The Mad Fermentationist - Homebrewing Blog

Sour Times at Modern Times: The Plan

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:13:00 +0000

Thursday will be my last day at my "real" job until September. After nearly seven years working for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I decided to treat myself with a summer “living the dream.” Friday I'll be flying to San Diego, where for the next two months I’ll be brewing at Modern Times! Luckily my boss and wife are supportive. While I’m sure I’ll get to pull some levers and learn the basics on the 30 bbl production brew house, most of my summer with be devoted to brewing pilot batches on the 20 gallon system, and getting the sour/barrel program up and running.

Despite the temperate local climate, I pushed hard and got Jacob to install a dedicated temperature controlled space for the aging sour beers. This has two benefits: first a stable temperature in the mid-low 60s F lowers the risk of Acetobacter producing offensively vinegary beer in any of the barrels; second it helps to physically (and mentally) separate the souring microbes from the rest of the brewery. If we have blow-off from primary fermentation in barrels, or pull samples, they’ll be less of a risk of those microbes finding their way into the beers that pay the bills. The room has space for about 120 ~60 gallon oak barrels (on racks stacked five high), hopefully by the time I leave in August we’ll be around 50% capacity.

It seems like just about every new craft brewery is opening with plans for a souring program, so what will make Modern Times’ sours different? How can we hope to catch up to the quality of American breweries that have a decade (or longer) head start on us?

Microbes: We’ll start a very organic sensory-driven microbe selection process. During my first month I’ll be getting a lot of carboys and growlers filled with moderate gravity/IBU wort. Each fermentor will be inoculated with microbes obtained from a unique source: yeast labs, hobby-microbiologists, bottle dregs, spontaneous inoculations etc. That way, when the local wineries start having freshly dumped barrels available in August we’ll be ready to inoculate with a wide range of cultures. As this first generation of beers ferment and age, we’ll evaluate, propagating the best barrels forward. I want to encourage barrel-to-barrel variation, and develop a variety of cultures ideally suited for different beers.

Base Beers: We plan on brewing four 30 bbl batches of wort for sour beers this summer alone. Each will be a different recipe. Eventually some barrels will be aged on fruit, dry hops, spices, blended, while others are left plain. This will be driven by the flavors produced by the microbes in each barrel. The plan for those four initial batches is: Belgian single, lambic-ish, malty and red, and a wild card brown or bière de garde most likely.

Fruit: Being in southern California we’ll have access to a huge variety of amazing produce pretty much year round. You’ll be seeing lots of sour beers that take advantage of this. We’ll be small enough that farmers markets and eventually direct farm-to-brewer relationships for interesting varieties will be possible. As much as I enjoy sour beers made with sour cherries or raspberries (I’m sure we’ll do some) I’m more excited to add as many different fruits as I can. As with the other aspects, sensory will be the key, I don’t want to match fruits to beers before I taste either.

Me: Hopefully the skills I’ve developed brewing sour beers at home over the last seven years (and researching a book the last two plus) will give us a jump start on every aspect of the process. The other brewers (Matt, Alex, and Derek) are no slouches either, and as a team effort I have a huge amount of confidence in the sour beers we’ll be able to produce. I won't guarantee those first batches will be perfect, but I'll do my best to get them as close as I can.

All of this doesn’t even touch on the other side of the Modern Times funky/sour program, stainless steel fermented Brett beers. The guys already have a batch of Neverwhere, my 100% Brett IPA recipe, on dry hops (Citra, Centennial, and Chinook). While most of the batch will be served on tap, we are planning to bottle a limited amount. My original batch held up surprisingly well when I bottled some of it from a party tap with a bottling wand jammed into it, but if you are lucky enough to get one it certainly won’t be a beer to sit on for long! The yeast harvested from Neverwhere will be pitched into be a slightly darker, lower gravity, and maltier beer, that is no less hoppy (heavy on the Motueka). Then we may try a pre-souring followed by 100% Brett beer after that to get something sour released before the first of the barrel-aged beers are ready in a year or so.

I’ll continue to update this blog all summer, but the format and timing of those posts probably won’t be what you’ve come to expect. If there are any aspects of the process you’d like to hear more about, please let me know. If you find yourself in San Diego, swing by the brewery and say hello!

Sour Dubbel with Plums

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:42:00 +0000

Fruit can be a crutch for brewers producing sour beers. When I drink Cantillon or Drie Fonteinen, I’d rather have the gueuze than the kriek. As good as the Cantillon Zwanze releases and the weird Drie Fonteinens (like Malvasia Rosso) are, I’d rather drink their best straight gueuze any day. The flavors of their base beers are so intricate and compelling, that I’d rather enjoy them unadorned. My sour beers on the other hand are solid, but without the volume to blend frequently, they have yet to meet that lofty standard. Fruit has the ability to elevate what is an enjoyable result, into one possessing flavors that few people have tasted before in a beer.

This dubbel started life almost two years ago. Brewed with pale and dark crystal from Valley Malting, two types of dark candi syrup, and fermented with WLP545 (Belgian Strong Ale). Half was served clean on tap soon thereafter. The remainder was soured with the dregs from several bottles of sour beers, including De Dolle Oerbier Reserva and Russian River Consecration (two of my favorite dark sours). It was aged on two varieties of plums. A true dubbel!

Dubbel Plum

Appearance – At first glance the color is a somewhat uninspiring maroon, but held to the light the body glows ruby-red, gem clear. The beige head has solid retention, with pretty lacing trailing behind as it recedes.

Smell – Juicy plums, mixed with damp basement funk. Honey, allspice, plum brandy, and a faint tinge of soapiness. More balanced fruit character than the Nectarine sour that I always associate it with, despite similar ratios of fruit to beer. Some fruits are simply more aromatic than others.

Taste – The sourness is balanced, lactic, very side of the tongue. It is hard to determine exactly where the actual fruit stops and the dark crystal malt and candi syrup take over. It starts fresh plum, gradually sweetening and transforming into prunes and raisins. The finish lingers with toasted oak and malt.

Mouthfeel – Medium body, slightly sticky, a nice match for the darker flavors. Carbonation is medium-low, enough to lift up the aromatics, but not disrupt the mood. Luckily the tannins this beer exhibited young have all but faded entirely.

Drinkability & Notes – One of the more unique sour beers I’ve brewed in terms of what is in the glass. The flavors interweave nicely, with the microbes, malt, and fruit all sharing the spotlight. It is in the same family with my favorite commercial dark sours, not too acidic, rich funkiness, but not quite on their level of depth (yet). This one should have good aging potential, and I’m excited to see how it fares in the years to come!

Acid Malt Sour and Nectarine Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:01:00 +0000

It is easy to settle into a rut when it comes to brewing sour beers. These beers can take so much time, and are inherently so risky that many brewers (including me) latch onto the first technique that produces enjoyable beer. My standard technique is to pitch all of the microbes (including a healthy dose of brewer’s yeast) into primary, and rack to secondary a few weeks later for long term aging.

When I heard that Ithaca adds (added?) a large percentage of acid malt to Brute to sour it, I was suspicious. Given the logarithmic nature of pH, I found it hard to believe a beer as sour as Brute could be fermented with nothing but ale yeast and Brett (in the absence of lactic acid bacteria). So a couple years ago I decided to give a similar process a try. The wort on brew day didn’t taste particularly sour, but I was surprised by the end result.

I aged half the batch on white nectarines, a fruit that I’ve used before with great results, and one I’m sure will find its way to work into a few barrels of sour beer at Modern Times!

Acid Malt Sour

Appearance – Crystal clear burnt golden colored body supports a small white head. Decent retention for a sour beer, especially considering some of my other recent efforts.

Smell – The aroma is fruity (apples and pears) and lactic, like a soured version of Duvel. There is some toastiness in the aroma, which I wouldn’t have expected from the grist (Pils, acid, and wheat malt), possibly from the Brett. The right notes are there, but the volume could be turned up. As it warms some floral tones appear and it starts to show its strength (although it doesn't taste the 8.2% ABV that the hydrometer suggests).

Taste – Snappy, tangy lactic acidity. The fruitiness from the nose remains, but here it is layered with clay. A hint of the spice from the saison strain primary remains as well. Still tastes very fresh, the Brett did its job nicely in that department.

Mouthfeel – Medium body, fuller than most sour beers (a trait it shares with Brute). Mildly prickly carbonation, about right.

Drinkability & Notes – A very solid, if subtle, golden sour. The acid malt did its job providing enough lactic acidity, and the Brett finished things out as expected. This method doesn’t save much (any?) time over a classic mixed fermentation, but it might be fun to try with 100% Brett!

W/ White Nectarines

Appearance – Nearly identical appearance, although not quite as clear. Not sure if the fruit caused the haze or if that is a result of the shorter time in the bottle.

Smell – Huge fresh nectarine aromatics. On first whiff you might be fooled into thinking you are opening a can of peaches in heavy syrup, but as it opens up the aroma gets fresher and more nuanced (pear, tropical etc.). I also get hints of the underlying Brett complexity, but this is really a showcase for the fruit.

Taste – The flavor is very juicy, with nectarines specifically (more clearly than the aroma) lasting into the finish. Very fresh and vibrant tasting. Similar level of acidity to the straight version, which is an indication that there weren’t a lot of lactic acid bacteria at work when all that simple sugar from the fruit was added.

Mouthfeel – Feels lighter than the plain version. The added water from the fruit seems to have thinned out the body more to where I usually expect my sours to be. Carbonation is similar to the fruit-less portion, but on this one I wouldn’t mind slightly more bubbly.

Drinkability & Notes – Terrific fruit character and a base beer that stays out of the way. I’m not quite as enthusiastic about it as the nectarine-aged wine barrel single, but it is pretty damn good. I think we can agree there are enough sours aged on cherries and raspberries; go to your local farmer’s market, try some samples of the “other” fruit, and buy a few pounds of your favorite to toss into a sour!

Mulberry DCambic Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 22:21:00 +0000

With the mulberry tree in the backyard of my DC home burdened by thousands of deep purple berries, it is time to drink a bottle of the beer I brewed with the fruit I harvested a year ago. I aged this half of my spontaneously fermented “DCambic” on a couple pounds of the often ignored forage-able fruit for nearly five months before bottling in March.

Mulberry DCambic

Appearance – What the white head lacks in retention and lacing, the body redeems with its glowing burgundy hues. Dazzlingly clear. Strikingly similar to my Cabernet sauvignon solera, just a couple shades darker.

Smell – The mulberries are prominent in the aroma, but like the raw fruit, their character isn’t particularly distinct. Jammy stone-fruit, plum especially, slightly cooked, with some earthiness too. The local flora provide some complementary aromatics, hay especially, and some indistinct citrus.

Taste – Like the clean version, the sourness is pleasant, but soft. The fruit flavor provides some sweetness and uniqueness, but also covers much of the character of the “wild” fermentation. The fermentation does show through in the finish with minerals and lemon zest. Some vanilla notes come through, despite not being aged on oak (or vanilla beans), origin unknown.

Mouthfeel – Mildly tannic, helps provide a surprising amount of body to a very low FG (1.002) beer. Solid carbonation, mildly prickly, doesn’t get in the way.

Drinkability & Notes – A really fun beer, more interesting than most of the sours I've brewed, even though you might not agree from drinking it blind. A few weeks ago I had the chance to share a bottle of it with Megan Parisi (of Bluejacket), and she enjoyed it enough to go back for seconds (with a bottle of Southampton Black Raspberry Lambic sitting open). Looking forward to drinking her beers when the brewery opens later this year!

While I enjoy this batch, I think mulberries would work even better in a beer with a more assertive malt character. They can’t carry a beer in the way raspberries or peaches can, but they’d work well at a lower rate to add complexity without overwhelming.

Grapefruit American Pale Ale Recipe

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:04:00 +0000

Inspiration is impossible to control. Sure you can sit down with pen/paper or brewing software and try to come up with a great recipe idea, but in my experience that usually results in gimmicks or repetition. You never know when you’ll be struck with a really good idea. For me, unsurprisingly, it is often while drinking a delicious beer or reading about brewing, but that isn't always the case. For example, this batch was conceived while sucking on grapefruit cough drops to fight a sore throat (not nearly as weird as the story behind Evil Twin's Soft DK...).

After the bolt of inspiration that brings the recipe concept, it is the time to sit down to focus on defining the target characteristics and writing a recipe that will achieve them. In this case I wanted some bitterness, subtle sweetness, bright citrus aroma, and crisp balance. I considered using a sour beer base, but grapefruit has bitterness too, so I ended up choosing a pale ale. I also wanted something I could turn around quickly.

I selected American "2-row" brewers malt, to impart a clean/crisp malt underpinning. I didn’t want a big caramel flavor, so I opted for a small amount of CaraVienna for a hint of sweetness. The only other specialty malt was acid malt, and only enough to lower the mash pH, and hopefully add some crispness to the finished beer.

While "grapefruit" is a common descriptor for the aromas of numerous American hops, there are a few varieties that standout. I selected the two I associate with the flavor most, loading in Cascade and Chinook at a 2:1 ratio. I didn't want to only rely on the hops alone though, so I mixed the zest harvested from four ruby red grapefruits into the dry hops. Audrey and I then peeled the fruit (discarding the pith), bifurcated each globe, stabbed each half a few times, and dumped all eight into the wort.

The idea of a hoppy beer with citrus has been done before: Tyranena Scurvy IPA (orange peel) and Hill Farmstead-Tired Hands Delicado (lemon zest) for example. Sadly I've ever had the chance to try the special grapefruit'ed version of Sculpin IPA from Ballast Point, which draws rave reviews. In my recipe I'm hoping for enough grapefruit aromatics to show through for the citrus to be identifiable, but not enough to obscure the fact that this is a firmly-hopped pale ale.

The dry hops and grapefruit only went into the beer yesterday, so I’ll give them about a week to infuse before I keg and force carbonate. Hopefully it’ll be one of those "I can’t believe I didn't think of this before!" sort of results. I won’t have long to enjoy this batch though because I’m less than three weeks away from flying to San Diego for the summer. Hopefully it'll last Audrey until I return!

It would be fun to try something similar with piney hops and spruce tips as well, but that will have to wait until next spring.

Grapefruit Pale Ale

Recipe Specifics
----------------
Batch Size (Gal): 5.00
Total Grain (Lbs): 9.88
Anticipated OG: 1.055
Anticipated SRM: 4.2
Anticipated IBU: 46.8
Brewhouse Efficiency: 78 %
Wort Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Grain
-------
96.2% - 9.50 lbs. American "2-row" Brewer's Malt
2.5% - 0.25 lbs. CaraVienna
1.3% - 0.13 lbs. Acid Malt

Hops
-------
0.63 oz. Cascade (Whole, 8.00% AA) @ 20 min.
0.63 oz. Chinook (Whole, 11.50% AA) @ 20 min.
0.75 oz. Cascade (Whole, 8.00% AA) @ 10 min.
0.75 oz. Chinook (Whole, 11.50% AA) @ 10 min.
2.00 oz. Cascade (Whole, 8.00% AA) @ 0 min.
1.00 oz. Chinook (Whole, 11.50% AA) @ 0 min.
2.00 oz. Cascade (Whole, 8.00% AA) @ Dry Hop
1.00 oz. Chinook (Whole, 11.50% AA) @ Dry Hop

Extras
--------
1.00 Whirlfloc Fining @ 15 min.
0.50 tsp Yeast Nutrient @ 15 min.
4 Grapefruits zest/flesh

Yeast
-------
WYeast 1056 American Ale/Chico

Water Profile
-------------
Profile: Washington, DC

Mash Schedule
-----------------
Sacch Rest - 60 min @ 153 F

Notes
-------
Brewed 5/27/13 with Audrey

Made a 1 L starter the night before, yeast pack was 5 months old.

2 g of gypsum added to the mash and sparge. Filtered DC water, un-cut as the base.

Batch sparged. Collected 6.75 gallons of 1.044 runnings.

Chilled to 70 F, shook to aerate, pitched the whole starter, and left at 64 F to ferment.

6/2/13 Added the zest of 4 grapefruits plus the dry hops in a weighted bag. Added the 4 peeled and cut in half grapefruits to the fermentor too.

100% Lactobacillus Berliner Weisse Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 28 May 2013 01:17:00 +0000

I get lots of brewing ideas. Sometimes they work out pretty well (for example Modern Times is about to brew 1,000 gallons of my 100% Brett Trois IPA!), but that isn’t always the case. Last summer I had the crazy idea to ferment half a batch of Berliner weisse with nothing but Lactobacillus. My initial concern was that the resulting beer might be too sour, but I figured that could be handled in a variety of ways (like blending with the other half of the batch), but that wasn't the case.

100% Lacto Berliner Weisse

Appearance – Slightly hazy, but considering the single infusion mash, and lack of a boil, not bad. Probably the palest beer I’ve brewed, about the color of “real” lemonade. The bright-white head has solid retention and leaves sticky lacing.

Smell – Smells pretty clean compared to my usual mixed-fermentation Berliner weisses. None of the musty, floral, complexity that Brett usually brings. The rest of the components are there though, wheat and gamey Lacto.

Taste – The flavor is where it falls a bit flat. The acidity suggested by the Lacto-y nose doesn’t show up. Otherwise solid, but like a light American wheat beer. Slightly doughy, with some lemon, and low levels of spicy phenolics. Sweeter than I want my Berliners to be, even considering the lack of acidity.

Mouthfeel – Relatively full body for a 1.032 beer, I’d prefer it crisper. Good carbonation, right after opened it had some foam build in the neck, but it seemed to dissipate quickly.

Drinkability & Notes – I’ve read a lot of complaints about the White Labs Lacto strain over the last year, but in this case there aren’t any excuses I can make for it. It was allowed to work without competition, in a low gravity/IBU wort, for nearly a year. I might try a blend of White Labs and Wyeast Lacto next time, or just try out one of my other ideas! And heck, at least I did something (ferment a beer without yeast) that very few people have done before.

Sorry for the long delay since the last post, but Audrey and I got married Thursday! Sadly blog posts the next few months may be a bit sporadic with my trip to San Diego and a deadline for my book both coming up in about a month.

Photo by Julia Benton at the National Gallery of Art.

Intro to Digital Photography for Beer

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Mon, 13 May 2013 22:48:00 +0000

Every once in awhile someone asks me what kind of camera I use, so I thought I’d post a write-up to save me the time of putting something together for each request. I also thought I’d include a few tips that I’ve picked up over the years for taking pictures of beer. I should also note, these tips are really intended for pictures you want to share, not just some quick shots, if like several of my friends, you just want a pictorial record of what you drink/brew. I'm not an expert, but I know enough to be dangerous.

Gear
For the last year I've shot with a Canon Rebel T3 with a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. Not the priciest combo available (~$450 together on Amazon today), but it does everything I need it to for beer. The lens is non-zoom, which has its pluses and minuses. It means that the distance away from the subject (glass) is relatively fixed, but it is an intuitive distance for portrait shots, which is essentially what beer photography is. However, for the price its optics draw rave reviews for their sharpness compared to much more complex/expensive lenses as a result of the simple design. Do you need a DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) camera, probably not, but it’s like all-grain brewing, having more control over the process gives you creative freedom and allows you to learn.

Subject
The most important lesson of photography is that the subject is important. It’s much easier to take a great photo if the beer and location are pretty. No matter how well a beer is brewed, it won’t look spectacular in a dirty pint glass on a white background. Interesting glasses are a big help, and if they are spotless so much the better. Make sure the inside of the glass is clean too, you don't want ugly patches of bubbles stuck to the sides. With the number of pictures on this blog I’ve had to become pretty creative finding new photo shoot locations in my house to avoid the feeling of looking at the same picture on every post. I've shot next to the barrels, in the attic, outside, and on just about ever table and shelf I own. Props, like ingredients, can be nice to add, but usually it looks a bit too staged for me.

Lighting
I don’t like flash photography for beer. Unless you’ve got a diffuser the reflection off the glass is annoying. As a result I try to shoot in good lighting conditions. Naturally light ideally, but I make do with interior lights when I don't make it home from work early enough to take advantage of the sun. If the lighting is poor, a tripod will really help by allowing slower shutter speeds (the longer the shutter is open the more light can enter the camera, but it can be difficult to avoid motion blur).

Settings

In most situations I prefer a wide aperture (low f-stop) for taking pictures of beer, usually 1.8/f or a click or two higher. This reduces the depth of field, meaning there will be a smaller range of distances in focus. This causes the beer to pop out by blurring the background (meaning you also don’t see the mess in my house). With a lens with an even wider aperture (1.4/f or even 1.2/f) you can get the depth of field so shallow that you won’t even get the entire glass in focus. This can be gorgeous, but my preference is to see the whole glass.

The wide aperture has the added benefit of allowing more light into the camera, making it easier to avoid using the flash in poor lighting conditions. Otherwise I just try to ensure the ISO (sensor sensitivity) is low enough that the picture isn’t noticeably grainy, and the shutter length isn’t so long that the image blurs when shooting hand held (1/80 of a second or higher). Although I recently purchased a tripod so that I can shoot longer exposure pictures without blurring. Check the light meter or LCD display to ensure the shot is bright enough. You may be happier with a slightly brighter or darker shot, so take some darker and lighter shots and see what looks better.

Composition
I’m not an expert at photo composition, so my basic rule is “take a lot of photos.” It’s digital so you don’t need to be too careful with making each shot precise. Move around, change your angle, and fiddle with your settings. Often it seems like the shot is best from an angle where I'm the least comfortable. The further the distance between the subject and the background, the more out of focus the background will be when the subject is in focus. I'll often take a few shots before I open/pour the beer so I can get some good shots before the head starts to sink (a race with most sour beers). When you get something that starts to look good, that’s the time to start dialing it in. Check your white balance, make sure your focus is perfect etc. My lens/camera has trouble with automatic focus when shooting transparent beers, so I tend to shoot in manual mode.

Post-processing
I’m not a big believer in severe image editing in this case. Maybe a slight rotation, crop, or white balance adjustment with GIMP, but I tend to avoid more intensive post-processing. Same goes for filters, they can be fun to play with, but for the blog I try to make my photos an accurate representation of what the beer looks like. As with my tasting notes, I strive to be honest about the results.

Hope this help someone out there! If you’ve got any tips to share please post a comment. I've been slowly working my way through the lecture notes from a digital photography class at Stanford, interesting reading if you want to get nerdy.

Hibiscus Wit Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Fri, 10 May 2013 01:17:00 +0000

Always fun to get three different beers from a single brew day. I took a batch of Belgian wit, bottled some straight-up, kegged half after dry hopping with Galaxy, and infused the rest with hibiscus. Guess which one I’m drinking today?

Hibiscus Wit

Appearance – Neon-cherry-red body (almost glowing), with a modest white head. A couple months in the fridge before going on tap left it clearer than I intended, but it’s hard to complain too much about such a vibrant appearance!

Smell – The smell retains much of the base “wit” character, with orange zest leading the way. Citrus is followed by a combination of yeast spice, cranberries, and fruity coriander. The aromatics are well blended and balanced, making it difficult to precisely distinguish the yeast character from the spices.

Taste – The hibiscus lends a pleasant tartness to the finish, very refreshing. The flavor is fruitier than the nose, citrus and restrained tropical fruit. It might taste like a soda, but the sweetness is minimal and it comes with a slightly bready maltiness. Bitterness is all but non-existent. Otherwise a clean fermentation (I heard that the portion that Jacob and I bottled went funky... I'm ready to give up on the counter-pressure filler, too difficult to sanitize completely)!

Mouthfeel – Moderate body, seems slightly fuller than the dry hopped portion. Maybe the acidity? There is a hint of astringency, not sure where that is coming from. Carbonation could be slightly more prickly.

Drinkability & Notes – Close to a perfect summertime beer for me: tart, dry, lively, and complex. It is always a good sign when I finish my first pour before I’m done reviewing. Sadly with the way Audrey and I have been hitting this tap since I put it on, it probably won’t last into the real heat of the summer. Hopefully a variation on this recipe will be brewed on the big system at Modern Times eventually (which may not be that far off)!

Second Pull - Wine Barrel Solera

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Mon, 06 May 2013 23:42:00 +0000

More than three years after initially filling the red wine barrel in my basement with a pale lambic-ish wort and inoculating with a pre-East Coast Yeast test culture of Al Buck’s Bugfarm, Nathan and I are finally preparing for our first true solera pull!

In September 2011 we pulled the first 20 gallons from the barrel, but that was solely the unblended initial fill. After refilling the barrel and allowing it to age until now, the blend is comprised of approximately 60% of the initial beer (3.25 years old) and 40% of the first refill (1.7 years old). The result is a sour beer with an average age just over 2.5 years (for more on calculating a solera's age, download my recently updated solera spreadsheet). Judging both by that advanced age and the flavor of the sample we pulled Saturday, this should be a delicious pull!

When we refilled the barrel with unfermented wort last time, it took almost a week to see the first signs of active fermentation. There isn’t much chance for anything really unpleasant to happen when wort is mixed with double its own volume of already soured/alcoholic beer, but it still didn’t seem ideal. For this refill we decided to ferment the beer before racking into the barrel. We used every available fermentor, including my two 20L American oak barrels, to ferment the wort. The five fermentations are currently raging with a variety of dried yeasts: T-58, S-33, Belle Saison, and US-05. I’m especially interested to taste the Belle Saison.

Several people have asked if we are concerned about autolysis (i.e., off-flavors resulting from yeast death). My answer is, “Not yet.” Gueuze producers sometimes age lambic in the primary barrel for up to four years. I doubt they would ever have autolysis problems because after that long there wouldn’t be any Saccharomyces left alive (oxidation is another story). The concern with a solera is that as the trub continues to build with each successive fill it could eventually cause issues, as Cambridge Brewing Company discovered with their Cerise Cassée project. It may also be that as beerstone builds up reducing the wood's porosity the Brettanomyces is no longer able to clean up the compounds released by the primary yeast. Moving to primary fermentation outside of the barrel should also help, assuming we provide enough time for most of the yeast to drop out of suspension before racking into the barrel. We'll siphon out some of the trub during pulls too.

I’ll have another post in a couple weeks to recap how we treat the beer we remove from the barrel. Nathan and I had great luck with our four variations on the first pull (plain, Hallertau, elderflower, and Cabernet sauvignon), but we probably won’t repeat any of those this time.

Our other solera (that lives in an apple brandy barrel) is ready for its second pull as well. It is just barely holding on, pushing the upper level of my tolerance for acetic acid. Luckily topping off the barrel and getting an air conditioner to hold the ambient temperature in the 60s F prevented it from becoming undrinkable since the first pull.

With the coming decommissioning of the group barrels at Nathan’s house and our respective jobs in the professional ranks coming, we’re hoping to keep these two soleras going, but we’ll see.

Rum Vanilla Cinnamon Porter Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:45:00 +0000

No brewer, no matter how skilled or experienced, is able to avoid off batches completely. The hope is that when you do make the rare mistake, you are able to learn from it, and avoid the same mistake on subsequent beers. Hopefully this batch will turn out to be a good example of that for me. After aging my Belgian Quad in a Balcones Rumble barrel for three weeks, I bottled it. That same day, I rinsed out the 20L barrel aggressively with three changes of just-off-the-boil water. I assumed that would be enough to ensure the Belgian yeast strain would be dead, and the barrel would be fine to age my somewhat sticky Spiced Imperial Porter...

Rumble Barrel Vanilla Cinnamon Porter

Appearance – Pours with a massive tan head (that occupies about 4/5 of the glass), way too much carbonation obviously and that’s pouring the beer right out of the fridge and into a wet glass. Once and the pitch black body regains its proper proportions, it’s an attractive beer.

Smell – Cinnamon and charred oak lead with some biscuity malt, like a slightly over-cooked cinnamon bun. There may be a slight fruitiness from the yeast, but it is hard to put my finger on it, maybe just my imagination. There is some clean ethanol as it warms, but not unexpected for a beer with this strength. Smells very fresh, no sign of oxidation despite the time spent in the small barrel.

Taste – The flavor is similar to the aroma, although the cinnamon waits until the finish to peak. The body has the flavors of a big sweet beer, but not the sweetness. The vanilla helps to cover-up for the dryness. Not terrifically complex. I don’t get a varietal barrel character, but there is certainly some American oak.

Mouthfeel – Carbonation is still too high despite my waiting for the head to sink and a photo session that combined for about 10 minutes of waiting. Body isn’t entirely thinned out, but it doesn’t sell the beer as a thick sipper.

Drinkability & Notes – The nose is a hint at what this beer should have been. What is amazing to me is that while sitting in the barrel for two months the residual Belgian yeast didn't give any indication of what it was waiting to do in the bottle. I’d usually suspect Brett, but other than the lack of sweetness and high carbonation there isn’t any evidence of the responsible microbe. I poured most of the rest of the batch into a CO2 purged keg, maybe I’ll dose it with some maltodextrin or lactose before I tap it next fall. In the future, if I want to age multiple clean beers in the same barrel, I'll ferment them with the same yeast strain!

Going to the 2013 National Homebrewers Conference in Philadelphia?

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:49:00 +0000

Yes - 26%
No - 73%

When I posted the poll, my plan was to use this recap post to announce that I’d be attending the National Homebrewers Conference… sadly that doesn’t look like it’ll happen. I fought through the internet congestion and bought my tickets the day they went on sale. However, a good friend of mine is getting married in San Diego the weekend prior to the conference, and it proved impossible to resist sticking around town to help out at Modern Times.

I’ve never attended NHC, and I was happy that it was finally within easy traveling distance of where I live (it was in Baltimore the year before I moved to DC). I’ll be there (Grand Rapids) in 2014, I promise. The Publisher for Brewers Publications has been encouraging me to put together a presentation for next year as well. So I’m sorry I won’t get to meet the 46 of you who responded that you’ll be attending, but hopefully I’ll get to meet many more of you while I'm at Modern Times during July and August!

The Modern Times crew has been talking about getting a batch of my 100% Brett IPA into a tank soon after the brewery opens. It’d steal some Citra from Fortunate Islands (hoppy American wheat), but we should still be able to make it until the fall harvest. In other news the pilot system is up and running, with multiple test batches of the Lomaland saison currently fermenting. We’re trying the same blend of saison strains (Dupont and French) that Odonata pitched during their brief run, as well as a combo of Dupont and American ale, which I am less optimistic about.

I’d also like to thank everyone who has already supported the Modern Times Kickstarter, making it the most successful campaign of any brewery to date! This is the last call as it closes Tuesday night. Earlier today the last brew day with me was claimed, but there are plenty of other rewards left (including one to design a recipe on the pilot system). Jacob recently added a few new ones too, like being a brewer for a day on the big system, and a mega LA bar crawl.

DCambic (DC Lambic) Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:03:00 +0000

Of the beer styles I’ve brewed multiple times, lambic is the one where success has been the slowest to come. Most likely because the skills I pick up brewing pale ale translate to porter, IPA etc. Lambic brewing on the other hand doesn’t even share much in common with other styles of sour beer. Whether it’s the turbid mash, aged hops, spontaneous fermentation, or aging on the primary yeast cake, lambic stands alone.

My first two attempts at lambic were lackluster at best, while the third was solid. It seems like the more traditional my process is, the better the results. So for this fourth attempt I went whole hog, the biggest change being a modified spontaneous fermentation. Rather than simply expect wild yeast to land in the cooling wort, I built up three spontaneous starters, eventually pitching the ones I exposed in my backyard and barrel room. Two years ago my goal was to create a drinkable beer, and by that marker this batch was a remarkable success!

DCambic #1

Appearance – 18 karat gold. Remarkably clear given the starchy wort and spontaneous fermentation. The head doesn’t last more than 30 seconds, quickly dissipating to a few hardy bubbles.

Smell – The aroma is fruit forward: cherry, pear, and lemon especially. Slight mineral, with some dusty basement funk. Still tastes vibrant at two years old, fresh cut hay and sea air. Reasonably balanced with no major “off” aromatics (e.g., acetic, diacetyl, sulphur). That said, the aroma doesn’t leap from the glass, despite the relatively warm (60F) serving temperature.

Taste – Tart, but not sour. It certainly could be more lactic, but probably isn’t too far off from the softer commercial gueuzes (lie Lindemans Cuvée René). Similar volatiles in the mouth compared to the nose. In addition to the fruit and funk, it has a slightly toasty character (from the grain or the bugs I can’t be sure). The flavor is intricate, but subdued, with lots of elements popping in and dropping out.

Mouthfeel – Carbonation is far too low for a gueuze, and the result is a surprisingly full bodied compared to my expectation. On the positive side it isn’t thin (despite the 1.002 FG) or tannic, very pleasant!

Drinkability & Notes – Considering the way some gueuze brewers and blenders talk, the fact that I produced something drinkable on my first try without blending is a miracle. I think many people would be surprised how reminiscent of a lambic a spontaneous American fermentation can be. Honestly I think this is closer to a lambic than anything you could brew with an unaugmented packaged microbe blend.

The Four Stages of Homebrewing

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:16:00 +0000

After a post busting homebrewing myths, I wanted to put together something a bit more positive. So I came up with four sets of brewing techniques/equipment that fit together. The categories start with the basic stuff that I think all beginning brewers should do at a minimum, and progresses to the expert level of complex, expensive, and difficult.

I don't intend this to be a map from where you are, to where you "should" be. I don't do all of the things in the Expert category, and probably never will. Hopefully this list will help you to identify gaps in your process. If you are already dabbling in some of the Advanced or even Expert topics, but still not doing some in the Beginner and Advanced Beginner levels, you might want to consider investing in some relatively simple/inexpensive things that can really improve the quality and consistency of your homebrew.

The Four Stages of Homebrewing

Beginner (I hope it turns out well...)
Recipe: Recipe from a trusted source or high-quality kit
Wort Production: Steeped specialty grains and malt extract
Water: Chlorine-free water (carbon filtered, well, spring, RO, or distilled)
Boil: Partial boil (staggered extract additions for pale beers)
Chilling: Ice bath and top-off with chilled sterile water
Aeration: Shake chilled wort
Yeast: Rehydrated dry yeast
Fermentation: Monitor ambient fermentation temperature, brew seasonally
Packaging: Bottle conditioning using a priming sugar calculator, sugar measured by volume
Other: Focus on cleaning and sanitizing
Other: Take notes on each step of the process

Advanced Beginner (I think I know what I'm doing.)
Recipe: Tweaking a trusted recipe
Wort Production: Partial Mash (measure the gravity pre-boil and adjust extract amount as needed)
Water: Simple water salt additions for flavor (knowing your water's profile)
Boil: Full wort boil
Chilling: Immersion wort chiller
Aeration: Filtered air aquarium pump
Yeast: Liquid yeast with a starter
Fermentation: Monitor the actual temperature of the fermenting beer, control with swamp chiller
Packaging: Bottle conditioning using a priming sugar calculator, sugar measured by weight
Other: Evaluate ingredient quality
Other: Using non-Reinheitsgebot ingredients (fruit, coffee, spices, sugars etc.)

Advanced (I make excellent beer!)
Recipe: Design to-style recipes
Wort Production: All grain (single infusion mashes)
Water: Water adjustments, including monitoring mash pH
Boil: Full wort boil
Chilling: Counter-flow wort chiller
Aeration: Estimated pure oxygen aeration
Yeast: Repitching yeast
Fermentation: Electronic fermentation temperature control
Packaging: Kegging
Other: Purge everything the fermented beer touches with CO2
Other: Check finished beer pH

Expert (Why aren't I brewing professionally?)
Recipe: Design your own not-to-style recipes
Wort Production: All grain (single infusion, step, decoction, turbid etc.)
Water: Water adjustments, including mash pH
Boil: Monitor/adjust the boil pH
Chilling: Pump, plate chiller, hop-back etc.
Aeration: Measure dissolved oxygen
Yeast: Microscope to check cell count and viability
Fermentation: Temperature controlled conical fermentors
Packaging: Counter-pressure bottling
Other: Tests (wort stability, forced fermentation etc.)
Other: Barrel aging, sour beers, etc.

Modern Times Lomaland Saison #2 Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:19:00 +0000

Wyeast 3711 French Saison is simultaneously maligned and celebrated. It is probably the easiest saison strain to work with, fermenting rapidly and completely regardless of wort fermentability and fermentation temperature. However, it can be over-attenuative, and the flavor tends to be fruitier than the Belgian saison strains. For this beer (my second test batch of Modern Times Lomaland) I kept the temperature lower than I would for something like Saison I, and I avoided stressing the yeast (I didn’t under-pitch or under-aerate).

Not saying that Modern Times definitely will or won't use WY3711 for Lomaland, the West Coast division had great luck with the Dupont strain, and is also putting a blend of White Labs Saison II and Saison III through its paces. Our Kickstarter campaign is down to less than two weeks. There are still two brew days with me available on the Modern Times pilot system, and just seven League of Partygoers & Elegant People memberships (your best shot at drinking my first batches of commercial sour beer)!

Lomaland Batch #2

Appearance – Hazy golden-yellow body with a stiff white head on top. Good retention and excellent lacing. Certainly looks like a saison.

Smell – Solid yeast presence, fresh bread dough, and white pepper. Some fruit, but the restrained fermentation temperature kept it from being a fruit-bomb in the way 3711 sometimes is. The classic Saaz hop herbal-spice comes through complementarily.

Taste – Dry, but not desiccating. The yeast, especially the pepper carries through the flavor. Very fresh tasting, Solid bitterness in the finish, but it isn’t rough or harsh. The lingering flavor is yeasty/doughy/wheaty. Slight tartness. Not hugely complex, but it has all the elements I want in a saison.

Mouthfeel – The body isn’t as thin as you’d expect, but it isn’t thick by any stretch of the imagination. Solid carbonation, but I would expect more from a bottled (or canned) saison.

Drinkability & Notes – For such a simple recipe this beer has a lot going on. The nose could be a bit more complex, but considering the moderate gravity and mono-culture fermentation it is hard to complain too much. I’m excited to see how the half of the batch that was bottled with Brett turns out!

Nanus, Naardensis, and Custersianus (Three New Brett Species)

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 00:09:00 +0000

The nomenclature used to sell Brettanomyces can be confusing and can sometimes a bit misleading. Currently essentially all of the Brettanomyces strains used in brewing belong to just two species, B. anomalus and B. bruxellensis. Like Saccharomyces cerevisiae (brewer's yeast) there is a large amount of variability between different members of the same species.

Rather than using some other naming convention (e.g., origin, brewery, sensory etc.), in the case of Brett, two older species names (B. lambicus, and B. claussenii) have stuck around as strain names even though they aren’t used scientifically anymore. When you see a strain marketed as B. lambicus it is B. bruxellensis, while B. claussenii is B. anomalus. However, I think it is more helpful to talk about the individual strains. For example, Wyeast and White Labs both sell “Brettanomyces lambicus” but these two strains produce very different flavor profiles.

Notice earlier that I didn’t say that bruxellensis and anomalus are the only species of Brettanomyces? Bug guru Al Buck of East Coast Yeast has been feeding me information for my book about three other species he has obtained samples of. A few weeks ago vials of B. nanus, B. naardensis, and B. custersianus arrived in the mail. Al’s given me a wide range of flavor descriptors for each (some more positive than others), but I wanted to try brewing with them for myself.

A few weeks ago I pitched a few drops from each vial respectively into a quarter of the bottles of Lomaland #2 saison to see how each performs as a secondary fermenter. The technique was similar to what I have done in the past to trial a variety of Brett strains. I’ve opened a few of these bottles already, and so far the Brett character has been unsurprisingly too subtle to describe.

This past Sunday I brewed 7.5 gallons of wort that I split three ways to try these strains out for primary fermentation. The recipe was very simple, sharing many similarities with both the first 100% Brett beer I brewed, and the Russian River Redemption inspired single our barrel crew soured in a red wine barrel. The small amount of acid malt was to reduce the mash pH, and to provide the Brett with lactic acid for the production of the fruit ester ethyl lactate.

The results of these two experiments should give me a decent understanding of the characteristics of these three strains. However, regardless of the results, I won’t be able to make any blanket statements about the suitability of these species for brewing. Even knowing everything about a single isolate isn’t enough to know how other isolates of the same species will behave. Hopefully I'll have the results from both trials in about two months.

100% Brett Test

Recipe Specifics
--------------------
Batch Size (Gal): 7.50
Total Grain (Lbs): 14.00
Anticipated OG: 1.051
Anticipated SRM: 3.3
Anticipated IBU: 21.8
Brewhouse Efficiency: 72 %
Wort Boil Time: 90 Minutes

Grain
-------
87.5% - 12.25 lbs. German Pilsener Malt
5.4% - 0.75 lbs. German Vienna Malt
3.6% - 0.50 lbs. Acid Malt
3.6% - 0.50 lbs. German Wheat Malt

Hops
------
1.00 oz. Palisade (Pellet, 7.40% AA) @ 80 min.

Extras
--------
0.75 tsp Yeast Nutrient @ 10 min.
0.75 Whirlfloc @ 10 min.

Yeast
------
ECY19 B. custersianus
ECY24 B. naardensis
ECY30 B. nanus

Water Profile
----------------
Profile: Washington, DC

Mash Schedule
-----------------
Sacch Rest - 75 min @ 146 F

Notes
-------
Brewed 4/14/13 by myself

Collected 9 gallons of 1.044 runnings. Very clean wort, left most of the trub behind. Chilled to 70 F.

Split into three 3 gallon fermentors. Shook to aerate. Pitched ~80% of the ~2 month old ECY Bretts. Left at 60 F to ferment. Decent activity by 24 hours on Nanus and Naardensis, Custersianus took an additional 12 hours or so.

6/5/13 Bottled all three individually. 1 5/8 oz of table sugar for Custersianus (1.008) and Nanus (1.016) with 2.25 gallons, and 1.5 oz of table sugar for Naardensis (1.011) with 2 gallons remaining.

Galaxy Dry Hopped Wit Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:53:00 +0000

Sorry for the lack of tasting notes posted recently, I’ve been fighting off a nasty cough for the last couple weeks. This batch of wit was brewed as a double proof of concept for Modern Times. Five gallons was infused with hibiscus, while this half was dry hopped with two ounces of Galaxy from Australia.

Galaxy Wit

Appearance – Hazy lemon-yellow. Head retention is solid, but unremarkable. The airy head trails handsome white lacing as it slowly recedes.

Smell – Aroma is big citrus, along with tropical hops, moderate peppery yeast, and light fruity coriander. The orange/tangerine zest really comes across well, although I suspect some of that aroma is from the Galaxy hops. The aromatics from the various sources are all working on the same team.

Taste – Flavor is bright and vibrant. Orange leads with some freshly cracked wheat in the finish. The flavor is really snappy/crisp thanks to the acid malt. Minimal bitterness, but with how dry the beer is it come through. Quenching and bold, but not the most complex wit I’ve tasted thanks to the hold spices/hops.

Mouthfeel – The mouthfeel is fairly thin, I like a wit to be just slightly creamy. Carbonation is spritzy, which works well with the flavor and balance.

Drinkability & Notes – Considering this was fermented with saison yeast, it still comes across very much as a wit (albeit one that was dry hopped). The Galaxy hops worked very well to compliment the spicing and yeast character without overwhelming them, a big improvement over a couple DIPAs I've brewed with this variety. I’ll find time to re-brew this recipe eventually, with a true wit yeast. Tasting on the hibiscus half as soon as I have a slot open in my kegerator.

My Book has a Publisher!

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 23:46:00 +0000

When I started writing a book more than two years ago the goal was to collect my thoughts on brewing sour beer and self-publish it through Amazon CreateSpace. I wanted to pull together all the tips, techniques, and science I’d learned over the years of blogging/brewing into a single resource. I assumed it would take a year at most…

As I wrote and edited I decided it would be helpful to talk to a few other brewers (both craft and home). The generosity of the people I contacted overwhelmed me. Virtually every brewer I wanted to talk to answered my questions, although occasionally it took a bit of nagging.

A list of some of the people I talked to for the book:

Vinnie Cilurzo (Russian River)
Ron Gansberg (Cascade)
Scott Vaccaro (Captain Lawrence)
Tomme Arthur (Lost Abbey)
Ron Jeffries (Jolly Pumpkin)
Eric Salazar, Lauren Salazar, and Peter Bouckaert (New Belgium)
Tyler King (Bruery)
Jeff O’Neil (Peekskill/Ithaca)
Will Meyers (Cambridge)
Jason Perkins (Allagash)
Gabe Fletcher (Anchorage)
Shaun Hill (Hill Farmstead)
Pat Mcilhenney (Alpine)
Scott Smith (East End)
Todd Haug (Surly)
Brian Strumke (Stillwater)
Alex Ganum (Upright)
Chad Yakobson (Crooked Stave)
Jason Davis (Freetail)
Dan Woodske (Beaver Brewing)
Kristen England (Pour Decisions)
Nathan Zeender (Right Proper)
Remi Bonnart, Sebastian Padilla, Ryan Ekre, Levi Funk, Seth Hammond, and Dave and Becky Pyle (homebrewers)
Chris White, and Neva Parker (White Labs)
Al Buck (East Coast Yeast)
Greg Doss (Wyeast)

In November, 2011 I emailed Kristi Switzer the Publisher for Brewers Publications and ended up talking to her on the phone. A few weeks later I submitted a proposal. A proposal consists of answers to questions about the book: target audience, content, author qualifications etc. In addition I submitted the table of content (draft table of content you can actually read), a sample chapter, and a writing sample (one of my BYO articles). I signed the finalized contract last week!

For awhile I was quite torn on if a publisher was what I really wanted. Self publishing held the allure of complete control over the process and end result. The ability to revise and update as I saw fit, not to mention about 10 times more money for each copy sold. However, the legitimacy conferred by having a publisher, and their expertise on editing, layout, publicity etc. was enough to convince me that Brewers Publications was the right choice!

Brewers Publications is the publisher of just about every book about brewing you own (from How to Brew, to Radical Brewing, to Wild Brews etc.). It is a wing of the Brewers Association, the organization that runs the Craft Brewers Conference, National Homebrewers Conference, Great American Beer Fest, Zymurgy Magazine etc. This will open up opportunities for me to speak and promote the book.

July 1st is my deadline to submit the completed manuscript, however don’t expect to be able to buy a copy of the book in August. As a small publisher, they only aim to release two books a year, and at the moment mine is slotted for sometime in 2015. However, Kristi assured me that if there was an outpouring of demand (or another book had to be delayed) mine could move up. Contractually they are bound to publishing the book within three years of when I submit the manuscript.

The bulk of the writing for the book was completed by six months ago (currently sitting at 140,000 words all told). I’m still waiting for the last couple brewers to review their sections and submit their comments/edits. Otherwise I’m working hard to fact check and cite what I have already written. Luckily for me, Audrey weirdly enjoys formatting references (one of my least favorite aspects of the process).

I apologize to everyone who was hoping the book would be published by now, but when it is finally released hopefully it will be a valuable reference for years to come. It seems like American sour beers are starting to really take off (when was the last time a brewery opened without plans for some sort of sour program?). I’m hoping my effort will produce a book that both professional brewers and homebrewers will benefit from. Something that is simple enough to help you brew your first batch of sour beer, and detailed enough that brewers who have been making sours will take away information and inspiration.

Thank all of you for your support you’ve shown the blog (me) over the years! The comments, emails, not to mention beers and microbes, you've sent have kept me honest and inspired many research tangents. The blog might be a bit lean on sour beer content for awhile to avoid stealing stuff from the book, but I’ll do my best to post updates about the Modern Times sour beer program (something that probably will not find much coverage in the book). There are many similarities in the book and the brewery, in both cases I am giving up control to work with people who really know what they are doing, and who have the funding to take my ideas and turn them into something wonderful (hopefully)!

Three Modern Times "West" Test Batches

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:08:00 +0000

Last week was the Craft Brewers Conference here in DC. I didn't attend, but I had a blast hanging out with people and drinking excellent beers. A few highlights:

On Tuesday night I spoke at a hop symposium at Smith Commons with a wide variety of other brewers and homebrewers. I had a good time, but the venue (loud) didn't lend itself to the sort deep intellectual back and forth I'd hoped for. I enjoyed drinking a glass of New Belgium Felix Love (their unblended sour base beer) for my trouble though.

Thursday I had the guys from Jester King (Jeff, Ron, and Jordan) over for dinner. We drink homebrew from Nathan and I alternating with their beer (including a test bottling of a sour with 200 lbs of raspberries in a single barrel - wonderfully jammy). Those guys are really killing it, so many interesting flavor combinations. We tried beers that melded Brett with hops, smoke, spices, plus interesting wood (Spanish cedar) and barrel (gin) treatments. We even discussed brewing a three way collaborative beer with them, Right Proper, and Modern Times!

On the way to drop Jacob (Modern Times' Founder) off at the airport on Saturday we stopped for lunch at Meridian Pint. There we sampled Nathan's first two commercial batches of WildCraft soda and a few of the many local collaborative beer they had on tap. The most interesting of the beers was Barleyweisse, a recreation of a pre-prohibition sub-3% all-barley "Berliner weisse" that Mike Stein found a reference to in an obscure book about the history of brewing in Maryland (this batch was brewed with Meridian Pint's Tim Prendergast at Union Craft Brewing).

With Modern Times getting a day closer to opening every day, the "actual" brewers have taken over brewing the test batches of clean beer (I'll get to brew more sours again, thank goodness!). Jacob brought along bottles of three of their test batches for me to taste. But before I get to the notes and recipes I need to talk about the Kickstarter campaign!

Over the last year plus, hopefully you've enjoyed following my role in the Modern Times recipe development process. The grand opening is starting to feel like it's right around the corner, the recent arrival of the brewing system was the latest hurdle crossed. Jacob did a stellar job creating incentives for the campaign. The clothing looks terrific, and the League of Partygoers & Elegant People should be a great way to get involved if you are local (including first notification when bottles of sour beers go on sale at the tasting room). There are also some eccentric rewards including getting a velvet portrait commissioned of you for the tasting room, a Christmas light tour with one of the brewers, and joining me for a test-batch brew day in DC! The money will be spent to pimp the tasting room and for two things near and dear to my heart, barrels to age sour beer and lab equipment to ensure those microbes don't cause a problem for the clean beers!

Now back to the test batches. They were brewed by two of the brewers. Alex Tweet was previously at Ballast Point, where he developed some weird/delicious beers like Indra Kunindra (he also recently let me know that his first batch of homebrew was based on one of my recipes). Derek Freese was previously the brewer at Monkey Paw (and before that an avid homebrewer). I got to hang out with Derek and drink a few of his beers while at GABF last year. I came away impressed by both by his knowledge and enthusiasm for brewing, and by what a fun guy he is. Looking forward to working with them (and with the head brewer, Matt Walsh, as well). I'll do my best to keep you updated of continued progress on the recipe front as they are brewed!

Black House Point Loma #1 (PL1)

In one day they brewed three variations on this recipe. This was picked as the clear winner by the executive tasting panel, so it is the one Jacob brought out.

OG = 1.060
FG = 1.018
IBUs = 33

Batch Size: 5.25 gal
Boil Time: 60 min
Brewhouse Efficiency: 73.00 %

56.0% - 7 lbs US Pale Malt (2 Row)
12.0% - 1 lbs 8.0 oz Flaked Oats
8.0% - 1 lbs Pale Chocolate Malt
6.0% - 12.0 oz Caramel/Crystal 60
6.0% - 12.0 oz Carastan
4.0% - 8.0 oz Biscuit Malt
4.0% - 8.0 oz Debittered Black Malt
4.0% - 8.0 oz Roasted Barley
Mash 153 F

Magnum @ 60 min

WY1056

1.75 oz of crushed coffee steeped for 24 hours before bottling.

Tasting Notes

Appearance – Stout-ish, decent head retention.

Smell – More coffee and chocolate than my most recent version. Could go back to 2 oz of coffee for 24 hours for more “wow!”

Taste – Thinner, more complex maltiness. Needs more sweetness, and also more hop bitterness.

Mouthfeel – Thinner, slight tannic. More oats (16-17%), and a higher mash temperature next time.

Drinkability & Notes – Great nose, flavor and body a bit lacking.

Blazing World PL1

With the fourth attempt overall at this recipe I think we've finally hit upon a winning hop combo. Nelson Sauvin and Simcoe have been there all along, but we tried them with three hops, Palisade most recently, without nailing it. It seems that Mosaic did what the others couldn't!

OG = 1.068
FG = ?
IBUs = 157.5

Batch Size: 6.50 gal
Boil Time: 90 min
Brewhouse Efficiency: 70.00 %

83.1% - 13.75lb Pale Malt
15.1% - 2.5lb Munich Malt
1.1% - 2.9 oz Roasted Barley
0.7% - 1.9 oz Carafa III
Mash 149 F

1.50 oz. Columbus (Whole, 15.00% AA) @ 90 min.
5 ml HopShot (Extract) @ 90 min.
1.00 oz. Simcoe (Whole, 14.00% AA) @ 25 min.
3.00 oz. Nelson Sauvin (Pellet, 12.00% AA) @ Hop Stand
1.00 oz. Mosaic @ Hop Stand
2.00 oz. Mosaic @ Hop Back
1.00 oz. Simcoe (Whole, 14.00% AA) @ Hop Back
3.00 oz. Nelson Sauvin (Pellet, 12.00% AA) @ Dry Hop
1.50 oz. Simcoe (Whole, 14.00% AA) @ Dry Hop
1.00 oz. Mosaic @ Dry Hop

WY1056

Tasting Notes

Appearance – Could be lighter, although just slightly. Might just be a clarity issue.

Smell – Big Nelson nose. Fruit, dank. Big “wow!”

Taste – Could be slightly drier, crisper. Saturated, very Nelson heavy. Not just fruit some pine as well.

Mouthfeel – Fuller, sweeter. For the next batch we'll either add a small amount of sugar, or reduce the Munich and mash cooler.

Drinkability & Notes – Really damn close to perfect other than the body/sweetness which should be a simple fix.

Red Rye IPA PL1

Jacob was able to procure a lot of 2012 harvest Simcoe so he wanted to see how the malt bill from this recipe would handle the switch from Cacade/Sterling to all Simcoe. The other half of this batch saw an accelerated 24 hour dry hopping on a Stirhog Black Maxx Stir Plate. Apparently the aroma was fine, but the vigorous agitation extracted some unpleasant polyphenols or tannins from the hops.

OG = 1.065
FG =?
IBUs = 91.6

Batch Size: 6.50 gal
Boil Time: 60 min
Brewhouse Efficiency: 70.00 %

73.8 % - 12.5 lbs American Pale Malt
17.7 % - 3 lbs Rye Malt
4.4 % - 12.0 oz Carared
3.0 % - 8.0 oz Crystal Rye
1.1 % - 2.9 oz Chocolate Rye Malt
Mash 152 F

1.00 oz. Columbus (Whole, 15.00% AA) @ 60 min.
5 ml HopShot (Extract) @ 60 min.
3.00 oz. Simcoe (Whole% AA) @ Hop Stand
3.00 oz. Simcoe (Whole% AA) @ Hop Back
4.50 oz. Simcoe (Whole% AA) @ Dry Hop

WY1056

Tasting Notes

Appearance – Not as bright/red as previous batch, this one is a bit duller/browner. May just be a clarity issue.

Smell – Big pine/tropical Simcoe, not much else. Bright, fresh, not green or grassy. Very nice.

Taste – Could be stickier, nice hop character, solid bitterness. Malt comes through more than in the nose.

Mouthfeel – Good carbonation but it could be a little fuller.

Drinkability & Notes – Happy with the direction this is headed. I just worry that the Simcoe overwhelms the malt. We just need to figure out how “IPA” we want this one to be.

Technical Notes on Fermentability

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 01:34:00 +0000

Wort fermentability can be a confusing topic. In a simple sense, base malts, toasted specialty malts, and unmalted adjuncts contribute long chains of sugar molecules (i.e., starches). The enzymes contributed by the base malt clip chains of sugar molecules of various lengths from the starches. Shorter chains are fermentable sugars, slightly longer ones are unfermentable dextrins.

The saccharification rest temperature is the simplest variable to adjust to alter the percentage of carbohydrates in the wort that will be short enough for brewer’s yeast to ferment. This is because the enzyme (alpha amylase) that works most effectively at the upper end of the standard 140-160°F range produces both sugars and dextrins, while the enzyme (beta amylase) that works best at the lower end of the range produces maltose, which is easily fermentable by brewer’s yeast. At lower temperatures especially, allowing more time for the beta amylase to work also boosts fermentability (if you only mash for 10 minutes at 142°F, the result will not be a very dry beer). Not much controversy there I hope.

But, what other aspects of the recipe/process influence fermentability? I’m not talking about the fermentation, which is a completely separate, but equally important topic. Today I'm focusing on the carbohydrate profile of the wort. Maybe the water-to-grain ratio of the mash? How about the percentages of various base malts, specialty malts, and unmalted grains? Or a long boil with all that kettle caramelization? Over the last few weeks I bumped into three experiments/studies which address these questions.

The most common secondary factor that I've heard influences fermentability is the water-to-grain ratio of the mash. It is often said that thicker mashes yield less fermentable worts. I’d never paid too much attention to this rule, but it is worth knowing (especially if you are considering switching to thin brew-in-a-bag mashes) that it isn’t accurate. Kai Troester found that: “Contrary to common believe no attenuation difference was seen between a thick mash (2.57 l/kg or 1.21 qt/lb) and a thin mash (5 l/kg or 2.37 qt/lb).” An assertion he also supports with several references to technical brewing texts. His white paper summarizes this, and a number of other interesting experiments he has done on factors influencing fermentability and efficiency as well (e.g., calcium, pH etc.).

Many homebrewers think of crystal/caramel malts as adding only or mostly unfermentable sugars. While this makes sense when steeping them for an extract beer, I’d always wondered how dextrins added to an enzymatic mash would survive when much larger starches contributed by base malts do not. Over on HomeBrewTalk, Nilo posted results from experiments he did showing that crystal malts (especially paler varieties) are not a great way to decrease wort fermentability. Steeping crystal malt alone resulted in a wort that was only 40-50% fermentable with S-04. However, a mash with equal parts of pale 2-row and crystal lowered the fermentability (compared to 100% base malt) by only about 3% for C10, 11% for C40, and 13% for C120 (significantly higher attenuation than would be expected by averaging the attenuation of the tests with crystal and 2-row alone). His results suggest that using a more reasonable 15% crystal malt would only result in a reduction of the attenuation by 1% for C10, 3% for C40, and 4% for C120. Not insignificant, but only an addition of .0005-.002 to the final gravity for a beer that starts at 1.050.

According to another of Kai’s experiments, in the same paper referenced above, lowering the enzymatic content of the mash by using a base malt with a low diastatic power, like dark Munich, can reduce fermentability compared to a paler malt. It may be that some of the difference in Nilo’s crystal malt test could be accounted for by this, making his results even less significant under real world recipe conditions. Kai theorized that a similar affect could be achieved by adding a large percentage of unmalted grain, although it is unclear at exactly what average diastatic power of the grist wort fermentability is reduced, considering he achieved similar results from both Pilsner and Munich malts. This seems to dispute the basis that some brewers have for adding corn or rice to the mash to boost fermentability. While these adjuncts will dilute the malt flavor, they do not have the same effect as adding highly fermentable sugar to the boil. At best the amylase enzymes contributed by the base malt will produce a similar sugar profile from adjunct starches as the starches from the malt itself.

In the final study, Ankita Mishra examined how the fermentability of wort is altered through non-enzymatic processes in the boil (among many other changes to the wort). During the boil sugars and amino acids in the wort interact to produce melanoidins, in a process called the Maillard reactions. According to the study this can significantly, although only slightly, reduce the fermentability of the wort (the difference of extending a 30 minute boil to 120 minute was an increase of only .001 to the FG). This would also suggest that the melanoidins produced by either malting or decoction mashing could reduce fermentability, possibly explaining some of the differences Kai witnessed when mashing dark Munich compared to Pilsner malt. Caramelization happens primarily at much higher temperatures than those achieved during a standard wort boil, especially close to the target pH of 5.0.

You can look at the methods for manipulating fermentabilty either as ways to preserve body and some sweetness in a clean beer, or as ways to preserve carbohydrates for the slower working wild yeast and bacteria in a mixed fermentation. Brettanomyces, Pediococcus, and some strains of Lactobacillus are capable of producing enzymes which break apart carbohydrate chains too long for brewer’s yeast to ferment. My understanding is that melanoidins are not fermentable by any of the microbes found in sour beer, but I’d be interested if anyone knows otherwise!

Hopefully this brief literature review helps when designing a recipe, or altering your process.

Malt Whiskey Barrel Rye Stout Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:04:00 +0000

Barrel aging requires dark arts not taught in most homebrewing books. It adds an additional layer of complexity to the timing and process compared to aging in impermeable fermentors. Last fall, I timed my brew days so that by the time the first beers had extracted enough character from my two 20L Balcones barrels (about three weeks), the second batches were ready to take their places. Being prepared to drain and then refill a barrel on the same day eliminated the risks of leaving it empty, or the hassle of burning a sulfur wick or filling with a holding solution.

The second beer aged in a barrel extracts a softer wood and especially spirit character than the first. The extraction also requires a longer time period. Many breweries age all of their non-sour beers in first use barrels, but Goose Island had great success aging Bourbon County Rare (imperial stout) and then King Henry (English barleywine) in the same set of 23-year old Pappy Van Winkle bourbon barrels. Not the same barrels, but Goose Island has also produced at least one sour beer (Dominique) aged in barrels that previously held the standard Bourbon County Stout. A 10 gallon batch of sour brown in currently split between in my third use barrels.

The first beer I aged in my Texas Single Malt barrel was a rich caramel-focused strong lager. When I judged that it had extracted enough flavor and was ready to lager, I racked it to a keg, and rinsed the barrel three times with near boiling water. My naive assumption was that the heat would be enough to kill any brewer’s yeast that wasn't rinsed out. I was aware that it is nearly impossible to sanitize wood once it is exposed to Brettanomyces, but surely brewer’s yeast couldn't be as hardy!

Valuable lesson learned, about a month after this rye stout was racked into the barrel it blew off the hard bung. New rule, if you want to age two clean beers in the same barrel, use the same yeast strain to ferment both! The resulting beer is still pleasant, but the additional fermentation reduced the sweetness and body below my original target.

Malt Whiskey Barrel Rye Stout

Appearance – Opaque black body with a solid light-tan head. The flaked rye provides wonderfully sticky retention and lacing.

Smell – Toasted wood, chocolate, plums, slight warm alcohol. The aroma is bold, but it is is still young and a bit brash. All the elements I want in a barrel-aged stout are already here, they just need time to mellow and blend.

Taste – Similar flavors to the nose, bitter chocolate and espresso. The barrel character fills in the gaps with vanilla and toast, not dominating the malt profile. The finish is firmly bitter, split between hops and roasted grains. The lingering character is faint charcoal, almost smoky. Relatively dry for a big stout, but there is enough sweetness to prevent the bitterness from being overwhelming.

Mouthfeel – Even after a few minutes of taking photos, the carbonation is still higher than I wanted. Luckily the residual lager yeast in the barrel kicked in mostly before bottling, so carbonation is just slightly higher than I intended. The Rumble Barrel Aged Imperial Porter wasn’t so lucky. The beta glucans contributed by the rye do an admirable job suggesting a bigger body without the sweetness you’d expect from it.

Drinkability & Notes – Drinks like a stronger beer than its 1.080 OG suggests. Classic imperial stout character without the syrupy sweetness. The barrel adds a wonderful layer of complexity that is much more intriguing than I've been able to achieve with oak cubes. I'm excited to see how this one ages over the next year!

Cabernet Grape Lambic Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:53:00 +0000

Some batches of sour beer take a little longer than I originally plan. The beer I’m drinking tonight was brewed in June, 2009. The majority of the base lambic was bottled, with delicious results, about a year and a half later. This portion was racked into two one gallon jugs with a total of two pounds of Cabernet sauvignon grapes. The flavor was never spectacular, so I was never motivated to do anything with it. Eventually (i.e., two years later) a sample I pulled convinced me to finally get around to bottling.

Cabernet Lambic III

Appearance – The color is between rosé and a brand new penny. Crystal clear. Not nearly the saturated garnet of the batch Nathan and I aged on the same wine grapes with double the ratio of fruit to beer. The tight white head stays aloft for a few minutes before dissipating completely.

Smell – Nuanced funky nose. I get lemon peel, minerals, with some raw-barnyard Brett. The grapes add a deep subtle fruitiness, but it really isn’t identifiably vinous. No detectable off-flavors from the advanced age, Brettanomyces is a superb anti-oxidant!

Taste – Bright lactic-acidity, a severe case of the funks, and vanilla-oak through the finish. The Brett character is not to the level of being objectionable, but it obscures some of the more enticing fruit flavors. As my palate becomes desensitized to the initial wave, I detect more citrus zest, and faint jammy grapes. Many of the elements of a great sour beer are there, but the pieces don't fit together perfectly.

Mouthfeel – Medium-high carbonation on top of a thin body. Not tannic or otherwise rough or overly dry. I had one bottle gush a couple months ago, but the rest have been fine so far.

Drinkability & Notes – Not my finest work, but the effort of my first turbid mash (and pitching bottle dregs from a 3 Fonteinen Oude Gueuze) really made this batch more lambic-like than either of my previous efforts. The grapes needed to be more aggressive to make a worthwhile contribution to the flavor, but the fermentation sparked by their sugars did boost the acidity closer to where I wanted it compared to the straight version.

Rum Barrel Aged Quad Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:03:00 +0000

This "American" quad was the first of the four clean barrel-aged beers I brewed during September and October 2012. It spent three weeks in a 5 gallon (20L actually) American oak barrel that previously held Balcones Rumble ("Made from the finest local wildflower honey, mission figs, turbinado sugar and natural Texas Hill Country spring water."). The pairing of those flavors with the caramelized dark fruitiness of a strong Belgian style beer was too obvious to pass over.

Rumble Barrel Quad

Appearance – Darker than a standard quad, downright porter-esque. The D-180 candi syrup added more color than I expected, I could easily drop the .6% Carafa Special II from a rebrew. The dense tan head displays terrific retention.

Smell – Lots going on in the nose. Dark and dried fruits especially, but some brighter banana bread notes too. There are lightly boozy barrel-character supporting the aromas of the candi syrup and dark caramel malt. As it warms rum-varietal alcohol emerges and the nose takes a savory turn, ever so faint tomato paste.

Taste – The flavor leads with sweet caramel, toasted grain, raisins, and figs. Despite the color, it doesn’t taste like a Belgian interpretation of a porter or stout. The oak lends vanilla, light coconut, and damp wood to the finish. Amazing what the beer picked up in just three weeks of barrel-aging. The alcohol is still slightly hot, it’ll benefit from at least another six months in the bottle.

Mouthfeel – Solid mildly prickly carbonation buoys the slightly sticky body. Slight tannins from the oak prevent the stickiness from being cloying. Feels substantial compared to many native Belgian beers.

Drinkability & Notes – Certainly not a session beer, but the sweetness does a good job balancing the barrel character. This is one of those strong beers that is “worth” the high alcohol, there are no 5% ABV beers that taste like this. I wish I’d brewed enough of the base beer to bottle a six-pack without time spent in the barrel to compare. The match is almost too good, making it hard to determine where the various flavors originate. Thanks again to Balcones for sending the Rumble barrel to me. They’ve got a variety of beers (including this one) on the way to them as I type!

Craft Beer Bottle Sizes (Revisited)

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:02:00 +0000

A couple years ago I posted a short rant about the prices that many craft breweries charge for large format beer bottles (i.e., bombers and 750 ml). A few weeks ago Clay Risen contacted me to ask if I would talk to him for an article he was writing on a similar subject for the New York Times. After the article was published last week, I witnessed heated debate on message boards, Facebook, email, and in person from my friends. I heard a lot of interesting opinions both in support of and against the case presented in the article. Granted I was only quoted, so the negative comments didn't cut too deep.

The issue I had with a lot of the complaints was that they missed, what to me, is the main point: I see no benefit to the consumer that compensates them for the higher per-ounce price of larger bottles of the same beer. I understand some of the reasons that breweries choose to package their most interesting/expensive beers in larger format bottles, but that doesn't mean that it is a positive thing for me as a beer drinker! Don't think I'm blaming just the breweries here though, craft beer drinkers are just as much to blame for being willing to pay an inflated price ounce-for-ounce for the identical beer sold in larger bottles!

I have learned that in other parts of America it is less common for stores to allow "make your own six-pack" or similar deals to buy individual 12 oz bottles of any of the beers they have available. As a result, in some areas people might prefer a bomber for the lower total cost compared to a six-pack for sampling a new beer. However, this is still a sub-optimal situation from my point of view. I also worry about alcoholism masquerading as craft beer appreciation, just because I am physically capable of drinking 3/4 of a liter of 13% ABV Imperial Stout over the course of an evening (containing more alcohol than in a six-pack of Bud Light), doesn't mean it is a good idea!

The person who seemed most personally insulted by the article was Garrett Oliver of Brooklyn Brewing. On Thursday he took to the Brewers Association Forum to post the message below. I thought he deserved a rebuttal, so I sent him the email that follows (to which I have not yet received a reply). If you haven't already, read Clay's article, and the chatter, and let me know what you think!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Forum,

Yesterday The New York Times published an article "Craft Beer's Larger Aspirations Cause A Stir". You can see it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/dining/craft-beers-trend-toward-larger-bottles-causes-a-stir.html?ref=dining&_r=0.
In this article, The New York Times, usually a fount of very good beer writing, essentially posits that craft beer producers - meaning many of us - are money-grubbing elitists trying to drag humble beer away from its populist roots. The writer says that 22 oz. and 750 ml bottles are "getting a chilly reception from many drinkers" and that "many beer drinkers are uncomfortable with the notion of drinking beer like wine, to be split among several people." Here's another quote for you:

"The trend toward large bottles is part of what is being called the "wine-ification" of beer, the push by many brewers to make their product as respectable to pair with braised short ribs as is a nice Chateauneuf-du-Pape, and at a price to match."

Let me be clear. I love The New York Times - half the internet would disappear tomorrow if it ceased to exist. But this article is so replete with omissions and chock-full of inaccuracies that I feel we cannot give it a pass. It is know-nothing opinion masquerading as reporting. Anybody here heard from customer saying that they don't want more big bottles of interesting barrel-aged beers? No, me either. We can't even keep up, and I'll bet you can't either.

Aside from this, wine itself is not "wine-ified". About ninety percent of the American wine market is bag-in-box or jug wine in a big bottle with a finger loop. This is the "true" American wine market, which looks exactly like the beer market - 10% at the top, and 90% at the bottom. And it was always so. Museums in Europe are filled with ornate gold and silver beer vessels, and beer has always been on the tables of kings and peasants alike - just like wine. The large bottle with the mushroom cork is original to beer, not to wine. So why is the "paper of record" telling us what beer ought to be? And our traditions and history? And what our customers are asking us for? It seems that the writer wants us back at the kid's table. And keep in mind that many, many other papers copy what the NYT does.

I don't know about you, but I'm very, very tired of this. If you think I dost protest too much, I suggest you think again. The NYT is massively influential, it's read world-wide, and this article will be read by many more people, I suspect, than reads the entirety of the dedicated beer press.

To their credit, when I complained to an editor, the NYT decided to open the online article for comments. As of this hour, there are 42. I want to see 400. Please let them hear from the rest of you. Comments and "top emailed" is how they keep score. Tell them the truth. Tell them what you've seen out there, what you're here to do, and what your customers are telling you. We need to send this sort of "journalism" packing. Please go to the Times website and weigh in.

Cheers,
Garrett Oliver, Brewmaster
The Brooklyn Brewery
Editor-in-Chief, The Oxford Companion to Beer
Brooklyn, New York
www.brooklynbrewery.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Oliver,

As the homebrewer (blogger, author, brewing consultant etc.) quoted in the recent NY Times article, I thought I’d offer you my perspective. I certainly don’t agree with everything Clay wrote, but I think the overarching issue of larger format beer pricing is a valid one.

A couple years ago I crunched the numbers at a local store here in DC, and for craft beers bombers were generally a 25-50% mark-up per ounce over single 12 oz bottles of the identical beer. That relationship is inverted for macro-bottles, with the larger formats discounted by the ounce. As a beer consumer, I always opt for smaller bottle when given the choice. Even if I was planning to share the beer, why not open two small bottles rather than one larger? Many beer drinkers are victims of price anchoring. Not realizing that a “reasonable” $10 750 is more expensive than a $28 six-pack.

I understand that big bottles can be beautiful, and raise the perception of beer, but packaging stronger beers in them creates problems. I’ve got a 2+ year old bottle of Black Ops in my basement, still waiting for the day when I have the right group of people over to enjoy it. On the other hand I’ve got a case of Bell’s Expedition that I’ve been drinking through a few bottles a year, watching it change. Something I could never do with a beer only available in large bottles.

Unlike a bottle of wine, beer will go flat after opening, making it less than ideal for drinking over multiple nights. Beer also has the sediment issue, the last pour from a large bottle is pretty murky after being passed around a table of 7-8 people at a tasting. Of course I still buy big bottles of barrel-aged beer and other fun stuff, but only because that is often the only choice breweries present me with. It is inspiring to drink beers created with daring and unique flavor combinations. However, I feel like some brewers (clearly not you) release beers based on a good idea that still needs refinement, packaging what is essentially a glorified test batch in a large bottle to extract the maximum amount of money for someone who “needs” to try it once.

Cheers, and thanks for everything you’ve done for beer and brewing!

Michael Tonsmeire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The irony of this whole situation is that there is a high likelihood that Modern Times will be selling large bottles of our limited release beers. We'd originally planned to package 12 oz bottles of the beers from the barrel program, but as a result of a protest from the local police on the local licensing, we won't be able to sell smaller format bottles out of the tasting room. How forcing people to buy larger bottles of barrel-aged sour beer is in the public interest, I have no idea! Luckily after a year we'll be able to apply to have this restriction lifted, assuming we've been well behaved.

Hibiscus/Galaxy Wit Recipe

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:12:00 +0000

Belgian wit is a tricky style to nail, at least judging from most of the renditions I've drank. The soaring balance of spices, yeast character, and wheat often falls when one element (usually the spices) dominates. Common issues include pithy dried orange peel bitterness, hot-dog flavored coriander, and a flabby/bland base beer. My favorite example is St. Bernardus Witbier, with its subtle tartness, gentle spicing, and balanced yeast character. If I could brew a wit that good, I’d be satisfied!

I hadn’t brewed a wit since my first year as a homebrewer. That batch, based on a recipe from Radical Brewing, called for a cereal mash. That won’t be an option on Modern Times' 30 bbl brewhouse, so we opted for an infusion mash with a combination of flaked and malted wheat, and a touch of oats. After cooling a sample of the mash to room temperature and using my meter to measure the pH at 5.8, slightly above the ideal range, I added .25 lbs of acid malt. I also acidified the sparge water with a teaspoon of phosphoric acid. This is a beer where my goal isn't to impart sourness, but the correct pH will result in a crisp and refreshing balance.

For spicing I went with coriander from an Indian grocery store. This variety is much more citrusy/fruity than the variety carried on most supermarket spice aisles, which is often reminiscent of celery, ham, or hot dogs. Indian markets also carry spices for a fraction of the cost of supermarkets and specialty spice shops. For orange I went with fresh Temple oranges (actually a tangor, tangerine-orange hybrid). I harvested the zest with a rasp/Microplane grater to minimize the amount of bitter pith collected.

I added both the coffee-grinder-crushed coriander and zest at the end of the boil. I find that late boil spice additions do not have the bright punch of post-fermentation spicing, but their character becomes more integrated as the enzymes from the yeast work to change the character of the spices. If I was brewing a straight-ahead wit, I would have added a small amount of chamomile as well, as its juicy-fruit aromatics worked so well in the Radical Brewing recipe.

That first batch of wit was fermented with WLP400 Belgian Wit Ale Yeast, until it stalled around 1.020. I was new to brewing, and with the ABV within the suggested 3.6-4.2% ABV range (like many recipes in the book, oddly low considering the 1.052 OG), so I bottled. A few weeks later the first one blew. When I mentioned what happened to Mike Roy, who was letting me help out at Milly's Tavern in Manchester, NH for a few days, he told me that he'd stopped using the strain after experieincing a similar stall (Mike is now the brewer at Franklin's in Hyattsville, the closest brewpub to my house).

For this batch, I had a fresh yeast cake of Wyeast 3711 French Saison from my second batch of Lomaland. It is fruitier than many saison strains, and at a moderate fermentation temperature I hoped it would be clean enough not to overwhelm the spices. WY3711 presents an opposite issue to WLP400, its high attenuation rate necessitated a hot saccharification rest to preserve any dextrins. Despite mashing at 158F the yeast still achieved 82% AA.

Now for the twist. This ten gallon batch was split three ways. I'll bottle a six-pack plain for comparison, with the rest receiving a second round of flavoring. Half was dry hopped with Galaxy. It is a hop I’ve had less than terrific luck with in DIPAs, but hopefully 2 oz of pellets dry hopped will enhance the fruity character and balance. I'll dose the other keg with a hibiscus “tea” extraction. This will add a bright pink color, light tartness, and fruity-cranberry aromatics. For more information on this process see what I did for my tart-floral-gruit.

Hibiscus-Galaxy Wit

Recipe Specifics
-----------------
Batch Size (Gal): 10.50
Total Grain (Lbs): 19.25
Anticipated OG: 1.049
Anticipated SRM: 3.5
Anticipated IBU: 15.2
Brewhouse Efficiency: 75 %
Wort Boil Time: 75 Minutes

Grain
-----
41.6% - 8.00 lbs. CMC Superior 2-row
31.2% - 6.00 lbs. Flaked Wheat
20.8% - 4.00 lbs. German Wheat Malt
5.2% - 1.00 lbs. Quick Oats
1.3% - 0.25 lbs. Acidulated Malt

Hops
------
2.50 oz. Hallertau Hersbrucker (Pellet 3.00% AA) @ 60 min.
2.00 oz. Galaxy (Pellet, 12.00% AA) @ Dry Hop

Extras
-------
0.50 tsp Yeast Nutrient @ 20 Min.
4 Temple Oranges (Tangor) Zested @ 0 min.
0.75 oz Indian Coriander @ 0 min.
Hibiscus Tea @ 0 Days

Yeast
-----
WYeast 3711 French Saison

Water Profile
-------------
Profile: San Diego

Mash Schedule
----------------
Sacch Rest - 60 min @ 158 F
Sacch II - 15 min @ 163 F

Notes
------
Brewed 2/17/13 by myself

Added three handfuls of rice hulls to the grist.

Adjusted carbon filtered DC tap to San Diego (Baking soda, gypsum, CaCl, Epsom, and kosher salt), no distilled dilution, for the mash and batch sparge. Tried to boost the temperature to mash out, but I'd lost enough temp that it just brought it to 163 F.

Mash pH came in slightly high at 5.8 @ room temp (according to my meter), so I added 4 oz of acid malt to bring it down slightly. Added 1 tsp of phosphoric acid to the sparge water.
Collected 10 gallon of 1.049 runnings.

Fresh zest from 4 Temple oranges, Indian coriander.

Chilled to ~65 F, topped off with 1 gallon of distilled water to reach target volume/gravity.

Yeast harvested from Lomaland #2, 2/3 cup of thin/clean slurry pitched into each. Left at 65 F ambient to ferment. Quick start to fermentation, did not warm, allowed to free-rise only.

2/25/13 Down to 1.009 (considering the mash temp, wow!). Dry hopped half with 2 oz of Galaxy pellets, loose. Agitated the wort twice a day for remainder of time in bucket.

3/3/13 Racked the galaxy dry hopped half into a purged keg.

3/17/13 Bottled one gallon plain with .75 oz of table sugar. Kegged the remaining 4 gallons with a tea made from 3 oz of hibiscus mixed with 3 cups of just off-boiling water for 5 minutes.

4/11/13 Galaxy dry hopped portion really brought out the citrus. Finally a beer I brewed with Galaxy that I really enjoy!

5/9/13 Hibiscus portion is rocking! Beautiful color, and a complex and refreshing blend of fruity aromatics. Hard to decide which I enjoy more.

Cherry Buckwheat Sour Ale Tasting

noreply@blogger.com (The Mad Fermentationist (Mike)) — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:51:00 +0000

Here is a tasting of just one of those fun small-batch projects I have sitting around my basement waiting for me to post notes. This batch started life as an experimental buckwheat amber, soured with Jolly Pumpkin dregs and aged on rum-soaked American oak. On a big blending/bottling day I racked a gallon of the batch onto frozen/defrosted sour cherries where it sat for a couple months. Nothing too crazy, I say with a straight face.

Buckwheat Sour Cherry Amber

Appearance – Pigeon blood ruby. It is darker than many cherry beers, but brilliantly clear. Stunning really. The head retention is mediocre at best, sinking to a white wispy covering after a few minutes.

Smell – Prominent fresh cherries with a hint of basement mustiness. Some bread, and as it warms, sweet-vanilla from the oak. The nose is sweeter than I expected.

Taste – It possesses a nice mix of fruit and funk and a pleasant acidity. Not as sharp as many of my sours, both in terms of less acid and slightly more residual sweetness. Lingering fresh pie cherries into the finish. Not a super-complex sour beer, but the flavor is very pleasant.

Mouthfeel – Lightly tannic, not overly thin. Medium-low carbonation. Not sure if the buckwheat helped with the body or not, but it certainly didn’t hurt.

Drinkability & Notes – This is a solid sour-cherry amber. I really like the vanillin-rich American oak with the cherries. No off flavors, but the Brett/fermentation doesn’t shine either. This should age well, sadly with the small batch size I’m down to my last bottle.