Newest Threads

germanmade84 · 01-13-2013, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yooper

That makes no sense at all, and is terrible advice.

You have plenty of base malt to convert, and mashing for 2-3 hours is more than ridiculous. Either someone is fooling with you, or is ignorant of brewing so please ignore this advice.

The recipe isn't bad. With that much black barley, it should taste stout-like, but if you want a nice roasty stout you should use roasted barley. That's more of a porter recipe. If it's "sour", that could be a sign of infection.

I dont know how u can say its bad advice since its corect advice. The recipe i showed makes amazing stout man.

germanmade84 · 01-13-2013, 02:30 AM

Im sorry i guess Brookyn brewery doesnt have a clue about mash.

***Yooper*** · 01-13-2013, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by germanmade84

I dont know how u can say its bad advice since its corect advice. The recipe i showed makes amazing stout man.

Well, the mashing for 2-3 hours is crazy, and the recipe isn't great. But if your beer is amazing for you, that's awesome.

But the diastatic power of maris otter is certainly sufficient (I didn't calculate it all out, but it certainly is) for that grain bill the OP posted. The grainbill is not bad, although I don't like that much chocolate malt in my stout.

By saying there was insufficient DP, that the mash needed to be for 2-3 HOURS, and that the recipe was bad, I'm calling it poor advice. All those points are simply incorrect.

**Scotty_g** · 01-13-2013, 06:21 AM

Very sour? Stale milk? That *does* sound like an infection...was there anything funny growing in the fermenter? I think some infections are capable of over-attenuating the beer and leaving little residual sugar, which would contribute to the beer seeming thin.

What did you have for OG/FG? What was your actual mashing profile?

homebrewdad · 01-13-2013, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yooper

Well, the mashing for 2-3 hours is crazy, and the recipe isn't great. But if your beer is amazing for you, that's awesome.

But the diastatic power of maris otter is certainly sufficient (I didn't calculate it all out, but it certainly is) for that grain bill the OP posted. The grainbill is not bad, although I don't like that much chocolate malt in my stout.

By saying there was insufficient DP, that the mash needed to be for 2-3 HOURS, and that the recipe was bad, I'm calling it poor advice. All those points are simply incorrect.

Agreed 100%. If you like your recipe, awesome for you.

But telling somebody else to mash for 2-3 hours, that there isn't enough DP... this just makes no sense at all. These are TERRIBLE advice.

ViperMan · 01-13-2013, 04:56 PM

Hey all - thanks for the information and discussion. The "infection" theory sounds plausible, though I don't remember anything funky inside the fermenter, with the exception of maybe a thin oily film on top. I didn't fret over it simply because I had never made a stout before. I figured it was normal. But it tastes watery, almost like beer soda, and is very sour.

I adapted this recipe from a cream stout I found here on this site. It called for a dark chocolate malt. I found a pale chocolate at my HBS, so I added more of it to maintain color. I figured it would just make it more chocolatey... I haven't really learned the whole acidic thing yet. I guess I need to read those pages in Palmer's book that I kinda glossed over...

I also don't remember my mashing that well - I never got very dedicated at taking notes and recording things. That's my fault... But I always aim for 155, and if I recall on this brew, it held perfectly for 60 minutes.

**Scotty_g** · 01-13-2013, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViperMan

...a thin oily film on top.

...

I adapted this recipe from a cream stout I found here on this site. It called for a dark chocolate malt. I found a pale chocolate at my HBS, so I added more of it to maintain color. I figured it would just make it more chocolatey... I haven't really learned the whole acidic thing yet. I guess I need to read those pages in Palmer's book that I kinda glossed over...

I also don't remember my mashing that well - I never got very dedicated at taking notes and recording things. That's my fault... But I always aim for 155, and if I recall on this brew, it held perfectly for 60 minutes.

I've seen that same kind of film on top of dark beers and didn't notice any unusual tartness.

The pale chocolate is still pretty dark so you wouldn't have had to bump it up much. The darker malts are going to be a bit more acidic but shouldn't be enough to make the beer sour. Without any other info I'd suspect infection.

Mashing at 155 should actually leave more body, not less. This is a good lesson for why to take more notes, though.

ViperMan · 01-13-2013, 05:25 PM

This was the original recipe by the way. It's for a 5 gallon.

http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f68/deception-cream-stout-141483/

By the way - could the fact that I made a half-batch affect things? I'm still using my 10-gallon mash tun, so I'm wondering if deadspace or such might be causing issues...

ViperMan · 01-13-2013, 11:43 PM

BTW I realize I'm spamming my own post, but I found this excellent article today - it really makes me think my recipe is pretty spot on.

http://www.byo.com/stories/beer-styles/article/indices/11-beer-styles/1160-milk-stout-it-does-a-body-good

***Yooper*** · 01-13-2013, 11:45 PM

Oh, I think the recipe is fine! It's more chocolate malt that I typically use, but the recipe isn't bad. And I think I said that earlier.

If this is sour, it sounds like a lacto infection. It's possible it's not, but if it's distinctly sour it would make me strongly consider a lacto infection.