Ever tried to clone? Looking at festbiers

[hilljack13]

One thing I would like to do is get my own recipes, but I have this thing for Swabian bier. I want to try and clone their festbiers and luckily they advertise the grains and hops used. Nothing else but a pretty good start considering some recipes I have see with all kinds of ingredients. Here is one example CD Fruhlingsfest. They use two grains, but no way to tell if Munchner is I or II. I'm thinking this from Weyermann perspective. I don't know if there a standard Munich malt.

So to the point...where would you start if trying to clone? I will plan on doing gallon batches. Probably won't come close but hoping to get something really good.

 

[Protos]

Choosing between the two shades of Munich malts, it's always Munich II by default, if isn't stated otherwise in the recipe. The lighter "I" is a relatively recent invention for creating modern beers, while the darker "II" is the standard malt for traditional recipes.
For this particular beer you might use the "I" as well, as it's a modern style. I'd stick with Munich II however,.

If you are interested specifically in Schwabian beers, the book Bier Selbst Gebraut by Klaus Kling contains two recipes from that region: a Schwabian Schwarzbier and a Schwabian Export Helles. The latter might be of interest to you as is stands stylewise pretty close to a Festbier (just somewhat lower ABV).

The example beer you're linking looks almost perfect. Just almost, because their choise of hops looks questionable: why do they have to use those roughish Perle and Herkules when they might use the classic Mittelfrueh or Tettnanger which impart much nobler character to the beer? I believe, the only reason is the big-industry economical considerations, which are of no significance whatsoever for a homebrewer.

Festbier (specifically the modern German version of it, as you might find also a lot of wildly different recipes called "Festbiers" too) is a perfect style to start your Lager endeavour with. It's simple, nicely filling, incredibly tasty (one of my favourite styles too), and its higher gravity perfectly masks insignificant fermentation or lagering imperfections which are unavoidable at this stage. Brew it, you'll like it!


I'd start with 15% of Munich II and 85% Pilsner. Aim for circa 25 IBU with Hallertauer Mittelfrueh, 1st charge at First Wort Hopping, second charge (half as much as the 1st charge) at 30'. No late hopping.
Schmitz decoction seems to be the ideal option for mashing but if you don't want to fiddle with decoctions yet, go the way of two-stepped Hochkurz infusion, 45' at 63C/145F + 45' at 68C/154F.

 

[hilljack13]

Choosing between the two shades of Munich malts, it's always Munich II by default, if isn't stated otherwise in the recipe. The lighter "I" is a relatively recent invention for creating modern beers, while the darker "II" is the standard malt for traditional recipes.
For this particular beer you might use the "I" as well, as it's a modern style. I'd stick with Munich II however,.

If you are interested specifically in Schwabian beers, the book Bier Selbst Gebraut by Klaus Kling contains two recipes from that region: a Schwabian Schwarzbier and a Schwabian Export Helles. The latter might be of interest to you as is stands stylewise pretty close to a Festbier (just somewhat lower ABV).

The example beer you're linking looks almost perfect. Just almost, because their choise of hops looks questionable: why do they have to use those roughish Perle and Herkules when they might use the classic Mittelfrueh or Tettnanger which impart much nobler character to the beer? I believe, the only reason is the big-industry economical considerations, which are of no significance whatsoever for a homebrewer.

Festbier (specifically the modern German version of it, as you might find also a lot of wildly different recipes called "Festbiers" too) is a perfect style to start your Lager endeavour with. It's simple, nicely filling, incredibly tasty (one of my favourite styles too), and its higher gravity perfectly masks insignificant fermentation or lagering imperfections which are unavoidable at this stage. Brew it, you'll like it!


I'd start with 15% of Munich II and 85% Pilsner. Aim for circa 25 IBU with Hallertauer Mittelfrueh, 1st charge at First Wort Hopping, second charge (half as much as the 1st charge) at 30'. No late hopping.
Schmitz decoction seems to be the ideal option for mashing but if you don't want to fiddle with decoctions yet, go the way of two-stepped Hochkurz infusion, 45' at 63C/145F + 45' at 68C/154F.

Very much appreciate your insight! I'll for sure include your thoughts on my testing. Also, I might be lucky enough to get back to Germany after Christmas. Looking forward to the liquid gold!

 

[camonick]

Choosing between the two shades of Munich malts, it's always Munich II by default, if isn't stated otherwise in the recipe. The lighter "I" is a relatively recent invention for creating modern beers, while the darker "II" is the standard malt for traditional recipes.

Very interesting information. I’ll be sure to remember when I brew my lagers.

 

[Protos]

I learned this on German homebrewing forum hobbybrauer.de where people also asked the same question, which of the two Munichs is the "default" one.

 

[hilljack13]

I learned this on German homebrewing forum hobbybrauer.de where people also asked the same question, which of the two Munichs is the "default" one.

That one is going in the bookmarks.

 

[Bobby_M]

I never thought about which Weyermann Munich was "standard" but Weyermann's I and II are closer in lovibond than the difference between Avangard light and dark so be careful with that. Avangard light munich is closest to Weyermann's Munich II.

 

[hilljack13]

What are the advantages of a shorter and longer boil time? It seems the norm is to do either a 60 or 90 minute boil but the only advantage I can see for doing a 90 minute boil is marginally more bitterness and a little less flavour from the early additions. Am I missing something obvious?

Not sure I understand your question as it relates to my post. Sure someone here will since I'm not smart on things just yet.

 

[AlexKay]

What are the advantages of a shorter and longer boil time? It seems the norm is to do either a 60 or 90 minute boil but the only advantage I can see for doing a 90 minute boil is marginally more bitterness and a little less flavour from the early additions. Am I missing something obvious?

If I’m doing a longer boil, I generally still put the bittering hops in at 60. Too long in the kettle and I’m worried I’d start extracting undesirable flavors from the hops.

A longer boil will convert more SMM to DMS so it can be driven off. 60 minutes is usually plenty for most modern malts, though if you’re sensitive to DMS and using very lightly kilned malts you might see a benefit to a longer boil.

A longer boil will promote more caramelization in the kettle, affecting both flavor and color, though again, the difference between 60 and 90 isn’t going to be much. (I do like a 3+ hour boil for English barleywine, though.)

Otherwise the only difference is boil-off, and that’s easily corrected for.

In short, you can make either 60 or 90 work pretty well, and it largely comes down to preference and pacing of your brew day.