OFFICIAL Kate the Great Russian Imperial Stout Clone

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.
I was in the 1.020 range, which is in line with 1056's attenuation (based on a 1.090 S.G.). I did a temp chamber ferment on this one so I was dead on at 68F for the duration of this ferment.

1Mainebrew - did you use 1056? Or did you miss your O.G.?
 
lewybrewing said:
Using WLP001 I went from 1.100 to 1.018 after 3 weeks. Down around 1.010 now after 5 months.

Chris
Click to expand...
WLP001 is the same as wyeast 1056

That would be 90% attenuation when the yeast says it does about 73-80%. Are you sure your gravity readings are correct?

I have gotten better than reported attenuation on big beers in the past as well, like on my quads, but usually 2-5 percent more at most and never 10% better.
 
CidahMastah said:
So you left out the bourbon when you tossed in the cubes?

My question is, why soak for 3 weeks and then not toss in the soaking liquid. Basically you are oaking the bourbon / port liquid then tossing the liquid.

Also curious why people are soaking for 3 weeks. The wood is fully saturated within 24hours. You are only losing your oaking ability at that point.
Click to expand...

I added some of my oaking solution as well, but my understanding and experience with oak is that you get less harshness if you disk it for a longer duration. The surface of the oak is where the heaviest toasty portion is, whereas the true oak characteristics come out from the center after longer soaking.
 
smagee said:
I added some of my oaking solution as well, but my understanding and experience with oak is that you get less harshness if you disk it for a longer duration. The surface of the oak is where the heaviest toasty portion is, whereas the true oak characteristics come out from the center after longer soaking.
Click to expand...

I agree that the longer the soak the more flavor you would get (whether in the port, or the brew directly), just not sure why adding say 5oz or port, then throwing the oak in for 3 weeks woudn't produce a similar or faster result. Since there is more liquid in the keg I would assume the oak flavor would diffuse quicker.

My point is, (a) soaking the oak in port 3 weeks before, (b) 24 hours before or (c) not at all should yield the same flavor as (d) adding port into the keg and tossing the oak directly. i.e. presoaking the oak really doesn't serve any function other than possibly killing some bacteria or similar that may be present on the oak.

The surface of the oak is where you get the flavor profile you picked the oak for (light, medium, heavy, etc. toast). So if you don't want th oak as harsh you simply pick up a lighter toast level.
 
The only difference I can think of would be in the situation presented earlier, where you soak for 24 hours, discard the liquid, and then add the oak to the beer. This would extract some of the more unfavorable or overpowering roast oak flavors, letting you get just the more subtle aspects. But otherwise, I agree; the methods should be the same.
 
smagee said:
The only difference I can think of would be in the situation presented earlier, where you soak for 24 hours, discard the liquid, and then add the oak to the beer. This would extract some of the more unfavorable or overpowering roast oak flavors, letting you get just the more subtle aspects. But otherwise, I agree; the methods should be the same.
Click to expand...

I could see how if you had say a heavy toast and wanted it to have less impact, presoaking it might tone down the flavor of the oak. I still believe that simply soaking it in the brew for 1 week versus 4 (or whatever timeframe) would have the same affect. But I don't think it would alter the taste of the oak the way you are describing (unless I am misunderstanding you).

The point i am trying to make is, you will never get light toast taste from a heavy toast. Just a lesser taste of a heavy toast. Think about malt. Do you think you could ever get black patent to taste like C40? No matter how much you soaked it to remove harshness that dark malt would never taste like the crystal malt. If you want less harsh oak taste you need to address it through the toast level.

All this said I have never done a double blind laboratory study. Just based on my anecdotal experiences with oaking :D For the record I have always been a pitch it in without soaking guy with my wines. But thought I would go with the flow on this one.
 
Well, I think I'm misrepresenting my point slightly (sorry, I was on the tapatalk client, which lends itself well to brevity). My understanding--and as with you, I haven't really tested this much--is that you want to pre-soak to reduce the harsh aspects of the oak itself, particularly due to the toasting. This is not to say that you're trying to "reduce" the toast level that you extract; it's simply that the oak contains a much greater concentration of its tannin content towards the surface, and this can easily be overwhelming. This is the same reason that people recommend the use of cubes instead of chips--while chips extract faster (due to more surface area), this isn't necessarily desirable, as the cubes produce a more rounded "oakiness".

One thing to keep in mind even outside my own debatable understanding of the extraction process is that higher alcohol content solutions will extract flavors more efficiently. Consequently, soaking the oak in a bourbon or port solution might draw out the oak flavors faster. That said, I'd guess this is counterbalanced by the fact that it's in a relatively small amount, so it might still be the same extraction level when popped into 5 gallons of beer as opposed to 5 ounces of bourbon, say.

I've only worked with oak on a couple beers, so I'll certainly defer to experience in this case--I was just pointing out a couple possible reasons for it. But then again, we should probably note that the original recipe didn't call for oak at all, so perhaps we're debating our own modifications :mug:.
 
Ha - the funny part is I am sure that many of this have never tried this brew from the brewery (myself included). But I have a friend who just recently grabbed a 2010 bottle in a beer store near the brewery and he finally cracked it for thanksgiving.

Here were his comments:

"Yeah I ended up drinking it the day after thanksgiving with the family. I couldn't wait any longer. It was really good as expected, though a bit different than the other bottles I've had. One thing that really stood out was the port character in the beer, it had a really complex fruitiness that you'd never get from malts/fermentation. The chocolate roast character was very nice, but with no burnt or ashy flavors. Another thing was how smooth the beer was, it went down so easy and there was no alcohol taste. Smoothest 12% beer I've had. Also, carbonation wasn't that much, a two finger creamy head with a few bubbles.

I don't know if I would want this served on a nitro tap. As this beer is really a sip and savor type of affair, I'd probably just keep it on regular co2 and keep the carbonation to 2.0 vol or so and serve in small snifters or glasses. I am really starting to consider making up a batch of this beer now, it really is as good as people say it is. "

I think it is clear that there is a port wine influence in it.

Before I knew it had a port wine flavor to it I was considering putting this on nitro. When he told me about the fruit flavor I was like... wtf? haha. I hadn't read into the thread far enough to see that people were oaking it with port. From my friend's comments now I know why people were doing that.
 
Interesting. I wonder if the beer has always had the port characteristic; has anyone here tried it from year to year and assessed the differences? I've never had it myself, nor do I really expect to, given my location. Hence, I didn't even bother with the "clone" aspect, favoring vanilla bourbon instead of port on a whim.

The consensus seems to be that nitro would actually harm the beer, which is fascinating, most especially because I agree. I love nitro beers, but I just cracked one of the young bottles of my brew last night and found that it was smooth enough that I just don't see nitro working as well as standard carbonation. I'll probably carb it up somewhere around 2.2 when I put it on tap just because mine finished a bit high (1.030) and really needs something to cut through the heavy sweetness. Next time, I'm optimistic that it'll ferment better, but it's still a tasty brew.
 
I'll be brewing this right after Christmas. Glad you guys are continuing to contribute so I can plot and scheme.
 
CidahMastah said:
Also curious why people are soaking for 3 weeks. The wood is fully saturated within 24hours. You are only losing your oaking ability at that point.

I bet if you didn't soak for three weeks your oaking would have happened a lot sooner. When I have used the spirals in the past on wine I often pull them around 3-5 weeks max.
Click to expand...

Depends on if you are trying to impart oak flavor on the port, or port flavor onto the oak.
I doubt the wood is fully saturated after 24 hours. even if it were liquid saturated, it isn't flavor saturated!
 
gingerdawg said:
Depends on if you are trying to impart oak flavor on the port, or port flavor onto the oak.
I doubt the wood is fully saturated after 24 hours. even if it were liquid saturated, it isn't flavor saturated!
Click to expand...

But I think the point is that is doesn't matter - either way the beer will get both port and oak in it :D
 
I disagree, the soaking allows flavors to blend.
It's kinda like saying if I throw the steak and the marinade on the grill, it will taste the same as if I marinade the steak all day before cooking.
 
gingerdawg said:
I disagree, the soaking allows flavors to blend.
It's kinda like saying if I throw the steak and the marinade on the grill, it will taste the same as if I marinade the steak all day before cooking.
Click to expand...

The blending would be no different from the blending that occurs in the keg. As I said before - if you need your oak to mellow, you need to alter the toast level.

I think that analogy doesn't work for me at all. With a steak you are trying to get it to retain water and flavoring, the water via NA active transport, which allows for the muscle tissue to retain more water than woudl typically be normal due to osmotic pressure of the fluid across the cell barrier. This makes the steak juicier (this is why brining works so well). This isn't even close to what is going on when you soak oak with port wine. Secondly with meat you are actually eating the meat as well, you are trying to get flavor into the meat - not the case with the oak - it is discarded. With the oak you are trying to get the flavor out of the oak.

Not to mention the obvious fact that the marinade would fall through the grill and wouldn't contact the meat for the same duration as the marinated meat. In the brewing scenario, the oak would get the same time to impact *a* liquid, then go into the beer, It is a closed system.


Agree to disagree if you like. I have read some folks on HBT going both ways with their method of oaking and both sides report positive results. I just personally don't believe there can reasonably be any difference between the two methods.


love me some hbt banter :D
 
O.K. the marinade anagoly is bad. but I don't think that adding port soaked oak is the same as adding oak and port seperately. The port and oak age and blend differently than if they were added independently.
 
Haha - sorry I am laughing that I recalled all that NA active transport from my physiology 300 class back in college. :D ridiculous
 
I'm wondering about this too. Getting 83 with rager and 46 with Tinseth using original amounts. Targeted just IBUs for adjustents using Rager and came up with 70 but significantly dropped using Tinseth. Called the brewery and the guy I spoke too said he wasnt sure but he was just a brewer's assistant.


kshuler said:
Anyone who has tried theirs, how's the bitterness? It looks like by tinseth the bitterness should be around 65 IBUs, but if this recipe is converted to rager, the IBUs are over 100! How are you finding the balance as brewed?

I have never had Kate the Great and probably never will as I am on the West coast and don't get over to the other coast very often. How does the bitterness compare to the real deal, if anyone has had a chance to compare?
Click to expand...
 
So how many packets of yeast are you guys pitching for this? I am doing a 2.5 gallon batch and Mr. Malty said only one package which seems kind of low for such a big beer....
 
I made a 3L starter for a 4 gallon batch both times I've brewed it. I'm sure you can trust mr. Malty though
 
has anyone tried aging this on a couple vanilla beans? would this add or destroy this type of beer? I was thinking of adding some bourbon too, but that might be a bit much.
 
I racked mine onto vanilla bourbon-soaked oak cubes and added some of the vanilla bourbon to boot. Early on, the vanilla was overpowering, but as it mellows, it's very nice. Both work well, but be careful that you don't overdo it on the vanilla.
 
I was thinking of brewing this in the next month so it's ready for the wifey's bday at the end of October.
Id be looking at a partial mash and want to split into 2 primarys to avoid blow off. My main question in this has to do with pitching the yeast.
I'd be using 2 packets of dry yeast and splitting it 2.5 gallons in each fermenter for a total of 5 gallons.
My plan was to rack the whole thing into my bucket primary and bring up to 5 gallons and pitch both packets and then siphon half to a carboy after a few minutes when it's had a chance to settle down.
Is that the best way or should I split before pitching and use 1 packet in each fermenter? The only issue I see with that is being able to mix the yeast into the wort in the carboy as I don't really have any utensil I could use to stir it in.
 
Split then pitch. Especially if you're using dry yeast. Why do you feel you need to have an instrument to stir the yeast in? Yeast does a pretty good job at stirring itself..
 
bottlebomber said:
Split then pitch. Especially if you're using dry yeast. Why do you feel you need to have an instrument to stir the yeast in? Yeast does a pretty good job at stirring itself..
Click to expand...

Because when I just pitched Safale US-05 (first brew) it said to sprinkle and stir.
I didn't rehydrate though as that was not in the kit instructions.
Guess if I rehydrate (which I plan to do from now on), that would eliminate the need to stir, huh?
 
There's never any need to stir as far as I'm aware; rehydrated or no, just dump the yeast in and let it do its thing. It knows how to what it does best :mug:.
 
smagee said:
It knows how to what it does best :mug:.
Click to expand...

I agree :D

Rehydrating it basically lets it wake up and get ready to kick some tail as soon as you pitch it. Either way it will work though.

When I use dry yeast (infrequent) I rehydrate because that is what I used to do when i did bread and pastry stuff to pay my way through college. I was taught to always let the yeast proof to show viability before using. Old habits die hard.
 
You should always rehydrate yeast in water. John Palmer: "Often the concentration of sugars in wort is high enough that the yeast can not draw enough water across the cell membranes to restart their metabolism." I'm not going to look up a cite for how osmosis works, but the tl/dr is this: rehydrating properly (with warm water) will give you much more viable yeast than sprinkling the yeast directly on the wort. This would be especially important if you are dealing with a high-gravity wort (like RIS).
 
Bottled this today and I'm P.Oed. I'm P.Oed that I didn't brew a bigger batch!!! I brewed a 2.5 gallon batch on 11/10/11, primary for 1 month and 10 days, secondary for a month on port soaked oak and bottled today. It's green and flat and wonderful. I can't wait for the 5-6 month aging to finish. I drank the hydro samples, and the 1/2 bottle at the end of bottling and I'm stoked:fro:!
 
I brewed this last April and it is finally in the bottle and carbed. One thing I did which I would change, is I soaked my oak spirals in port wine like the recipe calls for, but I put in half of the port that I had the oak soaking in, which amounted to probably 1/3 or more of a bottle. The port is definitely the dominate flavor. I added some vanilla beans to maybe distract from some of that port flavor, and it made a difference. This was my first time experimenting with oak so next time I will do it differently. Just toss in the oak and then if its not oaky enough, keep adding some port until I have the right flavor. Not just pour it all in.
 
Yesterday I tried my KTG on tap for the 1st time. Flat out the best RIS I've ever had. I wish I could send little vodka size bottles to everyone in this post.

Here is a quick breakdown:

Changed the recipe a little I have it posted here.

Brewed last last May.
Oak Cubes soaked for 4 weeks
Added to the beer, soaked for 6 months.
bottled 1/2 and keged 1/2.

Thanks again for the great original recipe to get me started on this adventure.
 
Made this on 1/8/12 just transferred to my secondary last night and oaked it. After taking a gravity drank some and while still green tasted awesome . I also partigyled a 1.040 stout that I cleaned out my hop drawer into. I didn't take a taste of the small beer but will be kegging it next week.24lbs of grain and 7.5 gallons of water put my 10 gallon mash tun to the rim.my first big beer, I want to bottle some and keg the rest.
 
Brewed the PM BIAB stovetop version in the OP last night with some 2-row thrown in as well.

OG came in at 1.102 so I'm betting my efficiency was crap.
This will most likely be my last extract/PM batch since I already bought and converted two HD coolers into an MLT and HLT and I'll be purchasing a new 10g kettle when Uncle Sam reimburses me my tax free loan I gave him for the year.
 
I copied this from the Beeradvocate forum. Someone emailed Tod and got the oak and port regime from him.

All of Kate is lightly oaked. We make our own Portwood simply by infusing oak spirals ( The Barrel Mill, Avon, MN- 800.201.7125) with local Port. Of course if I told you the amounts and proportions I have to kill you!! Actually, we take 6 spirals and break them up, place them into a 10 gal. corny keg and pour 3 bottles of Tawney Port over the spirals. We add about 10 PSI to the keg and let the concoction sit for 18-25 days. Then we fill the remainder of the 10 gal. keg with Kate. Let it sit at ambient temp for 45-60 days then inject the 10 gals back into the 440 gals of KtG. Once the keg is empty we then back fill the 10 gals and let the Kate sit on the oak for another 6 months. This become the double oaked Kate. Very rare, only about 56 bottles produced. Hope this helps. Kate can age for 6 years once in bottles, if truth be known!! Cheers! Tod Mott
 

Similar threads

Gadjobrinus
Russian Imperial Stout -
Replies
7
Views
771
duncan_disorderly
D
Zippy123
Feedback on recipe to split mash for two different beers
Replies
2
Views
448
Zippy123
Zippy123
G
Kolsch recipe - need help
Replies
31
Views
2K
superiorsat
S
yard_bird
New Challenge for Brewing: Stouts
Replies
13
Views
678
DuncB
D
F
Advice on developing clone of Mast Landing "Windbreaker" NEIPA?
Replies
4
Views
679
poptarts
poptarts

Latest posts

Back
Top