Suggestions to simplify and improve?

[Sawwal]

I have brewed the following several times and like the output. It gives a darkish amber ale of about 4.5% alcohol and low bitterness (around 20 IBUs). I would like some suggestions on how to get the same (or very similar result) with a simplified grain bill. In sum, can I omit one or more of the grains and/or substitute a different grain for more than one of the 3 grains? My thinking is that the aromatics gives aromatics; the biscuit gives a bready flavor; and the crystal gives a little sweetness.

This time I'm thinking about adding a little cara-pils.

I'm also thinking about boosting the OG from about .044 to .060 by adding more of all the malts; I think I want to stay away from adding sugar, because I want to end up at about .010-.012 (I'll mash at 150F.) Whenever I add sugar to a recipe, BeerSmith seems to take me down below .010.

To get to .060 for a five gallon batch, I'm proposing using:
.5 lb. cara-pils
1.25 lbs. each of aromatic, biscuit, 10L crystal
8 lbs. Maris Otter

The percentages stay the same, but the amounts vary, when I've brewed to .040 - .046 before.

Also, I've tended to use pretty neutral yeasts. 1056 and the Fermentis equivalent, Nottingham, Coopers. I'd like to stay with dry yeasts in the future if possible. I like things to ferment quickly; settle out fast, and be high-temperature tolerant. I'm interested in hearing about other yeasts.

The hops are some left over Saaz and Kent Goldings. At 1.060, I'm shooting for 25 IBUs.

 

[kh54s10]

Since you have crystal in the recipe I don't think cara-pils would add much. I've never used aromatic or biscuit so I cannot comment on them or substitutions.

You say that you want things to ferment quickly, settle out fast and be high temperature tolerant. None of those are better with dry yeasts as opposed to liquid yeasts. US-05 which is the dry equivalent to 1056 for one is not really high temperature tolerant.

Each yeast is different and will achieve those things in differing amounts. One may be quick to start, take a long time to clear but be high temperature tolerant. Another will start slow, clear quickly but not like high temperatures. This applies to liquid yeasts as well as dry yeasts.

Nor are all dry yeasts quick or settle out fast. Some do these better than others.

One of the biggest advantages of liquid yeast is the much larger variety. Some yeasts do not lend well to the drying process, so if you want that character you have to use liquid yeast.

 

[rhys333]

I agree that you really don't need the carapils with the crystal already present. If you like what you have then I wouldn't change it, but if you are looking to simplify, perhaps if the flavors are competing (?), then I'd think about reducing the specialty malt percentages slightly and increasing the crystal lovibond (as C10 is low on character).

You're at about 10% each for the specialty malts, which is quite high for both aromatic and biscuit. Maybe reduce your aromatic to 5% and your biscuit to 8%. I should mention I don't use biscuit but I do use victory which I understand is similar. As for your crystal, I would stay at 10% but switch it for C40. This combo, or something similar, should retain the complexity you like without getting muddled.

In terms of yeast, US05 is just fine, but as kh54s10 points out, liquid yeast will give you more variety if you want it. It's easy to use, and contrary to popular opinion you don't need a starter as long as it's fresh and inflates fully (if using Wyeast).

 

[BigEd]

To get to .060 for a five gallon batch, I'm proposing using:
.5 lb. cara-pils
1.25 lbs. each of aromatic, biscuit, 10L crystal
8 lbs. Maris Otter

The MO pale malt really doesn't need much help in the form of specialty malts. You are more or less duplicating malt effects with those two pairs of specialty malts. Crystal 10L and Carapils are very close relatives as are the combo of Aromatic and Biscuit. I would ditch both of your crystal choices and use 5-8% of a darker crystal like UK 55L or CaraMunich II. If you must add something else maybe a small amount 2-3% of Biscuit. I second the opinions of rhys333 on the yeasts. A softer strain, emphasizing the malt, is a better choice than a drier neutral yeast being compensated with too much specialty malt.

 

[kh54s10]

I don't agree with the idea that you don't need a starter with liquid yeasts. Unless 1) you have a low gravity beer. For me that is under 1.040. Some say 1.060. 2) you pitch more than one pack.

A pack of Wyeast contains approximately 100 billion cells on the day it is packaged. Viability starts decreasing right away. Bad handling can increase the rate of decline.

A 5.25 gallon batch at 1.054 has an optimal pitch count of 198 billion cells. If you pitch just one pack you are underpitching by almost 1/2. It will ferment the beer. But I believe in giving my beer the best chance to go from good to great.

 

[rhys333]

The recommended pitching rates are wildly over-cautious, and in my opinion negatively impact many beers in the form of reduced yeast character. If it's a really big beer or a lager, then a starter is a good idea. A healthy pack should ferment 5 gallons at 1.060 and produce excellent beer. I do this as a matter of course now, and there's no noticeable difference from beers made with a starter. I do recommend giving it a try.

 

[kh54s10]

The recommended pitching rates are wildly over-cautious, and in my opinion negatively impact many beers in the form of reduced yeast character. If it's a really big beer or a lager, then a starter is a good idea. A healthy pack should ferment 5 gallons at 1.060 and produce excellent beer. I do this as a matter of course now, and there's no noticeable difference from beers made with a starter. I do recommend giving it a try.

Since the vast majority recommend pitching at the "wildly over-cautious" rates, and I don't wish to experiment, I will keep making my starters. Yes it will work if you underpitch and you may not notice a difference, but I prefer to give my beers every opportunity to go from good to great.

 

[Dland]

I dry pitch Fermentis yeasts all the time and have good effect and fast start, more reliable to me than a liquid that has to be shipped cool. 1 PK 05 or 04 should be in that size batch ale.

 

[rhys333]

Since the vast majority recommend pitching at the "wildly over-cautious" rates, and I don't wish to experiment, I will keep making my starters. Yes it will work if you underpitch and you may not notice a difference, but I prefer to give my beers every opportunity to go from good to great.

In my experience, it's a HB myth that not making a starter is underpitching, but I know many choose to do so for extra assurance (or if the packs were shipped in less than ideal conditions). I make them myself if the packs are really old or fail to fully inflate. I also know that starters offer no benefit if I'm making an average strength ale under normal conditions. Just passing along my experience, and people can use as they wish.


Here are the Wyeast recommendations, which work really well for me:
https://wyeastlab.com/smack-pack-activator-system

 

[kh54s10]

In my experience, it's a HB myth that not making a starter is underpitching, but I know many choose to do so for extra assurance (or if the packs were shipped in less than ideal conditions). I make them myself if the packs are really old or fail to fully inflate. I also know that starters offer no benefit if I'm making an average strength ale under normal conditions. Just passing along my experience, and people can use as they wish.


Here are the Wyeast recommendations, which work really well for me:
https://wyeastlab.com/smack-pack-activator-system

Ok, but that is one of the good things about this hobby, there are many ways to achieve similar results. My experience is opposite yours. My beers seem to have been better when pitching the "wildly over-cautious " rates. I also pay attention to fermentation temperatures, give my fermentation time to clean up. etc. Though the last, was 3 weeks when I started. At that time most were suggesting that you needed to ferment for at least 4 weeks. I now go 2 weeks unless I get lazy about packaging.

So no starter seems to work for you. It doesn't meet my standards. And as I said I am unwilling to experiment to see if no starter would be OK. I want more assurance that my beer will be the best it could be, so making the starter is important to me.

 

[dmtaylor]

Carapils is worthless. Ditch that to simplify. The remainder of the recipe is alright, though too much biscuit and aromatic for my own tastes.

 

[kh54s10]

I dry pitch Fermentis yeasts all the time and have good effect and fast start, more reliable to me than a liquid that has to be shipped cool. 1 PK 05 or 04 should be in that size batch ale.

I have dry pitched Fermentis yeasts and have had good success. But when I rehydrate dry yeast or make a starter with liquid yeast, fermentation usually starts in 4-6 hours. I have never done a no starter with liquid yeast but sprinkling dry yeast always takes at least over night and as much as 24 hours. I don't recall any that took longer than that.

 

[Dland]

Sometimes it takes as much as 12 hours for the dry yeast to get started for me, but never longer, and often going in 6-8. I do pitch 2 packs (for 10 gallons) if it is lager yeast (34/70) and starting gravity is over 1.060 or the cellar temp is below 55F, but that may just be me being cautious.

I look at starters as another possible source of contamination and an extra step. Also, since I brew outside and away from kitchen, a somewhat inconvenient step. Harder to do on a Cajun Cooker.

I agree carapils does not do much but add some harder to ferment sugars and darken the brew some.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

So no starter seems to work for you. It doesn't meet my standards. And as I said I am unwilling to experiment to see if no starter would be OK.

Err - how do you know if it meets your standards or not, if you've never tried it? It's an easy enough experiment to do on a split batch.

 

[kh54s10]

Err - how do you know if it meets your standards or not, if you've never tried it? It's an easy enough experiment to do on a split batch.

As I have said, I want to give my beer the best chance to be great instead of good. I don't want to sacrifice even on half a batch. I find very few that recommend that not making a starter is good. And most say that it is a bad idea unless the gravity is way low.

Hence - calculators. If starters were unnecessary there wouldn't be starter calculators.

 

[Dland]

Hence - calculators. If starters were unnecessary there wouldn't be starter calculators.

Not sure of the logic on that one...there are a lot of calculations you could add to any procedure....some are irrelevant and some are not. That depends on your procedure. I do not a starter, and I make pretty good beer.