Anyone mash an IPA at 160?

[blackwaterbrewer]

if you mash at 160, use lots of grains to get the o.g. up and hop the shiit out of it! IPA's need that sweet, thick, malt background before it smacks you in the face with LUPULIN!

that is not scientific, but it is true.

 

[StunnedMonkey]

Anyway, I brewed this yesterday and indeed mashed at exactly 160. Target OG on mine was 1.061 and actual was 1.062. Fermenting at 67. So far so good.

I'll report back once it's done and let y'all know if it tastes like ass or something.

 

[AnonyBrew]

Anyway, I brewed this yesterday and indeed mashed at exactly 160. Target OG on mine was 1.061 and actual was 1.062. Fermenting at 67. So far so good.

I'll report back once it's done and let y'all know if it tastes like ass or something.

Still waiting for results.

 

[StunnedMonkey]

Still waiting for results.

Well it doesn't taste like ass, so I guess that's something.

I've only started drinking this in the last week or so, but I'm still struggling to come up with a useful description or review. Basically, it tastes like an IPA. I detect nothing in the character or body that suggests that it was mashed at 160. I wish now that I had a Lagunitas IPA here to compare it to, but if I were a betting man I'd say that mine isn't cloned. It's a nice clean beer, no off flavors or oddities, and tastes like a decent homebrewed IPA, but to me there's just something missing.

Actually, all of my lighter brews (Pale Ales and IPA's) tend to seem a little blah to me, a least compared to the Browns, Porters, Stouts, etc, that I brew. I wonder if I need to take a closer look at my water. Perhaps it's time to start making adjustments for specific beers.

 

[AnOldUR]

Anyway, I brewed this yesterday and indeed mashed at exactly 160. Target OG on mine was 1.061 and actual was 1.062.

Curious about attenuation. What was the FG?

 

[StunnedMonkey]

Curious about attenuation. What was the FG?

Yeah, I guess that would help. It finished at 1.016, which I think was a little lower than what was desired. (Maybe 1.018?) This was with WLP002, and a fermentation temp of 66 or 67. I did not raise the temp after a couple of days like they did on the show. It was left at the original temp the whole time.

It's the Second Spitter IPA in my sig, and oddly it's hopped to nearly the same IBU's as the Serenity Now! IPA that I also have on tap. Yet the Serenity Now! seems far hoppier in both flavor and actual bitterness than the Laugnitas clone. I wonder if the high mash temp affects the hop utilization at all?

It was brewed on 8/23, moved to a secondary and dry hopped on 9/5, and kegged on 9/12. It sat in my second fridge for 10 days getting carbed and was moved to the keezer about a week ago. So we're 5 weeks out from the brew date now.

 

[Champurrado]

I bottled my Lagunitas 160 mash brew a few days ago. I did not leave it in the primary for as long as StunnedMonkey did - I got it off the yeast after about 6 days. Secondary was a little longer, around 11 days. Hydro sample was tasty - hope it carbs up close to the original. We'll see in about three weeks.

 

[dfohio]

As for the high mash temp and sweetness, the two are not really related. Those long chain sugars that don't get fermented are not very sweet at all. Some say they have zero sweetness. They add more to the body and mouthfeel than they do sweetness.

So what does cause sweetness?
Mashing in a mid to low range and then using yeast that doesn't attenuate as well?

 

[AnonyBrew]

I bottled my Lagunitas IPA clone last week. I mashed at 160F and the OG was 1.063. I used wyeast 1968 yeast, pitched a 2L stirplate starter per 5g carboy, and fermented at 66F for 3 weeks. No secondary.

The FG was 1.024 at bottling.

 

[wrestler63]

That’s odd. The opposite should be true. 160F is well in the optimum for the a-amylase and as a result the conversion should be much faster and possibly more complete than mashing at 150F.

Kai

I am with you there.......I did one last weekend at 158 and got about 85% eff.

 

[Walker]

This is one of the first things I learned from Ray Daniels. He kept pushing this fact for years, but it seems (like putting smoke malt in Scottish ales) this one will never die out.

Aorry for digging up a slumbering thread. I was looking to see if there was a Lagunitas recipe on here and ended up here...



Regarding the smoke in the Scottish ales (I am assuming meant peat smoked malt)....

My take on this, as one who puts a little peat in his Scottish ale, is that back before steel and better kilning processes, all beer probably tasted smokey. The heat source for the kiln would lend some flavor to the barley.

Scottish maltsters (from what I read) used peat for their heat source, Germans used beechwood. I'm sure there were others.

Anyway, peat is a very unique flavor. I can imagine people wanting that "like they did in the old days" flavor in their ales, which would result in peat smoked malt being added to the now cleaner-kilned malts in Scotland. You get a German parallel with Rauchbier.

I think the use of the peat makes for apossibly more authentic "historical" Scottish ale.




Not to mention that I wanted to use peat-smoked malt as an expierment, and couldn't begin to think of something to trown it in other than a Scottish Ale.