Treehouse Brewing Julius Clone

SSBrew - 728
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.
Gustatorian said:
Interesting how yeast can change the beer's color so drastically. It's like due to a number of things (flocculation differences, malt/hop interaction). I recently brewed my house pale with 095 (burlington) instead of 1318 –
totally different beer.

On another note, can we try to have people post grist percentages instead of actual weight of different malts? I think it will allow us to hone in on the actual grist bill and make it easily applicable for the variation between everyone's systems.
Click to expand...

I like to test different yeasts. It's a split batch, so no variables other than yeast. And I'm not great at math so someone else will have to figure out percentages
 
Gustatorian said:
Interesting how yeast can change the beer's color so drastically. It's like due to a number of things (flocculation differences, malt/hop interaction). I recently brewed my house pale with 095 (burlington) instead of 1318 –
totally different beer.

On another note, can we try to have people post grist percentages instead of actual weight of different malts? I think it will allow us to hone in on the actual grist bill and make it easily applicable for the variation between everyone's systems.
Click to expand...

How was 095 compared to 1318? I was thinking about switching it up on my next batch with 095.
 
hajenad said:
How was 095 compared to 1318? I was thinking about switching it up on my next batch with 095.
Click to expand...

I've only used 095 for my last 2 batches, so my opinion is somewhat anecdotal. But, compared to 1318, its fermentation behavior is drastically different. It moves QUICKLY but covertly. You would never assume the rapidity of fermentation based on the tempered activity coming from the blow-off. Oddly enough, 095 then drags out the final 3-5 gravity points over 9-10 days, even with an increase in temp. Both times I had high krausen at about 18 hours (which is when I usually like to do my first charge of dry-hops, with 1318 that's usually around day 3) after I pitched the yeast. The last dry-hop charge has been tricky too. I would space it out closer to day 9-10 rather than day 7. Both batches of 095 I've hit the 2nd dry-hop at day 7 and it seems like the CO2 created is sufficient enough to scrub more of the hop aroma out of the beer. Still had nice results, but the potency in the aroma was significantly dropped as compared to 1318.

When comparing the yeast starters (I always taste what I decant off the starter), I prefer 095. They both have a nice stone fruit character, but 095 is a tad bit softer. 1318 always has that post-ripe peach ester thing going on.

In summary, I still need to play with 095 more. Next time I use it in a double dry-hopped batch, I'll dry-hop about 18 hours after pitch, and probably at day 9.
 
Gustatorian said:
I've only used 095 for my last 2 batches, so my opinion is somewhat anecdotal. But, compared to 1318, its fermentation behavior is drastically different. It moves QUICKLY but covertly. You would never assume the rapidity of fermentation based on the tempered activity coming from the blow-off. Oddly enough, 095 then drags out the final 3-5 gravity points over 9-10 days, even with an increase in temp. Both times I had high krausen at about 18 hours (which is when I usually like to do my first charge of dry-hops, with 1318 that's usually around day 3) after I pitched the yeast. The last dry-hop charge has been tricky too. I would space it out closer to day 9-10 rather than day 7. Both batches of 095 I've hit the 2nd dry-hop at day 7 and it seems like the CO2 created is sufficient enough to scrub more of the hop aroma out of the beer. Still had nice results, but the potency in the aroma was significantly dropped as compared to 1318.

When comparing the yeast starters (I always taste what I decant off the starter), I prefer 095. They both have a nice stone fruit character, but 095 is a tad bit softer. 1318 always has that post-ripe peach ester thing going on.

In summary, I still need to play with 095 more. Next time I use it in a double dry-hopped batch, I'll dry-hop about 18 hours after pitch, and probably at day 9.
Click to expand...

I've used WLP095 a ton and just used 1318 again this last weekend. I was surprised at how fast the 1318 fermented. It definitely ferments a little faster than wlp095. I haven't seen the really long ferment though. the 1318 starter tasted like a tart cherry to me. the wlp095 is much milder and smoother in comparison. i'd like to do a side-by-side b/w them sometime. i think the 1318 may be slightly more attenuative as well. i seem to always get a little higher AA% with 1318. maybe wlp095 would come down more if I left a really long time, not sure. both taste amazing in IPAs IMHO.

Oh, also, 1318 is hazier over the longterm, though wlp095 can keep a pretty long haze as well. i have jars of harvested yeast in my fridge and 1318 has an super long-lasting haze!
 
stickyfinger said:
I've used WLP095 a ton and just used 1318 again this last weekend. I was surprised at how fast the 1318 fermented. It definitely ferments a little faster than wlp095. I haven't seen the really long ferment though. the 1318 starter tasted like a tart cherry to me. the wlp095 is much milder and smoother in comparison. i'd like to do a side-by-side b/w them sometime. i think the 1318 may be slightly more attenuative as well. i seem to always get a little higher AA% with 1318. maybe wlp095 would come down more if I left a really long time, not sure. both taste amazing in IPAs IMHO.

Oh, also, 1318 is hazier over the longterm, though wlp095 can keep a pretty long haze as well. i have jars of harvested yeast in my fridge and 1318 has an super long-lasting haze!
Click to expand...

For your pales and IPAs, how long are you letting 095 and 1318 sit on the beer before cold-crashing?
 
Gustatorian said:
[...]On another note, can we try to have people post grist percentages instead of actual weight of different malts? I think it will allow us to hone in on the actual grist bill and make it easily applicable for the variation between everyone's systems.
Click to expand...

I don't get how that would be of net benefit.
You don't need percentages to "hone in" - he already provided the actual recipe!

It's trivial to calculate the percentages, and if your efficiencies suck you likely have to adjust any recipe already, anyway...

Cheers!
 
day_trippr said:
I don't get how that would be of net benefit.
You don't need percentages to "hone in" - he already provided the actual recipe!

It's trivial to calculate the percentages, and if your efficiencies suck you likely have to adjust any recipe already, anyway...

Cheers!
Click to expand...

I think either is fine...if not both. For some reason percentages make it easier for me to understand the relationship of the malts to one another. A lot of brewers refer to malt bills in percentages and you find it all over the place in blogs and websites.

Not trivial. 80% two-row and 20% wheat malt for a 1.040 beer of the same volume are going to be different weights on different systems depending on efficiencies. A 63% brew house efficiency and 73% brew house efficiency could produce a wort that is 10 degrees specific gravity different from one another. Neither of those efficiencies suck also. 63% B.H. efficiency on a similar system to mine produces a mash efficiency of 75% and a 73% B.H. efficiency produces a mash efficiency of 85%. Both well within the norm of producing good beer. And on the home brew scale to make up for the difference it could mean a pound less or more of malt. Either way some thought and calculations need to go into using someone's recipe in order to come out with the same result.
 
leesmith said:
I think either is fine...if not both. For some reason percentages make it easier for me to understand the relationship of the malts to one another. A lot of brewers refer to malt bills in percentages and you find it all over the place in blogs and websites.

Not trivial. 80% two-row and 20% wheat malt for a 1.040 beer of the same volume are going to be different weights on different systems depending on efficiencies. A 63% brew house efficiency and 73% brew house efficiency could produce a wort that is 10 degrees specific gravity different from one another. Neither of those efficiencies suck also. 63% B.H. efficiency on a similar system to mine produces a mash efficiency of 75% and a 73% B.H. efficiency produces a mash efficiency of 85%. Both well within the norm of producing good beer. And on the home brew scale to make up for the difference it could mean a pound less or more of malt. Either way some thought and calculations need to go into using someone's recipe in order to come out with the same result.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Definitely not trivial. There are so many ways to brew these days that efficiencies run the gamut.
 
I don't see how expressing a recipe's grist bill in percentages as opposed to weight is going to provide an advantage when considering one's own brew house efficiency.

That's what the stated OG is for.

Here's a fun thought: grist bill in percentages - with NO OG...

Cheers! ;)
 
day_trippr said:
I don't see how expressing a recipe's grist bill in percentages as opposed to weight is going to provide an advantage when considering one's own brew house efficiency.



That's what the stated OG is for.



Here's a fun thought: grist bill in percentages - with NO OG...



Cheers! ;)
Click to expand...


Ok.
 
Gustatorian said:
...On another note, can we try to have people post grist percentages instead of actual weight of different malts? I think it will allow us to hone in on the actual grist bill and make it easily applicable for the variation between everyone's systems.
Click to expand...


I think this provides an advantage when considering other peoples systems.

If someone tells a person to use 80% two-row and 15% wheat and 5% C20 that person can go back home and figure out the amounts as they suit their system. And shoot for whatever OG they want. The wort should then taste as the author intended just stronger or weaker depending on the OG.

The ratios create a standard to discuss malt combinations when not knowing each others systems; it's a tool to help discuss flavor. 5% C20 is going to taste a lot different than 10% C20.

The actual weight of each grain provides a benchmark to work from...especially someone trying to brew something for the first time. No matter the recipe though the brewer is most likely going to need to adjust for their system.
 
leesmith said:
[...]If someone tells a person to use 80% two-row and 15% wheat and 5% C20 that person can go back home and figure out the amounts as they suit their system. And shoot for whatever OG they want. The wort should then taste as the author intended just stronger or weaker depending on the OG.[...]
Click to expand...

lol
 
Last edited:
I brewed the version BrewerFriend version : https://www.brewersfriend.com/homebrew/recipe/view/401540/tree-house-julius-clone

I am very happy with the results.

julius.jpg
 
Sbe2 said:
Is it .7 oz of Simcoe or 7 oz of Simcoe? I am guessing .7
Click to expand...

That bittering addition is all messed up. The simcoe AA is quoted as 3.05%, which is why you need 7oz to get the requisite 75-ish IBU; if you use 11.9% AA (as in the rest of the recipe) you would need about 1.75oz.
 
leesmith said:
I think this provides an advantage when considering other peoples systems.

If someone tells a person to use 80% two-row and 15% wheat and 5% C20 that person can go back home and figure out the amounts as they suit their system. And shoot for whatever OG they want. The wort should then taste as the author intended just stronger or weaker depending on the OG.

The ratios create a standard to discuss malt combinations when not knowing each others systems; it's a tool to help discuss flavor. 5% C20 is going to taste a lot different than 10% C20.

The actual weight of each grain provides a benchmark to work from...especially someone trying to brew something for the first time. No matter the recipe though the brewer is most likely going to need to adjust for their system.
Click to expand...

If someone gives you the actual weight and their OG, you can use this information to get the exact weight for your system. Enter the recipe as stated by the poster into BeerSmith then scale the recipe to your system. BeerSmith will convert the grain and hops based on your efficiency.
 
h22lude said:
If someone gives you the actual weight and their OG, you can use this information to get the exact weight for your system. Enter the recipe as stated by the poster into BeerSmith then scale the recipe to your system. BeerSmith will convert the grain and hops based on your efficiency.
Click to expand...


Yes and you can also do it with percentages in Beersmith if someone gives you the OG. You can do it either way.

One way may not be better than the other but percentages have a valid reason to be used.
 
I'm not about to ask someone who did me a favor (developing and testing a recipe, then just handing it to me) to do more work when I can easily calculate percentages myself.
 
bleme said:
I'm not about to ask someone who did me a favor (developing and testing a recipe, then just handing it to me) to do more work when I can easily calculate percentages myself.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't bother me a bit if someone asked for more info about a recipe.
That's what these forums are here for to have an exchange of ideas and information.
Some people may not have beersmith or not know how to make those calculations and if it helped them to get further into the hobby and enjoy it...it wouldn't be work to help. And I might learn something in the process.
 
leesmith said:
It wouldn't bother me a bit if someone asked for more info about a recipe.
That's what these forums are here for to have an exchange of ideas and information.
Some people may not have beersmith or not know how to make those calculations and if it helped them to get further into the hobby and enjoy it...it wouldn't be work to help. And I might learn something in the process.
Click to expand...

I have no problem asking them to clarify something that I can't figure out for myself but it takes less than a minute to figure out that 11#/3#/1#/1#/.375#/.25# is 66.2%/18%/6%/6%/2.3%/1.5%.

That is less work for them and less waiting for me.
 
bleme said:
I have no problem asking them to clarify something that I can't figure out for myself but it takes less than a minute to figure out that 11#/3#/1#/1#/.375#/.25# is 66.2%/18%/6%/6%/2.3%/1.5%.

That is less work for them and less waiting for me.
Click to expand...

bleme,

I've never asked anyone specific for the ratios cause I'll figure it out if needed. But I do develop recipes with ratios...not by weight...I let Beersmith determine those for me.

Most blogs and articles on the web provide the ratios and weight, but I guess it's too much to ask here.
 
leesmith said:
bleme,

I've never asked anyone specific for the ratios cause I'll figure it out if needed. But I do develop recipes with ratios...not by weight...I let Beersmith determine those for me.

Most blogs and articles on the web provide the ratios and weight, but I guess it's too much to ask here.
Click to expand...

Professional brewers use percentages to see the relationship of specialty grains to base grains. For example, an american stout with 12% roasted malt vs 14% roasted malt tastes drastically different, but both enjoyable depending on who you ask. I understand that you can do the work to calculate the percentages based on weight, but you're going to have to alter the grain weights based on the efficiency of your system. Why not just start with percentages?
 
Gustatorian said:
[...]you're going to have to alter the grain weights based on the efficiency of your system. Why not just start with percentages?
Click to expand...

Because unless you're actually weighing out grain in percentages :drunk: they're entirely unnecessary for scaling a recipe.

All recipes provide grain bills by weight and an OG. If the author doesn't provide his mash efficiency, you're left using a SWAG. I typically assume 70% the first time I brew a new-to-me recipe, so if my typical mash efficiency is 85%, I multiply the grain weights by .82 and I'm ready to grind...

Cheers!
 
Gustatorian said:
When it says "dry hop 3 days", does that mean to dry hop it on day 3 of fermentation or wait until primary fermentation is done and then rack the beer onto hops and let sit for 3 days before cold-crashing?
Click to expand...


Dry hop 3 days before you package. I split my dry hops into two charges and added the first one at day 2 before fermentation stopped and I added the rest 3 days before I began my cold crash.
 
Gustatorian said:
Professional brewers use percentages to see the relationship of specialty grains to base grains. For example, an american stout with 12% roasted malt vs 14% roasted malt tastes drastically different, but both enjoyable depending on who you ask. I understand that you can do the work to calculate the percentages based on weight, but you're going to have to alter the grain weights based on the efficiency of your system. Why not just start with percentages?
Click to expand...

Gustatorian,

You can do it by hand if you want:
https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showpost.php?p=2553916&postcount=18

Or let software do it.
I just start with percentages in Beersmith and get it where I want.

Personally if we are all using 80% of a given base malt I find it a lot easier to move forward saying well....we just need to dial in the other 20%. That way no ones needing to double check everyone's volumes and related numbers in order to derive the fact that the base malt is around 80% in all the different versions of the same attempt at a recipe. With percentages it's easy to glance around and say....oh look he's using 15% of this and that one only 10%....oh and wait...she's using 75% two row...hold on here that's new. Just an example....that's all.
 
Little_Lebowski said:
Yeah sure thing:

11# golden promise
3# white wheat
1# carapils
1# flaked wheat
6oz honey malt
4oz corn sugar (15 min remaining in boil)
.25 whirfloc tablet (15 min remaining)

Water:
Distilled water 9 gallons
I throw all salt additions into one gallon of room temp distilled water the night before to get everything nice and dissolved (Mark cap with a sharpie to make sure it gets added to mash water)

10 grams calcium chloride
2 grams gypsum
2 grams Epsom salts
I've been using this as my go to IPA addition for sometime so I can't recall the exact concentrations of each but I'm pretty sure it's around 200:100 chloride to sulfate. All additions are added to the mash. I add in 1-2mL lactic 88% to bring the pH into sweet spot. I don't get super crazy about these numbers anymore but more ballpark

Mash 5 gallons at 164F for a 152F mash for 60 min
Batch sparge 3.75 gallons at 175F

Add whirfloc and corn sugar at 15
1 oz each citra/Rakau/galaxy at 5
2 oz citra 1 oz rakau 1 oz galaxy 180F whirlpool 20 min

2L starter of Conan pitched at 67F

Day 3 or once krausen starts to fall add first round of dry hops
1 oz citra
1 oz galaxy



Wait till activity COMPLETELY stops. Usually around a week or so
Drop temp to 60F
Add 2nd round of dry hops
4 oz citra
2 oz Rakau
Dry hop for 3-4 days

WORK SUPER HARD AT COLD SIDE OXYGEN EXPOSURE!
Try your best to keep sampling and cracking that carboy lid to a bare minimum. This I have found to be the biggest aroma killer

I keg my beers and kegged this one around day 8-9. Took a few days to carb up but I found this REALLY shined at about 10 days after being kegged.

Feel free to message me or ask for any other pointers about this one. Good luck! Excited to see how it goes for you
Click to expand...

Update on your recipe that I brewed. Damn DELICIOUS!!! Turned out amazing thanks to your info. I cannot thank you enough. Turned out to be a delicious 7.48%ABV Juice Bomb!

IMG_0801.jpg
 
That looks pretty spot on as far as process. I'd skip the whirlfloc, target low mash PH, use 18% ish oats, and use some acids in the process like brewtan b and ascorbic. Oxygen is the enemy probably throughout the whole process.
 
cgreene said:
Update on your recipe that I brewed. Damn DELICIOUS!!! Turned out amazing thanks to your info. I cannot thank you enough. Turned out to be a delicious 7.48%ABV Juice Bomb!
Click to expand...

Looks damn fine! Super glad to hear it turned out well for you. The next name of the game is to successfully repeat! Great job. What did the FG finish out at?
 

Similar threads

J
Treehouse Bright clone
Replies
5
Views
4K
Joe.Conley
J
C
Looking for Dragonfruit IPA recipe (Pure Brewing Prroject - #ISO)
Replies
0
Views
485
Capspath83
C
Z
Making the Juiciest NEIPA possible..
Replies
1
Views
5K
anteater8
anteater8
N
Manny's Pale Ale Clone Recipe
Replies
9
Views
9K
Pugnacious Brewing
Pugnacious Brewing
pdxsteve
Triple NE IPA (Ex Novo clone)
Replies
5
Views
7K
doug293cz
doug293cz
CornyKegs 300

Latest posts

Back
Top