Spice, Herb, or Vegetable Beer Chocolate Oatmeal Porter

FATC1TY said:

I can when I get home.. Perhaps you have lower efficiency set up in your BS profile, and will need more grain.

Click to expand...

I'm not too concerned about the Eff.


Just wondering why the total grains of 13 LB 5 OZ doesn't match all the grains you posted? You list only totals to 12 LB 13 OZ. Hope this makes sense?

I just want to make sure something didn't get included before I attempt this

beamar said:

I'm not too concerned about the Eff.


Just wondering why the total grains of 13 LB 5 OZ doesn't match all the grains you posted? You list only totals to 12 LB 13 OZ. Hope this makes sense?

I just want to make sure something didn't get included before I attempt this

Click to expand...

Looked over the recipe.. Appears I left out RICE HULLS, from the original. I used 8 ounces roughly of rice hulls due to the oats in the mash, and it being thicker.

That makes up the 8 ounces missing in the recipe.

Some people need them, others need more. The recipe is correct as it stands, but feel free to use some rice hulls to help in the lautering.

Sorry if this question has been asked, I've read through the whole thread once and don't recall. Now that I have had this in the primary for 2 weeks I'm starting to think of whether I'm going to do extract or actually vanilla beans. I'm thinking of using about .6oz vanilla extract and bottle 1.5gal, hopefully about 15 bottles, if I decide on extract. Or I could do half a bean and let that sit with 1.5 gal in a secondary.

I'm debating because extract would make it a lot easier, basically no weight time for the vanilla to get added. I'm thinking of bottling next weekend, that'll be 3 weeks in the primary, I could start by making enough priming sugar for 1.5 gal, cool that, add the vanilla extract, rack 1.5 gal into the bottling bucket while mixing in the priming sugar/extract mix. Then proceed with bottling that 1.5 gal. Once those are finished, make priming sugar for the ~3.5 gal that remains, cool, rack the remaining ~3.5 gal into bottling bucket and bottle those without the vanilla extract.

This is the extract I'm considering using: http://www.wegmans.com/webapp/wcs/s...play?productId=372939&storeId=10052&langId=-1

I think price is the only difference, and some would argue that if you used real beans you need to extract with vodka. I'd say personal preference, I only used beans as I had access to them for free.

Just checked the gravity and she's down to 1.018!!! Guess my mash temps didn't ruin anything. The sample I got was nice and smooth, nice roastiness and chocolate. Can't wait to get this bottled,carbed and cold . I can definitely taste what everyone means by this being so good with just the base recipe, really doesn't need anything added, but I'm still going to do some with vanilla.

"Sparge: Batch sparge with 2 steps (1.02gal, 4.09gal) of 168.0 F water"

Is it normal to sparge with that much water?
it's the first time I notice this in a recipe.

made this last night! We'll see how it turns out!

Mobstar said:

"Sparge: Batch sparge with 2 steps (1.02gal, 4.09gal) of 168.0 F water"

Is it normal to sparge with that much water?
it's the first time I notice this in a recipe.

Click to expand...

You don't have too. It's just my profile in BS, and it's always been like that. I find that I get great efficiency that way, and my PH stays in check just fine.

YMMV obviously. I would always suggest people take any recipe and dial it into their system to get optimal efficiency and balance.

bolus14 said:

Just checked the gravity and she's down to 1.018!!! Guess my mash temps didn't ruin anything. The sample I got was nice and smooth, nice roastiness and chocolate. Can't wait to get this bottled,carbed and cold . I can definitely taste what everyone means by this being so good with just the base recipe, really doesn't need anything added, but I'm still going to do some with vanilla.

Click to expand...

Thanks!

Glad you like the recipe.

The vanilla just makes it appear creamier, IMO and adds more layers to it.

Bottled today, FG was 1.015.
Taste was better than the sample a week or so ago. Nothing in it overpowers anything else, the coffee, chocolate, and roastiness all mingle perfectly.

OK, I have not read every post here but was wondering if anyone has used S-04 on this and how it turned out.

Thanks. I'm thinking of making something very similar to this in the next two weeks and letting it condition until Christmas. Looks and sounds pretty damn good.

S-04 should be fine, my LHBS recommended it to me when I made this. I just opted for WLP002 since I prefer liquid yeast and its the closest they had in stock to the original recipe's yeast. I think others have used it for this recipe. Might not get as much of the maltiness that some of the liquid English strands lend, but should still be good.

Thanks. Another stupid question that may have been answered over the past 18 pages - how many units of carbonation? About 2? I over did it on the last porter I made and probably came in near 3.

I still bottle all my beer, with that said I used the calculator at tastybrew.com to figure out how much sugar to carb mine to 2. I believe for this style you can shoot from 1.7 - 2.4 to stay within the guidelines.
One thing to remember is this is homebrew make it how YOU like it. If you like it more carbed then go for it, if you like it more "flat" then go that route. But if I had to guess I think most on here would recommend to stick close to 2 on this one.

bolus14 said:

One thing to remember is this is homebrew make it how YOU like it. If you like it more carbed then go for it, if you like it more "flat" then go that route. But if I had to guess I think most on here would recommend to stick close to 2 on this one.

Click to expand...

I disagree, if I'm not familiar with a style of beer I'll shoot for what is considered the standard amount. If anything, I always under-carb. This beer will turn out nicely at up to 2.0 volumes, which is what I did and it's always got a nice chocolately head on it

I opened a bottle of each that I made, one the base recipe without cocoa powder and one with vanilla extract added at bottling. Both are delicious and like what others have said the vanilla adds a milk chocolate like taste to it. The only thing I would change is to have it be a little "thicker," I'm sure this was due to my inconsistent mash temp, and the fact that my FG was 1.015 shows this. Mine might be very slightly over carbonated for a porter, it's not drastic but some people I'm sure would give that as a criticism. I shot for 2 volumes of CO2, and think I hit that, I just think my mash was off.

bolus14 said:

I opened a bottle of each that I made, one the base recipe without cocoa powder and one with vanilla extract added at bottling. Both are delicious and like what others have said the vanilla adds a milk chocolate like taste to it. The only thing I would change is to have it be a little "thicker," I'm sure this was due to my inconsistent mash temp, and the fact that my FG was 1.015 shows this. Mine might be very slightly over carbonated for a porter, it's not drastic but some people I'm sure would give that as a criticism. I shot for 2 volumes of CO2, and think I hit that, I just think my mash was off.

Click to expand...

Could be your mash, but 1.015 isn't that dry honestly.. Middle of the road.

Could be the oats.. they'll add some body, but give it that slick motor oil feel, that slides across easily, which might make it feel thinner perhaps.

I agree that 1.015 isn't dry. The beer is far from dry. Its definitely a smooth drinker and I think the oats contribute a lot to that. The pour after a week in bottles produced .5in of head, pretty good I think. I put the whole glass down in 5-10 min which is unusual for me, most last at least 20 min if not longer. This could certainly be dangerous with how easy it goes down.

The next time which may not be far away. I would just like the roastiness to be a little more prevalent. Possibly up the black patent to 8 or 10oz and add a couple more ounces of pale chocolate.

Careful with adding more black malt, you'd be dicing with burnt flavours

What adding more chocolate be a better way to get a more prevelant roastiness?

could remove the black patent and add 8oz of roast barley, your colour would be slightly off though

I'm doing this beer this weekend. I'm doing it BIAB with minor adjustments to the grain bill (mostly for my anticipated efficiency). It will my first beer with my new kettle and my first liquid yeast (smack pack). It will also be the first beer I've ever made while paying attention to the water profile (RO water with calcium chloride and bicarbonate added).

Any tips or warnings from those who have made it in the past?

Ridire said:

I'm doing this beer this weekend. I'm doing it BIAB with minor adjustments to the grain bill (mostly for my anticipated efficiency). It will my first beer with my new kettle and my first liquid yeast (smack pack). It will also be the first beer I've ever made while paying attention to the water profile (RO water with calcium chloride and bicarbonate added).

Any tips or warnings from those who have made it in the past?

Click to expand...

Make a starter!

Other than that.. enjoy it.. the mash smells awesome.

FATC1TY said:

Make a starter!

Other than that.. enjoy it.. the mash smells awesome.

Click to expand...

Ugh, I was afraid of getting that advice. It is now Thursday, I plan to brew Saturday afternoon and the guy at LHBS said to just smack the packet 24 hours before brewing.

If I want to make a starter, is it too late? I do not have any DME, either.

EDIT: I do have a stir plate, I just have never used it.

Ridire said:

Ugh, I was afraid of getting that advice. It is now Thursday, I plan to brew Saturday afternoon and the guy at LHBS said to just smack the packet 24 hours before brewing.

If I want to make a starter, is it too late? I do not have any DME, either.

EDIT: I do have a stir plate, I just have never used it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you really SHOULD make a starter.. However.. I will say this. I have made this beer without a starter and it was fine. I used 1968 London ESB as well.. Keep the temps in check, and once it looks like it's dying down, make sure to swirl it a bit and allow it to warm to room temp. It will flocc out very well, so keep that in mind.

If you choose to not do the starter, be sure to use some yeast nutrient if possible, and get plenty of O2 into it. The fresher the pack, the better. When I did it, my pack was inside 2 weeks old.

It's not too late to make a starter. If I'm brewing Saturday, usually pitch that afternoon/evening anyways, and I can make it Friday afternoon, let it go all night, and it's usually done in the morning. I can put it in the fridge and it'll settle out fast.

You'd need some DME, or even LME if you have it though.

FATC1TY said:

Yeah, you really SHOULD make a starter.. However.. I will say this. I have made this beer without a starter and it was fine. I used 1968 London ESB as well.. Keep the temps in check, and once it looks like it's dying down, make sure to swirl it a bit and allow it to warm to room temp. It will flocc out very well, so keep that in mind. If you choose to not do the starter, be sure to use some yeast nutrient if possible, and get plenty of O2 into it. The fresher the pack, the better. When I did it, my pack was inside 2 weeks old. It's not too late to make a starter. If I'm brewing Saturday, usually pitch that afternoon/evening anyways, and I can make it Friday afternoon, let it go all night, and it's usually done in the morning. I can put it in the fridge and it'll settle out fast. You'd need some DME, or even LME if you have it though.

Click to expand...

Can't get DME today. I may have time to pick up a second smack pack tomorrow. If not, I'll under-pitch and pray.

Ridire said:

Can't get DME today. I may have time to pick up a second smack pack tomorrow. If not, I'll under-pitch and pray.

Click to expand...

A second pack would be just fine, but worse case.. I think you should be fine. Just handle the yeast and keep the fermentation controlled and you should be fine!

depends which Wyeast you are using, some of them will be able to handle 1.060 OG with a few hours of activation (smacking). The bag inflates quite a bit so I'm not sure 24 hours would be safe, I usually do about 2-3 for a fresh batch that I didn't make a starter for. Wyeast is surprisingly resilient, I've made starters from 10 month old packs and they've chomped through 1.050 OG beers with no complaints.

Thanks, guys. I got a second smack pack and should be good to go for tomorrow.

For those of you who have brewed this beer, where are your FGs ending up? I see that a pretty wide variety of yeasts are being used on this beer, which will certainly influence FG numbers. But I am curious where these beers are typically ending up.

I went into the fermenter at 1.055 and am sitting at 1.016 as of last night (7 days in primary). I used 007 for the first time on this beer. I guess I thought I'd be a couple of points lower as I always seem to over-attenuate. I'm fine with 1.016 as long as it doesn't end up too sweet. The sample I pulled was pretty good, albeit a touch sweeter than I had anticipated. Warm/flat primary samples always seem to taste sweeter than they do cold/carbed. Oh well. I roused the fermenter last night and again this morning. Will recheck in a couple of days to see if it went any lower. Then it's time for the vanilla and cherries!

I lowered the base grain to 7 lbs and came in at 1.060. Mashed high 156, added lactose n some PB2.

My OG was 1.058 and finished at 1.015 and used WLP002. Definitely not too sweet, mine is a tad "thin" for what I wanted but I have deducted that that was caused by my mash temps. Either that or as I've read more about the hops I used, all Perle, it could be coming from them. They're said to have a minty like character and while I don't get a mint flavor it's the same "cooling" affect that mint has.

It's actually a pretty unique characteristic to a Porter. I'm not sure if you get that using other hops or if it truly is from Perle hops though, since this is the first time I used Perle.

Would you think 2 weeks with the vanilla beans would be too long?

It's been in primary for one week. I'm planning to leave it in primary (no secondary) and adding the beans sometime this week. Bottle in the 19th or 20th and then let condition until Christmas.

Ridire said:

Would you think 2 weeks with the vanilla beans would be too long? It's been in primary for one week. I'm planning to leave it in primary (no secondary) and adding the beans sometime this week. Bottle in the 19th or 20th and then let condition until Christmas.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's too long. Taste it as it goes and you decide.

FG at 1.020 after 3 weeks. Should I be concerned? I've never had a beer finish up over 1.010 but I've also never used liquid yeast. Also, lots of big bubbles on the surface. Just from the chocolate?

EDIT : tastes good, though, and I'm not overly concerned. Started cold crashing tonight.

Ridire said:

FG at 1.020 after 3 weeks. Should I be concerned? I've never had a beer finish up over 1.010 but I've also never used liquid yeast. Also, lots of big bubbles on the surface. Just from the chocolate?

EDIT : tastes good, though, and I'm not overly concerned. Started cold crashing tonight.

Click to expand...

The gravity is a little high, closer to a stouts FG, but I don't think you'll have an issue. If you didn't make a starter, you underpitched, or you could have mashed higher than you thought.

As for the bubbles, I've had that before, didn't have a problem. Depending on the chocolate you used, and if you also used vanilla beans, there could be a sheen on top trapping some of the co2 that is coming out of solution.

FATC1TY said:

The gravity is a little high, closer to a stouts FG, but I don't think you'll have an issue. If you didn't make a starter, you underpitched, or you could have mashed higher than you thought.

As for the bubbles, I've had that before, didn't have a problem. Depending on the chocolate you used, and if you also used vanilla beans, there could be a sheen on top trapping some of the co2 that is coming out of solution.

Click to expand...

Thanks. The FG is probably a combination of a few things. I did shoot for a slightly higher mash temp to hold a little more sweetness. It was also the first beer I ever brewed with liquid yeast (if you'll remember my whole dilemma with whether one smack pack, without a starter, would do the trick). I'm not over concerned with that, though. There was a sheen on the surface when I added the vanilla. I assumed that was due to the chocolate, as well. It smells fine, does not look moldy and tastes really good. No worries. Just posting my update. I'll likely be bottling this on Saturday.

Ridire said:

Thanks. The FG is probably a combination of a few things. I did shoot for a slightly higher mash temp to hold a little more sweetness. It was also the first beer I ever brewed with liquid yeast (if you'll remember my whole dilemma with whether one smack pack, without a starter, would do the trick). I'm not over concerned with that, though. There was a sheen on the surface when I added the vanilla. I assumed that was due to the chocolate, as well. It smells fine, does not look moldy and tastes really good. No worries. Just posting my update. I'll likely be bottling this on Saturday.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no worries on the sheen. First time I saw it, I thought it was an infection. Had the off bubbles and sheen.

It's the oils from the chocolate and the vanilla beans.

She's in bottles and the partial from the bottle bucket tasted awfully good for uncarbed beer.

She is good right out of the bucket. The next time I make this I'm going to shoot for around 1.5-1.6 CO2.
I shot for 2 and its a little more carbed than I would like.