close to a gallon of beer due to absorption by the hops and spigot clogging. To avoid losing even more, I ended up pouring from the top of the keg through a sanitized strainer into the bottling bucket. Bottling took forever.

I will never go without a hop bag again. I don't care if you get better extraction, or more flavor, it isn't worth the hassle.

Here's my recipe, immediately followed by the original 6 gallon CYBI recipe.