Thoughts on belgian abby recipe

I brewed this 2 weekends ago, so it's about 10 days old. I measured the gravity for the first time tonight and it is 1.026. It started at 1.090 and i'm using Wyeast #3787 Trappist. I just wanted to get some of your thoughts on the recipe (it's my first big beer). I tasted the sample and there is a very distinguishable bubblegum taste and a slight note of spicyness.

6 lbs. Gold LME
3 lbs. Light DME
1 lb. Clear Belgian Candy Sugar
2 lbs. Pale Malt (mashed at 155F for 60 minutes)
.5 lbs. Victory (mashed at 155F for 60 minutes)

1 ounce Saaz hops (60 minutes)
.5 ounce Saaz hops (5 minutes)
.5 Saaz hops (flameout)

I got this recipe from byo.com. I'm not really sure what an abby ale is supposed to be like but it seeks kind of low on hops. The way I figure it, if I get full attenuation it should be around 9% ABV. I plan to age it about 4 months before bottle aging it another 2 months.

abbey ales are generally quite low on the hops. Your FG seems a bit high, did you make a starter?

Yeah I made a 2L starter and pitched the whole thing, didn't decant.

Needs moar special B :'(

Does anyone have another tried and true abby ale recipe they would care to share?

Frost, I was just reading about Abbey's and Dubbels after trying a interesting Abbey ale by Blue Moon Brewing Co. It appeas that the term Abbey is a very general term used for Belgian Dubbels. After looking ove a bunch of recipes last night there appears not to be a true Abbey style because each monastary in Belgiam had a different way of making them. You can check out the ingredients Northern Brewer uses for their Abbey/Dubbel and a few other sites to get some ideas. Belgian Caramalts and Special B grain is used commonly along with Saaz hops, pale or gold LME, dark Belgian candy/syrup, etc... Hope your beer turns out great.

Rivercat96 said:

Frost, I was just reading about Abbey's and Dubbels after trying a interesting Abbey ale by Blue Moon Brewing Co. It appeas that the term Abbey is a very general term used for Belgian Dubbels. After looking ove a bunch of recipes last night there appears not to be a true Abbey style because each monastary in Belgiam had a different way of making them. You can check out the ingredients Northern Brewer uses for their Abbey/Dubbel and a few other sites to get some ideas. Belgian Caramalts and Special B grain is used commonly along with Saaz hops, pale or gold LME, dark Belgian candy/syrup, etc... Hope your beer turns out great.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, 'Abbey' beers are brewed by breweries that have some sort of connection with a Monastery (not to be confused with Trappist which is brewed at the Monastery itself). 'Dubbel' is a style. An 'Abbey' beer does not necessarily have to be a dubbel (if I am wrong correct me!) as the term abbey isn't an indicator of style.

You are correct, Abbey is not a style in of itself. The term Abbey is generally used as a catchall term for any beer that has some kind of connection with a church, but is not brewed by the monks themselves (such as the Trappists, who are very protective of their Trappist brand). However, "Abbey" has been kind of changed in the American market to mean a style which matches the most common known Trappist beer - Chimay Red (a dubbel). A good example of this is Abbey from New Belgian.

I would strongly recommend to anybody that wants to brew Belgian beers to pick up "Brew Like a Monk". Tons of history behind the styles, recipes, when/why certain ingredients are sued, etc.

Parker36 said:

I would strongly recommend to anybody that wants to brew Belgian beers to pick up "Brew Like a Monk". Tons of history behind the styles, recipes, when/why certain ingredients are sued, etc.

Click to expand...

+1

I am about half way through this, and it is a very good book. A very interesting read so far!!!

Thanks for the info guys, you've all been a huge help!

That's definitely not a big enough starter for a beer that big. You should have been closer to 6L to properly ferment that:

Mr Malty Pitching Rate Calculator

Frost said:

Yeah I made a 2L starter and pitched the whole thing, didn't decant.

Click to expand...

The pitching calculator is always wrong. It overcalculates because A) It doesn't use any calculus, B) It does not take into exponential growth of the yeast.

Um...care to explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

It's dead on, in my theoretical and practical experience.

Bob

Yeah I just did. It doesn't use calculus, and it doesn't account for exponential growth. It's based on bad biology and limited math, so its not right, period.

Okay, let me be more specific. Computing from the a given average for viable cells in slurry, calculus isn't required. It's straightforward arithmetic.

The standard rule of thumb for pitching rate is 1 million viable cells per degree Plato per milliliter of wort. That's 200 billion cells in five gallons of 'normal' strength wort. Daniels says, in Designing Great Beers, that one can expect 50 million cells per milliliter of starter. Where is calculus involved in that?

As for exponential growth, I was under the impression that it is assumed that the yeast will grow exponentially in the fermentation of the starter. Granted, there's no real way for an online calculator to know what's happening in one's starter, but I fail to see how that's possible.

Perfection would be to do a cell and viability count with a haemocytometer and methylene blue. For some reason, I suspect most homebrewers lack this equipment. The calculator get one 'in the ballpark' for pitching.

Frankly, I think you're letting the best be the enemy of the good. That's a mistake.

Cheers,

Bob

calculus isn't required. It's straightforward arithmetic.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's wrong. The yeast will have a lag phase, then will start to reproduce at a rate that increases exponentially. Calculus is required for this calculation since the rate is constantly changing as it approaches a limit, where it sort of levels off, then again decreases, unless more sugar is made available.

I think the pitching calculator assumes constant growth, not constant exponential growth. Regardless, the "biology" the calculator is based on is not an accurate picture of things.

The calculator get one 'in the ballpark' for pitching.

Click to expand...

I agree, but it by no means a be all end all thing. It does overcalculate in two respects. For most if not all purposes, it probably doesn't matter much, however it is still somewhat inaccurate, and as such I don't like to see it regarded as 100% correct 100% of the time.

phissionkorps said:

Sorry, but that's wrong. The yeast will have a lag phase, then will start to reproduce at a rate that increases exponentially. Calculus is required for this calculation since the rate is constantly changing as it approaches a limit, where it sort of levels off, then again decreases, unless more sugar is made available.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, no it's not. I expect you'd have to account for that if you pitch when the starter's cycle is in the midst of the aerobic phase, but that assumes one follows that bad practice. As you're aware, the population will eventually reach a saturation point, once either the materials necessary for reproduction are exhausted - as you've noted - or there is no further room for growth. After that, viability does not begin to decrease. On the contrary, it is at that point the colony switches to anaerobic, utilizing different metabolic pathways to metabolize sugars and produce carbon dioxide, alcohols, and esters.

If one pitches during the anaerobic phase, the colony is at a constant population. The 'census' of this colony can be approximately predicted if characteristics such as the type of package, the starter procedure, and the type of yeast itself is known.

Regardless, the "biology" the calculator is based on is not an accurate picture of things.

Click to expand...

Of course it's not. The only real accurate way of discerning viable yeast for pitching is through the haemocytometer method. Moreover, even that method approximates, and after the method is used, the amount of yeast to pitch is still determined using the same mathematical method as used in the calculator. The calculator, while admittedly imperfect, is based on sound professional brewing practice, in use for decades and known to work in the widest majority of cases. It is as accurate as any other method of determining pitching rate known to this brewer.

Which is why I respectfully submit you're allowing the best to be the enemy of the good, which thought I note you didn't address. I'd like to know what you'd have the brewing industry do in lieu of making the calculations used in the calculator. If you have something as easy, why not let us try it for ourselves?

Bob

Respectfully, no it's not.

Click to expand...

I guess we're just going to have to disagree. The equation cannot hope to be anywhere near accurate without calculus, period. I've spent my fair share of time in population genetics/genetics/evolution/cell bio classes over the past couple years. Here, take a look at this paper: A Mathematical Programming Formulation for the Budding Yeast Cell Cycle

I'm assuming you don't have access to it, but reading the abstract shows that even with differential equations (hey!) with 143 parameters, it's still the "first step" in moving towards accuracy.

After that, viability does not begin to decrease.

Click to expand...

I never said that. I was talking about reproduction rate, which does indeed decrease as available nutrients decrease. I respectfully request you take a look at this: Fungi Online: An Introduction to the Biology of Fungi - Liquid Batch Culture
The graphs show the exact type of growth I described - decline included, and the math used was calculus.

If one pitches during the anaerobic phase, the colony is at a constant population

Click to expand...

This is inherently flawed - bad, bad biological assumption (for this model). With an organism such as yeast with such a quick generation time, and considering of course the fact that the yeast are still subject to death for a large number of reasons, one can expect to find a constant population size when the yeast is frozen...and that's about it. If you were asking me to assume constant population size for juvenile elephants in a hypothetical closed and perfect system, then we'd have something semi-sound to continue one. For this case it just isn't going to work.
Again, I reference this: Fungi Online: An Introduction to the Biology of Fungi - Liquid Batch Culture

Which is why I respectfully submit you're allowing the best to be the enemy of the good, which thought I note you didn't address.

Click to expand...

I did address it. I'm not on the warpath against the calculator, I'm just pointing out its innaccuracies. Maybe I just don't udnerstand where you're trying to go with that?

I'd like to know what you'd have the brewing industry do in lieu of making the calculations used in the calculator. If you have something as easy, why not let us try it for ourselves?

Click to expand...

This statement leads me to believe you've missed two of my points. Nothing has to be done in lieu of it. As you've said, it does a decent enough job. Could it be better? Sure, but it's probably not worth going through the extra calculations. This leads me to the second point, whcih is no, I don't have anything near as easy, but that is the overarching reason that the calculator is wrong - it oversimplifies.

ummmm, so, yeah, I'm going to the boneyard to look at boobs.....

Phission,

I get you now. Oversimplification is one thing. I thought you were just bitching.

You make excellent points, every single one. I admit it's beyond me, though I'll try to weasel my way through the links you posted.

All I'm trying to say is that the calculator is based on industry-standard rules of thumb. The calculator does the job; even if it's flawed, it's better than just tossing a smack-pack of yeast and praying, isn't it?

Cordially,

Bob

rh348877 said:

ummmm, so, yeah, I'm going to the boneyard to look at boobs.....

Click to expand...

Well I have been known to *****, though not this time haha.
My only major reservation about using the calculator seems that as volume or OG increases, so does margin of error. I would assume there is a point where you would be overpitching, but I'm too bad at math to figure that out on my own. You said it's always worked for you though, so I assume you've used it on multi-barrel systems with no problems? If that's the case, maybe we need to re-evaluate whether overpitching is as bad as it is believed to be. If not, then the calculator holds, regardless of its assumptions

The old brewery rule of thumb is one pound of slurry per barrel of wort. That's the formula I used professionally and continue to use and advise in my consultancy.

That, at least, I know the calculator gets right, even at 5-gallon levels. That's what I always advise with starters, anyway; rather than pitch an actively-fermenting starter, ferment the starter completely, decant almost all of the spent 'beer', and pitch a measured amount of the slurry. Same as knocking out onto a yeast cake, but uses a measured amount of yeast instead of the entire cake.

You dig?

Bob