183 replies to this topic

[Brauer]

No idea why my gravity came out as high as it did. Beersmith tells me I got 85% into the kettle. I didn't know that was possible. I have been getting 78-79% into the kettle lately since I have been doing 90-120min mashes. This one went for about 3.5 hrs so I dunno what's up. Seems like everything should be converted long before 2 hrs let alone 3.5. Maybe a function of the lower gravity?

Lower gravity helps, but 85% is near what I'd expect for a beer this size, if a few points low. It may be higher than what you are used to because of the higher mash temp, which helps starch gelatinization. That's one reason I've taken to using an alpha rest, it gets me near complete conversion, reliably. With the smaller grain bill, you might have mashed thinner than usual, too, which can improve galatinization.

 

You'd think that that amount of time would guarantee complete conversion, but it doesn't if you have ungelatinized starch that the enzymes can't work on.

[neddles]

Lower gravity helps, but 85% is near what I'd expect for a beer this size, if a few points low. It may be higher than what you are used to because of the higher mash temp, which helps starch gelatinization. That's one reason I've taken to using an alpha rest, it gets me near complete conversion, reliably. With the smaller grain bill, you might have mashed thinner than usual, too, which can improve galatinization.

 

You'd think that that amount of time would guarantee complete conversion, but it doesn't if you have ungelatinized starch that the enzymes can't work on.

Don't know how much the brew in a bag process weighs in on this too. My mashes are always thin. But certainly this one was that much thinner (3.9qt./lb.). Also mashing at 155F is nothing new to me and I haven't seen en efficiency bump from it. In the past, I did not get this increased efficiency on other beers of this gravity but when I went back and looked at them I saw I was only mashing for 60 min. So maybe not apples to apples. Perhaps I should think about doing the alpha rest. How long is your typical alpha rest? I'm not really looking to eek out every last bit of potential efficiency I just want to be able to predict the OG a little better than I did on this one. And I don't want ungelatinized starch in my beer if that is actually happening.

[positiveContact]

Don't know how much the brew in a bag process weighs in on this too. My mashes are always thin. But certainly this one was that much thinner (3.9qt./lb.). Also mashing at 155F is nothing new to me and I haven't seen en efficiency bump from it. In the past, I did not get this increased efficiency on other beers of this gravity but when I went back and looked at them I saw I was only mashing for 60 min. So maybe not apples to apples. Perhaps I should think about doing the alpha rest. How long is your typical alpha rest? I'm not really looking to eek out every last bit of potential efficiency I just want to be able to predict the OG a little better than I did on this one. And I don't want ungelatinized starch in my beer if that is actually happening.

 

with BIAB smaller beers might see a slightly larger boost in efficiency compared to sparge methods when you go to low gravity beers.

[positiveContact]

155F Residual dextrins/ sugar by higher mash temp and lower attenuating yeast.

 

it always seems like something is missing though - maybe it's the alcohol   but really - I haven't had anything below 1.043ish that could fool me into thinking it was a higher OG beer.  maybe that isn't the point though.

[Brauer]

...So maybe not apples to apples.

 

...Perhaps I should think about doing the alpha rest. How long is your typical alpha rest? I'm not really looking to eek out every last bit of potential efficiency I just want to be able to predict the OG a little better than I did on this one. And I don't want ungelatinized starch in my beer if that is actually happening.

There's a lot of variables, which is why some individual techniques like crushing finer or mashing longer work for some and not others, so it's hard to say one thing is what will work for you. An alpha rest gives me consistent conversion near 100%, so that works for me. It's an easy thing to try, if you are already mashing out, just replace the mashout with an alpha rest. When I want the beta rest to determine my fermentability, I usually go for something like a 40' beta rest and 20' alpha rest. 10' is probably enough, especially with a longer beta rest.

 

I'm not trying to get super high efficiency, I mostly no-sparge, after all, but getting complete conversion is the easiest way I have found to get predictable efficiency.

 

BIAB efficiency runs a little high, in general., and won't fit the usual mathematical models I use for predicting efficiency.  I have always assumed it's because absorption is lower. What is your absorption rate?

[Brauer]

it always seems like something is missing though - maybe it's the alcohol   but really - I haven't had anything below 1.043ish that could fool me into thinking it was a higher OG beer.  maybe that isn't the point though.

Fooling myself isn't really my goal, but a little more body can help accentuate malt flavors and allow a little more hops without throwing off the balance. I don't particularly like high ABV beers, so that's not really what I'm shooting for. I usually prefer lower ABV versions of a style over the high ABV ones. Balance is important, though.

 

That said, I've been fooled by a couple British beers. Cairngorm Black Gold is a 4.3% beer that could probably pass for an Imperial Stout.

[neddles]

BIAB efficiency runs a little high, in general., and won't fit the usual mathematical models I use for predicting efficiency.  I have always assumed it's because absorption is lower. What is your absorption rate?

0.065gal./lb.

 

I'd be curious to know at what point the efficiency drops off on the high end too. I have been pretty predictable up to about 1.073 or so. I haven't gone any higher than that to see where it drops off.

[neddles]

it always seems like something is missing though - maybe it's the alcohol   but really - I haven't had anything below 1.043ish that could fool me into thinking it was a higher OG beer.  maybe that isn't the point though.

The point for me is to have as much flavor as a higher gravity beer might. You won't think this is a 1.070 beer but you would be surprised to find it is (in my case) only 1.042. I am serving mine with little less carbonation that usual and a little warmer. While not an in your face IPA (which I love too) it's not missing anything. This beer definitely has that balance between malt and hops Brauer is talking about. I like having a couple tall pints on a weeknight over a few hours and not becoming dysfunctional or tired.

[positiveContact]

The point for me is to have as much flavor as a higher gravity beer might. You won't think this is a 1.070 beer but you would be surprised to find it is (in my case) only 1.042. I am serving mine with little less carbonation that usual and a little warmer. While not an in your face IPA (which I love too) it's not missing anything. This beer definitely has that balance between malt and hops Brauer is talking about. I like having a couple tall pints on a weeknight over a few hours and not becoming dysfunctional or tired.

 

I'm kind of surprised you don't need more crystal in there.  I often put more crystal than that in beers with higher OG.

[Brauer]

0.065gal./lb.

 

I'd be curious to know at what point the efficiency drops off on the high end too. I have been pretty predictable up to about 1.073 or so. I haven't gone any higher than that to see where it drops off.

No sparge, right? If I use Kai's spreadsheet to model that, with your absorption rate, with 7 gallons pre-boil and 6 gallons after, I get something like this, with 100% conversion:

OG & Efficiency

1.040 - 88.4%

1.044 - 87.1%

1.048 - 86.0%

1.052 - 84.8%

1.062 - 82.0%

1.070 - 79.7%

1.074 - 78.4%

1.078 - 77.3%

 

Essentially, it looks like you should lose just over 1% efficiency for each degree Plato.

[positiveContact]

No sparge, right? If I use Kai's spreadsheet to model that, with your absorption rate, with 7 gallons pre-boil and 6 gallons after, I get something like this, with 100% conversion:

OG & Efficiency

1.040 - 88.4%

1.044 - 87.1%

1.048 - 86.0%

1.052 - 84.8%

1.062 - 82.0%

1.070 - 79.7%

1.074 - 78.4%

1.078 - 77.3%

 

Essentially, it looks like you should lose just over 1% efficiency for each degree Plato.

 

yeah - BIAB seems like a great option.  wish I had known about it!

[neddles]

No sparge, right? If I use Kai's spreadsheet to model that, with your absorption rate, with 7 gallons pre-boil and 6 gallons after, I get something like this, with 100% conversion:

OG & Efficiency

1.040 - 88.4%

1.044 - 87.1%

1.048 - 86.0%

1.052 - 84.8%

1.062 - 82.0%

1.070 - 79.7%

1.074 - 78.4%

1.078 - 77.3%

 

Essentially, it looks like you should lose just over 1% efficiency for each degree Plato.

Wow, that's great. Yes, BIAB without a sparge. FWIW, My actual pre boil is set to 7.17with 6 gallons post boil. My numbers are getting closer to that since going to longer mashes. Maybe the alpha rest will get me closer? Finer crush? I'm assuming 100% conversion is worth seeking to avoid starch in the final product right?

Edited by ettels4, 01 September 2014 - 11:33 AM.

[neddles]

Here it is. Not yet perfectly clear but it had only been in the keg for 48 hrs. at this point.

[Brauer]

Wow, that's great. Yes, BIAB without a sparge. FWIW, My actual pre boil is set to 7.17with 6 gallons post boil. My numbers are getting closer to that since going to longer mashes. Maybe the alpha rest will get me closer? Finer crush? I'm assuming 100% conversion is worth seeking to avoid starch in the final product right?

Those are some good things to try. Most starch that makes it into the kettle would be expected to convert, in theory. I've read that sparging can wash unconverted starch into the kettle, though, and pulling a BIAB bag out might result in some larger starch particles that don't convert before heat denatures the enzymes.

[neddles]

Ughh! The keg of this just kicked. Sad. Srsly guys… if you like low abv ales with lots of flavor then make this.

[positiveContact]

reformatting the recipe from the OP (not sure why it's all messed up).  I'm thinking about making this on Friday.  I'll probably use golden promise instead of CMC pale ale b/c I think in a beer like this GP could really shine and I have some with no plans on what to use it on.  I know this recipe is from a few years back so would anyone who has made it change anything?  More hops perhaps?

 

I mashed at 155 to avoid going to dry on the FG.

 

Batch Size: 5.00 gal

Brewer: Chris Cavanaugh

Boil Size: 6.00 gal

Asst Brewer:

Boil Time: 60 min

Equipment: Brew Pot (6+gal) and Igloo/Gott Cooler (5 Gal)

Taste Rating(out of 50): 35.0

Brewhouse Efficiency: 75.00

Taste Notes:

 

Ingredients Amount Item Type % or IBU

6.50 lb CMC Superior Pale Ale (3.0 SRM) Grain 92.86 %

0.50 lb Caramel/Crystal Malt - 40L (40.0 SRM) Grain 7.14 %

 

0.50 oz Galaxy [12.80 %] (60 min) Hops 25.7 IBU

1.00 oz Galaxy [12.80 %] (10 min) Hops 18.6 IBU

1.00 oz Galaxy [12.80 %] (0 min) Hops

 

4.00 gm Gypsum (Calcium Sulfate) (Mash 60.0 min)

Misc 7.00 gal Boston, MA Water

 

1 Pkgs English Ale (White Labs #WLP002) Yeast-Ale Beer Profile

Est Original Gravity: 1.038 SG

Est Final Gravity: 1.012 SG

Estimated Alcohol by Vol: 3.30 %

Bitterness: 44.3 IBU

Est Color: 6.2 SRM

Edited by Evil_Morty, 07 February 2016 - 05:28 AM.

[positiveContact]

if using the GP is a bad idea I also have CMC Pale Ale Malt.

[positiveContact]

so looking at this recipe I'd be inclined to add a 1oz of hops to the WP.  or maybe increase the 0 min addition to 1.5 oz.

 

note:  I'm talking about this like it's a 5 gal batch but I'll be making 10 gal.  Just talking like it's 5 gal to make the conversation easier to follow.

would a dry hop be out of line?

Edited by Evil_Morty, 07 February 2016 - 06:51 AM.

[neddles]

Cavman and I discussed this recipe in another thread at some point. I used rahr pale ale and it was great. It would be good with GP or MO as well. Use your favorite pale ale malt I would say and I think that was cavman's advice as well. Also add all the Galaxy to the whirlpool, I used 68g (which is just shy of 2.5oz). I bittered with apollo, not one to use the most tasty hops at 60. I did not dry hop. I don't think a dry hop is out of line so really its just a matter of wether or not you are going for the dry hop character in this or not. Without the dry hop I would say it is a bit more balanced of a beer where the malt character does come through a bit. I have had this on my list to brew for a long time and other beers keep taking precedence. I want to make it with Equinox to see how I like that hop.

[positiveContact]

Cavman and I discussed this recipe in another thread at some point. I used rahr pale ale and it was great. It would be good with GP or MO as well. Use your favorite pale ale malt I would say and I think that was cavman's advice as well. Also add all the Galaxy to the whirlpool, I used 68g (which is just shy of 2.5oz). I bittered with apollo, not one to use the most tasty hops at 60. I did not dry hop. I don't think a dry hop is out of line so really its just a matter of wether or not you are going for the dry hop character in this or not. Without the dry hop I would say it is a bit more balanced of a beer where the malt character does come through a bit. I have had this on my list to brew for a long time and other beers keep taking precedence. I want to make it with Equinox to see how I like that hop.

 

so you are saying to lump the 10 and 0 min additions into a WP hop?  and maybe add another 0.5oz to that?

 

is WL002 still the preferred yeast for this?  I've never used it but I should be able to get it.  In the past I've mostly used wyeast but now my LHBS only carries WL and dry yeasts.