"Realfort" 6, 8, and 10 (Rochefort Recipe Discussion)

[Big Monk]

According to the Homebrew Chief old paper based on brewery visit they use Pilsner malt, 5% of wheat starch, Caramel malt, dextrose and dark cassonade
Mash schedule is:
Protein rest 122°F/50°C
Saccharification
Mashout 170°F/76°C

Hops (“Belgian and German Noble”) added in 90 min boil at 80 and 10 mins
Sugar added 15 min before boil end

Fermentation starts at 66°F/19°C up to 73°F/23°C

Not sure about the date of the visit.

I believe around 2007. That’s when the Brewing Network show aired.

I’d say no caramel in the 6. I’d brew the 8 and 10 as I have them listed above and if you feel the need to add a caramalt in, I’d go with Special B or CaraAroma in small amounts to taste.

Given what the color has been like recently in the production beers and the flavors, I can really only see this making a difference, and only maybe, in the 10. I would definitely steer clear of any roasted malts and only use caramalts over 100 °L, which doesn’t leave much.

 

[Bierkrug]

While I was buying some Rochefort beers for further research, I noticed that the shops state different OGs compared to the ones you give.

Are your OGs from BLAM?

The OGs for 6, 8 &10 according to the shops are 16,5°P; 20,8°P and 24,5°P.

It's common for German shops to state the OG, so I wonder which one should be trusted if trying to reproduce something similar to a Rochefort.

And thanks for the work, helps a lot, my first try was a miserable failure.

 

[Big Monk]

While I was buying some Rochefort beers for further research, I noticed that the shops state different OGs compared to the ones you give.

Are your OGs from BLAM?

The OGs for 6, 8 &10 according to the shops are 16,5°P; 20,8°P and 24,5°P.

It's common for German shops to state the OG, so I wonder which one should be trusted if trying to reproduce something similar to a Rochefort.

And thanks for the work, helps a lot, my first try was a miserable failure.

Yes, the O.G. values I quote are from BLAM. The ones you show seem very high but I’ll look into it.

 

[Big Monk]

While I was buying some Rochefort beers for further research, I noticed that the shops state different OGs compared to the ones you give.

Are your OGs from BLAM?

The OGs for 6, 8 &10 according to the shops are 16,5°P; 20,8°P and 24,5°P.

It's common for German shops to state the OG, so I wonder which one should be trusted if trying to reproduce something similar to a Rochefort.

And thanks for the work, helps a lot, my first try was a miserable failure.

I checked the Merchant du Vin website (the North American distributor for Rochefort) and thier Numbers align more closely with BLAM.

I’m not sure where your shop got it’s numbers from. The 10 in particular seems very high, as well as the 8.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Subscribed. Nice work!!!

 

[Bierkrug]

Hm, that's strange. I wonder where the online shops get their numbers from.

Well, the 6 is my main priority right now, so I'll just start somewhere between 16.5°-17°P

 

[doug293cz]

To really get the final product "right" wouldn't it be necessary to make sure that the ratio of extract (from the grain) vs. the added sugar is the same as for real Rochefort? To do this would require knowing the mash efficiency at the Rochefort brewery, as well the homebrewer's typical mash efficiency. Anyone have any insight into Rochefort's mash efficiency?

Brew on

 

[Big Monk]

To really get the final product "right" wouldn't it be necessary to make sure that the ratio of extract (from the grain) vs. the added sugar is the same as for real Rochefort? To do this would require knowing the mash efficiency at the Rochefort brewery, as well the homebrewer's typical mash efficiency. Anyone have any insight into Rochefort's mash efficiency?

Brew on

The original analysis I did in Excel accounted for their grain weight, known volumes and an educated guess at what their efficiency would have been.

While it’s true there could be differences in beers made with ratios with huge deltas compared to Rochefort, I can’t see it making a huge difference here. I’ve gone down the whole “Sugar as a % of Grist weight vs. Sugar as a % of Extract” thing and found that it’s essentially a wash, i.e. if a home brewer doses sugar based on extract they tend to be adding more sugar by weight than the larger brewery with higher efficiency.

It’s best to stick with dosing by % weight. Or maybe I have that reversed.

The more conservative would be to dose by extract because the final product would have less sugar because of lower grain extract.

 

[bmaupin]

does anyone know if they bottle with the same yeast? I've made beers with the bottle dregs and the starter behaves much differently (huge krausen) and tastes way fruity ... actually nicest, most fruity starter beer I've ever tasted. I've made a bdsa, imperial stout and neipa with it and all were great beers.

 

[doug293cz]

The original analysis I did in Excel accounted for their grain weight, known volumes and an educated guess at what their efficiency would have been.

While it’s true there could be differences in beers made with ratios with huge deltas compared to Rochefort, I can’t see it making a huge difference here. I’ve gone down the whole “Sugar as a % of Grist weight vs. Sugar as a % of Extract” thing and found that it’s essentially a wash, i.e. if a home brewer doses sugar based on extract they tend to be adding more sugar by weight than the larger brewery with higher efficiency.

It’s best to stick with dosing by % weight. Or maybe I have that reversed.

The more conservative would be to dose by extract because the final product would have less sugar because of lower grain extract.

I did some calculations for the Roch 10 recipe, and for a mash efficiency of 90%, the percent of extract from the mash would be: 78.85%, and from added sugar 21.15% of total dissolved solids in the wort. If mash efficiency were only 75%, and the recipe unaltered, the percent of extract from the mash would be 75.65%, and added sugar 24.35%. The ratio in the first case is 3.73 extract/sugar, and the second case 3.11. Is that enough to worry about? IDK. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Brew on

 

[Big Monk]

I did some calculations for the Roch 10 recipe, and for a mash efficiency of 90%, the percent of extract from the mash would be: 78.85$, and from added sugar 21.15% of total dissolved solids in the wort. If mash efficiency were only 75%, and the recipe unaltered, the percent of extract from the mash would be 75.65%, and added sugar 24.35%. The ratio in the first case is 3.73 extract/sugar, and the second case 3.11. Is that enough to worry about? IDK. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Brew on

I’d have to crunch some numbers to verify what you are saying here.

I think in reality, however, there wouldn’t be a scenario where that drastic of a drop in conversion Efficiency wasn’t corrected with better process or more grain. So the scenario in which you drop conversion without increasing available grain extract is unlikely.

At least to me. I don’t know if that would be obvious to everyone.

I’ll take a look at my original calcs this week and post some observations here.

 

[doug293cz]

I’d have to crunch some numbers to verify what you are saying here.

I think in reality, however, there wouldn’t be a scenario where that drastic of a drop in conversion Efficiency wasn’t corrected with better process or more grain. So the scenario in which you drop conversion without increasing available grain extract is unlikely.

At least to me. I don’t know if that would be obvious to everyone.

I’ll take a look at my original calcs this week and post some observations here.

Mash efficiency (what I used) is equal to conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. Home brewers are often low on either or both of conversion and lauter. I would expect a commercial brewery to be in the 90's for mash efficiency. The question here is how should a home brewer, who's mash efficiency is much lower than Rochefort's, adjust their grain bill to compensate, so as to have a wort composition as close as possible to Rochefort's. I can show you my math if you are interested.

Brew on

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

My efficiency spreadsheet also presumes mash efficiency to be the product of conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. This value (mash efficiency computed as conversion x lauter) turns out to be identical to one calculated via dividing actual extraction points achieved per pound by the theoretical maximum overall grist average of extraction points.

 

[Big Monk]

Mash efficiency (what I used) is equal to conversion efficiency times lauter efficiency. Home brewers are often low on either or both of conversion and lauter. I would expect a commercial brewery to be in the 90's for mash efficiency. The question here is how should a home brewer, who's mash efficiency is much lower than Rochefort's, adjust their grain bill to compensate, so as to have a wort composition as close as possible to Rochefort's. I can show you my math if you are interested.

Brew on

The way I think of it is like this (and the Extract calcs, Kai’s calcs to be exact, that are used in The Brewing Engine adhere):

1.) Regardless of who you are and where you are brewing, we all have the same theoretical maximum extract value if we were to standardize for a certain malt and it’s As-is extract potential;

2.) The first place where deviation may occur is going to be in conversion efficiency terms. Full disclosure: I assumed 100% conversion efficiency in my Rochefort analysis and recipe write ups. That may be worth noting in the future. My first partial answer to your question is that should someone expect less 100% conversion, they should increase grain weight, not sugar weight. I didn’t spell this out but it would seem like common sense to me and many others. With that said, I may have to note that for future reference;

3.) The next place where deviation may occur is in lauter efficiency, which is obviously going to be much higher in a larger production brewery. Again, I would hope people would be adept enough to raise the grain weight here.

I think you raise a good point. When dealing with a percentage based recipe, it’s important to not your assumptions and to make clear to folks how to differ from the written recipe when thier specs won’t match those assumptions.

Short story long: make sure you maintain a ratio of grain to sugar extract commensurate with full conversion and relatively high lauter efficiency.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

the starter behaves much differently

Differently to what?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I just came across a great listing with detailed descriptions for Belgian style yeasts from nigh on every yeast cultivating house available. If the web link seen below does not take you directly to the top of the Belgian yeasts listing, but rather takes you to the actual top of the web page, simply click on "3 Commercial Farmhouse/Belgian Strains", or just go down the page about 25% of the way:

http://www.milkthefunk.com/wiki/Sac..._Farmhouse.2FBelgian_Strains_of_Saccharomyces

 

[applescrap]

I did some calculations for the Roch 10 recipe, and for a mash efficiency of 90%, the percent of extract from the mash would be: 78.85$, and from added sugar 21.15% of total dissolved solids in the wort. If mash efficiency were only 75%, and the recipe unaltered, the percent of extract from the mash would be 75.65%, and added sugar 24.35%. The ratio in the first case is 3.73 extract/sugar, and the second case 3.11. Is that enough to worry about? IDK. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Brew on

They are good brewers no doubt and they are definitely going to be closer to 90 percent, I would guess. That said I don't think a huge difference will be perceived in a slight base malt variance with the Belgian yeast especially. But yeah the recipe should be made assuming their percent number is 90 percent efficiency and mine 75. Thanks for all the help, cant wait to make it.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Have you made any batches yet by which to judge them against the real thing?

 

[bmaupin]

Differently to what?

Both wy1762 and wlp540. the starters for the commercial strains barely have a krausen and the starter beer tastes dull by comparison.

the picture is a starter with the dregs.

 

[21jason21]

Does anyone know the breakdown of cornstarch or wheatstarch? I would assume very low to 0 SRM change when it is added. I have read that it is 100% fermentable and does not leave a taste of any kind. My question is more OG related. How do I input either one into BeerSmith or Brewfather for building the recipe?

Great work Scotty on this beer!!

 

[Big Monk]

Does anyone know the breakdown of cornstarch or wheatstarch? I would assume very low to 0 SRM change when it is added. I have read that it is 100% fermentable and does not leave a taste of any kind. My question is more OG related. How do I input either one into BeerSmith or Brewfather for building the recipe?

Great work Scotty on this beer!!

It won;t add any color or have any pH implications.

As far as 100% fermentable, I wouldn't be so sure. It definitely gains back some extract value from being pure starch as compared to malt but i would imagine there is still a loss of extract to moisture.

I would start by using the Fine Grind Dry Basis extract value unaltered as the extract potential for the starch and see how it works out.

 

[Vale71]

I have read that it is 100% fermentable and does not leave a taste of any kind.

I'm not sure about corn starch but wheat starch will definitely give an extract that has the same fermentability as it would have had if you had extracted it from raw wheat, so less than 100%. After all it is the same starch contained in a wheat kernel just refined but AFAIK it is not subjected to any enzymatic treatment whatsoever.

 

[21jason21]

It won;t add any color or have any pH implications.

As far as 100% fermentable, I wouldn't be so sure. It definitely gains back some extract value from being pure starch as compared to malt but i would imagine there is still a loss of extract to moisture.

I would start by using the Fine Grind Dry Basis extract value unaltered as the extract potential for the starch and see how it works out.

I'm not sure about corn starch but wheat starch will definitely give an extract that has the same fermentability as it would have had if you had extracted it from raw wheat, so less than 100%. After all it is the same starch contained in a wheat kernel just refined but AFAIK it is not subjected to any enzymatic treatment whatsoever.

Thanks guys!! looks like its around 1.044-1.045. I will be brewing the Rochefort 8 soon. I will post the results.

 

[Big Monk]

Thanks guys!! looks like its around 1.044-1.045. I will be brewing the Rochefort 8 soon. I will post the results.

I wouldn't recommend you run it that high to start out. That's a hard sugar type value.

I would start at 1.038-1.039 and see how that works.

 

[21jason21]

Sugars are added at flameout and starch is mixed in with the grains for the mash correct?

 

[Big Monk]

Sugars are added at flameout and starch is mixed in with the grains for the mash correct?

Technically sugars at flamout (ish) but you can add them whenever you want. Just tweak the recipe to maintain the right gravity.

Starch has to be mashed, yes.

 

[21jason21]

How does this look??

 

[doug293cz]

Does anyone know the breakdown of cornstarch or wheatstarch? I would assume very low to 0 SRM change when it is added. I have read that it is 100% fermentable and does not leave a taste of any kind. My question is more OG related. How do I input either one into BeerSmith or Brewfather for building the recipe?

Great work Scotty on this beer!!

If the starch contains any amylopectin, then it will not convert to 100% fermentable sugar, as the branches in the amylopectin will result in dextrins in the resulting extract.

Assuming the starch is 100% starch (no proteins, moisture, etc.) 1 lb of starch will create about 1.055 lb of sugar + dextrins. This is due to the water that combines with the starch during hydrolysis. So, the potential for pure starch will be about 46 pts/lb * 1.055 = 48.5 pts/lb, or written as SG 1.0485.

So the big question is: how pure is the starch.

Edit: Quick Google search turned up the following:

"wheat starch contains ~98% carbohydrates (starch), 0.8–1.0% lipids, 0.2–0.5% proteins and 0.2–0.3% ash (moisture-free basis). ... Wheat starch is produced by physical separation from nonstarch constituents.
Wheat starch production, structure, functionality ... - Wiley Online Library"​

This would change the dry basis potential calculation to:

46 pts/lb * 1.055 * 0.98 = 47.6 pts/lb, or 1.0476​

Brew on

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

If pure starch yields 46 pts/Lb., why not just use a sugar instead?

 

[doug293cz]

If pure starch yields 46 pts/Lb., why not just use a sugar instead?

Because it will also yield some dextrins, which you will not get from pure sugar. And the ~2% "other" content of the starch.

Brew on