Pumpkin Homebrew Tasting

Homebrewed Pumpkin BeerSix weeks have passed since I brewed my high gravity pumpkin ale. The base recipe for the beer was an English Barley Wine on the low end of the style category. The original gravity started at 1.077 and finished at 1.017, giving me an approximately 8% ABV beer.

My goal with this beer was to take take the pie crust malt character found in many commercial pumpkin beers and amplify it, while decreasing the spice intensity. Additionally, I really wanted to make a beer where you could actually taste the caramelized pumpkin that was added to the mash.

Beer Tasting

Judged as a BJCP Category 21A Spice / Herb / Vegetable Beer.

Aroma (10/12)
Big round malt on the nose that is quite full with lots of deep caramel, toffee, and a hint of honey. There is a definite vanilla aroma as well as some oakey bourbon. The spicing is quite low with cinnamon being the most readily apparent, along with some nutmeg that instantly combines with some of the whiskey aromas to become reminiscent of eggnog. There are some pumpkin aromas that come off as cooked squash. As the beer warms, there is a hint of alcohol heat and acetone.

Appearance (3/3)
The beer is a beautiful deep amber or garnet with reddish highlights. The beer is clear, but not brilliantly so. The head is off-white and persistent.

Flavor (10/20)
There are some intense crackery and biscuit malt flavors upfront that are a little more substantial than I would have liked. There is no hop flavor although the beer has a nice firm balancing bitterness. Caramel hits mid palate and gives an impression of sweetness. It feels like the melanoidin rich malt is combining with the spice and alcohol to give a somewhat harsh flavor on the finish. There is a earthy gourd-like flavor that reminds you that you’re drinking a beer brewed with a substantial amount of pumpkin.

Mouthfeel (3/5)
The beer is quite full, perhaps a bit too much. The carbonation is low, further enhancing the beer’s fullness and leaving the mouthfeel a touch flabby.

Overall Impression (5/10)
This is not a bad beer, but I wouldn’t say it is world-class either. The slight harshness from the very intense toasty flavors are a bit much and could be dialed down a bit. Additionally, the whiskey and vanilla notes, while interesting, could benefit from some restraint. The presence of actual pumpkin in the beer is very apparent and quite welcome. It is quite likely that the beer will mellow out and become much more enjoyable with some age.

Total: 31/50 (Very Good)

Culturing Bottle Dregs

Primary fermentation for my Lambic-like beer was completed using Wyeast 3278, a Lambic-inspired blend consisting of a Belgian Saccharomyces strain, a Sherry strain, two Brettanomyces strains, a Lactobacillus strain, and a Pediococcus strain. The ratio of each microorganism is meant to emulate the exponentially more diverse cultures found in spontaneously fermented beers. Many brewers report that this particular blend tends to produce beers of much less complexity and acidity than what is found in traditional Lambics. In an attempt to add a bit of diversity to the microorganisms in my beer, I cultured and grew three different commercially available beers. Each of these were subsequently pitched into individual 1-gallon secondary fermenters containing the beer fermented previously with Wyeast 3278.

This is the caption

Cantillon Rose de Gambrinus, Tilquin Gueuze, Russian River Beatification

Growing up Your Cultures

Culturing yeast and bacteria from commercial bottles of beer is a fairly straightforward process. The main requirement is that the beer must not be filtered or pasteurized and is as fresh as possible. Luckily, this applies to many different craft beers. A little Googling will typically help you figure out if the commercial beer you’re wanting to grow yeast from can be successfully cultured.

Step 1 – Drink the Beer
It would be criminal to not consume the beer you’re culturing dregs from. Upon opening the bottle, I carefully flame the opening with a lighter. The intent is to grow what is living inside the bottle not whatever might be hanging out on the outside. I then carefully pour the beer into a glass, leaving as much sediment as possible in the bottle.

Step 2 – 200ml of 1.020 Wort
Before opening the bottle, I have 200ml of 1.020 sanitary wort made, chilled, and ready to go. To create this, I combine 12 grams of dry malt extract, a pinch of yeast nutrient, and 200ml of water in a 500ml Erlenmeyer flask and boil it for 5 minutes on the stove top to sanitize before chilling in a water bath. I pour this chilled wort directly into the bottle containing dregs, swirl it up, and cap it with a stopper and airlock. When culturing the low cell counts found in bottles of beer, I like to use an airlock to hopefully limit the amount of oxygen in the bottle and decrease the likelihood of something like acetobacter growing within. I leave this at room temperature for at least a week.

Step 3 – 200ml of 1.060 Wort
For the next step, I prepare 200ml of 1.060 wort in a 500ml Erlenmeyer flask (34 grams DME). I then swirl and pour the entire contents of the bottle I’m culturing into the concentrated 1.060 wort. This dilutes the wort back down to a reasonable growing concentration (1.040 or so) and has worked well for me as a second step. Again, I use a stopper and airlock to limit O2 availability. I let this ferment out for at least a week.

Step 4 – Chill, Decant, & Pitch
At this point in the process, I am able to see some fermentation activity in the flask. Once activity slows, I chill the culture for a few days to let it settle out, and then carefully decant and pitch the slurry. The amount of viable microorganisms in solution at this point works well to give additional character to beers, which have already been partly or completely fermented. If I wanted to use what I’ve grown as a primary fermenter, it would require an additional starter and step-up in order to produce enough viable yeast for primary fermentation.

So, how do they taste?

Before pitching my grown dregs, I tasted each sample and took notes for future comparison with the finished beer. I also wanted to ensure that none of the samples contained hints of acetic acid; which could be indicative of the presence of acetobacter which could spoil the beer.

Cantillon Rose de Gambrinus Culture
Fairly dry, some light residual sweetness left behind. Moderate plastic / burnt rubber Brett phenolic with a very light horse blanket earthiness. Sourness is low, but lactic in character. Pretty mild at this point.

Tilquin Gueuze Culture
Nice big, tart lactic nose. Some nice funky Brett horse blanket character with a touch of plastic phenol. Some tropical fruit esters, which are pretty nice. This beer has the most Brett character and sourness of the three cultures. This beer is the driest of the group yet pours with an odd-looking viscosity — probably the ‘ropey’ character often attributed to Pediococcus.

Russian River Beatification Culture
The sweetest and least fermented of the group. Tamest beer in terms of traditional Brett funk and sourness. This sample had a great tropical nose that is probably a Brett-derived ester. Very pleasant. It’ll be interesting to see where this one goes.

How about the base beer?

At the time that I racked the base Lambic to secondary it had fermented from 1.047 to 1.014 over the course of two weeks. It appears that the turbid mash produced the low fermentability I was hoping for.  The beer has a big peppery saison-like character with only a hint of tartness or Brett funk. The biggest surprise was the substantial hop bitterness and tannin in the beer. I used de-bittered hops, purchased directly through Hops Direct, which appear to have contributed a considerable amount of bitterness. I’m hopeful that since this is a long-term project the bitterness will age out. My primary concern is that the hop alpha acids will inhibit the lactic acid bacteria I’m hoping takes hold and sours the beer over time.

Homebrew Czech Pils vs. Pilsner Urquell

The wait is over. Five weeks after my brewday, it was time to tap my keg of Czech Pils and give it a shot. Instead of doing a standard BJCP review of this beer, I’m going to compare and contrast it against a common beer that most people know and have readily available, Pilsner Urquell.

Pilsner Urquell on the left, homebrew on the right.

Pilsner Urquell on the left, homebrew on the right.

Aroma:
Both beers have a nice, mildly spicy Saaz hop aroma that melds nicely with the touch of residual sulfur from the lager yeast. The Saaz hops are not as present in my beer as I would have thought considering the large hop back charge they were given. There is an unfortunate touch of mango-like hop aroma in my beer — probably attributable to bittering with Citra hops and in spite of the 90 minutes which they were boiled. The Urquell has some honey-like, candied malt aromas not present in my beer, along with a touch of butterscotchy diacetyl.

Appearance:
Claritywise, both beers are nearly identical — brilliantly clear. Both have nice bright white heads, with the homebrew out-persisting the commercial beer. Both are golden with the Urquell being a hair darker.

Flavor:
The biggest difference between the two beers is in bitterness. My homebrew is considerably more bitter and is much more similar in balance to something like Victory Prima Pils. The malt character is nearly identical, although the Urquell is rounder and slightly sweeter. Again, the hops in my beer are slightly tropical which doesn’t fit the style.

Mouthfeel:
Both beers feature similar medium bodies, although my beer is slightly more carbonated, giving it a sharpness the Urquell doesn’t have.

Overall:
Both are great beers. My beer almost comes off as a German Pils with its aggressive bittering and lack of soft malt. Straight out of the fridge, I prefer the Urquell because it isn’t as sharp and has a nicer almost sweet malt character. As the beers warm, the diacetyl in the Urquell comes to the forefront and is a bit off-putting, making me prefer the homebrew.

100% Sour Mash Berliner Weisse Tasting

Less than a week after pitching yeast, my Berliner Weisse was carbonated and ready for consumption. The beer finished just in time for the NYC Homebrewers Guild annual picnic and the intense NYC heat (and humidity) wave that followed shortly afterwards. I couldn’t have made a beer in a more timely manner. At only 3.4% ABV, I was able to push it from grain to glass faster than any other beer I’ve brewed.

100% Sour Mash Berline Weisse

Perhaps the best beer to consume during the doldrums of a NYC heat wave?

Beer Tasting

Judged as a BJCP Category 17A Berliner Weisse.

Aroma (10/12)
Initially the beer presents with a nice and clean, tangy lactic aroma that is in some ways reminiscent of the acidity found in yogurt. In the background is a round and almost honey-like pilsner malt aroma with a hint of toasted cracker. Also apparent is a very light herbal hop aroma that is a bit out of place in the style, but welcome in such a young beer. There is a light touch of a pear ester. No diacetyl, DMS, or other off-flavors.

Appearance (3/3)
Quite hazy and very pale. There is a bright white foam that easily builds and persists throughout consumption.

Flavor (16/20)
Simple and delicious. The beer somehow manages to have an acidity that is both round and soft, while also quite intense and refreshing. The acid is clean and pleasant. There is a nice simple and easy-drinking malty character that showcases the pilsner malt sweetness while having a crisply dry crackery finish (probably from the wheat). None of the hops I got on the nose can be tasted. The malt is maybe a hair too sweet for the style. There is just a hint of perceptible bitterness.

Mouthfeel (4/5)
The dryness of this beer combines with the acidity and medium-high carbonation to be quite crisp. The body is maybe a touch full. There is no hint of thinness or the watery character that is often found in low-alcohol beers.

Overall Impression (8/10)
This is an excellent example of the style. It captures the acidity and refreshing qualities that are the hallmark of the style and hits all the right marks in terms of malt character. There are none of the off-flavors sometimes associated with sour mashes. The only detractor is that perhaps it is a touch sweet; likely caused by me undershooting my attenuation goals. To make this beer better, I would allow it to ferment for an extra day or two and hopefully squeeze a couple more points of  attenuation out of it.

Total: 41/50 (Excellent)

Vienna Lager Recipe and Tasting

Vienna Lager

Homebrewed Vienna Lager

What qualities would you want in a “desert island beer”? Personally, I’d want something with low enough alcohol to consume in quantity, something relatively dry with some malt intrigue, and something balanced; in other words, a Vienna Lager.

The Vienna Lager is a bit of an enigma. The classic Continental examples are pretty much extinct. I have yet to find a European version that matches what I imagine a classic Vienna Lager to be. Immigration of Austrian brewers to Mexico in the late 1800’s brought the style to the New World, creating the distant relatives of the modern beers we see imported today. Common examples like Dos Equis Amber and Negra Modelo (which are tasty in their own right), are adjunct laden, sweeter versions of their Austrian forefather’s beer. The best examples today come from American craft brewers. Places like Chuckanut Brewing and Devil’s Backbone make my favorites and are perennial award winners at the GABF. These incredible all-malt examples have a slight sweetness and complex, yet not overbearing malt character, finishing slightly off-dry. This is what I’ve tried to emulate; using a recipe that takes a similar approach as Brewing Classic Styles, blending the trifecta of Pilsner, Munich, and Vienna malts. I personally don’t feel like crystal malts have much place in a good Vienna Lager; perhaps a touch for head retention. If you’re at NHC 2013 in Philly, come by the NYC Homebrewers Guild booth during Club Night where I’ll have this beer flowing.

Recipe

Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 67%
Attenuation: 72%

Original Gravity: 1.050
Terminal Gravity: 1.014
Color: 14.23
Alcohol: 4.7%
Bitterness: 24.8

Ingredients:
2.625 lb (39.3%) Vienna Malt – added during mash
1.25 lb (18.7%) Pilsner Malt – added during mash
2.625 lb (39.3%) Munich TYPE II – added during mash
1 oz (0.9%) Carafa® TYPE II – added during mash
2 oz (1.9%) Melanoidin Malt – added during mash
1 oz (100.0%) Hallertauer Hersbrucker (4.3%) – added during boil, boiled 60 m
0.5 ea Whirlfloc Tablets (Irish moss) – added during boil, boiled 15 m
0.5 tsp Wyeast Nutrient – added during boil, boiled 10 m
1 ea WYeast 2308 Munich Lager™

Schedule:
00:03:00 Dough In – Liquor: 5.6 gal; Strike: 159.87 °F; Target: 155 °F
01:03:00 Saccarification Rest – Rest: 60 m; Final: 155.0 °F
01:13:38 Mash Out – Heat: 10.6 m; Target: 168.0 °F
01:18:38 Transfer to Kettle – Volume: 6.04 gal; Final: 168.0 °F
(No Sparge)

Notes:
Final Volume into Fermenter: 2.75 Gallons
Yeast Required: 196 billion (per Mr. Malty)
Yeast Production Date: 3/13/13
Yeast Starter: 1.6L @ 1.040 on stir plate (per Mr. Malty) = 6.5 oz. DME

Fermentation:
1. Chill to 44* F and keep at 48* F until activity slows (1 week+).
2. Raise to 58* F for diacetyl rest 24 hours .
3. Drop temperature 2 * / day until at 34 * F.
4. Rack to corny keg.
5. Lager 4-6 weeks

Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP category 3A Vienna Lager.

Aroma (11/12)
Subtlety complex toasted malt character with some biscuit and almost sourdough-like bread qualities. There is a hint of sweetness on the nose. Just a whisper of sulfur reminds you you’re drinking a lager. No esters, alcohol, hops, or diacetyl. Extremely clean.

Appearance (2/3)
Brilliant rich copper color with a white head. A little more carbonation would improve the initial head, but it could use better persistence.

Flavor (16/20)
Beautiful malt character that is toasty and crisp without being caramel-laden or too rich. There is a hint of graininess that seems to be coming from a pilsner malt. The malt is crisp and balanced. There is no hop flavor, but their presence is felt in a bitterness that is medium-low with enough intensity to keep the beer crisp while allowing a lingering malt sweetness to persist through the finish.

Mouthfeel (3/5)
This beer is slightly undercarbonated leaving it with a somewhat full mouthfeel. Beer finishes relatively dry and perfectly to style. More carbonation would help make this an even more drinkable beer.

Overall Impression (9/10)
This is one of my favorite beers to brew and consume. Creating a clean, low-alcohol lager is a well-rewarded challenge. There is some nice malt complexity that is clean and crisp making it easy to both drink in quantity while also stimulating your palate. It is a beer that can you can dissect the flavors and aromas of one-by-one, or simply slam a boot of. Next time I brew, I’ll likely add some dextrin malt to improve the head persistence, slightly bump up the percentage of Vienna malt (while lessening the Munich II), and go back to my favorite lager yeast (WLP833, the Ayinger strain) which seems to attenuate a little bit better.

Total: (41/50) Excellent