SMaSH Mandarina Bavaria vs Hallertau Mittelfruh Pilsners

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Nick Ladd

Both SMaSH pilsners were brought the annual NYC Hombrewers Guild picnic — the perfect beer on a hot summer day.

About 6-weeks ago I brewed a couple of SMaSH pilsner lagers, inspired by Firestone Walker Pivo Pils, and featuring 100% Weyermann Pilsner malt. For hopping, one was brewed solely with a new German varietal called Mandarina Bavaria, where-as the other was brewed with the more traditional Hallertau Mittelfruh.

Rather than do a full BJCP-style evaluation of each beer, I’ll describe the malt and yeast character present in both beers, and then attempt to describe the real hop character differences that exists between the beers.

Malt Character:
Clean and crisp is the best way to describe this malt. I was able to achieve 80% + apparent attenuation which lends a nice lean character without becoming watery. Although I missed the very high level of attenuation found in Pivo Pils (88%), this beer still captures the dryness that makes Pivo so great. The standard Weyermann Pilsner malt I used has a nice light bready, and ever-so-slightly grainy character that is very nuanced. This is a great neutral malt that begs to be set down as a base to bounce other flavors against. The Weyermann malt does not feel as round and bready as other pilsner malts I have used, in particular Dingemans pils from Belgium which features an almost honey-like sweetness. Using this malt in this manner clearly illustrates how similarly colored malts from different maltsters can have dramatically different characteristics.

Yeast Character:
Unfortunately, the homebrew shop I purchased from did not have the Wyeast 2124 lager yeast used by Pivo Pils in stock. As a back-up, I brewed with my go-to lager yeast WLP833 from White Labs. This yeast performs superbly, attenuating well, and cleaning up any residual diacetyl. There is a very light fruity ester present in the beer, but other than that, the beer is clean and neutral, setting the table to showcase the hops and malt.

Hallertau Mittelfruh Hop:
This hop look you straight in the eye and without blinking proudly proclaims its German heritage. This hop features a classic, and very nuanced herbal quality. When searching, there is a low white pepper note as well. On the finish is a slightly grassy, almost tea-leaf like flavor which I attribute to the fact that I needed to use nearly twice as much of this hop to hit the same IBU levels provided by the higher alpha Mandarina Bavaria. The quality of the bitterness in this beer is very smooth, and does not linger.

Mandarina Bavaria Hop:
Mandarina Bavaria is often cited as a next generation German varietal being bred to compete with the novel hop varieties being grown in the Pacific NW. True to its name, this hop has a nice round sweet mandarin and tangerine flavor that comes across almost as candied orange that while present, is much more subtle than the citrus displayed by other types of hops. Additionally, there doesn’t seem to be any of the bitter, pithy citrus character that is found in many varieties. There is none of the pine or resin flavors which dominate other hops. This hop does not match the brash intensity and massive oil levels found in the newer American hops. This hop works really well in this beer, providing a sweet citrus component without dominating the malt or other lager characteristics. Mandarina Bavaria shines in more nuanced beers, but probably won’t be able to stand up to the Simcoes, Citras, or even brasher South Hemisphere hops that dominate the IPA world. That said, there is a definite place for this hop in the ever-expanding tool chest of hops modern brewers have access to.

Berliner Weisse Review

Posted on May 28, 2014 by Nick Ladd

After nearly six-months, my Berliner Weiss with Brett Trois is ready for review. Utilizing sour-mashing techniques, my intention with this beer was to quickly turn-around a clean, refreshing, brightly acidic beer with a minimal investment of time. In the end, the finished beer meets my expectations, but the timeline ended up being much more protracted than I initially intended.

For many months, this beer was a pain in the ass. My initial plan was to ferment the beer cleanly down to a reasonable finishing gravity (1.007 or so) and then bottle condition with Brett Trois. Unfortunately, after primary fermentation with a clean ale yeast was complete, the beer finished at 1.010 SG. I suspect the Saccromyces strain (WYeast 1007) was impeded by the high acidity that the beer exhibited after the initial sour mash. Rather than bottle with Brett and risk bottle-bombs, I opted to add the Brett at secondary and hope for some further attenuation. After a couple more months, the Brett knocked a couple more points off the beer to the point that I was comfortable bottling. The caveat being, that I would not add any priming sugar as I suspected that there were still some carbohydrates in the beer that the Brett could work on. This turned out to become another source of frustration, as the carbonation came to life at a painfully slow pace.

Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP Category 17A Berliner Weiss

Aroma (8/12):
Bright lactic acidity up front which pair nicely with some mellow pear-like ester. Quite fruity. Low crackery malt note. No hops, DMS, or diacetyl.

Appearance (3/3):
Hazy gold. A vigorous pour presents a fluffy white head that quickly dissipates to a ring in around the glass.

Flavor (12/20):
This beer presents with quite a lot of lactic acidity. The acid is somewhat tangy and slightly yogurt-like. At the same time, it is soft and round, especially when compared to sharper acids (like acetic). The bright acid gives way to a nice round crackery malt character that lingers on the finish. The malt is perhaps just a touch sweeter than the style would dictate. Hop flavor is absent, and there is barely a whisper of bitterness. There is a hint of papery oxidation on the finish.

Mouthfeel (1/5):
Low to medium-low body. Medium (2.5 volumes or so) carbonation. The carbonation is improving, but continues to not be nearly as effervescent as the style calls for. The lack of champagne-like carbonation is a big detraction in this beer.

Overall Impression (6/10):
After many months, this beer is getting to be really nice. The biggest problem is the lack high carbonation that would help the beer become even more bright and refreshing, and cut some of the slight residual malt sweetness that is present. Surprisingly, I am not picking up any of the typical Brett flavors that could be attributed to the Brett Trois addition. My instinct is to drink this beer now at its current carbonation level rather than risk increasing the low oxidative notes that are beginning to develop.

Three Brett Saison Varieties Reviewed

Posted on May 17, 2014 by Nick Ladd

Back in July 2013, I brewed a saison heavily hopped with American varietals, and split them into three separate secondary vessels inoculated individually with Brettanomyces Lambicus, Brettanomyces Bruxellensis, and a mixed culture of ‘bugs’ cultured from a bottle of Crooked Stave Surette. These cultures were added to the main beer after a short initial fermentation using Wyeast 3724 which (as expected) dropped early and left a lot of residual sugar (1.025) for the secondary cultures to work on. The beers were allowed to age with the mixed cultures for 5-months before being bottled for consumption.

The goal of this experiment was to evaluate the impact that different secondary cultures can have on a base beer. It was amazing to taste how the different secondary cultures caused dramatically different transformations of the base beer. As expected, the two Brett strains were the most similar, with the Crooked Stave culture being clearly cut from a different cloth. Terminal gravities between the three samples were also slightly different:

Brett Lambicus: 1.004 (92.7% Apparent Attenuation)
Brett Brux: 1.002 (96.3% Apparent Attenuation)
Crooked Stave Culture: 1.006 (89% Apparent Attenuation)

Flavor and Aroma Notes:

Brettanomyces Lambicus (White Labs WLP653)
Overall, this beer has the mellowest level of Brett funk and fruity esters. The Brett character is medium in intensity and reminiscent of horse, hay, and earth. A touch of band-aid like phenol is present, but not overly offensive. There is a nice bready pilsner malt character that shines through the funk.

Brettanomyces Bruxellensis (White Labs WLP650)
This beer had by far the most pronounced Brett character. There is a moderately-high level of horsey / musty funk. The ester profile is really nice with slight hints of ripe pineapple and other fruit. There is a low level of band-aid phenol that is slightly higher than what was found in the Brett Lambicus sample. Again, there is a nice round bready malt character in both the Brett beers that somehow manages to shine through despite the high levels of attenuation.

Crooked Stave Surette Culture
By far the fruitiest sample. There is a round fruity ester reminiscent of tart pie cherries. This beer developed a nice level of bright lactic acidity. Not quite puckering, but pleasantly tart which helps reinforce the fruit notes. There is a light banana ester present which is a bit out of place. I am quite surprised with this beer’s lactic character given the high level of hopping and lacto’s typical intolerance to hop compounds. This makes me hypothesize that the strain of lacto Crooked Stave is using is more tolerant to high hopping than other commercially available strains. Funky Brett notes are present, but subdued. The nice malt character found in the previous two beers is well hidden beneath the big fruit character of this beer.

Final Thoughts:

Part of my goal with this beer was to evaluate how Brett strains meld with American hop varietals. While there was a bit of citrusy hops still present in the beers, it for the most part has oxidized and dissipated. For the next version, I think it is imperative to dry hop a beer like this after extended aging and prior to packaging to allow the volatile hop aromatics to survive in the final beer and meld with the Brett derived flavors and aromatics.

Single Tap IPA 3.0 Recipe & Review

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Nick Ladd

Over the years I’ve brewed lots of different IPAs. Lately however, I’ve been focused on developing Single Tap, my house IPA. This third generation recipe has its roots in a beer I brewed back in 2012 which won a first place ribbon in the first round of the National Homebrew Competition. Over the years, the recipe has been simplified, with the notion that every ingredient should have a justifiable reason for its inclusion. While the recipe is always changing, the heart of this beer is focused on providing a toasty, yet lean, highly-attenuated malt background and contrasting it against a ton a big American hop flavor and aroma. I am able to keep the bitterness low compared to other IPAs by pushing attenuation to the point that little bitterness is needed for balance.

Single Tap IPA 3.0 Recipe

Size: 4.32 gal – With system and trub losses, I typically end up with 2.75 gallons in the fermenter.
Efficiency: 72% (Measured)
Attenuation: 82.8% (Calculated)

Original Gravity: 1.070 SG (Measured)
Terminal Gravity: 1.012 SG (Measured)
Color: 9.71 SRM
Alcohol: 7.6% ABV (Calculated)
Bitterness: 24.0 IBUs – Calculations don’t take into account bitterness gained through whirlpool additions, which is considerable.

Fermentables:
5 lb (45.5%) – Briess 2-Row Brewers Malt
3 lb (27.3%) – Crisp Maris Otter
1 lb (9.1%) – Weyermann Vienna Malt
8 oz (4.5%) – Briess White Wheat Malt
6 oz (3.4%) – Crisp Crystal 45
2 oz (1.1%) – Weyermann Acidulated Malt – added for pH correction
1 lb (9.1%) Table Sugar – added during boil

Hop Additions:
4 g Citra™ (13.7% AA) – First Wort Hop
0.5 oz Sterling (7.5% AA) – 10 m
0.5 oz Centennial (10.5% AA) – 10 m
2 oz Citra™ (13.7% AA) – Post Boil Whirlpool – 25 m
3 oz Amarillo® (8.7% AA) – Post Boil Whirlpool – 25 m
1 oz Centennial (10.5% AA) – Post Boil Whirlpool – 25 m
0.5 oz Sterling (7.5% AA) – Post Boil Whirlpool – 25 m

0.5 oz Centennial (10.5% AA) – Dry Hop 3 Days
1.5 oz Citra™ (13.7% AA) – Dry Hop 3 Days
1.5 oz Amarillo® (8.7% AA) – Dry Hop 3 Days

Kettle Additions:
0.5 ea Whirlfloc Tablets – 15 m
0.5 tsp Wyeast Nutrient – 10 m

Yeast:
WYeast 1056 American Ale™ – 1600ml 1.040 starter on stir plate.

Water Additions:
Soft NYC Water
6g Gypsum (Calcium Sulfate)
2g Calcium Chloride

Mash Regiment:
Saccarification Rest – 149° F, 60m
Mashout Rest – 168° F, 5m

Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP Category 14b American IPA

Aroma (11/12)
Putting your nose in this glass unveils a cornucopia of hop-derived fruit aromas. Most obvious is the mango, but there are also big notes of orange, tangerine, and a hint of peach. There is just a touch of grassiness and pine resin. Underneath the hops, there is a light hint of toasty and bready malt. Very clean. Not alcohol or other off-aromas.

Appearance (3/3)
Beer is a slightly hazy and light copper in color. The glass is capped by a frothy white head of exceptional persistence and lacing.

Flavor (15/20)
This beer is bursting with bright hop flavor. There is tons of citrus, some tropical fruit, and just a touch of grass. The beer is extremely dry, but the ripe fruity hops give a slight perception of sweetness. Bitterness is considerably less than most commercial examples and could be bumped up just a touch. Underneath all of the hops is a moderately toasty and bready malt component which is quite nice. The hop flavor carries through and lingers a touch in the finish.

Mouthfeel (5/5)
Medium bodied with a very nice creaminess that finishes clean. Moderate carbonation.

Overall Impression (8/10)
This is the best iteration yet of my constantly evolving IPA recipe. The dryness of the beer melds well with intense juicy hops achieving a balance that makes the beer extremely quaffable. While it could use just a hair more bitterness and perhaps even a touch more dryness, the beer in the glass is a wonderful example of the style. This homebrew easily stands up to the best commercial examples.

Total: 42/50 Excellent

Reviewing My King Henry Clone Attempt

Posted on April 16, 2014 by Nick Ladd

Goose Island Bourbon County Barley Wine on the left, homebrew variations in the middle and right.

Late in September 2013, I took a shot at brewing a clone of Goose Island’s King Henry barrel aged barley wine. The beer was left to rest on oak cubes which had been soaked in different spirits (Weller 12 Bourbon and Christian Drouin Calvados). After about 3 months on oak, I packaged the beer in individual bottles and decided to taste them blindly against Goose Island Bourbon County Barleywine — the closest beer I could track down that would resemble King Henry.

Rather than do an extensive review of each beer, I’d like to focus on the elements that are clearly different. The recipe I used came directly from Goose Island’s brewsheet for King Henry, so I am relatively confident in the grist make-up and hopping. That being said, I definitely did not achieve a clone due to the various reasons outlined below.

Barrel Character
The biggest thing separating my beers from the commercial example was the dramatic difference in barrel character. The Goose Island beer is extremely rich, with robust amounts of vanilla, toffee, and even a bit of sweetness coming from the barrel. Comparatively, the homebrew was almost thin, with a one-dimensional raw woody character that was dramatically different. I went through an exercise of adding slight amounts of bourbon back to the homebrewed beer, and while it helped, the character it imparted was more spirit-like in its booziness and lacked the depth and roundness of barrel notes the commercial beer contains. I’ve always been aware of the dramatic differences between simulated barrel aging, and actual barrel aging. Having these two beers side-by-side made this difference extremely obvious.

Yeast
The only real omission from the brew sheets I formulated my recipe off had to do with yeast selection. I ended up using Wyeast 1098 British Ale which left my beer with a distinct ester character, not found in Goose Island’s beer. My beer had much more British character than the Goose Island product. For the next iteration of this I brew, I will definitely be revisiting my yeast choice.

Color
The commercial example I am comparing my homebrew against is considerably darker in color. Previously I had discounted the statement I’ve heard in the past that the commercial beer picks up some color from the imperial stout which previously resided within the aging barrels. It’s tough for me to explain the color difference, so perhaps there is some truth to this.

While I wasn’t able to clone the beer, I still ended up with a really nice brew. It is somewhat one-dimensional in its oak character which I hope will evolve a bit with some age. The biggest take-away for me is that there truly is no substitute for genuine barrel aging. For my next iteration, I plan to obtain a 5-gallon whiskey barrel and see if I can get closer to the barrel character that Goose Island is able to achieve.