CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
Our pleasure. You're set.
Belgian Dark Strong Ale The Pious - Westvleteren 12 style quad - multiple
- Thread starter saq
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Our pleasure. You're set.
D-180 has both dark toasted flavors and the very, very rich dark fruit flavors as well. The dark fruit flavors show even more in the beer after a few weeks racked. The delivery run of D-180 for the promotion is being packaged now. Delivery for some will come early.
how can i get ahold of this d-180 ?
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
D-180 will be available for sale on the following site: www.candisyrup.com soon. You can sign up to be notified at http://www.candisyrup.com/notify-me.html
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
Hi everyone, does anyone have a finalized and tested Westy 12 Extract Recipe? I'm itchin to brew this tonight! Please let me know so I can run out and grab the ingredients today!
If this recipe has been converted to DME or LME saq will be the best man for this, (although I've not seen a conversion out there yet).
Mischief_Brewing
Well-Known Member
Does anybody think that I'd be doing this recipe an injustice using Franco Belges Pilsen and Golden Promise as the base?
The Franco Belges Pilsen would probably be pretty close, but Golden Promise will likely render the beer fairly sweet. It could make for an interesting quad (probably fairly different than this one) if you were to do say 70/30 Pils/GP.
Mischief_Brewing
Well-Known Member
None of those, get some Belgian 2row.
Mischief_Brewing
Well-Known Member
gio
Well-Known Member
I made the traditional version a couple months ago, it's now done and I've been drinking it the past couple of weeks.
I've never had a real Westvleteren 12 so I can't say if it is an accurate clone or not but it is an amazing beer. My brother has a couple of bottles of Westvleteren 12 and I'm trying to get him to do a comparison.
I noticed my clone has a slight fusel alcohol aroma which becomes just barely noticeable if you let it sit out for a while. I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing as it adds some character and could be considered desirable in this style.
I plan on brewing this again with the slight changes recommended (more pilsner, less pale, plus some debittered belgian black) once I get some D-180 to try.
I've never had a real Westvleteren 12 so I can't say if it is an accurate clone or not but it is an amazing beer. My brother has a couple of bottles of Westvleteren 12 and I'm trying to get him to do a comparison.
I noticed my clone has a slight fusel alcohol aroma which becomes just barely noticeable if you let it sit out for a while. I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing as it adds some character and could be considered desirable in this style.
I plan on brewing this again with the slight changes recommended (more pilsner, less pale, plus some debittered belgian black) once I get some D-180 to try.
Im going to brew the traditional recipe. This is going to be my first decoction mash can someone explain the steps a little better for me? am i doing a saccharification rest of the decoction or straight to boil and return to main mash to reach 151? After you return the first decoction how long do you wait to do the second?
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
Yes, you'll be removing a specified volume from your dough-in protein rest on the first decoction. Since most malt is already modified there is no reason to scoop the mash, (grain and wort together), as in traditional decoctions. We prefer to decoct for caramelization rather than for the traditional purpose of modification (no longer needed in modern brewing). The latter can risk a char of the mash with little benefit. 30 minutes each for the high and low saccharifications. Your mash water and grain totals will determine the amount to decoct-boil-return to the mash each time. If you are following saq's tried and true recipe he has specific calculations for the mash water and 2 decoction volumes, (8.79 qts and 4.85 qts respectively). There are also decoction calculators online if your mash-in volume differs.
You remove a thick portion of your mash, not your wort, and then you boil after the sac rest. Here's an article about it. Personally, I prefer the enhanced double decoction because it is easier to control the amount of time at your protein rest.
You remove a thick portion of your mash, not your wort, and then you boil after the sac rest. Here's an article about it. Personally, I prefer the enhanced double decoction because it is easier to control the amount of time at your protein rest.[/QUOTE]
Okay so after looking at this article shouldn't the second decoction bring you to mash out like 167 and not 159?
Okay so after looking at this article shouldn't the second decoction bring you to mash out like 167 and not 159?
If you do the enhanced double decoction then yes.
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
I was thinking over this incredible "plum-prune" "toasty" Westy 12 clone I just poured into a Scotch snifter and thought, "1.090? hmmm if you calc that down to the Westvleteren 12 FG of 1.012 you get a 'death by Beligan' ABV, (which is what we drink )
Does it occur to anyone else that we've been brewing a bit higher on this clone than the specs? Even so, our Westmalle bugs have been tortured to get us to target anyway over a period of about 8 weeks but they get there eventually.
I was reading one of Denny's early posts back in 2006 about doing a Westy 12 clone, (with the then newly released D2), with a recipe SG of 1.084, (which I think is about right).
Any thoughts on this?
)Does it occur to anyone else that we've been brewing a bit higher on this clone than the specs? Even so, our Westmalle bugs have been tortured to get us to target anyway over a period of about 8 weeks but they get there eventually.
I was reading one of Denny's early posts back in 2006 about doing a Westy 12 clone, (with the then newly released D2), with a recipe SG of 1.084, (which I think is about right).
Any thoughts on this?
So you are saying not to boil any of the grains just drain wort from the mash tun and bring straight to boil?
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
There is a long history of decoction mashing most of which preceded controlled malting techniques. Modern malting now results in highly convertible malts so full grain decoction is considered unnecessary. Decoction was used then to assist in the starch-to-maltose conversion process and also to add flavor to the wort through caramelization. The conversion portion is no longer needed so a full grain decoction is also not needed. It also tends to add tannins from barley husks which do not add to the flavor value of your ale. Modern decoction is simpler. It only needs clarified wort and enough time to boil and return to the mash. Either way will work but we prefer the qualities resulting from a vorlaufed wort decoction. Good luck!
If you don't boil the grains then it is not a decoction. You will not get any harsh tannins from doing the decoction either. I have done a lot of them. What it adds is a richer flavor profile with more depth. Some people claim you can get the same flavor by adding some melanoidin malt or other specialty malts but I disagree. Each person should decide for themselves if the subtle complexity is worth the added effort. It does not clarify the wort. I mean absolutely no offense when I say this but either I'm getting confused by what Since Uuz Up is saying or he doesn't understand what a decoction is. I don't what to call boiling your wort but it is not decoction mashing. Maybe there is just a confusion in the terms we're using I don't know. Wort is the liquid and the grist (or the mash) is the grain mixed with the water. Again, you cannot decoct without boiling some portion of grain.
I was thinking over this incredible "plum-prune" "toasty" Westy 12 clone I just poured into a Scotch snifter and thought, "1.090? hmmm if you calc that down to the Westvleteren 12 FG of 1.012 you get a 'death by Beligan' ABV, (which is what we drink
Does it occur to anyone else that we've been brewing a bit higher on this clone than the specs? Even so, our Westmalle bugs have been tortured to get us to target anyway over a period of about 8 weeks but they get there eventually.
I was reading one of Denny's early posts back in 2006 about doing a Westy 12 clone, (with the then newly released D2), with a recipe SG of 1.084, (which I think is about right).
Any thoughts on this?
According to Brew Like A Monk (which I believe is where Saq got the majority of his info) the OG of Westy 12 is 1.090. I'm pretty sure about that fact and I can double check when I get home. I will also post the rest of the specs from it if you would like.
Tall_Yotie
Well-Known Member
I was thinking over this incredible "plum-prune" "toasty" Westy 12 clone I just poured into a Scotch snifter and thought, "1.090? hmmm if you calc that down to the Westvleteren 12 FG of 1.012 you get a 'death by Beligan' ABV, (which is what we drink
Does it occur to anyone else that we've been brewing a bit higher on this clone than the specs? Even so, our Westmalle bugs have been tortured to get us to target anyway over a period of about 8 weeks but they get there eventually.
I was reading one of Denny's early posts back in 2006 about doing a Westy 12 clone, (with the then newly released D2), with a recipe SG of 1.084, (which I think is about right).
Any thoughts on this?
I would have to agree. To get the 10.2% ABV with an FG of 1.012 you would need an OG of 1.084, not 1.090. I was concerned that it would be too boozy, as the real deal does have some alcohol taste but the fruit tones and residual sweetness hide it well.
Also, I find that I tend to get stuck at 1.018 and have to really work the brew to get it below there. This would be the 1.012 if I started at the lower OG. I think I will brew this up for an OG of 1.084 and see how it turns out.
I would rather have to work on stopping fermentation than having to fire it up.
Oh, and you torture me so with your description of your beer. I need to taste this, though I suppose I can wait for the syrups to show and the fermentation/conditioning time. Alas, patience is difficult!
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
1.090 -> 1.012 = 11.04% ABV
1.085 -> 1.012 = 10.26% ABV (BLAM ABV for Wesvleteren 12 = 10.20%)
Should our terminal, (FG), gravity be higher say 1.018 (1.090 to 1.018 = 10.2% ABV)? At 1.018 this beer is cloying sweet I think. saq will join in here soon...
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
I figure for this beer when I finally get my fermentation fridge up and running I'll make a lager in conjunction with the conditioning time. That way I don't just have a beer sitting at 50F that I'm waiting to bottle up.
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
RJ, I think you're on track with the late historical use of decoction. It sounds to me like you are an experienced brewer and maintain good brewing tradition [repects]. My point is the historical use of decoction, (lit. 'to return boiled') in brewing was primarily for flavor and incidentally boils out poly-saccharides. The Romans used 'Decoctionem' as the word meaning to boil-down to an essense in wines medicines and spirits. The Romans adopted techniques from the Greeks, Greeks from Persians, Persians from Babylonians, Babylonians from Hittites, Hittites from Sumerians from which we get a rich heritage of brewing, (there are over 18 descriptive terms in Sumerian Cuneiform for 'beer' and beer making, re John A. Halloran's Sumerian dictionary). The Sumerian word for decoction is "ì-áb-sè-ga" meaning to boil-away (water). In other words, anyone doing a 'boil' reduction is actually 'decocting' following an earlier history, (actually much earlier than the Roman term we adopted in English). You can boil away the water in any manner that you like, with solid particulates or without... as long as it makes great beer!
Another great point I take away from this is that the Germans (or Czechs) did not 'invent' decoction in the 1800's as some docs would have us to believe. They inherited the technique from the earliest recorded history just like the rest of us...
Anyhow, I think we both have good points to make but decoction is not as limited a technique as we might think at first glance. Maybe I read and innovate too much
.RJ, I think you're on track with the late historical use of decoction. It sounds to me like you are an experienced brewer and maintain good brewing tradition [repects]. My point is the historical use of decoction, (lit. 'to boil down') in brewing was primarily for poly-saccharide (starch) conversion to sugars (at one time). The Romans used 'Decoctionem' as the word meaning to boil-down to an essense in wines medicines and beer. The Romans adopted techniques from the Greeks, Greeks from Persians, Persians from Babylonians, Babylonians from Hittites, Hittites from Sumerians from which we get a rich heritage of brewing, (there are over 18 descriptive terms in Sumerian Cuneiform for 'beer' and beer making, re John A. Halloran's Sumerian dictionary). In other words, anyone doing a 'boil' reduction is actually 'decocting' following with an earlier Roman history, (actually much earlier than the Roman term we adopted in English), of the act that the Germanic tribes later copied and adopted.
Maybe i read too much...Me thinks we innovate too much also
Although I applaud your knowledge, I think you are stretching too far back in history for what we refer to as decoction mashing. It is a very specific technique in brewing that involves boiling grains and, in this case, that is exactly what we are referring too. If we were referring to reducing your wort through boiling then we would be telling everyone to decoct everytime they brew since the wort gets reduced and the sugars get concentrated during the boil. The history (at least german history) of decoction was a way to convert poorly modified grains and way to control temperature rests without thermometers as you have stated but I'm not trying to give a history lesson here, I'm just trying to explain the process to someone who has never done it. Anyway, I've said my piece and if I'm ever in Charlottle I would be happy to discuss brewing history over a couple of pints with someone as well read as yourself. Cheers.
Also, I'm sorry I forgot to check my copy of BLAM last night. I will make a note to do it tonight while I enjoy my enhanced double decocted Maibock (I get thirsty just thinking about it
).Tall_Yotie
Well-Known Member
I think what we can get out of the back-and-forth is this:
-decocting in the eye of the standard homebrewer is taking part of the wash, liquid and grain, bringing to a boil and adding back to the mash to get to the next rest temp.
-Since_Uuz_Up is stating that decoction mashing is not as necessary now as we have quality grain, as far as getting the grains to convert is concerned. This seems agreed upon.
-The method of Since_Uuz_Up for not taking grain is meant to avoid scorching grain while still getting a bit of a carmelized flavor into the mash and hitting the traditional decoction temperatures.
-In my opinion, S_U_U's concept is a "alternative decoction mash", as it is used to get those temps but without grain. We wouldn't claim a standard boil to be in the same category, as the main point of any decoction mash, be it with or without grain, is to pull something out of the mash and then return in back after boiling to get another mash rest temperature.
So S_U_U, you use the alternative docoction in your recipe? No grain, just the liquid?
Nateo
Well-Known Member
RJ is right, re:BLAM. Westy 12 - OG:1.090, 10.2% ABV, 86%AA, 38 IBU.
Now, you can argue whether those numbers are correct, and you can argue that a different FG would be better, but if you're trying to "clone" a beer, I think you'd need to heed those numbers. Otherwise, you're making a different beer.
I've already said my piece about the "authentic" syrup, and I think if you're going to use different (perhaps better) ingredients to make a similar beer to different specifications, then it's really dumb to call it a "clone."
You're making something inspired by, but distinct from, the commercial beer.
And I also agree with RJ that simply boiling wort during the mash to use in place of a hot-water infusion and calling that "decoction mashing" is at least confusing, if not incorrect, based upon every definition and reference to it I've seen. You can stretch the definition with historical sophistry, but it doesn't convey information in a meaningful way.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Decoction_Mashing#Decoction_Mash_Procedure
Water solubility increases with temperature. One reason grains are boiled is to burst any starches not already liberated during mashing, to increase the quantity of extract. Noonan's book lists a number of other benefits to boiling grain besides this, but that's the most easily verified. My efficiency is always about 10% higher when using decoction mashes vs infusion.
Now, you can argue whether those numbers are correct, and you can argue that a different FG would be better, but if you're trying to "clone" a beer, I think you'd need to heed those numbers. Otherwise, you're making a different beer.
I've already said my piece about the "authentic" syrup, and I think if you're going to use different (perhaps better) ingredients to make a similar beer to different specifications, then it's really dumb to call it a "clone."
You're making something inspired by, but distinct from, the commercial beer.
And I also agree with RJ that simply boiling wort during the mash to use in place of a hot-water infusion and calling that "decoction mashing" is at least confusing, if not incorrect, based upon every definition and reference to it I've seen. You can stretch the definition with historical sophistry, but it doesn't convey information in a meaningful way.
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php/Decoction_Mashing#Decoction_Mash_Procedure
Water solubility increases with temperature. One reason grains are boiled is to burst any starches not already liberated during mashing, to increase the quantity of extract. Noonan's book lists a number of other benefits to boiling grain besides this, but that's the most easily verified. My efficiency is always about 10% higher when using decoction mashes vs infusion.
Tall_Yotie
Well-Known Member
As far as what I would call a clone, it would be a brew that is trying to taste just like the brew you wish to copy. It doesn't have to have the exact same ingredients, as that is far unlikely you or the standard homebrewer will be able to get a hold of. If a beer tastes exactly like a La Gunitas but I find out they used a different specialty grain than the real deal has, I am not going to call them on it and claim it is not a clone. I think the aim is to clone what is in the glass, not what is in the beer, if that makes sense.
That being said, getting as close to the real deal in ingredients, water profile, and procedure is a great aspiration for any brew you wish to clone.
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
RJ, great discussion. I enjoyed it. We have cases of Westy 12 clone made with our D-180 of varying recipes that are ready now. Love to have you drop by and share a few.
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
Here's a great test that helped us, (we did it using vacuum but gentle decarb is easily done with slow swirling). De-carbonate half a bottle of a Westvleteren 12, (6 oz), and measure the FG. Then measure the ABV. Last, work backwards to see if the OG, and FG numbers line up with BLAM. (You'll be surprised).
As for the value of traditional full grain decoction efficiency I think you're correct. It has always been more BHE for us as well.
Tall_Yotie
Well-Known Member
Being that I don't have the means to measure ABV without and OG and FG, nor willing to decarb half a Westy12 even in the name of science, I assume your final numbers were OG 1.090 and FG 1.012.
At a 10.2% ABV though, how does that work? The calculators I use for this disagree that the 78 point drop in gravity would give us this ABV, but something higher.
Not trying to argue against what experts have found, I just want to learn. How is that you can have an OG of 90 and an FG of 12 and only get an ABV of 10.2%?
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
Concur.
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
Like you Tall_Yotie, our curiosity was piqued as well. The Westy 12 FG and ABV is correct. saq was on the money. The BLAM OG has to be questioned. It does not appear to be correct. Forgive me, but like others, I just can't bring myself to assume accuracy because of a printed page. I'd rather use science to verify. Mistakes do happen, (even in print).
Tall_Yotie
Well-Known Member
As I had stated previously, the fact that the brew seems to stop for a lot of people around 1.020 or 1.018 (as it did for me) and thus requires additional heating or attempts at adding neutral yeast makes me think that the OG may be incorrect.
If I found that I got stuck at 1.018 (as I did with the 2 times I have attempted Saq's recipe) I would have hit the 1.012 of I had an OG of 1.084. That lines up very well with the 10.2% ABV. This will be my target OG when I do this brew later this month or early next month, depending on how long it takes the shipment of syrup to actually arrive.
If I found that I got stuck at 1.018 (as I did with the 2 times I have attempted Saq's recipe) I would have hit the 1.012 of I had an OG of 1.084. That lines up very well with the 10.2% ABV. This will be my target OG when I do this brew later this month or early next month, depending on how long it takes the shipment of syrup to actually arrive.
CSI - CandiSyrup
Well-Known Member
Agree. Here's the grain and adjunct bill for 1.084 that we've begun using.
11.0 Belgian Pilsner (Dingemann’s)
2.15 Belgian Pale (Dingemann’s)
0.10 Belgian Debittered Black
3.00 D-180 Candi Syrup, Inc.
The numbers I got for the OG of this beer came from Brew Like A Monk.
The formula for figuring ABV from OG is as follows
% Alcohol = ((1.05 x (OG – TG)) / TG) / 0.79
So ((1.05 x (1.090 - 1.012)) / 1.012) / 0.79
Reduces to (0.0819 / 1.012) / 0.79
Reduces to 0.0809 / 0.79
Which results in .1024 or 10.24% ABV
The formula for figuring ABV from OG is as follows
% Alcohol = ((1.05 x (OG – TG)) / TG) / 0.79
So ((1.05 x (1.090 - 1.012)) / 1.012) / 0.79
Reduces to (0.0819 / 1.012) / 0.79
Reduces to 0.0809 / 0.79
Which results in .1024 or 10.24% ABV
Tall_Yotie
Well-Known Member
It seems the online calculator I have been using is for some reason calculating high, and when I looked up formulas it is indeed 90 to 12 for OG/FG. Damn. I was hoping for an easy answer, as it is a PAIN keeping the fermenter at 80F artificially for that long.Lots of cycling warm water into a cooler surrounding the bucket.
Similar threads
