Sweet Daddy Vlad - RIS

[Big Monk]

Do I need to pitch the full packet into 5 gallons of beer? Seems like a lot of dry yeast.

I would pick a dosing rate for the bottling yeast, let's assume 100,000 cells per ml, then calculate as follows:

Bottling Yeast (g) = ( Packaged Beer (l) / Yeast Density (10⁹/g) ) * Dosing Rate (10⁶/ml)

Bottling Yeast (g) = ( 18.93 (l) / 20 (10⁹/g) ) * 0.1 = ~0.09 g

Now let's assume 1,000,000 cells per ml:

Bottling Yeast (g) = ( 18.93 (l) / 20 (10⁹/g) ) * 1 = ~0.9 g

Now let's try both 100,000 cells per ml and 1,000,000 cells per ml but vary the density:

Bottling Yeast (g) = ( 18.93 (l) / 14 (10⁹/g) ) * 0.1 = ~0.135 g

Bottling Yeast (g) = ( 18.93 (l) / 14 (10⁹/g) ) * 1 = ~1.35 g

 

[ApolloSimcoe]

the amount you add isn't really the important concern, its how much sugar you prime with. I'm sure you already know about that as you have been brewing for a while.
Here is some good info. In one of the paragraphs he recommends actually making a mini starter. Your yeast will be kickin' when you add it to your high ABV and that's what you need. Remember you are adding yeast to an environment where they will no longer be happy
https://byo.com/article/on-the-yeast-guide-to-bottle-conditioning/

I hope this helps!

 

[Jayjay1976]

So if I pitch a 1.040 starter with CBC-1 that has started actively fermenting, can I calculate the starter volume to prime 5 gallons to 2 volumes carbonation? Seems like it should be simple.

 

[ApolloSimcoe]

I'm not sure. I read through the article and it sounds like you make the starter AND then prime with corn sugar on bottling day. This concerns me because you have DME and corn sugar for the yeast to eat now. I don't know how to calculate both...

I know that we're not supposed to rehydrate dry yeast but in this case you could so that it blends better at bottling, prime with corn sugar and bottle

I've read other sources where they just added about 2 TBS of liquid yeast at bottling. If you do over yeast the only issue I can think of is that you may have slightly more settlement in the bottles than usual. I've read to just use the whole dry pack or half.

Adding yeast is an insurance policy that at the end of all your hard work and $$ your beer will be carbed. RIS isn't cheap to make and having it never carb properly is a bummer.

 

[Jayjay1976]

I did a side by side comparison this morning between the black rum straight from the bottle next to the rum that was soaking with toasted oak cubes on the stir plate all night; the oak-infused rum was noticeably darker, smoother and picked up quite a bit of oaky and smoke flavors so I'm going to add 12 oz of the rum to the bottling bucket. I'll snap a photo of the two rums and post it later.

 

[Jayjay1976]

Just took a gravity sample, my RIS finished at 1.030 for an ABV of 9.98%. I hope the conditioning yeast doesnt take it too much further leading to gushers. The flavor is excellent, sweet and boozy with a dry, espresso-like finish and suprisingly smooth!

 

[Jayjay1976]

Im going to pitch the full envelope of conditioning yeast and cut the priming sugar in half. I'd prefer under carbed beers to gushers or bottle bombs. Having second thoughts about handing these out tomorrow night.

 

[wepeeler]

Hope it turns out ok. I'm sure it will. The style tends to be just fine if undercarbed (according to style guidelines). I brewed my 1st RIS in July and kegged it 2 weeks ago. It's finally fully carbed, and I'll be passing out 16oz fliptops this weekend and Monday for Christmas. I've taste tested it for the 2 weeks it's been in the keg, and it's absolutely gotten tastier/mellower. I know the thoughts are mixed on aging a beer like this, but I tasted it after a few weeks in the carboy, and it definitely needed to mellow. If you think about it, a lot of the big boy brewers age their RIS for months before distributing. I think they need time to mellow and mesh. I got all booze when I tasted early. Now I get slight chocolate/coffee/roast/toast/vanilla with the booze on the back end. 9.6% and not offensive at all.

 

[Big Monk]

Im going to pitch the full envelope of conditioning yeast and cut the priming sugar in half. I'd prefer under carbed beers to gushers or bottle bombs. Having second thoughts about handing these out tomorrow night.

See my post above. You don’t need that much yeast or a starter. Just rehydrate a small amount and mix it in with your priming sugar.

CBC-1 forms a nice tight cake at the bottom of the bottles.

 

[Jayjay1976]

Bottled this luscious batch with a full envelope of cbc-1 hydrated as per instructions and sugar to take it to 2 volumes.

 

[Big Monk]

Bottled this luscious batch with a full envelope of cbc-1 hydrated as per instructions and sugar to take it to 2 volumes.

11.5 grams? That’s a lot of yeast. Even half of that was overkill.

Hopefully it was finished fermenting.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Was it really the aging that made them better beers? I’d contest that. Not saying you didn’t make a great beer, just saying that if aging brings about a melding of flavors that’s desirable, then why not try to adjust so that it’s ready sooner?

I always try to plan a beer from a recipe, attenuation, ABV, etc. standpoint so that it will be the best possible version of that beer as rapidly as possible. For Trappist style ales in particular, I’ve had to buck some well established trends with regards to packaging, carbonation, and recipe.

Think of all the big beers you like, commercially speaking, and then realize that they don’t have to be aged for 1-2 years to be delicious.

This is an argument that has raged for decades in the wine world, particularly between California and France, and part of the problem is that tastes just vary at a personal and national level. But certainly in my opinion - if you want to make a wine that ages truly well, then you have to make it rather unapproachable at first, to provide the raw materials for something that becomes truly special in the bottle.

So it may be unspeakably tannic to start with, and be a 4 out of 10 to drink, in order to have the potential to grow into a 10/10. But it's proved a lot more commercially attractive to start with a more easy drinking wine that's a 7/10 initially, but which only has the potential to turn into a 8/10. In the modern world fewer people want to buy a 4/10 wine and then spend money storing it, in the hope of a 10/10 when they can just buy a 7/10 wine which will soon be an 8/10 wine. Also tastes have changed so that traditionlists may rate a new-style wine as a 6 but the cool kids say it's a 9.

Obviously beer involves different chemistry, but if a 7/10 beer gives you pleasure and you don't want to wait for it to improve, or your palate doesn't appreciate what happens as a beer ages, then that's cool. On the other hand, here's a chart of a 2014 vertical tasting at the brewery of possibly my favourite Belgian beer, you'll see that their favourites were the 2009 and 2010 and even the 2002 was rated as highly as the new beer, although obviously it would have been good in a different way. And not every beer will age as gracefully as Stille Nacht.

 

[Big Monk]

This is an argument that has raged for decades in the wine world, particularly between California and France, and part of the problem is that tastes just vary at a personal and national level. But certainly in my opinion - if you want to make a wine that ages truly well, then you have to make it rather unapproachable at first, to provide the raw materials for something that becomes truly special in the bottle.

So it may be unspeakably tannic to start with, and be a 4 out of 10 to drink, in order to have the potential to grow into a 10/10. But it's proved a lot more commercially attractive to start with a more easy drinking wine that's a 7/10 initially, but which only has the potential to turn into a 8/10. In the modern world fewer people want to buy a 4/10 wine and then spend money storing it, in the hope of a 10/10 when they can just buy a 7/10 wine which will soon be an 8/10 wine. Also tastes have changed so that traditionlists may rate a new-style wine as a 6 but the cool kids say it's a 9.

Obviously beer involves different chemistry, but if a 7/10 beer gives you pleasure and you don't want to wait for it to improve, or your palate doesn't appreciate what happens as a beer ages, then that's cool. On the other hand, here's a chart of a 2014 vertical tasting at the brewery of possibly my favourite Belgian beer, you'll see that their favourites were the 2009 and 2010 and even the 2002 was rated as highly as the new beer, although obviously it would have been good in a different way. And not every beer will age as gracefully as Stille Nacht.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the concept and agree with it in many respects. I just feel that what some consider “aging” is really sitting on a beer that wasn’t made as clean as it could be, i.e. excessive higher alcohols, etc. or too much roast, etc.

Aging for flavor development in a well made beer isn’t equivalent in my opinion to “Aging” a beer that could have been made better.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the concept and agree with it in many respects. I just feel that what some consider “aging” is really sitting on a beer that wasn’t made as clean as it could be, i.e. excessive higher alcohols, etc. or too much roast, etc.

Aging for flavor development in a well made beer isn’t equivalent in my opinion to “Aging” a beer that could have been made better.

Just my opinion of course.

Looking at it another way, you're just looking at ageing in terms of what is lost, but you can also gain flavours as liquids age.

And sometimes off-flavours are in the eye of the beholder in any case - the diacetyl in Czech lagers, or the esters in British beers or the phenolics in Belgian beers would be faults in any other beer, but are what give them their distinctive character. Same with faces (the moles of Cindy Crawford and Marilyn Monroe etc).

Ultimately it's about making the best beer possible with the equipment you have. Time is just one more tool you can use.

 

[Big Monk]

Looking at it another way, you're just looking at ageing in terms of what is lost, but you can also gain flavours as liquids age.

And sometimes off-flavours are in the eye of the beholder in any case - the diacetyl in Czech lagers, or the esters in British beers or the phenolics in Belgian beers would be faults in any other beer, but are what give them their distinctive character. Same with faces (the moles of Cindy Crawford and Marilyn Monroe etc).

Ultimately it's about making the best beer possible with the equipment you have. Time is just one more tool you can use.

Aging is a passive process so technically the “gains” come from what is lost.

I guess I care about the difference between a beer that CAN be drank young AND with age, as opposed to those which don’t taste good fresh, i.e. flawed beers that need “aging” to be drinkable.

You are right though, it’s all very subjective.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

Aging is a passive process so technically the “gains” come from what is lost.

I guess I care about the difference between a beer that CAN be drank young AND with age, as opposed to those which don’t taste good fresh, i.e. flawed beers that need “aging” to be drinkable.

It's a horrendously complex chemical process, but you can get 1mg of substance A & B which are below flavour thresholds, reacting together to form 1mg of C&D which are above flavour thresholds.

Define "taste good fresh". Many of the great red wines are undrinkable "fresh" as they're so tannic, but with age those tannins polymerise over 10+ years to give a smooth, supple structure that is hugely sought after. By your standards, those tannins are a "fault".

 

[Big Monk]

It's a horrendously complex chemical process, but you can get 1mg of substance A & B which are below flavour thresholds, reacting together to form 1mg of C&D which are above flavour thresholds.

Define "taste good fresh". Many of the great red wines are undrinkable "fresh" as they're so tannic, but with age those tannins polymerise over 10+ years to give a smooth, supple structure that is hugely sought after. By your standards, those tannins are a "fault".

I don’t enjoy wine so that’s not a good comparison for me, although I get what you are saying.

Take a beer like Rochefort 8, or Chimay Grande Reserve, and consider that fresh they are delicious, complex beers that don’t require that you sit on them for years. However, these beers do age well. They shed certain flavors and characteristics over time and develop into equal delicious, if not totally different, examples.

Same goes for the most well made Imperial Stouts. They are very tasty fresh yet develop into fine beers all thier own.

 

[Northern_Brewer]

As I say - deliberately making wine that is initially "undrinkable" is not a particularly appealing proposition commercially - and beer has not real history of ageing other than the odd thing like Orval. But what if the beer world is stuck in Gallo thinking, and is ignoring the possibilities of making a Chateau Lafite?

It is changing a bit, with the recent trend towards barrel ageing - but we're only in the very early days of that process.

 

[Big Monk]

As I say - deliberately making wine that is initially "undrinkable" is not a particularly appealing proposition commercially - and beer has not real history of ageing other than the odd thing like Orval. But what if the beer world is stuck in Gallo thinking, and is ignoring the possibilities of making a Chateau Lafite?

It is changing a bit, with the recent trend towards barrel ageing - but we're only in the very early days of that process.

I think we are talking past each other.

I’m talking about home brewers in particular confusing “aging” (I made a boozy mess, etc.) with aging (I made a great beer and I want to sit on it for flavors to dissipate, improve, deepen, etc.).

The two are mutually exclusive in my opinion.

“Aging” is required to make a hot mess drinkable, yet it’s disguised as some sort of requirement for big beers.

Aging is sitting on a great beer because, as noted in your example above, the resultant flavors in tastings reveal subtleties that are preferred.

Again, we are in 100% agreement that taste is highly subjective. For me personally, I need to work on throwing my opinion around so strongly. I just want to make sure my distinction is clear.

When I hear someone say they need to sit on a beer for 1-2 years for it to peak, that doesn’t jive with my big beer experience, but it also is the subjective opinion of someone else.

 

[jturman35]

I just know some of the best beers I have ever had were aged. My favorite beer is a 10.5 % Quad, Rigor Mortis that’s aged two years. I will say I’m partial to aging beer because I can store it in my closet for long periods of time.

 

[Big Monk]

I just know some of the best beers I have ever had were aged. My favorite beer is a 10.5 % Quad, Rigor Mortis that’s aged two years. I will say I’m partial to aging beer because I can store it in my closet for long periods of time.

Again I dont doubt aged beers tasting good.

I guess I’m just not getting my point across clear enough. In the end, I support everyone’s right to drink what they want, how they want, even if I disagree with the methods.

 

[Jayjay1976]

The longest I've bulk aged a beer is this one, about 3-1/2 months. The longest I've aged bottled beer is about 13 months so I think I'll lay these down and forget about them for a while. I picked up a handful of bottles of 3 floyd's 'Pillar of Beasts' barley wine as gifts for those I intended to give a bottle of my Sweet Daddy Vlad. Instead they'll receive them next Christmas; as Trumpy sits in a cell we can all have a drink and laugh about that time we had a traitor as a president.

 

[jturman35]

How does that 1lb of Special B taste now verses later on down the road? That’s what I would be interested in seeing how it changes with time.

 

[toddo97]

I speak from a position of very little experience, but I recommend using debittered or de-husked dark malt like carafa III and cold steep them, adding the cold steeped extract during the second half of the boil. That way you eliminate the harsh bitter tannins that require extended aging to smooth out. Just mash in all the lighter malts, do your boil and add the dark, syrupy cold steeped extract at the end. Worked really well for me, the extract was thick as motor oil and black as night.

I've seen that recommended before (and also some people say that it doesn't do anything). My last dark beer was a porter I made that tasted pretty harsh so I'm definitely willing to try this. What was the cold steeping process that you used for this (amount of water and time steeping)?

 

[Big Monk]

I've seen that recommended before (and also some people say that it doesn't do anything). My last dark beer was a porter I made that tasted pretty harsh so I'm definitely willing to try this. What was the cold steeping process that you used for this (amount of water and time steeping)?

An easier method is to just use less roast malt. I’ve seen the percentages go pretty high. I’ve never used more than 8% total roast in any Stout, Imperial or otherwise, or Porter I’ve ever brewed.

I always use regular Carafa I, II, and III. I use about 7% roast and 7% darker cara malts for big stouts.

 

[Jayjay1976]

I've seen that recommended before (and also some people say that it doesn't do anything). My last dark beer was a porter I made that tasted pretty harsh so I'm definitely willing to try this. What was the cold steeping process that you used for this (amount of water and time steeping)?

I subtracted 1 gallon from my full mash volume, split this gallon and the crushed dark malts between two large jars and let them sit out on the counter overnight. The next morning, stir the jars well and pour through a fine mesh strainer while the rest of the grains are mashing. Add the steeping liquid after pulling the grain bag or collecting the wort, while ramping up to a boil. There will be some unconverted starches so your overall efficiency may drop a bit but the added dextrines will boost mouthfeel and body.

I'll admit I was a bit doubtful about how much extraction would occur overnight in cold water but I was amazed at how dark and viscous the result was, and it even tasted really good, like strong espresso but not overly bitter.

It's still conditioning but I took a gravity sample to my lhbs and they liked it, said it was balanced.

So far it seems to have worked well on a sweeter imperial stout, I'll try it soon on a dry porter and report back.

 

[ApolloSimcoe]

JayJay, how did the adding yeast at bottling work out for you?

 

[Jayjay1976]

JayJay, how did the adding yeast at bottling work out for you?

Seems to have worked out well, they are carbing up as expected. In retrospect I think it may have been unnecessary. They would have taken longer to carbonate but what does that matter when the beer will be aged for several months?

At this point I plan to taste one every 2 months or so, that way by fall when they are getting really good I will still have a bunch left.

 

[ApolloSimcoe]

Well, thats what i thought too. I made a Kate the Great Clone and a Winter Warmer back to back. Neither carbed up properly and they have been in the bottle for over a year.

I just look at adding yeast at bottling as insurance. You'll be glad you have it if you need it. I won't make that mistake again, plus dry yeast is cheap.

Glad yours are doing well!!

 

[Jayjay1976]

Well, thats what i thought too. I made a Kate the Great Clone and a Winter Warmer back to back. Neither carbed up properly and they have been in the bottle for over a year.

I just look at adding yeast at bottling as insurance. You'll be glad you have it if you need it. I won't make that mistake again, plus dry yeast is cheap.

Glad yours are doing well!!

Oh man, reading about your experience makes me feel better about using the CBC-1. I sure hope you can still enjoy those two batches somehow, maybe pour them like a black and tan; 70/30 with something more carbonated?