Well with a description like that, I am all for this. The old ale blend with brett seems perfect. For those who do not care for sours and/or Belgians, this should be a nice compromise since it will not be bug-dominant beer. The amber and brown malt without caramel malts and using kettle caramelization sounds good too. I've never used either malt, so I am not sure what to expect.
Is it too early to start talking about 11-11-11?
- Thread starter camiller
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk:
Well with a description like that, I am all for this. The old ale blend with brett seems perfect. For those who do not care for sours and/or Belgians, this should be a nice compromise since it will not be bug-dominant beer. The amber and brown malt without caramel malts and using kettle caramelization sounds good too. I've never used either malt, so I am not sure what to expect.
KingBrianI
Well-Known Member
Amber malt has a great toasty, breadcrust-like flavor. And it has kind of a "warmness" to it. I really like it. Brown malt is similar but nuttier, and just has a "darker" flavor. Not really roasty or burnt, more like a browned rustic bread crust. It's has a very nice "smoothness". They're basically just more highly kilned base malt, and present in small proportions combined with pale malt, would make what I think is pretty close to the darker, less uniform base malts of history.
How do beers with kettle caramelization and good amounts of brown and amber malt attenuate? I'm thinking that without the brett, a big beer like this might not get down very far. So this should give the brett more to work with, right?
KingBrianI
Well-Known Member
Depending on the extent of kettle caramelization, it may not affect attenuation much at all. The more it is boiled down, the less it will attenuate. The brown and amber malt shouldn't significantly affect attenuation, especially at the amounts I was thinking about, about 0.5lbs each. An 8% beer should be well balanced with or without the brett. A 1.111 OG beer may not attenuate enough for non-brett beers though. If we did decide to do a recipe like that, I would suggest people who aren't using brett substitute out a little of the base malt with sugar in order to end up with a beer that isn't too sweet.
bierhaus15
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 452
I like the idea for an Old Ale, especially with brett. However, depending on how historical you want to make this, most old/stock ales (post 1860) would have been brewed primarily with a pale malt and some form of sugar syrup, utilizing a very long boil. Amber and brown malts were generally used for porters and stouts. And all were very heavily hopped.
I could see something like this being pretty nice:
80% pale/MO
5% brown malt
5% dark crystal
10% treacle/molasses/dark sugar of choice
I could see something like this being pretty nice:
80% pale/MO
5% brown malt
5% dark crystal
10% treacle/molasses/dark sugar of choice
KingBrianI
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't necessarily think amber and brown malts were included in the old recipes, but the idea of adding them was to more closely replicate the pale malt of the day. It would have been darker, and less uniform than the MO we have access to today.
The Brett, kettle caramelization, treacle, and oak is what intrigues me. I'm on board for most any grain bill appropriate for this. I assume we can do a simple 60+ minute addition for the hops and nothing else.
Well, when you sell it like that, it's tough to say no.
I like the idea of a very simple grainbill. Between the yeast, caramelization, and aging, there should be plenty going on to provide flavor nuance without 100 specialty grains. they'd end up getting in the way of the real flavorful stuff. My guess is the brett used in the old ale blend will be fairly mild to moderate in intensity, so this isn't going to be anything like a lambic, for those who fear sour beer and bugs. At least, it ought to be if this is blended to provide an authentic English taste.
Boiling down the first gallon or so of mash runoff (to a quart or pint) would yield some good flavors, and make crystal malts superfluous, most likely. An overall 2 hour boil will similarly help (and also help of this beer is indeed 8+ percent). I sure wouldn't mind making it bigger than 8%, but I won't cry foul if that's where it stays.
I like the idea of mimicking an older, darker base malt, but many of the historical recipes call for chocolate or even patent malts in smaller quantities. My initial thought is I'd like to see either more brown/amber malt (maybe 1+lb of each, the better choice) or a small amount (4-8oz) of chocolate thrown in. If it's just the base malt, I get the feeling it might turn out to be a little light on both color and flavor. In an old ale, I always expect to find a dark beer, full bodied, slightly sweet, with dark flavors. Not roasty, but closing in on it.
Speaking of a sweetness, I'm also concerned a bit that a beer of base malts and sugars alone, fermented with both sac and brett might turn out a little too attenuated for a standard old ale. I'm not looking for syrupy, mind you, but I'm not looking for super dry, either. Will boiling down the first runoff change attenuation any? Can anyone assuage my fears on this issue? I suppose it could just be mashed high (154-6 or so), but would that prevent the brett from munching things down over the course of a year, or would it just make for a similarly low attenuated beer with a more prominent brett character? I can't say I've worked with brett before.
Hopping I imagine should be mainly or exclusively done with a bittering addition. Maybe a clean (i.e., not harsh) English hop like Phoenix or Target. Maybe even Bullion, as it would add some fleeting fruit (currant) notes that would meld well with the other flavors we're looking for. I have a feeling flavor and aroma additions may get in the way of other flavors and/or be lost during a period of long aging. For an 8% beer (something in the 1075-90 OG range) I'm thinking a 50-60 IBU addition should get us a nice, balanced beer after a year or so of aging. Yes, it will be a bit much at first, but this isn't going to be a beer that it intended for drinking at the 2 month mark.
So based upon what we've been discussing, here's a very rough outline for a 5 gallon batch.
12-13lbs Maris Otter
.5-1lb+ Amber malt
.5-1lb+ Brown Malt
1lb Molasses/Treacle
(maybe a small chocolate malt addition of 4-8oz)
50-60 IBU of British bittering hops (Phoenix, Target, Bullion???)
Mash at 154 or so?
Take first 1 gallon of runoff and boil down to 1-2 pints, add to boil
Boil 2hrs, maybe longer?
Use 9097 seasonal strain as preferred yeast
French(?) oak, maybe 1oz, in secondary (how long?)
Does this look like a tenable outline? Any major problems? There are details to tweak, clearly, but this seems to be coming together well, and I sure would be happy with something like this.
I have to agree with this. A big old ale sounds great. I've never had a beer with brett, so i might have to hunt one down to try first, but it certainly sounds like it would be amazing.
bierhaus15
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 452
Here is the thing I would be careful about. If people want to brew an Old/Stock ale with a nod to historical accuracy (especially w/brett), we should probably decide on a method for creating this beer. In particular, are we going to go the historical route and create a beer via traditional ingredients and processes, or take a more contemporary route? - All while trying to obtain a beer with the flavor characteristics everyone is looking for.
A more historical approach would be the simplest and involve maybe 2 malts (probably something like MO and maybe brown malt) and some type of sugar syrup. A long boil would be utilized, which would provide some caramelization and subsequent malt complexities. Invert syrup was used extensively and caramel coloring for color adjustment. No dark malts.
On the other hand, a modern approach could include handful of malts, including dark crystal, black patent, biscuit, melanoiden, ect... and techniques such as boiling the first runnings and whatnot. Color would be mostly from malts rather than additives (sugar, coloring).
I'm not saying one method would be better than the other, but I think it would be better to have one method versus a hodgepodge of both.
Any opinions on this matter?
A more historical approach would be the simplest and involve maybe 2 malts (probably something like MO and maybe brown malt) and some type of sugar syrup. A long boil would be utilized, which would provide some caramelization and subsequent malt complexities. Invert syrup was used extensively and caramel coloring for color adjustment. No dark malts.
On the other hand, a modern approach could include handful of malts, including dark crystal, black patent, biscuit, melanoiden, ect... and techniques such as boiling the first runnings and whatnot. Color would be mostly from malts rather than additives (sugar, coloring).
I'm not saying one method would be better than the other, but I think it would be better to have one method versus a hodgepodge of both.
Any opinions on this matter?
The brett is the main reason I am not too concerned about the grain bill. When a very clean ale yeast is used, the individual malts are more noticeable than in brett beers, at least to my tastes. I am not saying necessarily that brett dominates the beer, but it seems to blur the differences in the malts. As for hunting down an example to try, you'll mainly be looking for Belgians, as commercial old ale examples I know of do not have brett. Try Boulevard's brett saison, Ommegangs's Bier de Mars, or Oval. Since these are all Belgians, you have to imagine the brett influence in an old ale, I guess.
Anyone know how much the caramelization will darken the beer? Using 4% brown, 4% amber, 3% treacle only gets it to 13 SRM without accounting for the caramelization.
Thanks for the suggestions. I just want to see what a" horsey" flavor is like before i have five gallons of it.
marc06
Well-Known Member
I hate to be a debby downer, but I am kind of disappointed about a Brett beer for the 11-11-11. As a perpetually poor grad student, I was going to take the plunge after 3 years of being on the forum and become a supporter, so I may partake in the anniversary festivities. However, I feel that a Brett beer, while ever so tantilizing to some, does not appeal to the masses. I would like to voice my opinion against a Brett beer. Alas, I also understand that it has to eventually be done, but at the expense of excluding a large group of people.
Just my thought
Just my thought
mullenite
Well-Known Member
So brew the Old Ale without Brett. I don't like Brett and that is what I would be doing.
I think this is the way to go. The brett is not necessary. It should be emphasized, too, that the brett character will be fairly modest in a beer like this. Think Orval, perhaps, where it's noticeable, but not dominant by any stretch of the imagination. My guess is 9097 uses a Brett C, which should really not lend a strong flavor. Using a good English yeast ought to yield excellent results as well. In fact, choosing the alternate 1469 seasonal strain would not at all be a bad choice.
My best guess as good alternate strains would be 1469, 1098, 1275, 1318, and 1728. Anyone else care to weigh in here? My apologies to White Labs users, as I have never used their products and don't know the catalog well.
KingBrianI
Well-Known Member
That is almost exactly what I was thinking of. I like 60 IBU. This is a beer meant for aging and I find that having a heavy hand pays off in the long run when the beer starts losing some bitterness. I was planning on boiling down more than 1 gallon of runnings but could be persuaded otherwise. It will lend a lot of color to the beer.
I have mixed emotions about the amount of amber and brown malts. I was originally thinking 0.5 lbs each since I think that would taste really good in a fresh beer. But since this will be aged, going heavier with them might be the better choice since the flavors will have time to mellow and meld during aging. Something closer to 1 lb each or maybe 1 lb amber and 0.5 lbs brown would be the way to go.
As for oak, I like the idea of french medium or medium+ toast. And this is again something I've been tossing around in my head. My current feeling is that I'd like a strong oak flavor and might do something along the lines of adding 0.5 oz of cubes for the entire duration of secondary. Maybe 0.25 oz so it doesn't get too strong over that time. But I definitely want it to be noticable. Something that tastes like it's been barrel aged.
And for the people scared of the brett, that's the great thing about old ales. You can skip the brett and still have a fantastic and to style old ale.
I'm glad this seems to be coming together. 11/11/11 is really not much more than a year away.
Given that this is an old ale, we'll want time for it to age and be ready by 111111 as well. This is the right time to be discussing it, no?
I'm on the fence about the brown and amber malt content as well. I don't want to skimp on the flavor and color, as it will age and soften over time (already mentioned). Since that's the case, I'd prefer to err on the side of too much rather than too little, but some of this hinges on what, exactly, the effect of boiling down some of this wort will be. What kind of color and flavor contributions will it add, and will it be sufficient to make for a dark, full flavored ale once aged? I simply don't know, as I'm very inexperienced with the technique.
How much would you advice to set aside for really boiling down? How far should it go? Should we consider a slightly larger grainbill and large amount of sparge water to make up the difference, and give a good amount of "regular" wort to boil alongside?
KingBrianI
Well-Known Member
Boiling the wort down creates a really intense, complex caramel flavor. It can even have butterscotchy hints and I remember Jamil stating that it can be mistaken for small amounts of diacetyl. It's a rounder, richer caramel character than a crystal malt would create. I'd go with 2 gallons of first runnings and boil them down until they became a thick dark syrup. Then I'd add a little of the rest of the wort to the container with the boiled down runnings to dissolve them and pour that into the kettle.
There's a brewpub near me that's rather famous for its strong scotch ale (amongst a few other beers, but this one is really their greatest achievement, and Michael Jackson mentioned how good it is in one of his books). It really is fantastic. Apparently, the way they get this kind of caramelization is to heat up the boiling kettle to full temperature, and then pour in the mash wort. High level, instant caramelization. Somehow, they haven't cracked or otherwise destroyed the kettle yet, in some 15 years of doing this. I don't know that I'm ready to recommend this technique to anyone else, but it may be an option for the gambling type, if you don't want to bother with two boils going at the same time.
camiller
Well-Known Member
Yeah, like mullenite said, the Brett would be optional. Personally I'll probably do a ten gallon batch and do half with the Brett blend and half with an alternative.
KingBrianI
Well-Known Member
What are opinions on the strength of this beer? Do we want to make the best-tasting beer or do we want to go epic and do something like a 1.111 OG to commemorate the occasion?
BioBeing
Well-Known Member
I made an old ale last year with the 9097. I'd be up to try again.
Mine did finish too low (1.083 --> 1.007!), as the brett just kept working in secondary. It lost a lot of mouthfeel, and is missing some of the malt complexity I think because of this. I mashed low though, as I hadn't used brett before, and I didn't do any kettle caramalization. For those of you who haven't used brett - don't be too scared by it. It does add a certain distinct flavour, but I find it isn't overpowering in any way.
I haven't actually tasted it for a few months though... and its over a year old now. Need to chill a couple down I think!
Mine did finish too low (1.083 --> 1.007!), as the brett just kept working in secondary. It lost a lot of mouthfeel, and is missing some of the malt complexity I think because of this. I mashed low though, as I hadn't used brett before, and I didn't do any kettle caramalization. For those of you who haven't used brett - don't be too scared by it. It does add a certain distinct flavour, but I find it isn't overpowering in any way.
I haven't actually tasted it for a few months though... and its over a year old now. Need to chill a couple down I think!
Epic 1.111 doesn't sound good to me. I think if we keep it about 9%, we will end up with a better beer. Will mashing high, say 156F, and doing the caramelization help in over attenuation? I'm thinking the brett will chomp through it anyway. I guess it won't hurt to try.
I'd prefer something in the 8-10% range. OG 1.111 with a high attenuating strain like this would just be silly/hot with alcohol. OG 1085-1090 would be best, IMO.
I put the recipe in Beer Alchemy today. If we do a kettle caramelization, it makes the SRM hard to estimate and if we do the extended aging with brett, it makes the FG hard to estimate. I estimated the upper 70's AA% if a single infusion mash of 158F is used. I also think the color will be darker from the caramelization, so I erred on the low end with the grain bill so that it would get to about 18-20SRM. Maybe some black patent should be included? What do you think? The recipe doesn't take into account the longer boil or caramelization.
Recipe: 11-11-11 Old Ale
Style: 19A-Strong Ale-Old Ale
Recipe Overview
Wort Volume Before Boil: 7.00 US gals
Wort Volume After Boil: 6.00 US gals
Volume Transferred: 5.80 US gals
Water Added: 0.00 US gals
Volume At Pitching: 5.80 US gals
Final Batch Volume: 5.00 US gals
Expected Pre-Boil Gravity: 1.065 SG
Expected OG: 1.078 SG
Expected FG: 1.016 SG
Expected ABV: 8.4 %
Expected ABW: 6.5 %
Expected IBU (using Tinseth): 57.0
Expected Color: 13.6 SRM
Apparent Attenuation: 78.7 %
Mash Efficiency: 77.0 %
Boil Duration: 90.0 mins
Fermentation Temperature: 68 degF
Fermentables
UK Pale Ale Malt 14lb 8oz (87.9 %) In Mash/Steeped
UK Amber Malt 12.00 oz (4.5 %) In Mash/Steeped
UK Brown Malt 12.00 oz (4.5 %) In Mash/Steeped
Sugar - Treacle 8.00 oz (3.0 %) Start Of Boil
Hops
UK Target (10.5 % alpha) 2.00 oz Loose Pellet Hops used 60 Min From End
Yeast: Wyeast 9097-PC Old Ale Blend
Mash Schedule
Mash Type: Full Mash
Schedule Name:Single infusion 158
Step: Rest at 158 degF for 60 mins
Recipe: 11-11-11 Old Ale
Style: 19A-Strong Ale-Old Ale
Recipe Overview
Wort Volume Before Boil: 7.00 US gals
Wort Volume After Boil: 6.00 US gals
Volume Transferred: 5.80 US gals
Water Added: 0.00 US gals
Volume At Pitching: 5.80 US gals
Final Batch Volume: 5.00 US gals
Expected Pre-Boil Gravity: 1.065 SG
Expected OG: 1.078 SG
Expected FG: 1.016 SG
Expected ABV: 8.4 %
Expected ABW: 6.5 %
Expected IBU (using Tinseth): 57.0
Expected Color: 13.6 SRM
Apparent Attenuation: 78.7 %
Mash Efficiency: 77.0 %
Boil Duration: 90.0 mins
Fermentation Temperature: 68 degF
Fermentables
UK Pale Ale Malt 14lb 8oz (87.9 %) In Mash/Steeped
UK Amber Malt 12.00 oz (4.5 %) In Mash/Steeped
UK Brown Malt 12.00 oz (4.5 %) In Mash/Steeped
Sugar - Treacle 8.00 oz (3.0 %) Start Of Boil
Hops
UK Target (10.5 % alpha) 2.00 oz Loose Pellet Hops used 60 Min From End
Yeast: Wyeast 9097-PC Old Ale Blend
Mash Schedule
Mash Type: Full Mash
Schedule Name:Single infusion 158
Step: Rest at 158 degF for 60 mins
conpewter
Well-Known Member
That recipe looks pretty good to me. I'll probably go with more water though as I'll lose more during the carmelization than I would if I was just doing a normal 60 or 90 minute boil
wildwest450
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 8,978
- Reaction score
- 191
Are swaps open to non paying members now?
camiller
Well-Known Member
Are swaps open to non paying members now?
Not as far as I know, however these (5-5-5, 10-10-10, etc) recipe discussions have all been open to non-paying members, just not the swaps.
Fist Runnings Boil: 2 US gals (reduced to 1-2 quarts of syrup)
Wort Volume Before Boil: 7.00 US gals (containing the reduced syrup)
If we add this to the above recipe, it makes it more clear. This makes for 9 gals of runnings.
What do you think of the color? Those of you with more experience in caramelization, how much darker do you think this will get?
