Sierra Nevada Pale Ale Clone – 2.0

Posted on September 23, 2015 by Nick Ladd

Another blog post, another Sierra Nevada Pale Ale clone. The Verdict: Not Cloned.

Commercial beer on the left, homebrew on the right.

That said, we’re getting close.To start, here is the recipe that I brewed.

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale Cone 2.0 (Not Cloned)

Specifications:

Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 68%
Attenuation: 80% (measured)

Original Gravity: 1.051
Terminal Gravity: 1.010 (measured)
Color: 10.86 SRM
Alcohol: 5.4% ABV (calculated)
Bitterness: 37.7 IBU (calculated)

Grist:

6.75 lb (94.7%) Briess 2-Row Brewers Malt
6 oz (5.3%) Briess Caramel 60L

Mash Regiment:

152 °F – Sacc Rest – 60min

Water Treatment:

Extremely Soft NYC Water
4g Gypsum (to mash)
2g Calcium Chloride (to mash)

Hopping:

9 g Magnum (12.6% AA) – 60 m
8 g Perle (8.7% AA) – 30 m
8 g Cascade (6.9% AA) – 10 m
72 g Cascade (6.9% AA) – Whirlpool 15m

Kettle Additions:

0.5 ea Whirlfloc Tablets (Irish moss) – 15 m
0.5 tsp Wyeast Nutrient – 10 mYeast:

Yeast:

WYeast 1056 American Ale™ Starter on stirplate to achieve 1 million cells per milliliter of wort per degree Plato. Use Mr. Malty to determine proper starter sized based on age of yeast package. Pitch into 60°F wort and allow to free rise to 64°F. As fermentation begins to slow, raise temperature to 70°F.

The Results

While there are some recipe changes in store for the next iteration, this beer primarily misses the mark on technical merits. Most noticeably my beer has a touch of honeyed oxidized malt character with perhaps a faint hint of diacetyl that is not present in the commercial beer.

I am typically very careful to limit O2 exposure, especially in fermented beer. In some ways, the oxidation of this beer is welcome as it is making me look critically at my process and think of ways I can limit O2 pickup. The biggest risk for oxidation in my process comes at two locations: the cold crash and packaging.

When I cold crash my beer, there is usually some suck-back of air into the fermenter due to a vacuum being pulled as the liquid’s volume decreases as it cools. I typically put a little CO2 head pressure on my beers as I cold crash in order to prevent this. With this beer, I got lazy and skipped this step. Nevermore!

The second biggest opportunity for O2 pickup is when I rack finished beer to my keg. I always purge the keg, but perhaps I am not always as careful as I should be in gently racking the beer and purging the racking cane or fermenter head space once it is opened up. In a perfect world, I would be doing a completely closed transfer — this is something I’m looking into and hope to implement in the future.

In terms of recipe, I believe the malt bill I am using is nearly perfect. There is a slight color difference between my beer and the commercial example, but I believe this has more to do with some yeast being suspended in the homebrew, and not a dramatic miss with the malt bill. I may bump up the crystal malt ever so slightly in the next round — perhaps only by a couple ounces.

The biggest recipe difference that I need to implement for the next round is in regard to flavor and aroma hops. The commercial beer has a substantial grapefruit pith and slightly spicy / herbal hop character. While this character is present in the homebrew, it is not nearly as intense. The homebrew’s bitterness level is spot on, but the aroma and flavor needs to be dramatically increased. For the next iteration of my recipe, I intend to boost the amount of late hopping at least by an order of 2 or 3 in order to get closer to the commercial beer.

Cloning Sierra Nevada Pale Ale

Posted on July 8, 2015 by Nick Ladd

Somehow, I’ve managed to never make a true attempt at cloning a commercial beer. This is somewhat regrettable as attempting to reproduce a reliably consistent commercial product is an opportunity to not only test your process controls, but also gain a true understanding of how certain ingredients and techniques can impact a final beer. Personally, no beer would be better for a clone attempt than Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. Not only is this a beer that was very formative in my journey towards craft beer, it is also reliably available, fresh, and consistent.

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale on the left, homebrewed beer on the right.

The first step is researching the beer you’re trying to clone and establishing a set of specifications for that beer. In the case of Sierra Nevada Pale, their website provides a good starting point in terms of gravities, bitterness, and base ingredients. From there, a number of other websites and forums provide additional anecdotal stories and recipes that can inform your own formulation. With the research complete, I formulated the following recipe.

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale Clone Attempt (not Cloned)

Specifications:

Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 68%
Attenuation: 75% (measured)

Original Gravity: 1.053
Terminal Gravity: 1.013 (measured)
Color: 11.79 SRM
Alcohol: 5.1% ABV (calculated)
Bitterness: 38.2 IBU (calculated)

Grist:

6.75 lb (93.1%) Briess 2-Row Brewers Malt
8 oz (6.9%) Muntons Crystal 60L

Mash Regiment:

153 °F – Sacc Rest – 30min

Water Treatment:

Extremely Soft NYC Water
4g Gypsum (to mash)
2g Calcium Chloride (to mash)

Hopping:

9 g Magnum (12.6% AA) – 60 m
8 g Perle (8.7% AA) – 30 m
8 g Cascade (6.9% AA) – 10 m
26 g Cascade (6.9% AA) – Whirlpool 15m

Kettle Additions:

0.5 ea Whirlfloc Tablets (Irish moss) – 15 m
0.5 tsp Wyeast Nutrient – 10 mYeast:

Yeast:

The Results

An important part of the cloning process is a critical review that involves consuming the beer side-by-side with the original, preferably blindly. This allows you to note critical differences which can be projected out to future recipe iterations. Unfortunately, my first attempt clearly did not result in a clone. This however is not a failure, as it allows me to make process and recipe changes to hopefully create a clone in future iterations. Below I’ve outlined the critical differences between my beer, and commercially available Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and the changes I plan to incorporate into the next version of the beer.

Aroma:

The homebrew version of the beer has far more yeast character than the commercial beer. Specifically, my beer has a distinct floral and fruity ester (pear and berry) not present in the commercial beer. In future iterations, I plan to pitch a larger starter and provide additional oxidation of the wort to discourage the production of yeast esters.
The commercial beer has a brighter grapefruit pith and slightly herbal hop aroma. I plan to dramatically increase the whirlpool addition of cascade hops in my beer.
The homebrewed beer has a distinct dark fruit, dark caramel malt aroma. My original intention was to stick with American crystal malts, but was forced to substitute out British crystal malts due to availability. This had a huge impact on the final beer. I will stick to American maltsters in the next iteration.

Appearance

My beer appears a shade darker than the commercial beer. My beer has better head retention than the commercial beer. In the next recipe iteration, I will dial back the amount of crystal malt to lighten up the beer color.

Flavor

Again, my beer has a much richer, darker crystal malt character. This is the by-product of using British crystal malt. The choice of crystal malt made an enormous difference in the final beer. For the next version, I will stick to American maltsters.
My homebrewed version is lacking in the fresh cascade hop grapefruit pith flavor. I will dramatically increase the Cascade whirlpool addition in the next iteration of this recipe.
My homebrew is sweeter than the commercial version. The commercial beer attenuates to approximately 79% apparent attenuation. My version only attenuated to 75%. I will mash lower for the next version of the recipe to attempt to further dry out the beer.
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale has a slightly grainy / tannic finish. This is likely a byproduct of high levels of sugar extraction. I will attempt to boost my extract efficiency for the next version of the beer.
My homebrew is less bitter than the commercial version. Increasing my whirlpool additions should bring the beer closer in line with the commercial version.

Eisbock Homebrew Recipe & Review

Posted on July 1, 2015 by Nick Ladd

Eisbock: Silver Medal in Category 5 Bock at the final round of the 2015 National Homebrew Competition

In many ways, contemporary American craft beer is constantly chasing extremes. Extreme hops, malt, and alcohol are the norm. Eisbock can be seen as one of the original ‘extreme’ beers. It predates the American craft beer movement, but is equally as intense and flavorful as some of the most coveted craft beers. Eisbock manages to maintain a smooth lager character while being a showcase for the intense malt flavors inherent to many of the great German malts.This recipe has done well in competition, winning a silver medal in the Bock category at the final round of the National Homebrewer Competition in 2015.

The myth of eisbock is that it owes its origin to a brewer who inadvertently left a barrel of dopplebock outside in the winter which led to the freeze concentration of the nectar inside. True or not, the science is sound and methodology similar to what I used for this beer. Alcohol inherently freezes at a much lower temperature than water. This trait can be exploited by brewers, allowing them to effectively concentrate the alcohol in their beers while discarding some of the water content.

When designing an Eisbock, my intent was to specifically formulate a base doppelbock that would be lean on caramel character in order to avoid a cloying sweetness once the flavors are intensified during freeze-concentration. Additionally, I wanted to keep the IBUs low as it is has been my experience that freezing a beer will concentrate the bittering compounds. The same logic can be applied to alcohol heat. Providing for a healthy fermentation is key to avoiding excessive fusel alcohols which will be concentrated in the final beer. My focus was on creating rich toasty notes with a solid Munich malt base while including a touch of high lovibond caramel to throw in a bit of dark fruit flavor that is delicious in these types of beers.

Utilizing C02 and a jumper line to transfer beer keg to keg during the freeze-concentration.

The trick to doing this beer correctly is in the freeze-concentration. I went through approximately 8 freeze cycles utilizing two 3-gallon corny kegs and my kitchen freezer. The basic methodology is to freeze a keg of the beer and then push out the remaining unfrozen liquid to a second keg. It is extremely important to use closed vessels purged with CO2 in order to minimize any risk of oxidizing the beer. Patience is key; multiple incremental freezes that only push a small volume of liquid at a time will help insure you’re pulling out the most concentrated liquid. In the end, I pulled out approximately 32% of the original volume. The liquid that was discarded typically had a specific gravity of near 1.000 meaning that it was primarily water. Sensory analysis of the discarded liquid confirms that it was primarily water. This freeze concentration effectively took my ABV from approximately 7.5% to over 11%.

Eisbock Recipe

Specifications:
Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 74%
Attenuation: 68%

Original Gravity: 1.084
Terminal Gravity: 1.026 (measured)
Color: 18.88 SRM (Before Freeze)
Alcohol: 7.5% ABV (Before Freeze. Approximately 11% after freeze.)
Bitterness: 22 IBU (Before Freeze)

Malt Bill:
7.5 lb (68.2%) Weyermann Munich TYPE II
3 lb (27.3%) Weyermann Pilsner Malt
2 oz (1.1%) Weyermann Caramunich® TYPE III
6 oz (3.4%) Hugh Baird Crystal 130

Mash Profile:
148°F – 60m
155°F – 15m
168°F – 5m

Decoctions used between each step.

Water Treatment:
Extremely Soft NYC Water
2g Gypsum (to mash)
4g Calcium Chloride (to mash)

Hopping:
0.75 oz Hallertauer Mittelfrüher (4.0% AA) – 60 m
0.5 oz Hallertauer Mittelfrüher (4.0% AA) – 10 m

Kettle Additions:
0.5 ea Whirlfloc Tablets (Irish moss) – added during boil, boiled 15 m
0.5 tsp Wyeast Nutrient – added during boil, boiled 10 m

Yeast:
White Labs WLP833 German Bock Lager

Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP 5D. Eisbock

Aroma (10/12):
Rich and decadent malt fills your olfactory nerves. The malt is toasty and reminiscent of heavily browned bread crust. There is a background of rich dark caramel providing additional complexity. Enticing aromas of dark fruit, plum, fig, and perhaps cherry waft from the glass. As it warms, a bit of ethanol is apparent and true to the style.

Appearance (2/3):
Deep brown with only the slightest of tan heads that quickly dissipates. Beer is nice and clear due to the prolonged lagering period.

Flavor (17/20):
Huge display of rich malt. There is some residual sweetness that manages to be kept in balance by some intense toasty, almost drying, malt notes. The malt is wonderfully complex with a round nuttiness, followed by fig, molasses, burnt sugar, and sourdough toast. There is just a hint of hop bitterness and no flavor. Fermentation character is clean with a low level of hot alcohol. No ester or other fermentation character.

Mouthfeel (4/5):
Silky full-body with a smooth medium-low level of carbonation. Mouthfeel is just a touch sticky, but otherwise quite luscious.

Overall Impression (9/10)
Beautiful showcase of the melanoiden-rich Munich malt that comprises the bulk of the grain bill. Rich and decadent, it would be tough to consume more than a bottle of this at a time. This Eisbock is a great sipper to spend some time with slowly consuming and contemplating the broad spectrum of flavors it contains. The beer would be absolutely delicious paired with a sharply acidic aged cheddar.

Excellent (42/50)

Parabola Clone Review

Posted on April 20, 2015 by Nick Ladd

Over a year ago, I took a shot at brewing a clone of Firestone Walker’s Parabola. According to Firestone Walker, Parabola is characterized by:

Bold bourbon, tobacco and espresso aromas and a hint of American oak greet the nose. Rich, chewy roasted malts, charred oak and bourbon-like vanilla fill the palate and create a seamless finish.

The recipe was derived from a combination of information compiled from Firestone Walker’s website, and my own tasting notes. Unfortunately, my beer missed the spec pretty badly in terms of fermentability. That said, it is still a pretty nice beer.

Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP Category 22C. Wood Aged Beer.

Half of the batch was aged with Larceny (wheated bourbon) soaked oak. Half of the batch was aged with Rittenhouse Rye soaked oak.

Half of the batch was aged with Larceny (wheated bourbon) soaked oak with the rest aged on Rittenhouse Rye soaked oak. The overall differences between the two batches were extremely subtle with the Larceny exhibiting slightly more caramelly notes, and the Rye version showcasing a subtle background spicy note.

Aroma (8/12):
Initially there is a impression of sweet vanilla oakiness. Additionally there is a mellow roasty character with notes of bittersweet cocoa and a slight hint of coffee. Roasty impression increases as the beer warms in the glass. Under the roast is a caramelly toffee malt character. A slight hint of oxidized malt (dried cherry, fig) gives a hint to the beer’s age. Below the vanilla oakiness is an aroma of raw sawdust that hints at the oak cubes which were used. Some warm alcohol is apparent.

Appearance (3/3):
Jet black with a low tan head consisting of tight bubbles that persist. Beer pours with a readily apparent viscosity.

Flavor (10/20):
Flavors are round and fill the mouth with intensity. Heavy amounts of roasted coffee are apparent as is a substantial amount of chocolatey roast malt. Creamy and smooth with only a hint of hot alcohol. Bitterness is high but balanced against a high level of residual sweetness. There are some pleasant burnt sugar toffee flavors on the finish. A bit too sweet and filling to be drinkable in any quantity more than 8-10 ounces.

Mouthfeel (2/5):
This is a huge beer with a luscious mouth-coating viscosity. Carbonation is medium. Roast character is slightly astringent.

Overall Impression (5/10):
This is a massive beer that falls short in terms of balance compared to its inspiration, Parabola. The bourbon and oak character in Parabola is much more integrated and rich, whereas the oak in this beer comes off a bit artificial tasting. This beer is like a big, rich chocolate milkshake – luscious, but only consumable in restrained quantities. Additional attenuation would be a welcome addition to this beer.

(28/50) – Good

Honey | Orange Pale Ale – Recipe and Review

Posted on March 22, 2015 by Nick Ladd

Synergy between ingredients is something that I often seek out when writing a new beer recipe. In this particular case, I started with the premise of wanting to use orange blossom honey in a beer. Orange blossom honey has a delicate orange flavor as well a soft floral honey bouquet. Building a beer recipe around these attributes, I started with a Belgian Pilsner malt base which I’ve found to produce a honey like sweetness in my beers. From there, the base malt was accented with a small amount of Gambrinus honey malt to emphasize the honey character. Additionally, I delicately hopped the beer with Mandarian Bavaria hops which I’ve found to have a pronounced sweet orange (not pith) character that would be delicate enough not to overpower the honey.

Honey | Orange Pale Ale Recipe

Specifications:
Size: 3.75 gal
Efficiency: 68%
Attenuation: 80%

Original Gravity: 1.050 SG
Terminal Gravity: 1.010 SG
Color: 6.07 SRM
Alcohol: 5.28% ABV
Bitterness: 20.3 IBU

Malt Bill:
5.5 lb (72.1%) Pilsner Malt (Dingemans)
0.75 lb (9.8%) Munich TYPE I – (Weyermann)
6 oz (4.9%) Honey Malt – (Gambinus)

Mash Profile:
146 °F – 60m
168 °F – 5m

Water Treatment:
Extremely Soft NYC Water
2g Gypsum (to mash)
4g Calcium Chloride (to mash)

Hopping:
16 g Mandarina Bavaria (7.2%) – 90 m

Note: After boil was complete, the kettle was topped up with cold water to lower temperature to 180°F.

2 oz (43.8%) Mandarina Bavaria – 180°F Steep – 15 m
1 lb (13.1%) Orange Blossum Honey – 180°F Steep – 15 m

2 oz (43.8%) Amarillo® – Hop Back (Blichmann Hop Rocket)

Kettle Additions:
0.5 ea Whirlfloc Tablets (Irish moss) – 15m
0.5 tsp Wyeast Nutrient – 10 m

Yeast:
WYeast 1056 American Ale™- Starter on stirplate to achieve 1 million cells per milliliter of wort per degree Plato. Use Mr. Malty to determine proper starter sized based on age of yeast package. Pitch into 60°F wort and allow to free rise to 64°F. As fermentation begins to slow, raise temperature to 70°F.

Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP Category 23 Specialty Beer

Aroma (10/12):
Low to moderate floral honey notes. There is a medium to medium-high sweet citrus / orange / tangerine hop aroma. Some soft candy-like malt sweetness is in the background. No alcohol, DMS, or diacetyl. The is a touch of grassy hops in the background.

Appearance (2/3):
Color falls somewhere between a light copper and a deep blond. There is a slight haze to the beer. Fluffy white persistent head.

Flavor (17/20):
Moderately high hop flavor that is like sweet or candied orange. None of the pithy bitter citrus flavors that are often associated with traditional types of citrus hops. Honey is strongly present and quite floral. Malt is soft and bready with a light crackery character. The hop bitterness is medium-low and leaves behind just a hint of malt sweetness. There is a wonderful honey flavor that persists through the finish.

Mouthfeel (3/5):
Crisp with a medium to medium-low body. Quite balanced. No astringency. Beer has a medium-high carbonation which is slightly biting.

Overall Impression (8/10):
This is a very nice balanced pale ale that showcases the honey content. The beer is exceptionally balanced with layer of flavors; none of which stick out or feel out of place. Very well crafted beer.

Excellent (40/50)