Double IPA Dogfish Head 90 Minute Clone

Dude those tap handles you made are AWESOME! I was wondering what to do with all my white labs tubes. I always kept them thinking that I would find something to do with them eventually. I might have to steal your idea!

More on topic, I boost carbed my 90 minute clone starting Friday. Lowered the pressure and pulled a sample last night. Obviously still a little green and with a lot of hop debris (1st pull from the keg) I think this beer is going to be fantastic. I'll give it a few more days at serving pressure to finish carbing up, but it was really close last night. On Friday, I'll pick up a 4 pack of the real thing and do a side by side.

Awesome! And don't feel bad about stealing the tap handles idea, I stole that from someone else, haha. It's super easy though, you just need the little $2 adapter and some epoxy.

I'm going to re-brew this clone myself sometime this spring/summer. I've got a bunch of beers on the agenda, but I'm definitely going to try to squeeze this one in again.

I have a question for you scottland. So I stumbled across your 120 minute clone thread (impressive to say the least) and noticed that the grain bill was different than 60/90 minute (Victory not TF Amber). Was this the homebrew chef grain bill? If so, do you think you'd attempt 120 again with a beefed up version of the 90 minute? I must say your comparison pictures to the real 120 minute were pretty darn close.

I've got a question that I've been mulling but it came to an example in my 90 minute so I'm gonna post this here. Here goes:

When I brewed this, I had a spurt of wildly varying efficiencies. It was driving me crazy. I'm happy with about 70 percent efficiency but I was swinging as far as 50 for some reason (haven't fully troubleshot it although I'm back to a consistent efficiency-go figure). Anyway, knowing this was a big grain bill, I set up my recipe for something low, I think 60, maybe even a touch lower. That upped my amber malt quite a bit. After all is said and done, my beer is darker than I remember 90 min being and darker than other people's batches seem to be. And I was wondering can poor efficiency cause your colors to be off? I'm thinking of it this way: Even if I'm doing badly at converting starches to sugar, I'm still doing a pretty good job of steeping for color. So if I have to add more darker malt to reach gravity, aren't I also stepping up color out of range of the recipe calculated at a different efficiency? In any case, this beer is fantastic! I was kind of thrown off by the Simcoe when it was young. I'd never had a beer with Simcoe late in the boil. But now I like it quite a bit. I'll post a picture when it's a bit clearer.

120 does use amber malt. I just used a victory/crystal combo to substitute for amber malt. On a beer like 120 Minute, you'd never know the difference.

The best way to think of 120 Minute is to think of the process Dogfish uses. They take any of their base beers (Rasion D'etre, 90 Minute, etc), and beef them up a little bit to come in around 1.100 OG. So in the case of 90 Minute, 18lbs 2-row and 1.5lbs Amber (roughly). Basically same recipe, just a pinch bigger.

They let that ferment out most of the way, then the 'big beer' treatment starts. They pitch a super-high gravity yeast, and start feeding the beer sugar daily to keep it hungry and eating. That ratchets up the ABV without changing the flavor profile too much.

SenorPepe: As a rule:

-I never adjust specialty malts when adjusting a recipe for different efficencies. Only adjust the base malt. That's unless you're adjusting from likr 50% to 80%
-Only adjust specialty malts when adjusting batch size. 5gal > 6gal, or 5gal > 10gal.

How much amber malt and 2row did you use?

scottland said:

120 does use amber malt. I just used a victory/crystal combo to substitute for amber malt. On a beer like 120 Minute, you'd never know the difference.

The best way to think of 120 Minute is to think of the process Dogfish uses. They take any of their base beers (Rasion D'etre, 90 Minute, etc), and beef them up a little bit to come in around 1.100 OG. So in the case of 90 Minute, 18lbs 2-row and 1.5lbs Amber (roughly). Basically same recipe, just a pinch bigger.

They let that ferment out most of the way, then the 'big beer' treatment starts. They pitch a super-high gravity yeast, and start feeding the beer sugar daily to keep it hungry and eating. That ratchets up the ABV without changing the flavor profile too much.

Click to expand...

Gotcha, that makes sense. I was just wondering why the difference. I assumed you subbed Victory for TF Amber but assuming makes an ASS-U-ME, although really just me Thanks!

scottland said:

SenorPepe: As a rule:

-I never adjust specialty malts when adjusting a recipe for different efficencies. Only adjust the base malt. That's unless you're adjusting from likr 50% to 80%
-Only adjust specialty malts when adjusting batch size. 5gal > 6gal, or 5gal > 10gal.

How much amber malt and 2row did you use?

Click to expand...

Yeah I guess I should have thought of that. I also somehow missed the note you made explicitly suggesting adjusting only 2 row. I just used the scale function on BeerSmith2, changing only efficiency. I guess all the grains were scaled by a certain percentage. OK now that I went back and checked I'm even more confused. I scaled for 60 percent efficiency, for a 2.5 gallon batch. That gave me 9 lbs two row and 7.2 oz amber malt. Now that I think about it, I think I added a bit more than that. I know that makes the whole thing sketchy but what's interesting is that BeerSmith has me at 7.3 SRMs, below your clone. So I don't really know...I either added in way too much extra amber...or, well, I guess that's probably it, huh? I don't recall exactly how much I used but I'd guess it was more like 8 or 9 oz. I know it couldn't be much more than that because I bought a lb bag and it's not too far from half full. Even still the SRMs are in range though.

That's really not that much Amber malt. I'm not sure why it turned out so dark. I can definitely tell you that color changes as beers clear up. Give it a couple days and see what it's like.

Yeah...I thought I had it figured out but it's really not that much amber. I guess I have to let it sit for more than 17 days after bottling to make a final decision...but it's so good. I've easily drank over half already (easy to do at 2.5 gallons). It's also fairly murky. I was rushed and didn't cold crash or fine and I think on balance I'll want to at least crash it next time (I'll reserve judgment til my last bottle). As I said I'll post a pic soon but my camera is so bad it won't really be good for judging color. Anyway, thanks for the replies. I'll be brewing this one up again in time for spring/summer for sure.

scottland said:

You can, but I don't see warrior adding much to the dry hop. Expect the beer to be a little less bitter than 90 minute, but otherwise close. Warrior doesn't contribute much in terms of flavor and aroma, it's sole purpose in this recipe is bitterness.

Click to expand...

thanks for the tip scottland. can't wait to try this one out. day 2 of ferment and the blow off tube is still working over time.

I decided to throw some gelatin in the keg a few nights ago. Hopfully it's nice and clear by Friday. I snuck another sample before I added the gelatin, can't get enough of this stuff :rockin:

I still haven't had a chance to sit down and compare this to the real thing, but I have drank enough 90 minute that I have a pretty good idea as to where this beer stands. Right now the hops are very in-your-face in the aroma. I can't really smell the malt at all. I'm sure that will change as it ages. I have had 90 minute fresh on tap (I can assume very fresh since I live very close to DFH) and I can still smell the maltiness, so there is something missing there.

The flavor is dominated by the hops as well. It almost reminds me of a 60 minute IPA on steroids. I can pick up the deep raison but just very, very faintly. It has a nice alcohol warmth just like the real 90 minute. I would say the color is close and the beer is crystal clear after 2 weeks in the keg (used irish moss during the boil and gelatin in the keg).

Overall, the beer is amazing and I will definately be brewing this again very soon. I am going to bottle a 6er to age for a few months and see how the flavors change over time. I will agree though that there is something missing to make this a true clone. I see that the amber malt has been raised to 1.25 lb, do you think that is going to give it that raisony maltiness that it's missing? Great recipe though! I love it!!

Ya, I talked about it a page or two ago. I think it needs a little more amber malt, but less than the 1.66lbs in the BYO clone

I also noticed that some clones use English 2-row instead of US. any thoughts on that?

One other thing I forget to mention was next time I will try to use all pellet hops. I had to use leaf Simcoe because that was all I could find. By the time I kegged it was down to 4 gallons. Those leaf hops absorb a ton of beer!

From watching brew masters, they use Rahr base malt in their brewpub for every one of the beers (including 120 minute). I know for 90 minute they would brew with whatever their standard base malt is in the silos at the big brewery, so I'm assuming that's an american 2-row. I could definitely be wrong though.

Next time I am down at my LHBS I will talk to the owner. He apparently is friends with Sam. I will see what kind of information I can get out of him

Cheers! I meant to post a pic of the final product yesterday. First time using gelatin. Notice how you can see the letters on the other side of the glass, as well as the chair in the background. Very happy with this beer!

Color-wise, you're not far off. That's literally about perfect

FYI, i didn't take that pictures, credit to (http://www.theperfectlyhappyman.com)

I really like DFH 90 min. Am going to give this recipe a shot this weekend. Have a 3 liter starter on the stirplate. Can not wait to see how this comes out.

Just finished reading this thread, and love everything you guys have said. Brew2enjoy it looks like yours really came out well, I love the 90min and am looking forward to brewing this one next. I've got both my fermentors full so I have to wait a while for this one but I may need this time to hunt out this elusive amber malt.

I see that everyone's been using a few different yeasts for their batches, I'm a big fan of S-04 so I'll probably stick with that (two packets, rehydrated)

I've heard that S-05 is a better choice if the temperature is going to be a little higher, does anyone have an idea if this is true or not. My apt is always around 80 degrees, so with my windows open I usually ferment around 76. S-04 has given me no problems in the past but if S-05 is better for the heat I'd be willing to give it a go. Thanks

Yeah I love this recipe. I need to brew it again soon. The amber malt you can get at mdhb.com. As for the yeast, S-04 would be better but you definitely don't want to ferment in the 70's. You could always make a swamp cooler to keep the temps down.

I'm planning on brewing this recipe this weekend. I plugged the information into Beersmith and its calling for 16.7 gallons for pre boil for a 5.5 gallon batch. Now I just brewed a Belgian Wit that called for 6.5 gallons of Pre Boil
(60 minute boil) for a 5 gallon batch.

Is my Beersmith wrong here? How can I boil off 10 gallons in a 1/2 hour when 1 to 2 gallons gets boiled off in 1hour. I'm guessing it should read 6.7 gallons

Can someone take a look at their Beersmith calculations and tell me what the pre boil should be.

Any suggestions on how I messed this up?

I would assume you altered your batch size some how but that seems pretty obvious to check. I would just enter in the recipe again in a fresh window and see if you get the same results. Did you change your equipment profile at any point while you made this recipe?

Ya, there's a wrong value somewhere in your beersmith recipe. Try to start a new recipe and see what it comes back with.

Thanks for the replies. I found out what the problem was. I went into Water Vols and there was a box "Calc water vols" I clicked on the box and it changed my water boil volume to 8.46. Still seems high but it is a 90 minute boil.

I am wanting to follow this recipe but i am unable to find the hops i need due to the shortage can anyone give me a good substition for the amarillo hops.

Cascade, Centennial, Summit, Ahtanum

try here.

http://morebeer.com/view_product/11505/103828/Amarillo_Pellet_Hops

thanks for the quick replies

You found Simcoe but not Amarillo? Usually it's the other way around.

Brewing this bad boy tomorrow, is everyone still using hop bags for the additions or just throwing the pellets in since there are so many additions?

I use a 5 gallon paint strainer, like this: http://bertusbrewery.blogspot.com/2012/02/brewing-with-bertus.html

Third to last picture.

I just threw them in the kettle, whole hops and all. Dumped most of it in the fermenter and let it settle out.

I've been reading that the WLP007 is pretty hardcore. I'm going to make a 1L starter tonight so I'm ready for a brewing weekend. If i'm making a 5 gallon batch, using a bucket for primary, how likley is it that I need to use a blowoff?

I don't typically use blowoff tubes, but having never used this yeast (or tried this recipe), I'd like to avoid any possiblities of a mess. Just moved into a new townhouse and the last thing i want is to ruin the landlord's carpet.

Depends on the temperature you ferment it at. Low 60s, it's not too bad. mid-high 60s, it'll blow off pretty well. I'd use a tube just in case.

Also, if you can make a bigger starter, do so. I made a 3L starter for this beer, and I use a stir plate. If you don't have something big enough for 3L, go as big as you can.

Thanks, I'm now considering putting this in a spare bathtub or shower now. With that, I may have two options, depending on the target temp. I could put it in one safe spot, where I would guess it can ferment at around 68 degrees, or another where it would probably be between 60-62 degrees.

Logistically, the space with the lower temp would be best for me to keep the primary, but I see the optimum temp range for this yeast is 65-70. Do you think I would have any negative effects from the lower than ideal temp, if i chose to keep it there?

Also pertaining to the starter, I can go larger, but I've read debates on whether or not to step it up near the OG of the brew itself, rather than just keeping it around 1.040. I would think the 1.040 should be fine, considering the main purpose is simply to multiply your viable yeast count. Any thoughts?

When he said bigger starter, I don't think he mean't stepping it up. Instead of doing 1L of 1.040 wort do 2-3L of 1.040 wort. I think I did 2L for mine and it seemed to work well, but it doesn't hurt to go bigger.

Yeah, I was tracking as far as the volume goes, and will have no problem doing a 2-3L starter, I was just asking about the gravity of the starter. I take it, you also just do 1.040 on your starters, regardless of the OG of the wort you're making?

Just some rapid fire answers:

-1.030-1.040 for every starter. We're just trying to grow yeast.
-You don't need to step up the 1L to 3L (although you can), you can go straight from vial>3L
-Ignore the ideal temp range. 60-64 is where you want to start this beer.

You're two ranges are actually ideal. Start the beer at 60-62 for the first couple days, once fermentation peaks (day 3, day 4), move the fermenter to the area that's 68, to keep the yeast active, and help them attenuate the beer.