Imperial Stout Critique

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rob2010SS

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Jun 16, 2017
Messages
3,404
Reaction score
1,366
Location
Spring Grove
Building an imperial stout that I plan to put in a whiskey barrel and add cherry juice extracted from really cherries and toasted cocoa nibs. Just looking for some feedback on the recipe.

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Batch Size: 6.00 gal
Boil Size: 7.50 gal
Estimated OG: 1.102 SG
Estimated Color: 50 SRM
Estimated IBU: 101.73 IBU
Efficiency: 75.00 %
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
17.30 lb Pale Malt 80.0%
1.60 lbs Roasted Barley 5.0%
1.07 lbs Special B 4.0%
1.14 lbs Chocolate Malt (350 SRM) 4.0%
.46 lbs Munich 20L 2.0%
.73 lbs Crystal 120L 3.0%
.50 lbs Carafa II 2.0%

Mash at 156*F for 90 minutes

2.0 oz Warrior @ 60 minutes
2.0 oz Willamette @ 30 minutes
2.0 oz East Kent Goldings @ 10 minutes

2.5L Starter of WY1272, chilled and decanted

Ferment at 65*F until complete

Transfer to barrel upon completion and add cherry juice and cocoa nib tincture
 
Grainbill + hop bill looks good. Personally I’d drop the Munich II for more pale malt—I’m just not sure what 2% is gonna do for you, but YMMV. In the same way I don’t think the EKG at the end of the boil is going to make much, if any difference in the aroma or flavor. Personal preference here though.

However, I believe that WY1272 has been genetically sequenced and found to be a lager strain vice an ale one. It’s a really nice yeast (isolated from Anchor Liberty if I’m not mistaken), but you’re gonna need a bigger starter to ensure it attenuates successfully — like 5L. It’s a slow starter too, so don’t be surprised if you see a 24-48+ hr lag time. Otherwise, consider using a different ale strain.

And then just make sure you nail that mash pH! I usually target 5.4-5.6 for my imp. Once you sample the mash around the 15-minute mark, it’s a good idea to keep some baking soda on hand, and add 1/4 tsp at a time to the mash until you’re in range.

Good luck!
 
Grainbill + hop bill looks good. Personally I’d drop the Munich II for more pale malt—I’m just not sure what 2% is gonna do for you, but YMMV. In the same way I don’t think the EKG at the end of the boil is going to make much, if any difference in the aroma or flavor. Personal preference here though.

However, I believe that WY1272 has been genetically sequenced and found to be a lager strain vice an ale one. It’s a really nice yeast (isolated from Anchor Liberty if I’m not mistaken), but you’re gonna need a bigger starter to ensure it attenuates successfully — like 5L. It’s a slow starter too, so don’t be surprised if you see a 24-48+ hr lag time. Otherwise, consider using a different ale strain.

And then just make sure you nail that mash pH! I usually target 5.4-5.6 for my imp. Once you sample the mash around the 15-minute mark, it’s a good idea to keep some baking soda on hand, and add 1/4 tsp at a time to the mash until you’re in range.

Good luck!
Thanks for the info! I used the homebrew dads yeast calculator to figure out my starter details. That calculator showed i needed 405B cells and that 2.5L starter supposedly gets me 430B cells.

I am curious, the website classifies it as an ale yeast. Is there new information where this yeast is now a lager yeast? I know sometimes new information comes out about yeasts that contradicts what we thought we knew...

In regards to the Munich, just thought it might add a bit of different character, being the Munich dark. Don't have a lot of experience with it but figured I'd throw it in.

Thanks for the input
 
I, too, would drop the munich and I'd probably just get rid of the crystal as well. Those roasted malts are going to give you the flavor and those other grains (in such small percentages) probably won't compete, but I'm no expert. The late hop additions are probably unnecessary too, remember you're just trying to balance the possible cloying nature or a beer finishing in the high 1.020s.

You might want to look into using pickling lime instead of baking soda to bring the pH up into range without adding too much Na.

Another thing to think about is that your efficiency will drop with larger grain bills, and you might want to increase you pre-boil volume and tack on some time to your boil. Honesty, IMO, big beers are more of a fly by the seat of your pants brew and you have to adjust your plan mid-brew. I've only done a few, but I feel like I've had to make adjustments on the fly to hit numbers. I typically get 75-80% mash efficiency, but on the RIS I did a few months ago I got 68%. I expected the drop and actually estimated that percent so it worked out. I don't think you need to mash that high honestly, 152F would be fine but I don't know if it would matter either way. I also boiled for 100mins to hit 1.100

Good luck. You should try to party-gyle this and make another beer out of second runnings. I managed to squeak a 1.050 coffee stout out this last one to drink while the RIS ages. Easy way to forget about it for a while....
 
I, too, would drop the munich and I'd probably just get rid of the crystal as well. Those roasted malts are going to give you the flavor and those other grains (in such small percentages) probably won't compete, but I'm no expert. The late hop additions are probably unnecessary too, remember you're just trying to balance the possible cloying nature or a beer finishing in the high 1.020s.

You might want to look into using pickling lime instead of baking soda to bring the pH up into range without adding too much Na.

Another thing to think about is that your efficiency will drop with larger grain bills, and you might want to increase you pre-boil volume and tack on some time to your boil. Honesty, IMO, big beers are more of a fly by the seat of your pants brew and you have to adjust your plan mid-brew. I've only done a few, but I feel like I've had to make adjustments on the fly to hit numbers. I typically get 75-80% mash efficiency, but on the RIS I did a few months ago I got 68%. I expected the drop and actually estimated that percent so it worked out. I don't think you need to mash that high honestly, 152F would be fine but I don't know if it would matter either way. I also boiled for 100mins to hit 1.100

Good luck. You should try to party-gyle this and make another beer out of second runnings. I managed to squeak a 1.050 coffee stout out this last one to drink while the RIS ages. Easy way to forget about it for a while....
Thanks man. So question... is your statement about getting rid of Munich and crystal because they won't do much at all or because they'll add inappropriate flavors? Im still new to stouts so learning the grain bills. I took a bunch of imperial stout recipes from HBT and compared them. Found the overlapping ingredients, found the unique ingredients, and built it from there. I guess i was just trying to add uniqueness to the grain bill and the flavors imparted from it.

In regards to the hops, i was shooting for 90-100 IBUs. The high end of the bjcp range is 90 and i ended up at 100. The last one i did was 123 so i was ok with 100 on this.

On to the pre boil volume. I didn't think of that. My last one i ran into that issue. My post bill volume suffered to accommodate for the lower efficiency. In a case like this, would you add another gallon or gallon and a half to accommodate for the lower efficiency?

For conversation sake, let's say i increase pre boil volume from 7.5 gallons to 9 gallons, and my post boil target is 6 gallons. I know my boil off rate is 1.5 gallons per hour. If my recipe calls for hops at 60 minutes, i would boil for an hour and THEN start the 60 minute boil clock, right?
 
is your statement about getting rid of Munich and crystal because they won't do much at all or because they'll add inappropriate flavors?

It's merely a statement that I, personally, don't think it will add much in terms of flavor due to the other heavy hitting grains. I think you're just adding more unfermentables, but I don't think its going to do anything bad...

In regards to the hops, i was shooting for 90-100 IBUs

Yeah, you need high IBUs to balance the sweetness of these things so 90-100 is appropriately. You can do that however you like, but I don't think you need late addition hops. I did 60 minute and 30 minute additions in my RIS.

would you add another gallon or gallon and a half to accommodate for the lower efficiency?

You have to kind of play with the numbers. A lot of it revolves around your mash efficiency. That said, you need to increase your grain weights to accommodate for lower efficiency while adjusting your strike water to your MLT capacity. I maxed my 10g cooler out with 25lbs of grain and ~8 gallons of strike water and then batch sparged to hit my preboil volume. Lauter efficiency also will effect your pre-boil gravity...

I used beersmith's boil off calculator with your boil off rate, and it looks like if you hit 1.070 with 8 gallons of preboil volume a 90 minute boil with land you at 1.104 with 5.38 gallons post boil. If you have beersmith try to play around with what you want.

I know my boil off rate is 1.5 gallons per hour. If my recipe calls for hops at 60 minutes, i would boil for an hour and THEN start the 60 minute boil clock, right?

Yup, just start the timer when you have 60 minutes left. Only put your hops in when you have that (hop addition time) amount of time left...
 
Thanks for the info! I used the homebrew dads yeast calculator to figure out my starter details. That calculator showed i needed 405B cells and that 2.5L starter supposedly gets me 430B cells.

I am curious, the website classifies it as an ale yeast. Is there new information where this yeast is now a lager yeast? I know sometimes new information comes out about yeasts that contradicts what we thought we knew...

In regards to the Munich, just thought it might add a bit of different character, being the Munich dark. Don't have a lot of experience with it but figured I'd throw it in.

Thanks for the input

The White Labs strain WLP051 is an analogue of WY1272 and White Labs recently sequenced it as Saccharomyces pastorianus:
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-bank/wlp051-california-v-ale-yeast

Either way, based on personal experience, a 2.5L starter is just not enough to ensure complete attenuation. I’d shoot for 4L minimum, and even that’s cutting it close. You really want to target lager-sized pitch rates for big beers like this (1.5 M/mL-P). You’re spending a lot of money and time on the beer already, so why take the risk? It’s easy insurance.
 
The White Labs strain WLP051 is an analogue of WY1272 and White Labs recently sequenced it as Saccharomyces pastorianus:
https://www.whitelabs.com/yeast-bank/wlp051-california-v-ale-yeast

Either way, based on personal experience, a 2.5L starter is just not enough to ensure complete attenuation. I’d shoot for 4L minimum, and even that’s cutting it close. You really want to target lager-sized pitch rates for big beers like this (1.5 M/mL-P). You’re spending a lot of money and time on the beer already, so why take the risk? It’s easy insurance.
So i get what you're saying and for the most part i agree. However, I've heard about over pitching. Would that be over pitching and what would the effects of that be?
 
One thing about the mash schedule with big beers is mash long and low. ie 148-150 for 90 min at least. In very good conditions the yeast might have trouble attenuating, so you'll want to give it the best chance to ferment out. Cheers hope it helps.
 
So i get what you're saying and for the most part i agree. However, I've heard about over pitching. Would that be over pitching and what would the effects of that be?

Not even close. It would be considered over pitching if you used an entire yeast cake from a previous batch. At those levels (and with viable yeast) you won’t notice any ill effects. Under pitching presents much more opportunity for off flavors and under attenuation.

You could always pitch the yeast to a smaller volume of wort, like a gallon, wait until high krausen, and then pitch that into the rest of the wort.
 
One thing about the mash schedule with big beers is mash long and low. ie 148-150 for 90 min at least. In very good conditions the yeast might have trouble attenuating, so you'll want to give it the best chance to ferment out. Cheers hope it helps.
That's a good point. My first imperial stout didn't attenuate well and i mashed at 156. Perhaps that was the problem. I'll try this and mash this one at 150 to see if it helps attenuation.
 
Not even close. It would be considered over pitching if you used an entire yeast cake from a previous batch. At those levels (and with viable yeast) you won’t notice any ill effects. Under pitching presents much more opportunity for off flavors and under attenuation.

You could always pitch the yeast to a smaller volume of wort, like a gallon, wait until high krausen, and then pitch that into the rest of the wort.
Ok. Im good with that logic. Like i just replied to someone else, my first RIS didn't attenuate well. I know i didn't pitch enough yeast in that one and i had problems so definitely don't want that again. I'l go 4L starter
 
I like the special b, wish I'd included that in my RIS. I don't have a barrel so I'll use oak cubes soaked in knob creek when its transferred to secondary, and instead of cherries I'll be adding a pound of stewed raisins. If you like cherry flavors, consider cooking up a batch of dark candy syrup, there is a thread around here somewhere. I made the 'sugar #5' to use in a dubbel and it tasted like a bowl of cherries, might be awesome alongside the actual fruit.
 
Alright, revised plan. Revisions in bold

Recipe Specifications
--------------------------
Batch Size: 6.00 gal
Boil Size: 8.5 gal
Estimated OG: 1.102 SG
Estimated Color: 50 SRM
Estimated IBU: 101.33 IBU
Efficiency: 75.00 %
Boil Time: 60 Minutes

Ingredients:
------------
17.30 lb Pale Malt 80.0%
1.60 lbs Roasted Barley 5.0%
1.07 lbs Special B 4.0%
1.14 lbs Chocolate Malt (350 SRM) 4.0%
.46 lbs Munich 20L 2.0%
.73 lbs Crystal 120L 3.0%
.50 lbs Carafa II 2.0%

Mash at 151*F for 90 minutes

2.0 oz Warrior @ 60 minutes
3.0 oz Willamette @ 30 minutes


1.5L Starter stepped up to 4L, WY1272 American Ale II

Ferment at 65*F until complete

Transfer to barrel upon completion and add cherry juice and cocoa nib tincture

Question #1: This will be my first stepped up starter. Do I have the process correct below...?
1. Let 1.5L starter run for 18-24 hours
2. Chill starter for 24 hours
3. Decant old starter beer
4. Prepare 4L new starter wort
5. Chill and add to flask on top of settled yeast cake from the 1.5L starter

Sound right?

Question #2: I know with bigger beers, my efficiency will be off. How do I calculate how much pre boil volume I need in order to boil down and hit my target OG? I know there are calculators that tell me that number, but how do you know for sure what your pre boil gravity will be? Is there a way to estimate pre boil gravity?
 
Last edited:
1) Looks good. You don’t need to decant a stepped starter. Just add fresh wort at high krausen and you’ll see the same increase in yeast population. Assuming you’re using a 5L flask, you could start with 1.5L, then add 3.5L on top of that the next day. Once the krausen settles, put it in the fridge for 12 hours and decant thereafter.

Just make sure you oxygenate the wort thoroughly. For a big beer like this you would probably benefit from oxygenating 12 hours post-pitch as well (don’t worry, it won’t oxidize the beer).

2) Your pre-boil volume is based off of your target post-boil volume, boil-off rate, a wort expansion rate, and your estimated trub loss. For a volume of 5.5 gal, 1.5 gal/hr boil off, 2 hr boil, 4% expansion, and 0.25 gal trub loss, that equates to:

Pre-Boil Volume = [5.5 gal + (1.5 gal/hr * 2 hr) + 0.25 gal] * 1.04
Pre-Boil Volume = 9.1 gal
 
Last edited:
1) Looks good. You don’t need to decant a stepped starter. Just add fresh wort at high krausen and you’ll see the same increase in yeast population. Assuming you’re using a 5L flask, you could start with 1.5L, then add 3.5L on top of that the next day. Once the krausen settles, put it in the fridge for 12 hours and decant thereafter.

Just make sure you oxygenate the wort thoroughly. For a big beer like this you would probably benefit from oxygenating 12 hours post-pitch as well (don’t worry, it won’t oxidize the beer).

2) Your pre-boil volume is based off of your target post-boil volume, boil-off rate, a wort expansion rate, and your estimated trub loss. For a volume of 5.5 gal, 1.5 gal/hr boil off, 2 hr boil, 4% expansion, and 0.25 gal trub loss, that equates to:

Pre-Boil Volume = [5.5 gal + (1.5 gal/hr * 2 hr) + 0.25 gal] * 1.04
Pre-Boil Volume = 9.1 gal


Thanks for the info.

Let me elaborate more on my Question #2. Is there a way to know what my pre boil gravity will be based on the grain bill and efficiency?

I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out my pre boil volume because I don't know what my pre boil gravity is going to be. I know the calculators out there ask you for starting gravity, starting volume and ending volume. But how do I know what that starting gravity will be?

For example, Brewers Friend tells me that in order to finish with 6 gallons of 1.102 wort, I need 8.75 gallons of 1.070 wort. How do I know that my pre boil wort will be 8.75 gal @ 1.070? Is there a way to calculate that?
 
Thanks for the info.

Let me elaborate more on my Question #2. Is there a way to know what my pre boil gravity will be based on the grain bill and efficiency?

I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out my pre boil volume because I don't know what my pre boil gravity is going to be. I know the calculators out there ask you for starting gravity, starting volume and ending volume. But how do I know what that starting gravity will be?

For example, Brewers Friend tells me that in order to finish with 6 gallons of 1.102 wort, I need 8.75 gallons of 1.070 wort. How do I know that my pre boil wort will be 8.75 gal @ 1.070? Is there a way to calculate that?

Okay, I understand now. There is a way to estimate it based off of your typical brew day efficiency. @doug293cz came up with this chart and it’s incredibly helpful for determining projected loss in efficiency due to larger grainbill volumes.

IMG_0201.JPG


It might be a little confusing, but the long and short of it is that your theoretical lauter efficiency decreases by approximately 17% going from 2.0 lb/gal to 4.0 lb/gal. So if you typically get 83% lauter efficiency with half the grainbill and the same water volume, you’ll see 66% lauter efficiency with the larger grainbill. These losses are for batch sparging, but I think the relationship should be relatively similar for fly sparging.

Once you figure out where your projected lauter efficiency is, you can work backwards to achieve the correct grainbill size for your desired OG. For instance, if I typically see 75% mash efficiency on a 10-lb grainbill with a 6.25 gal pre-boil volume. Assuming my conversion efficiency stays consistent (a relatively safe assumption), my projected mash efficiency for a 22.8-lb batch and 8.75 gal pre-boil should be roughly 65%. Ergo, I can use that to extrapolate the grainbill size for an estimated 8.75 gal of wort @ 1.070 SG.

Grain Weight = [(1.070-1)*1000 * 8.75 gal] / (36 ppg * 0.65)
Grain Weight = 26.1 lb
 
Okay, I understand now. There is a way to estimate it based off of your typical brew day efficiency. @doug293cz came up with this chart and it’s incredibly helpful for determining projected loss in efficiency due to larger grainbill volumes.

View attachment 590839

It might be a little confusing, but the long and short of it is that your theoretical lauter efficiency decreases by approximately 17% going from 2.0 lb/gal to 4.0 lb/gal. So if you typically get 83% lauter efficiency with half the grainbill and the same water volume, you’ll see 66% lauter efficiency with the larger grainbill. These losses are for batch sparging, but I think the relationship should be relatively similar for fly sparging.

Once you figure out where your projected lauter efficiency is, you can work backwards to achieve the correct grainbill size for your desired OG. For instance, if I typically see 75% mash efficiency on a 10-lb grainbill with a 6.25 gal pre-boil volume. Assuming my conversion efficiency stays consistent (a relatively safe assumption), my projected mash efficiency for a 22.8-lb batch and 8.75 gal pre-boil should be roughly 65%. Ergo, I can use that to extrapolate the grainbill size for an estimated 8.75 gal of wort @ 1.070 SG.

Grain Weight = [(1.070-1)*1000 * 8.75 gal] / (36 ppg * 0.65)
Grain Weight = 26.1 lb
Ok, let's see if i got this straight.

I typically hit 75%. On a 10.9lb grain bill with 7.5 pre boil volume, that's 1.45, rounded to 1.5 for easy numbers. Following that graph, that puts me at 64%for the larger grain bill which calculates to be 2.6. If i go through and run your formula... [(1.070-1)*1000*8.75] / (36 * 0.64) = 26.58.

This tells me that if i scale up my grain bill to 26.58 lbs while maintaining the same proportions that i should hit 1.070 and 8.75 gallon pre boil volume? Do i have that right?
 
Ok, let's see if i got this straight.

I typically hit 75%. On a 10.9lb grain bill with 7.5 pre boil volume, that's 1.45, rounded to 1.5 for easy numbers. Following that graph, that puts me at 64%for the larger grain bill which calculates to be 2.6. If i go through and run your formula... [(1.070-1)*1000*8.75] / (36 * 0.64) = 26.58.

This tells me that if i scale up my grain bill to 26.58 lbs while maintaining the same proportions that i should hit 1.070 and 8.75 gallon pre boil volume? Do i have that right?

Yes, exactly. The addition of more grain does push the weight/volume to the right, so you might experience slightly lower efficiency than you would expect (26.6 / 8.75 = 3.0 ~ 61%). Maybe add a pound or two to that.

I know it’s a big compensation but it will get you much closer to your intended OG. I’ve certainly experienced the effects from this on multiple occasions, so I can certify its accuracy. If you’re interested, you can do a partigyle and make a smaller beer (maybe a Dark English Mild) from the final runnings to boost your overall efficiency.
 
Yes, exactly. The addition of more grain does push the weight/volume to the right, so you might experience slightly lower efficiency than you would expect (26.6 / 8.75 = 3.0 ~ 61%). Maybe add a pound or two to that.

I know it’s a big compensation but it will get you much closer to your intended OG. I’ve certainly experienced the effects from this on multiple occasions, so I can certify its accuracy. If you’re interested, you can do a partigyle and make a smaller beer (maybe a Dark English Mild) from the final runnings to boost your overall efficiency.

Thanks for the help @specharka . I appreciate it.
 
I believe that WY1272 has been genetically sequenced and found to be a lager strain vice an ale one.

Be careful with statements like that. Yes, White Labs are now calling WLP051 S. pastorianus, which implies they've looked at its DNA and it's a lager-type hybrid. But there seems to be some doubt whether 1272 is similar to 051, so you can't say with confidence that 1272 is a lager strain.

But personally, I'd want a much more characterful yeast for a stout, something British (if in doubt, use ingredients native to the beer style's own country). WLP540 is an obvious choice, despite being labelled Belgian it's a British yeast that's adapted to strong dark beers - allegedly it came to Rochefort via the Palm yeastbank.

Kristen England seems to use either Wyeast 1469, 1099 or Nottingham in his clones.

Im still new to stouts so learning the grain bills. I took a bunch of imperial stout recipes from HBT and compared them. Found the overlapping ingredients, found the unique ingredients, and built it from there. I guess i was just trying to add uniqueness to the grain bill and the flavors imparted from it.

While I understand the logic, you can end up playing Chinese whispers with people who just don't know much about the style -for instance Charlie Papazian used to view imperial stouts as barleywines and not stouts! For anything with British origins, you're better off poking around Ron Pattinson's blog (and buying his books) - and this is one of those styles that is effectively defined by a single beer, Courage (formerly Barclay Perkins, formerly Thrale) Russian Imperial Stout. That's not to say you have to be a slave to history, but understanding the history is often the best way to get into a beer.

The history of stout was that it was originally the stronger beer from a partigyle that mostly produced porter, hence "stout porter". Porter emerged around 1720, and for most of the 18th century was just made with diastatic brown malt. The taxes needed to pay for the Napoleonic wars made brewers pay more attention to the poor efficiency of brown malt, and they rapidly switched to grists that were more pale malt than brown. The invention of black malt allowed them to bump up the amount of pale malt, to something like 70-80% pale, 20-30% brown, 3% black. A few brewers replaced 10% of the pale malt with amber. After Britain's equivalent of the Reinheitsgebot was repealed in 1880, you see mebbe 10% darkish invert sugar. Then the pressures of the early 20th century see some or all of the pale malt being replaced by cheaper base malts - at first SA malt, then even cheaper mild malt. The fact that these beers were almost invariably partigyled means that the recipe was often driven by the "other" beers - for instance you get <3% oats appearing so that they could legally sell some of the second runnings as an oatmeal stout.

This is a useful summary of where stouts were on the eve of WWI, before everything went to pot - you'll see there's not one ingredient common to all of the ones listed. You can see many of the effects I have mentioned in the 1921 version of Barclay Perkins - a long way from its origins.

Further tweaks come from people trying to approximate historic ingredients. For instance UK pale malt in the 19th century was almost all made from the Chevallier variety, which rapidly disappeared when better-yielding varieties emerged before WWI but which has now been revived on a small scale so you can buy it (at a price). But a reasonable approximation can be had by mixing Maris Otter with a bit of crystal (like 30:1 or something). Same with old-school brown malt, 4:1 modern brown malt : aromatic or Special B.

But inherently these are pretty simple beers - I've drunk a 19th century recipe that was just 3:1 pale:brown with 3% black and it was delicious. People generally overcomplicate these things, but it's worth going back to the origins to see how good the simple recipes can be. Here's the 1914 Courage Imperial (not the Russian) which is just pale, brown and black and which Kristen England calls "the best Russian stout ever made".

I don’t think the EKG at the end of the boil is going to make much, if any difference in the aroma or flavor.

You can never have too much EKG in your life.

FWIW, this is the hopping used in the Barclay Perkins version of 1928, which had a 2.5 hour boil :

FWH - 81lb Tutshams (Goldings-ish)
120min - 40.5lb Mid Kent (so probably Fuggles)
60min - 40.5lb Mid Kent
30min - 87lb Goldings
5min - 87lb Goldings

They were hopping at around 7lb/bbl at this time, which would imply this 336lb of hops was for 48bbl. If my sums are right, that works out as 19g/l, or 12.75 oz/5 US gallons. This was a hoppy beer.
 
Be careful with statements like that. Yes, White Labs are now calling WLP051 S. pastorianus, which implies they've looked at its DNA and it's a lager-type hybrid. But there seems to be some doubt whether 1272 is similar to 051, so you can't say with confidence that 1272 is a lager strain.

But personally, I'd want a much more characterful yeast for a stout, something British (if in doubt, use ingredients native to the beer style's own country). WLP540 is an obvious choice, despite being labelled Belgian it's a British yeast that's adapted to strong dark beers - allegedly it came to Rochefort via the Palm yeastbank.

Kristen England seems to use either Wyeast 1469, 1099 or Nottingham in his clones.



While I understand the logic, you can end up playing Chinese whispers with people who just don't know much about the style -for instance Charlie Papazian used to view imperial stouts as barleywines and not stouts! For anything with British origins, you're better off poking around Ron Pattinson's blog (and buying his books) - and this is one of those styles that is effectively defined by a single beer, Courage (formerly Barclay Perkins, formerly Thrale) Russian Imperial Stout. That's not to say you have to be a slave to history, but understanding the history is often the best way to get into a beer.

The history of stout was that it was originally the stronger beer from a partigyle that mostly produced porter, hence "stout porter". Porter emerged around 1720, and for most of the 18th century was just made with diastatic brown malt. The taxes needed to pay for the Napoleonic wars made brewers pay more attention to the poor efficiency of brown malt, and they rapidly switched to grists that were more pale malt than brown. The invention of black malt allowed them to bump up the amount of pale malt, to something like 70-80% pale, 20-30% brown, 3% black. A few brewers replaced 10% of the pale malt with amber. After Britain's equivalent of the Reinheitsgebot was repealed in 1880, you see mebbe 10% darkish invert sugar. Then the pressures of the early 20th century see some or all of the pale malt being replaced by cheaper base malts - at first SA malt, then even cheaper mild malt. The fact that these beers were almost invariably partigyled means that the recipe was often driven by the "other" beers - for instance you get <3% oats appearing so that they could legally sell some of the second runnings as an oatmeal stout.

This is a useful summary of where stouts were on the eve of WWI, before everything went to pot - you'll see there's not one ingredient common to all of the ones listed. You can see many of the effects I have mentioned in the 1921 version of Barclay Perkins - a long way from its origins.

Further tweaks come from people trying to approximate historic ingredients. For instance UK pale malt in the 19th century was almost all made from the Chevallier variety, which rapidly disappeared when better-yielding varieties emerged before WWI but which has now been revived on a small scale so you can buy it (at a price). But a reasonable approximation can be had by mixing Maris Otter with a bit of crystal (like 30:1 or something). Same with old-school brown malt, 4:1 modern brown malt : aromatic or Special B.

But inherently these are pretty simple beers - I've drunk a 19th century recipe that was just 3:1 pale:brown with 3% black and it was delicious. People generally overcomplicate these things, but it's worth going back to the origins to see how good the simple recipes can be. Here's the 1914 Courage Imperial (not the Russian) which is just pale, brown and black and which Kristen England calls "the best Russian stout ever made".



You can never have too much EKG in your life.

FWIW, this is the hopping used in the Barclay Perkins version of 1928, which had a 2.5 hour boil :

FWH - 81lb Tutshams (Goldings-ish)
120min - 40.5lb Mid Kent (so probably Fuggles)
60min - 40.5lb Mid Kent
30min - 87lb Goldings
5min - 87lb Goldings

They were hopping at around 7lb/bbl at this time, which would imply this 336lb of hops was for 48bbl. If my sums are right, that works out as 19g/l, or 12.75 oz/5 US gallons. This was a hoppy beer.
That's one of the things that slightly confuses me. You mention you prefer a more characterful yeast and i get it. While I've never used one of those i can imagine it'd be good for the style. Why do you suspect that not many of the recipes here use them for this style? So many of them use us05. I didn't pick one of those simply because i don't have experience with those.
 
It's simply because people are not very adventurous with yeast, and don't understand what a big difference it makes. It's a good example of why crowd-sourcing a recipe doesn't always give the best results.

Oh, I meant to say - using cherry juice tends not to give the depth of flavour you're looking for, the good stuff is in the flesh. Also be aware that it's got a lot of sugar in it, which will get fermented by any active yeast.
 
Thanks for the link, I'm going to try it with 1469, but maybe substitute something for the Fuggles hops.
I just did an oatmeal stout with 1469, and I LOVE what it brought to the table. Pitched a nice starter, oxygenated, and fermented on the high end of the recommended range; got 70% AA. It wasn't imperial like the recipe you're looking at, but I used EKG FWIW.
 
Be careful with statements like that. Yes, White Labs are now calling WLP051 S. pastorianus, which implies they've looked at its DNA and it's a lager-type hybrid. But there seems to be some doubt whether 1272 is similar to 051, so you can't say with confidence that 1272 is a lager strain.

But personally, I'd want a much more characterful yeast for a stout, something British (if in doubt, use ingredients native to the beer style's own country). WLP540 is an obvious choice, despite being labelled Belgian it's a British yeast that's adapted to strong dark beers - allegedly it came to Rochefort via the Palm yeastbank.

Kristen England seems to use either Wyeast 1469, 1099 or Nottingham in his clones.



While I understand the logic, you can end up playing Chinese whispers with people who just don't know much about the style -for instance Charlie Papazian used to view imperial stouts as barleywines and not stouts! For anything with British origins, you're better off poking around Ron Pattinson's blog (and buying his books) - and this is one of those styles that is effectively defined by a single beer, Courage (formerly Barclay Perkins, formerly Thrale) Russian Imperial Stout. That's not to say you have to be a slave to history, but understanding the history is often the best way to get into a beer.

The history of stout was that it was originally the stronger beer from a partigyle that mostly produced porter, hence "stout porter". Porter emerged around 1720, and for most of the 18th century was just made with diastatic brown malt. The taxes needed to pay for the Napoleonic wars made brewers pay more attention to the poor efficiency of brown malt, and they rapidly switched to grists that were more pale malt than brown. The invention of black malt allowed them to bump up the amount of pale malt, to something like 70-80% pale, 20-30% brown, 3% black. A few brewers replaced 10% of the pale malt with amber. After Britain's equivalent of the Reinheitsgebot was repealed in 1880, you see mebbe 10% darkish invert sugar. Then the pressures of the early 20th century see some or all of the pale malt being replaced by cheaper base malts - at first SA malt, then even cheaper mild malt. The fact that these beers were almost invariably partigyled means that the recipe was often driven by the "other" beers - for instance you get <3% oats appearing so that they could legally sell some of the second runnings as an oatmeal stout.

This is a useful summary of where stouts were on the eve of WWI, before everything went to pot - you'll see there's not one ingredient common to all of the ones listed. You can see many of the effects I have mentioned in the 1921 version of Barclay Perkins - a long way from its origins.

Further tweaks come from people trying to approximate historic ingredients. For instance UK pale malt in the 19th century was almost all made from the Chevallier variety, which rapidly disappeared when better-yielding varieties emerged before WWI but which has now been revived on a small scale so you can buy it (at a price). But a reasonable approximation can be had by mixing Maris Otter with a bit of crystal (like 30:1 or something). Same with old-school brown malt, 4:1 modern brown malt : aromatic or Special B.

But inherently these are pretty simple beers - I've drunk a 19th century recipe that was just 3:1 pale:brown with 3% black and it was delicious. People generally overcomplicate these things, but it's worth going back to the origins to see how good the simple recipes can be. Here's the 1914 Courage Imperial (not the Russian) which is just pale, brown and black and which Kristen England calls "the best Russian stout ever made".



You can never have too much EKG in your life.

FWIW, this is the hopping used in the Barclay Perkins version of 1928, which had a 2.5 hour boil :

FWH - 81lb Tutshams (Goldings-ish)
120min - 40.5lb Mid Kent (so probably Fuggles)
60min - 40.5lb Mid Kent
30min - 87lb Goldings
5min - 87lb Goldings

They were hopping at around 7lb/bbl at this time, which would imply this 336lb of hops was for 48bbl. If my sums are right, that works out as 19g/l, or 12.75 oz/5 US gallons. This was a hoppy beer.

http://www.mrmalty.com/yeast.htm
https://www.saltcitybrewsupply.com/media/YeastComparison3.pdf

Who is suggesting that the strains are dissimilar? They are both isolated from the Anchor Liberty Ale strain so barring some aberrant mutation where it morphed taxonomy, WY1272 is the same species as lager yeast (S. pastorianus is a hybridization of S. cerevisiae and S. eubayanus). I’ve brewed with the Wyeast strain and at standard ale pitching rates it has a long lag phase and even longer fermentation, which is consistent with other lager strains.
 
Okay, I understand now. There is a way to estimate it based off of your typical brew day efficiency. @doug293cz came up with this chart and it’s incredibly helpful for determining projected loss in efficiency due to larger grainbill volumes.

View attachment 590839

It might be a little confusing, but the long and short of it is that your theoretical lauter efficiency decreases by approximately 17% going from 2.0 lb/gal to 4.0 lb/gal. So if you typically get 83% lauter efficiency with half the grainbill and the same water volume, you’ll see 66% lauter efficiency with the larger grainbill. These losses are for batch sparging, but I think the relationship should be relatively similar for fly sparging.

Once you figure out where your projected lauter efficiency is, you can work backwards to achieve the correct grainbill size for your desired OG. For instance, if I typically see 75% mash efficiency on a 10-lb grainbill with a 6.25 gal pre-boil volume. Assuming my conversion efficiency stays consistent (a relatively safe assumption), my projected mash efficiency for a 22.8-lb batch and 8.75 gal pre-boil should be roughly 65%. Ergo, I can use that to extrapolate the grainbill size for an estimated 8.75 gal of wort @ 1.070 SG.

Grain Weight = [(1.070-1)*1000 * 8.75 gal] / (36 ppg * 0.65)
Grain Weight = 26.1 lb

@specharka Just wanted to say thanks for sharing this. This helped me out a lot. Using this chart, I planned on a 64% efficiency. However, I will say that my efficiency ended up being a bit higher. I should have had 8.75 gallons of 1.070 wort pre boil, and ended up with 8.75 gallons of 1.079 wort. Not going to complain about better efficiency! I changed up my fly sparge technique so I think that may have helped efficiency?

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks.
 
@specharka Just wanted to say thanks for sharing this. This helped me out a lot. Using this chart, I planned on a 64% efficiency. However, I will say that my efficiency ended up being a bit higher. I should have had 8.75 gallons of 1.070 wort pre boil, and ended up with 8.75 gallons of 1.079 wort. Not going to complain about better efficiency! I changed up my fly sparge technique so I think that may have helped efficiency?

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks.

No problemo my dude, I think we have all been there before. And that’s great to hear — it definitely helped your lautering efficiency. It’s always a shot in the dark making bigger beers. Good luck with your fermentation schedule!
 
http://www.mrmalty.com/yeast.htm
https://www.saltcitybrewsupply.com/media/YeastComparison3.pdf

Who is suggesting that the strains are dissimilar? They are both isolated from the Anchor Liberty Ale strain so barring some aberrant mutation where it morphed taxonomy, WY1272 is the same species as lager yeast

Sorry, this got buried.

I wouldn't take those kind of yeast lists as any kind of gospel truth - certainly the British homebrew community treats them with a huge pinch of salt when it comes to British strains. OK, one called Southwold is probably derived from Adnams (the only brewer in what is no more than a large village) - but for instance, Boddington's is 200 miles from London and there's no such brewer as "Henley of Thames" (however Brakspear's base was in Henley-on-Thames).

The provenance of some of these strains is not as watertight as you might think - they often went through several homebrewer's hands before they ended up at the yeast companies, so there was plenty of scope for labels getting mixed up, contamination of tubes, and all sorts of other mishaps between original source and the yeast companies. And even if two strains were isolated from the same beer, they could be very different if the original beer used a multistrain or has contamination. In Anchor's case there's an obvious source of contamination by lager yeast in the form of Anchor Steam.

Fortunately, we're in the transition from the coulda-woulda-shoulda of homebrew lore to something a bit more reliable in the form of DNA analysis. p11 of the White Labs catalogue makes the claim that WLP051 is S.pastorianus - a lager yeast. p22 shows some of the results of White Labs genome sequencing, in particular note at 5 o'clock the sub-family of British ale yeasts that includes WLP002 and WLP007 among others.

Richard Priess has done some more basic DNA fingerprinting (ie far less detailed than genome sequencing) as part of his research on kveiks. In particular on p29 of this paper he sees the 1272 fingerprint falling between WLP002 and WLP007, which rather suggests that it is a British ale yeast. Now it's not as clear-cut as one might like, I wouldn't put my house on it, but I'd wager a good dinner on it.

And if 1272 is a British ale yeast, then it's not S. pastorianus, so it's not the same as WLP051 even if that's what the internet lists say.
 
Back
Top