my Tripel Recipe and my starter

Here is the recipe I made for my tripel, its already been brewed but let me know what you think:

5.5 gal batch
3 gal boil

6 oz Belgian Aromatic
6 oz Cara-pils
160 for 20 mins

8 lbs x-light DME
2 lbs clear belgian candi sugar

1 oz Willamette 60 min
1 oz tettnanger 30 min
1 oz tettnanger 15 min
1 oz saaz 1 min

white labs WLP500 Trappist

Starter was 1/2 gal with 1/2 lb x-light DME, gave it 24 hrs, then added the other 1/2 lb bringing the volume up to 2/3 gal, and gave it another 12 hours.

Since we pitched the whole starter and that is included in the 5.5 gallons, I add the pound of DME into my calculations bringing the total to 9 lbs. This gives me an 1.087 OG and 24 IBU.

When we pitched it took 12 hours to see activity in the blow-off. I thought this was really odd. When we made the double IPA we just pitched a smack-pack with no starter and it was off and running. What gives?

I'd like to see this ferment out pretty dry, 1.016 FG or so, but I don't really anticipate it getting there on its own considering the slow start. I've started thinking about what I can do to give it the extra help it might need. It is fermenting at 71 F. Maybe pitch a packet of dry yeast once the white labs is done?

I aim even lower in my Belgian beers, between 1.006- 1.010. Next time skip the cara-pils since it just adds body.

With an appropriate pitch of yeast from the beginning, you should not need to add another yeast. Your starter sounds huge. I would only worry about over pitching with the 2/3 gallon starter. Check out the pitching calculator on MrMalty.com.

Check out everything on MrMalty.com, great site. As for your beer, I would also say it really needs to be in the .006 - .010 range for FG. That starter should be able to get the job done, but what temp was the starter made at and what temp did you pitch at? This could have a lot to do with your somewhat (not really) slow start.

That being said, the average attenuation of that yeast in 75.5%, which is going to put you around 1.02ish FG, and 10 or so more IBUs wouldn't have hurt either. All in all, you are going to have a very sweet belgian ale.

I made the starter at 70 F. I don't think it was really starting slow, I think my blow off system was venting elsewhere. I peeked in the bucket and saw a very healthy krausen in there and when I put things back on and tightened them down I was seeing more than 1 bubble per second. No worries.

I'll definitely check out mrmalty. I have seen the pitching calculator, and came up with a 1 gallon starter for this beer. I've been searching for a good guide to picking specialty grains.

The grain list in BeerSmith is pretty good, and most online HBS have a good description of what the grains are like. Check out this thread.

ilikestuff said:

That being said, the average attenuation of that yeast in 75.5%, which is going to put you around 1.02ish FG, and 10 or so more IBUs wouldn't have hurt either. All in all, you are going to have a very sweet belgian ale.

Click to expand...

1.020 on the nose after 6 days (friday) and maaaybe 1.019 after 8 days (sunday). I'm gonna give it another week and have another look, but if it doesn't get down below 1.016 I'd like to do something to get it 1.010 or lower. Suggestions?

Also, I'm going to boil a hop tea to add. I know it soudns kinda crazy but I'm gonna try it.75oz saaz 4.4%AA for 60 min in a quart of water. It's a pretty roundabout way to get where I want to go, but live and learn. I already have one tripel that came out too sweet, we'll see how this one works out.

Coastarine said:

1.020 on the nose after 6 days (friday) and maaaybe 1.019 after 8 days (sunday). I'm gonna give it another week and have another look, but if it doesn't get down below 1.016 I'd like to do something to get it 1.010 or lower. Suggestions?

Click to expand...

This is day 12 and I'll be home tonight. I'll post the gravity, but if it still hasn't fallen, nottingham dry yeast? champagne yeast? Ideas?

Day 12, 1.017. Guess I'll give it some more time!

Day 14, still 1.017.

Would you use champaign yeast with a trippel to get it to a lower gravity?

It's a tough call, I'd love to get a few more points out of it. It's not like the yeast didn't do their job, 1.087 to 1.017 is 79% apparent attenuation.

I wouldn't add more yeast. They did their job.

I always laugh at threads when we argue over how much of a starter to use only to find out it RARELY makes a difference. I remember when we rarely made starters and did just fine. I can't say my beers are drastically improved when I pitch the Mr. Malty suggested starter size. I remember specifically thinking you were just fine with that starter......and you are.

Yeah I guess I'll rack it as-is, probably monday morning. Hopefully it's acceptably dry.

question: if one beer goes from 1.090 to 1.015, and another goes from 1.045 to 1.015, will the first taste drier? In other words, does attenuation create dryness or FG alone?

I'd hesitate to use champagne yeast for fear of drying the beer out too much. I don't know the % attenuation (and haven't looked) but you can get ciders or meads down *under* 1.000 using champagne yeast. The one batch of cider we made was really dry and sour; I'm not sure if the sourness was a result of some spoilage (boo hiss!) or just the acids in the apple juice without the sugars to balance.

As far as the size of the starter is concerned, I don't believe it's an issue with getting to your FG. In theory one single yeastie would be enough if given time and nutrients and lack of competition from spoilage organisms. I thought the issue with incorrect pitch rates was that it would change the flavor of the beer somehow.

This has certainly been an interesting brew, and I hope it comes out good.

I'm gonna dig this thread back up because I have one more question for everyone: The beer has been in the secondary for just over 3 weeks and it is clearing nicely. Still, I'm going to use gelatin to make sure its score won't get dinged for clarity. With that in mind, there is 9 weeks till judging. I feel that there are benefits to bulk aging but also benefits to bottle conditioning. I think the bulk aging benefits take longer to really make a difference, but the truth is I don't know, so I'm looking for opinions as to whether the beer would benefit more from extra time in the bottle or extra time in the secondary. I'm thinking of giving it 2 more weeks in the secondary and 7 weeks in the bottle: 5 at 70 F and 2 in the fridge.

If it's clearing now, and you have more time to give it in the secondary, it should clear up just fine even without the gelatin. If you crash cool it for a couple days in the fridge before you keg or bottle, that should make it come out pretty clear.

Whether you bulk or bottle age it, the beer will get better either way. I don't think I've made one that didn't take advantage of the time permitted it. Someone on here posted a video showing that 21 days was what it really took for a beer to carb up well, but I think 7 weeks total in bottle may be more than you need. I'd say maybe 5 weeks total in bottle, and use the extra 2 weeks in the secondary to let it clear as well as possible...or perhaps rack to a tertiary?

A little cold time seems to help beers clear up well. I've never worried overly much about getting our beer to clear, although I haven't entered anything in a competition either. We just tapped a pilsner that came out *really* clear, although it spent 10 weeks (?) total in the lagering freezer. We made an alt that spent a month in the freezer with the pilsner, and I can confirm that it came out crystal-clear as well...matter of fact, you inspired me to get a test sample -- yes, it's clear.

I'd like to crash cool it in a fridge but I don't have a fridge for carboys. The last tripel I made took a looong time to carbonate which is why I want to give it plenty of time in the bottle.

I think I talked myself into sticking with the original plan.

Bottled. Here's the leftover, looks nice. Unfortunately I wasn't present.

And again...

This beer came out awesome! It is still getting entered in the contest. I'll post the results.

better yet, send us some samples!

B

3rd Place!

They said that our beer (this beer being from back when my dad and I brewed together) stood out with nice dryness and more aggressive hop flavors which worked very well in the beer. I guess that hop tea worked out well! Funny that they complemented the dryness being that I struggled with attenuation. I think high carbonation and maybe a few other things created something of a dryness illusion on the palate.

Thanks to all of you who gave good advice in this thread. My brewing methods have come a long way since I started this beer. I wish I had samples to send out but I only have one bottle left and my dad probably has less than a dozen.

I don't think I posted the details of the contest, but it was a contest being held by a local chain of restaurants called the Sharp Edge which specialize in belgian beer (been called the best belgian beer bar in the USA by some beer magazine or another). I couldn't actually be there for it but from the sound of it the beers weren't judged by bjcp judges against the style guide, but rather just by everyone who attended tasting the beers and voting for them. Belgian Tripel was the only category. Woohoo!