Tasting Notes: Bohemian Pilsner (Beer #45)

January 13, 2013

I brewed a Czech Pilsner in early December. It is terrible, but I think it can be saved.

Vital Stats:
Target OG: 1.055 Actual OG: 1.054
Target FG: 1.013 Actual FG: 1.012
ABV: 5.5%
Color: 3.7 SRMĀ (Calculated)
Bitterness: 39.8 IBU (Calculated)
Yeast: Wyeast 2001 Urquell Lager
Fermentation Temperature:50°F until 75% attenuated, then 67°F for 3 days

Aroma
Butter. Not artificial buttered popcorn, but straight up real butter. Behind the butter is a nice crackery Pilsner malt profile and floral, spicy noble hop aroma. The buttery diacetyl dominates.

Appearance
Light straw color with a huge bright white fluffy head. Good retention. Slight haze. (The picture is from before the beer really cleared up.)

Flavor
Much like the aroma, there’s a decent pilsner hiding behind loads of butter. You can taste the malt & hops, but the diacetyl really gets in the way.

Mouthfeel
Medium-light body. Medium-high carbonation. No astringency. No slickness.

Overall Impression
A deluge of diacetyl turns what could be a good beer into an undrinkable one.

Taken 3 days after kegging. It is less hazy now.

I have brewed seven lagers so far and all except for this one have had a very clean fermentation profile with no diacetyl. I follow the same fermentation temperature schedule for all of them: pitch at 48°F, ferment at 50°F until about 75% finished, then raise the temp to 67°F to allow the yeast to clean up the diacetyl while it finishes up. I crash-cool three days after it reaches terminal gravity, hold it there for three days, then keg. I usually use WLP830 and this schedule works well with that yeast. I used Wyeast 2124 for the Rauchbier I brewed the same day as this BoPils, and it has no diacetyl. It looks like the Wyeast 2001 used for the BoPils is a diacetyl producing monster and requires more of a rest. I have read as much online since running into this problem. An experienced brewer friend also said he won’t use 2001 because it creates massively buttery beer.

In the end, though, I do think I can save this beer. I have warmed the keg to room temperature and I am going to krausen it with a smalle 1/2 liter starter of 1056 after I harvest it from the Irish Red Ale next week. I performed this same procedure on a butterscotch bomb English Pale Ale last spring and it cleaned the beer up beautifully. That beer went on to win a silver medal in the TRASH competition. I will post follow-up tasting notes after this beer has been krausened and settled out to see if it helped.

0

Tasting Notes: Classic Rauchbier (Beer #46)

January 12, 2013

I have plenty of stuff I need to get done around the house today, but what better way is there to procrastinate than by tasting homebrew and taking notes? The smoked lager I brewed in early December is maturing nicely. Here’s how it tastes after a month and a half.

Vital Stats:
Target OG: 1.054 Actual OG: 1.052
Target FG: 1.013 Actual FG: 1.012
ABV: 5.2%
Color: 17.2 SRMĀ (Calculated)
Bitterness: 27.7 IBU (Calculated)
Yeast: Wyeast 2124 Bohemian Lager
Fermentation Temperature:50°F until 75% attenuated, then 67°F for 3 days

Aroma
Balanced between sweet smoke and Munich-like malt character. Smoke quality is bacon-like. Malt is toasty with a very light caramel quality. No hop aroma. No diacetyl, DMS, sulfur, etc. Clean lager character.

Appearance
Medium amber color. Average sized, long lasting, cream colored head. Brillian clarity.

Flavor
Initial soft, toasty, Oktoberfest-like malt character yields immediately to pronounced campfire smokiness reminiscent of smoked ham. Attack is moderately sweet, but finishes pleasantly dry. Smoke flavor is of medium intensity. Low-moderate hop bitterness. Very low noble hop flavor. Clean lager character. No diacetyl, DMS, sulfur, esters, or phenols (aside from smoke).

Mouthfeel
Medium-full body. Medium carbonation. Very smooth. No astringency. Significant alcohol warmth on the finish. Smoke and moderate hop bitterness linger.

Overall Impression
A clean, slightly crisp, very malty Oktoberfest style beer with a pronounced smoke character in the aroma and flavor. I am very happy with this beer for how clean and balanced it is. It may be lacking some intangibles – which keeps it from being amazing – but it is a very good beer overall. Much better than my first attempt at the style, which itself was pretty decent.

It looks darker here than in real life.

0

Tasting Notes: Spruce Ales (Beers #42 & 43)

January 12, 2013

The other day I realized that I never reported on the results of my Spruce Tips experiment. About two an a half months ago I brewed two batches of identical red ale that differed only in the type of spruce tips used: one had 11 ounces of Norway Spruce tips, the other got 11 ounces of Blue Spruce tips. (Both were five gallon batches.) On to the tasting notes:

~~~Norway Spruce Ale~~~

Aroma
Soft maltiness – buiscuity with a pronounced caramel note, some raisin-like fruit character. Not much to remind you of spruce or pine, but there’s a pleasant hard-to-describe floral quality that must come from the spruce. No hop character. No diacetyl, et al.

Appearance
Medium amber with a large, fluffy, bone-colored head with infinite retention. Brilliant clarity.

Flavor
Medium-low bitterness. Malt-balanced, but not overly malty and not sweet. Malt profile similar to aroma followed by perfumey christmas-tree-like pine with lemony notes. The spruce character is pronounced in the aftertaste and makes a strong case for taking another sip.

Mouthfeel
Medium-light body with creamy carbonation. No astringency. Some very light alcohol warmth on the finish.

Overall
A pleasant beer well suited for December drinking. The spruce flavor is strong, but not overwhelming of off-putting. The base beer is kind of like a strong bitter with a bit more raisin flavor. I am pleased with how it came out.

~~~Blue Spruce Ale~~~

Aroma
Soft maltiness – buiscuity with a pronounced caramel note, some raisin-like fruit character. Dirty, earthy, musty.

Appearance
Medium amber with a large, fluffy, bone-colored head with infinite retention. Nearly clear. Slight hazy.

Flavor
Medium-low bitterness. Malt-balanced, but not overly malty and not sweet. Malt profile similar to aroma. There is a murky, unpleasant, earthy, dirty character from first taste well into the aftertaste. This flavor is piney, resinous, and sort of mushroom-like.

Mouthfeel
Medium-light body with creamy carbonation. No astringency. Some very light alcohol warmth on the finish.

Overall
The base beer is the same as the Norway Spruce version, but the spruce character in this one is disgusting. If I recieved a glass of this at a bar I might think the lines were dirty. This seems to be what blue spruce tips brought to the beer – the taste of dirty tap lines. I will be dumping the keg whereas the Norway one continues to impress me.

This experiment yielded interesting results. I expected the Norway spruce beer to come across as citrusey, piney, floral and it did. I expected the blue spruce beer to have a strong resinous pine-like flavor. Instead it just tasted dirty and rank. I will brew with spruce again, but only Norway spruce. Blue spruce does not make good beer. It’s Latin name, Picea Pungens, makes sense to me now.

Here is what I’ll change for this year’s spruce beer:

  • Fresh tips. Last year I harvested the tips and froze them in a foodsaver bag to be brewed with later. This year I will pluck them from the trees while the beer is mashing.
  • Lager. The tips are ready for picking in May, but who wants Christmas beer at the end of Spring? I will alter the base beer recipe a bit to make something like a Vienna Lager so the beer can benefit from cold aging until the holiday season.
  • More spruce. The spruce character – especially the aroma – was a little low in this year’s beer. Because of that, and because the beer will be aging for half a year before being tapped, I will up the spruce from 11 ounces to a pound or more.
0

Brew Day: English Mild & Irish Red Ale (Beers #49 & 50)

January 12, 2013

Last weekend I brewed a couple of simple beers to serve as the first batches in a run of beers feremented with the same pitch of yeast: Dark English Mild fermented with Wyeast 1028 and Irish Red Ale fermented with Wyeast 1056. As per usual, the recipes came from BCS.

The Mild had an expected OG of 1.038 (I actually hit 1.040), so I didn’t make a starter for it. Starter wort is ~1.040, so this beer is a starter. I wanted to brew a 1.040 beer for the 1056 yeast as well, but there aren’t many American styles with such a low OG and I wanted to commemorate my 50th batch by brewing the same style as I did for batch #1. With an expected OG of 1.054, I had to make a starter.

I wanted to brew batch #50 on the 10th anniversary of batch #1, but my schedule took a hit when Northern Brewer forgot to ship an order to me, pushing batches 47 and 48 back a couple weeks. I ended up brewing it ten years and five days after my first batch.


Irish blood-red ale

Due to a good amount of crystal malts & roasted barley, the Irish Red Ale is very red, blood red even. I overshot the OG (aimed for 1.054, hit 1.060) and it finished up at 1.014 (6.1% abv). The hydrometer sample had a dry, slightly roasty finish which is correct for the style. It’s not an exciting beer, but so far it seems like it should be pretty good.

The Mild went from 1.040 to 1.012 (3.7% abv). It tastes nutty, chocolatey, and with slight fruity esters. The body seems to be ok. It’s a little thin, but it’s not watery. It’s tough to get body into a 1.040 beer.


These sumbitches is fixin’ homedrink in the bathtub!

These were the fist batches of beer I fermented outside of the Franken-freezer since I built the thing. It was busy with the Belgian strong ales I brewed the week before. However, the spare bathtub was holding steady at 63-65°F, so I figured that was a good spot to ferment some run-of-the-mill ales. They both rose to about 68°F (measured on the outside of the carboy with an IR thermometer) and held that temperature throughout fermentation. I wanted to ferment the Irish Red a little cooler to make sure it comes out clean, but choosing to use 1056 provided some insurance. The gravity sample tasted very clean, free of esters & phenols.

These Mild is crash-cooling now. The Red will start its crash after another day or two. They’ll both be kegged, carbed, and ready to drink within a couple of weeks.

0

Brew Day: Belgian Golden Strong & Tripel (Beers #47 & 48)

January 12, 2013

About two weeks ago I brewed up a couple batches of Belgian Strong Ale – the Tripel & Golden Strong recipes from Brewing Classic Styles. This was my first go at a Tripel and second attempt at the Golden Strong recipe. The first one ended in tears. This time around things seem to have gone well.


Lots of Czech Saaz hops in the BGS.

To safeguard against stuck fermentations this time, I chose to hold off on adding the sugar until after most of the maltose was fermented. Both batches also got two minutes of pure O2 just prior to pitching the yeast and another minute eight hours later.


The Tripel is slightly orange, thanks to Aromatic malt.

The Golden Strong was fermented with WLP570 (the Duvel strain) in an attempt to copy the pear & white pepper flavors of that beer. I used the Westmalle strain – Wyeast 3787 – for the Tripel in an attempt to complex fruity and spicy nature of the original Tripel.

I was aiming for an OG of 1.072 for the BGS (including sugar) and hit 1.049 without the sugar. After factoring in what the sugar adds, I computed that I got 1.074. The Tripel was expected to come in at 1.083 (with sugar). I hit 1.060 with just the malt. After computing for the sugar additions, I get 1.083.


The sugar additions, ready for duty.

The BGS called for three pounds of table sugar. The Tripel required 2.5 pounds. So as not to overload the yeast, I wanted to add one half pound of sugar every 12 hours to each beer until it was all added. I did not want to add dry sugar to the fermentors because it wouldn’t dissolve. I also didn’t want to spend half an hour twice a day dissolving sugar in water on the stove top, so I chose to do it all at once and pressure-can it in eleven equal batches (six for the BGS, five for the Tripel). 5.5 pounds of sugar is about twelve cups. I dissolved it in eight cups of water to make a 3:2 semi-rich syrup. Pressure-canning ensured the solution was sterilized and could be kept for a few days.


Shows 1.001, but this hydrometer reads .004 low

Both beers finished up nice and dry. The 570 yeast is much less of a top-cropper than the 3787. The 3787 was blowing over into the catch bin after 24 hours whereas the 570 never grew more than about 2.5″ of krausen. 48 hours after pitching, both beers were at 1.022, so I began the sugar regimen. 60 hours later and the sugar had all been added. The BGS was at 1.005 (9.1% abv). The Tripel was still at 1.022. It was still actively fermenting, so I wasn’t too worried. Two days later it was at 1.014 and airlock activity had pretty much stopped. This is the high end of acceptable FG for the style and it tasted a little sweet to me, so I roused the yeast with a gentle stir and let it sit for a few more days. As of today it is at 1.008 (9.9% abv). Perfect.

Both beers are crash-cooling now and will be kegged next week. Due to the high abv, these beers will need some age to mellow out, but the gravity samples tasted OK. They’re hot, but not solventy or astringent. Here’s hoping they don’t suck!

0