Belgian Dark Strong Ale The Pious - Westvleteren 12 style quad - multiple

sfrisby said:

Since uuz up,

Got your candy syrup for this. Looking forward to it.

Click to expand...

Hey that's great news. If your Westy 12 turns out well make sure and sign up for the free syrup giveaway contest:

http://www.candisyrup.com/contest.html

Brewing this bad boy as we speak! Man, 90 min mash and 90 min boil. This is going to be a long brew day, for a partial mash. But a good brew day!

Good brew day. Only hitch is I had to boil longer than 90 min to get it to fit. Hopefully it won't effect much as all additions with 30 min to go and less were heldoff until the appropriate time left. Arguably best wort of mine I've tasted.

sfrisby said:

Good brew day. Only hitch is I had to boil longer than 90 min to get it to fit. Hopefully it won't effect much as all additions with 30 min to go and less were heldoff until the appropriate time left. Arguably best wort of mine I've tasted.

Click to expand...

And it only gets better

Day 4 and slowing way down. Going to secondary onto a notty yeastcake tomorrow for a little insurance.

sfrisby said:

Day 4 and slowing way down. Going to secondary onto a notty yeastcake tomorrow for a little insurance.

Click to expand...

Where are you on gravity at this point?

Haven't touched it since brewday. Was going to check when I transfer tomorrow.

sfrisby said:

Haven't touched it since brewday. Was going to check when I transfer tomorrow.

Click to expand...

You might consider checking before moving to secondary. If you're around 1.018 tomorrow then you're fine. No Nottingham needed. A big Notty cake could drop your gravity too much and stall out the esters and phenols that the Westmalle creates in secondary. You would in essence be short circuiting the slow process that creates all of the flavors unique to this brew. Just FYI.

I don't think notty is going to lower the gravity of this beer at all. Westmalle yeast is much more attenuative provided you give it the right temperature and time. Theres a pretty good chance you are already near terminal gravity. Take a gravity reading and see before you even consider doing anything else.
I really, really wouldn't consider moving this beer onto another yeast, especially notty. Give it some time and it will take care of your beer.

I always force-carb but I decided to try and simulate the bottle-conditioning and prime the keg with cane sugar. I use a spunding assembly with a gage to see the pressure increase. Pressure hasn't budged in about 10 days, still at ~2 psi. C'mon 3787, wake up! I kegged it at ~3 weeks in fermenter so I would expect it to carb.

SpanishCastleAle said:

I always force-carb but I decided to try and simulate the bottle-conditioning and prime the keg with cane sugar. I use a spunding assembly with a gage to see the pressure increase. Pressure hasn't budged in about 10 days, still at ~2 psi. C'mon 3787, wake up! I kegged it at ~3 weeks in fermenter so I would expect it to carb.

Click to expand...

Spanish, what was your pitch rate bottle carbing? Two weeks at 78F should give you noticeable carbing by now.

Since_Uuz_Up said:

Spanish, what was your pitch rate bottle carbing? Two weeks at 78F should give you noticeable carbing by now.

Click to expand...

I just added sugar and it's sitting at ~76* F. I could put it in the garage but it gets 90*-ish F during the day.

SpanishCastleAle said:

I just added sugar and it's sitting at ~76* F. I could put it in the garage but it gets 90*-ish F during the day.

Click to expand...

At an ABV of 10.20% most of the Westmalle is likely exhausted. What kind of sugar was used in the priming? Per our recipe we generally pitch a priming yeast of 1L stir-plate with a simple priming sugar, (glucose-dextrose, fructose). Candi Syrup has been an easy to use and efficient priming sugar for this recipe, (34grams/gal). If your ale remains flat there is a remedy but it is a last resort. Used this method a few years ago effectively on a carb-stalled Barleywine.

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind. I still think/hope it will carb up but it just might take a while.

Yeast like to wake up right after you post that they're not waking up so I had to perform the ritual in order to light a fire under their ass.

spanishcastleale said:

thanks, i'll keep it in mind. I still think/hope it will carb up but it just might take a while.

Yeast like to wake up right after you post that they're not waking up so i had to perform the ritual in order to light a fire under their ass.

Click to expand...

lol!

Yeah unfortunately due to time constraints and my co brewer wanting to bottle early based on vacation schedules, I had to back out of the natural carb. Perhaps next time around.

I will say that they have been on gas since this weekend and this is a tasty brew (even if it is still "young"). I have been CO2 scrubbing it and pulling off the sediment... and of course, a small sample from each keg. Very smooth for the alcohol content. Interesting rich vs. medium body aspect to it. All that dark candy syrup makes you think your are going to pour a porter (I know they are only simple sugars). The alcohol helps lighten it up a bit almost. when it is ice cold you don't even notice the extra alcohol, but I find I like it better as the glass warms up a bit. A very clean warming effect.

What kind of water profile you guys shooting for on this? I figure alkalinity should be kept minimum since it's only pale malts in the mash (for the traditional recipe), but what about chloride and sulfate?

1.050. Juuuuust a bit outside.

I was going to waver off the yellow brick road already by racking 1/2 onto bourbon and oak cubes. I will do that 1/2 on the notty cake and the other 1/2 as is into a clean secondary. And hope for the best. If it crapped out at 1.05, whats left in there ain't getting it down to 1.012.

How much yeast did you pitch? What fermentation temperature did you hold?

saq said:

How much yeast did you pitch? What fermentation temperature did you hold?

Click to expand...

Been at 80 whole time but I do think I underpitched. Did a starter for the first time. And did 8oz by weight dme in 2 cups water. In hindsight I learned I should have used more water.

I am finally going to attempt a yeast harvest. Doing 10G of Patersbier now, so will harvest the 3787,

What is the best method since I will most likely be doing these beers back to back? Do the whole yeast wash thing, reprime and pitch the slurry?

I should have enough slurry from my Patersbier that I don't need to make a huge ass starter I am hoping.

Can't wait to try this. I normally do 10 G batches in two 6 gallon Better bottles (primary only) but for this, I think I will do 6.5 gallons in a 30 liter bucket, secondary in the 6G better bottle and then bottle so the beer can spend a nice amount of time bottle conditioning.

As for the secondary, 50 really isn't an option for me for any extended period. I can either do it at 68-70 or secondary in a corny at 42.

sfrisby said:

Been at 80 whole time but I do think I underpitched. Did a starter for the first time. And did 8oz by weight dme in 2 cups water. In hindsight I learned I should have used more water.

Click to expand...

Mash temperature? I'm surprised the SG isn't a lot lower. Still, give it time. Don't touch it for 2 weeks.

Saq- from your original post:

90 min Mash In Add 24.00 qt of water at 159.3 F 150.0 F

I read that as start the mash at 159 and let it float down to 150 over the 90 min.

One item I failed to mention which would play a role, my calcs were off in converting to partial grain, used too much LME and my OG was 1.112. Certainly appreciate you and Sizeuzup talking through this with me. Thanks.

Mayday99 said:

I am finally going to attempt a yeast harvest. Doing 10G of Patersbier now, so will harvest the 3787,

What is the best method since I will most likely be doing these beers back to back? Do the whole yeast wash thing, reprime and pitch the slurry?

I should have enough slurry from my Patersbier that I don't need to make a huge ass starter I am hoping.

Can't wait to try this. I normally do 10 G batches in two 6 gallon Better bottles (primary only) but for this, I think I will do 6.5 gallons in a 30 liter bucket, secondary in the 6G better bottle and then bottle so the beer can spend a nice amount of time bottle conditioning.

As for the secondary, 50 really isn't an option for me for any extended period. I can either do it at 68-70 or secondary in a corny at 42.

Click to expand...

One of the most recommended references for yeast harvest and culture is entitled "Yeast: A Practical Guide to Beer Fermentation" by Chris White (Founder of White Labs) and Jamil Zainasheff. They discuss a number of great harvesting techniques to accomplish and store a yeast harvest. The most critical aspect discussed in the book is careful sanitation.

We initially used slants, then began to use 30ml vials by splitting 1st generation yeast into dozens of seed vials for fresh culturing throughout the year. The vials last 12 months easily, maybe longer. Harvesting bulk yeast for pitching may not be practical due to the viability curve, (downward), over time. Harvesting from washed flocculant can be done but may result in mutation over time if repeated through generations and mutated yeast will produce variations in the strain. Who knows, this may not be a bad thing...

I generally just wash my yeast and I have used yeast up to 8 months + with no issues. Obviously viability can go down, so I try to account for that in my pitch rate.

I do something very similar to this (https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f163/yeast-washing-illustrated-41768/). Once the yeast is washed and settled, I pour off the top liquid prior to pitching, and let it warm up to room temp.

For a 10g batch I typically can wash enough yeast to fill 4 qts (with washed yeast water), that subsequently amounts to enough for four more 10G batches. Depending on the gravity of the brews, and the type of yeast. About .5-1 inch of compacted yeast on the bottom of the jars when settled.

I do 20 minutes rest after adding sterile water in fermenter. Pour off and 20 minutes rest in another vessel. Pour off and 20 more minutes rest in a third vessel. Lastly pour off into quart jars.


EDIT

I should note, I only do 3-4 generations of washing then start new (equivalent of about 13 10G batches for one pack of yeast). Never had an issue with funky ferments to date. I do smell the yeast first, if something weird is there I toss it.

Thanks Cidah! Definitely have to start the harvesting. That adds up to A LOT of savings, especially with liquid yeast.

So for the 3787, after I wash, I will be using it a week or 2 later, so just warm up and dump right into the new batch?

I started saving some spaghetti sauce jars, but they still smell like garlic after going through the washing machine, Mason jars are the way to go I guess.

Mayday99 said:

Thanks Cidah! Definitely have to start the harvesting. That adds up to A LOT of savings, especially with liquid yeast.

So for the 3787, after I wash, I will be using it a week or 2 later, so just warm up and dump right into the new batch?

I started saving some spaghetti sauce jars, but they still smell like garlic after going through the washing machine, Mason jars are the way to go I guess.

Click to expand...

Harvesting saves a ton of money, no question. It is really easy and worht the effort - just follow the guidelines in that sticky. All you need is mason jars and lids and try to be as sanitary as possible.

If I do 13 batches I spend less than 50 cents per batch on the yeast, and since it is a larger volume of yeast (enough for a 10G batch) that is really saying something.

I would just grab some mason jars. They are cheap, and, when you boil them to sterilize them there is much less chance of them breaking vs. the spaghetti jars.

Yup, bring up to room temp, and pitch. You can do a starter if you want, but with that much yeast it is probably unnecessary.

welp...it looks like a found a new brew to do this fall

Hey guys, I'm about to bottle this and I'm feeling kind of lazy/cheap...anything wrong with priming with champagne yeast?

rexbanner said:

Hey guys, I'm about to bottle this and I'm feeling kind of lazy/cheap...anything wrong with priming with champagne yeast?

Click to expand...

Yeah you would probably bring your FG to 1.000

Champagne yeast is a tough sucker and will likely ferment you dry even at your high ABV

rexbanner said:

Hey guys, I'm about to bottle this and I'm feeling kind of lazy/cheap...anything wrong with priming with champagne yeast?

Click to expand...

You should be fine because my guess is that you have just the longer chain sugars left like maltotriose which champagne is not very good at fermenting. I've primed beers in the past with champagne yeast and it didn't over carbonate the bottles.

smokinghole said:

You should be fine because my guess is that you have just the longer chain sugars left like maltotriose which champagne is not very good at fermenting. I've primed beers in the past with champagne yeast and it didn't over carbonate the bottles.

Click to expand...

yeah actually I think that is true. Since it wouldn't be a long term ferment, esters would probably be pretty low as well.

To those points on champaign yeast, should I try adding that to my 1.05 (from earlier in the thread) beer to get it down. No, haven't taken another sg reading since then. Wouldn't add it without taking another.

sfrisby said:

To those points on champaign yeast, should I try adding that to my 1.05 (from earlier in the thread) beer to get it down. No, haven't taken another sg reading since then. Wouldn't add it without taking another.

Click to expand...

you might get lucky - probably worth trying, or pitching more of the abbey yeast:

If I remember your previous situation you mashed at 159F and let it drop to 150F over 90 minutes, then added LME. Based on that you have two things working against you:

1. high mash temp produced less fermentable wort
2. LME has less fermentables in general.

That said... 1.050 as a stopping point is just ridiculous. Pitching more yeast, of Abbey or champange should work towards drying it out. I would think Abbey would still be the better choice, all things being equal. Build up a starter for the abbey and pitch it while it is demonstrating activity so it can kick some arse on impact.

Do as said about pitching a highly active dose of abbey yeast. If that doesn't work I would just add some brett. Your other option that won't take 6+ months would be to add wyeast 3711. The only problem is that might take the beer way too far.

smokinghole said:

Do as said about pitching a highly active dose of abbey yeast. If that doesn't work I would just add some brett. Your other option that won't take 6+ months would be to add wyeast 3711. The only problem is that might take the beer way too far.

Click to expand...

Why would 3711 take it too far? If that's the case, should I really use champagne yeast to carb? The idea is enticing because it's easy, guaranteed to work, and cheap, but I don't want to ruin a beer I worked really hard on. I would think that the unfermentables in my beer would prevent the champagne yeast from taking it much further than my FG of 1.010. I already achieved around 90% attenuation thanks to the awesome power of a huge 530 starter, 10 PPM of oxygen, and 82 degree temps. What's left to ferment at this point?

Difference is your beer is at the correct gravity to bottle and champagne yeast does not ferment maltotriose which is probably all that's left in your beer. The beer at 1.050 is stuck with what probably has sugars left to ferment that the notorious 3711 will rip through. It could stop nicely at 1.014ish or it could go further.

The determining factor in how far a beer will attenuate is yeast ability to hydrolyse sugar bonds. To the best of my knowledge champagne yeast do not possess the ability since they have been selected for fructose fermentations. Fructose is a single ring sugar where maltotriose is a three ring sugar. The champagne yeast's inability to hydrolyse the bonds between the sugar rings means the champagne will only consume your dextrose when bottle conditioning. 3711 has the ability to hydrolyze sugars big time as evident by the 154 degree mash temps people have tried and still ended up at 1.003 FGs.

smokinghole said:

Difference is your beer is at the correct gravity to bottle and champagne yeast does not ferment maltotriose which is probably all that's left in your beer. The beer at 1.050 is stuck with what probably has sugars left to ferment that the notorious 3711 will rip through. It could stop nicely at 1.014ish or it could go further.

The determining factor in how far a beer will attenuate is yeast ability to hydrolyse sugar bonds. To the best of my knowledge champagne yeast do not possess the ability since they have been selected for fructose fermentations. Fructose is a single ring sugar where maltotriose is a three ring sugar. The champagne yeast's inability to hydrolyse the bonds between the sugar rings means the champagne will only consume your dextrose when bottle conditioning. 3711 has the ability to hydrolyze sugars big time as evident by the 154 degree mash temps people have tried and still ended up at 1.003 FGs.

Click to expand...

Awesome, thanks for the help, very useful info. I'm stoked, I really was not looking forward to buying more 530 and making another starter. Plus I can do this on my tripel.

From what I understand, Champagne yeast will not ferment maltose either. So it probably won't drop your SG since the WLP530 consumed most of the simple sugars first. If you are going to bottle condition with the Champagne yeast, you should pime with simple sugar like dextrose.

rexbanner said:

Why would 3711 take it too far?

Click to expand...

Two observations. 3711 is an extremely "funky" Belgian yeast. Even a small amount will affect this ale's flavor. Also, 3711 attenuates down well below 1.010 and keeps on going. Preferable to stay with highly active Westmalle.