Too bad you're not near Chicago. I'd come over and lend you some DME and my stirplate.
Scotch Ale Brewing Question
- Thread starter premington
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Can Lyle's Black Treacle be used as a substitute for caramelizing a portion of the wort?
OP
OP
premington
Well-Known Member
Let's see... If I get a redeye flight out, I can be in Chicago in the morning, grab what I need, then fly back...
Just kidding!
That's very kind of you. Us brewers are brothers from another mother. This was my fault for not understanding the importance of a good yeast yield in context to my 5 gallon batch. I thought one yeast packet was enough. It probably is, with building the yeast with a proper starter.
The website for my brew store shows a very large collection of yeast, both dry and liquid. I'm hoping they have 1728, although if they don't, can I pair the 1728 I have now with another varietal? Or perhaps ditch what I have and substitute it with another that they carry. If I do that, what's a good substitute?
-Paul
1084 would work similar. 1084 is Wyeast's Irish Ale strain. You could mix 'em and that would be a cool experiment
1084 needs to be fermented a little warmer, 62-72 and has an attenuation of 71-75% where 1728 has a range of 55-75* and an attenuation of 69-73%.
All that means is that the irish will ferment better warmer and will leave less sugars behind which will dry out the beer a little more and increase the alcohol content.
1084 needs to be fermented a little warmer, 62-72 and has an attenuation of 71-75% where 1728 has a range of 55-75* and an attenuation of 69-73%.
All that means is that the irish will ferment better warmer and will leave less sugars behind which will dry out the beer a little more and increase the alcohol content.
Last edited:
No, treacle is basically molasses which has a completely different flavor profile than caramelized sugar/wort.
LLBeanJ
Well-Known Member
WLP028 Edinburgh Ale is the White Labs equivalent to Wyeast 1728. No problem blending them. If they don't have that, blend your 1728 with WY1056 or WLP001.
OP
OP
premington
Well-Known Member
1084 would work similar. 1084 is Wyeast's Irish Ale strain. You could mix 'em and that would be a cool experiment
1084 needs to be fermented a little warmer, 62-72 and has an attenuation of 62-72% where 1728 has a range of 55-75* and an attenuation of 69-73%.
All that means is that the irish will ferment better warmer and will leave some more sugars behind and increase the sweetness a bit.
I see... So if they don't have 1728, I do have this to fall back on. If I used both varietals--and it's nice to hear they'll both play well together in the sandbox--then perhaps the way to go is choose a middle temperature to ferment.
I know 1728 has a preferred range that's lower than 1084, although its range is much wider, 55f-75f. If 1084's range is 62f-72f, then I could settle for a ferment temp of around 65f. That's not the lower-end of 1728s range, but I'm hoping it's low enough to still promote good flavors. 65f is three degrees higher than 1082's low range of 62f. Again... I hope it's still within range to provide a decent flavor profile for this beer.
It's kind of frustrating that one yeast blossoms at a low temp while the other excels at a higher temp. This would be an exercise in compromise.
Ahhh... I love hobbies.
If I need to mix these, as you said, it'll be interesting to see what I get. I have no basis of comparison, since I haven't dabbled in the beer world long enough to know the difference between these yeast varietals.
If it comes out well, perhaps I can send a bottle to one of you who have a pallet to discern the difference between these yeasts.
-Paul
OP
OP
premington
Well-Known Member
Oh boy... So many options!
I'll jot each of these down and look at their respective profiles. At least I know I have a number of options. Hopefully they'll have 1728 and this won't be an issue.
Thank you for this post.
-Paul
Sorry, I mixed up the numbers.. Go figure. I hate using a phone for forums.
It's actually the other way around. Scottish will leave more residual sugars.
View attachment 1489718861132.jpg
View attachment 1489718910264.jpg
It's actually the other way around. Scottish will leave more residual sugars.
View attachment 1489718861132.jpg
View attachment 1489718910264.jpg
1056 and WLP001 are standard clean ale yeasts. Same as US-05.
Unfortunately that stuff about fermenting at 50º F is total bollocks. The lowest pitching temperature I've seen was 54º F, but that quickly rose to well over 60º F. Most of the fermentation for Scottish beers took place between 65º F and 70º F.
It's best to ignore pretty much everything ever written about Scottish beer. Almost none of it is true: long slow fermentations, mininal hopping, roast barley for colour - all complete crap.
No, it wasn't Scottish brewers used very simple mashing schemes: an infusion mash and one or two sparges.
That article is pretty awful, I'm afraid. I wouldn't trust anything in it.
This is a real strong Scotch Ale recipe, based on William Younger's brewing records:
1933 William Younger No. 1
pale malt 11.25 lb 58.44%
grits 7.25 lb 37.66%
lactose 0.75 lb 3.90%
Cluster 90 min 1.75 oz
Fuggles 30 min 1.75 oz
Goldings dry hops 0.25 oz
OG 1085
FG 1033
ABV 6.88
Apparent attenuation 61.18%
IBU 50
SRM 25
Mash at 156º F
Sparge at 160º F
Boil time 150 minutes
pitching temp 57º F
Yeast WLP028 Edinburgh Ale
The colour mostly comes from the addition of caramel. As brewed it's just 5 SRM.
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Does this mean from wort caramelization?
No, from caramel. Scottish brewers didn't caramelise their wort. In fact, in some periods they had very short boils.
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
I don't see caramel in your recipe above. What is the specific source of the caramel if not wort caramelization?
To the OP: While not "optimal" I've brewed a lot of batches with a single smack pack and no starter. If it were me I'd go with that and not mix yeasts. It's difficult to reproduce the character of a beer using two yeasts up front. The relative energy level of each is unpredictable from a smack pack. If you had two strong starters and wanted to experiment, that would be more controllable. That single smack pack will do just fine in a well-aerated/oxygenated wort. Keep it simple (and reproducible).
As far as caramelization goes: The Scotts may not do it, but a Scotch Ale is heavy on malt character and to reproduce this with extract, this may not be a bad way to go. It will definitely help impart a maltier flavor profile.
You can get yourself all wrapped up in right, wrong, and experimentation. Pick a line and drive it. Taste it when you are done and see what you like about it and what you do not. Optionally, enter it into a local competition to get some more feedback from (hopefully) experienced judges. Lather, rinse, tweak, repeat.
Good luck and welcome to the club!
As far as caramelization goes: The Scotts may not do it, but a Scotch Ale is heavy on malt character and to reproduce this with extract, this may not be a bad way to go. It will definitely help impart a maltier flavor profile.
You can get yourself all wrapped up in right, wrong, and experimentation. Pick a line and drive it. Taste it when you are done and see what you like about it and what you do not. Optionally, enter it into a local competition to get some more feedback from (hopefully) experienced judges. Lather, rinse, tweak, repeat.
Good luck and welcome to the club!
Brewer's caramel. It isn't mentioned in the recipe because the amount needed varies depending on the colour of the caramel. As I said earlier, Scottish brewers didn't caramelise their wort.
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Is brewers caramel available to the home-brewer? What would be an example of it?
Thank you for this. If you don't mind, I'd like a couple citations/sources from where you get your information so that I can improve my brewing process for a style of beer that I love and is familial (I'm Scottish).
My information comes mostly from the brewing records held at the Scottish Brewing Archive in Glasgow. They've an amazing collection of them. As most Scottish brewers noted down full fermentation records, it's easy to see what temperature they fermented at.
This is a page from William Younger's 1847 brewing book. You can see that the beers were pitched at 56-58º F, rising to 71-72º F at the end of primary.
Last edited:
I see you're based in Chicago. I should be giving a talk about Scottish beer somewhere in the suburbs Monday 1st May.
Too bad I'm working 9-7 that day. I'd love to be there.
I've seen similar pagees in Noonan's book. Which is why I pitched my Wee Heavy around 50-54 and let it rise, but caught it before it went completely outta control. Thanks!
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Thank you! I'll need to look around and see if I can find this in the US. Would caramel malt be a viable alternative?
Not really. You'd have to use quite a lot of it and it would change the flavour.
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
I'm shooting blanks with my web search effort. Would any of these fall into the same ballpark?
http://www.candisyrup.com/
The darkest one might get you some where close, but you'll need to use a lot more than you would with caramel.
In Noonan's Scotch Ale it is mentioned that pitching temps seemed to be around 50 in the early 1800s. But even then it goes on to say pitching temps had risen by the mid 1800s to 55. And fermentations would climb to 62-65. 62 for anything higher than OG 1.090 Which he gathered from the Scottish Brewing Archives.
It is kind of baffling some of the misinformation when the information has been out there.
OP
OP
premington
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this post, Lee.
I think I'll take your advice and stick with the 1728 I have now. I'll head to the brewing store in a little bit and see if they have more. If they don't, then I'll but what I need to get a starter going and spin what I can between now and late tomorrow afternoon. It'll only have about 20 hours, but I assume what I'll get will be more than what I'd yield from a conventional smack pack. I'll pitch it and we'll see what happens.
If they have more 1728, is there harm in pitching three smack packs, or should I just do two (two more would give me three total for a 5 gallon batch)? Any opinions? I'm not sure if there's any disadvantage to over yeasting a wort.
-Paul
Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
I can get Lyle's Black Treacle. A few days back in this thread someone nixed it for the style, Do you have an opinion of it for this use?
Pitching more won't cause issues on a typical homebrew batch. Just don't pitch like 8 packs lol
Er, not really the same as caramel, but it is a dark invert sugar.
kev211
Well-Known Member
pitching more won't cause issues on a typical homebrew batch. Just don't pitch like 8 packs lol
all the yeasties!!!! :d
OP
OP
premington
Well-Known Member
Pitching more won't cause issues on a typical homebrew batch. Just don't pitch like 8 packs lol
Excellent... Then I hope I'll be okay.
Just came from the brew store. The lady there said she matched up my Wyeast 1728 with what they sell, which is White Labs WLP028. She *said* it's the same yeast made by a different manufacturer. It's labeled "Edinburgh Scottish Ale Yeast". I hope what I bought is correct.
So I have one pack of 1728 and two packs of WLP028. She said the WLP028 isn't a smack pack. "Just let it get to room temp, then pitch it as is. You'll see the pack start to bulge when it sits at room temp."
Does this sound correct to all of you? Is it okay to use both of these together?
-Paul
kev211
Well-Known Member
Shes correct about it not being a smack pack. The new packs have a semi-permiable membrane that allows Co2 out, but not in. So I let mine come up to room temp, shake the bejeezus out of them, cut and pitch.
I dont know about pitching them together. I doubt theyre the same yeast. But Im sure someone else can chime in and set you straight on that
It may not be the EXACT same strain, but it's like saying that 1056, WLP001, and US-05 aren't the same. It's close enough. Prolly collected from the same breweries.
The non-smack pack is fine. I use Omega yeast and it's not a smack either.
The non-smack pack is fine. I use Omega yeast and it's not a smack either.
So you don't have to smack the new packs? I've only bought 1 smack pack and when I hit it, the bottom of the pack blew open and sprayed yeast on my leg. I haven't bought Wyeast since.
kev211
Well-Known Member
No, Im talking about the white labs packs. I dont use Wyeast. Just a preference/brand loyalty thing. Ive used WL since day one and love their product (and it doesnt hurt that they are 15 miles away from me). Wyeast you do have to smack as far as I know. But from what Ive read, its less of a smack and more of a squeeze.
Wyeast still sells smack packs, but white labs and omega don't.
I don't smack it (Wyeast), only find the nutrient pack inside and squeeze it against the counter until it pops inside.
I don't smack it (Wyeast), only find the nutrient pack inside and squeeze it against the counter until it pops inside.
Similar threads
