Low Dissolved Oxygen Brewing – Retry

Posted on January 8, 2018 by Nick Ladd

Triangle testing was used to see if I could consistently select the one beer out of three that was different.

A number of months ago I royally screwed up an experiment designed to test whether using low-dissolved oxygen brewing had any practical effect on the the outcome of a finished beer. I accidentally dosed the beer with 10x the amount of sodium metabisulfite intended and successfully produced two wholly undrinkable beers.

For those unfamiliar, the original reason I wanted to test this variable was a paper published on germanbrewing.net. The authors argued that the use of low-dissolved oxygen techniques on the hot side of the brewhouse is a primary driver of the fresh malt flavor present in German lagers and it is those techniques that are a key differentiator between said beers and those from other lager breweries that have less control over oxygen on the hot side of their brewhouse.

The paper provides an outline of techniques homebrewers can use to limit oxygen uptake on the hot side of the brewhouse. Based on those techniques, I derived an experiment where I would brew one lager using conventional techniques and then brew a second, identical batch that incorporated the following LODO techniques:

Pre-Boiling Brewing Liquor: All of the hot water used in my mash was first boiled for 5 minutes before being quickly cooled via a plate chiller to mash temperature and then gently stirred into the mash.
No Sparge: I eliminated the sparging step from my normal brewing process as it offers another opportunity for oxygen ingress into the mash.
Chemical Oxygen Scavengers: Prior to mashing in, my strike water was dosed with sodium metabisulfite, which acts as an oxygen scavenger during the mash. I aimed to dose the water with 55 mg/L, the recommended dosing rate for beers employing a no-sparge method. This turned out to be 1.1 grams based on my 5.4 gallons of strike water.
No Vourlauf: I skipped my normal vourlauf stage as, again, it could be another potential source of aeration in the mash.

For the recipe, I chose to make a simple pale lager that had a touch of simple sugar in it as well as a touch of late hop character. The idea was to create a fairly neutral palate where any differences could be easily perceived.

LODO Lager Brew Test

Specifications:
Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 70%
Attenuation: 84%

Original Gravity: 1.052
Terminal Gravity: 1.008
Color: 4.25 SRM
Alcohol: 5.78% ABV
Bitterness: 18.8 IBU (does not account for whirlpool isomerization)

Malt Bill:
5.0 lbs (74.1%) – Weyermann Pilsner Malt
1.0 lbs (14.8%) – Weyermann Vienna Malt
0.75 lb (11.1%) – Corn Sugar

Mash Profile:
150°F – 60m

Water Treatment:
Extremely Soft NYC Water
3 g. – Calcium Chloride (to mash)
1.1 g. – Sodium Metabisulfite (to mash)

Hopping:
6 g. – Warrior (15.4% AA) – 90m
25 g. – Hallertauer Hersbrucker (2.5% AA) – whirlpool 15m
25 g. – Cascade (6.9% AA) – whirlpool 15m
25 g. – Czech Saaz (2.2% AA) – whirlpool 15m

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

Yeast:
2L Starter – White Labs WLP 860 Munich Helles

Results:

To test the resulting beers, I completed a series of blind triangle tests. To setup the test, two of the same beers and one outlier were tasted blindly side-by-side. I then tried to select the sample of the three that was different. This test was completed five times with the outlier beer randomized over the tests. Pure chance would have had me select the correct sample 1/3 of the time or 1.65 times out of the 5 rounds of testing. With this particular round of testing, I was able to select the outlier successfully 3 of the 5 times.

Commentary:

First, I must say that it was extremely difficult to distinguish between the two beers in a blind triangle test. The differences between the beers were extremely nuanced. The biggest perceivable difference between the samples was that the LODO beer had a consistently higher level of sulfur in the aroma—making the beer stand out ever so slightly in a blind triangle test. I failed to notice any perceivable difference in either malt or hop character between the LODO and conventionally-brewed beers. If I were to judge the beers on a point system, I would say the LODO beer was subjectively slightly worse than the conventional beer due to the increased sulfur levels in the beer. This is likely directly attributable to the sodium metabisulfite used in the beer mash; something I wouldn’t expect to be employed by a commercial brewer attempting LODO hot side processes. This makes me think that perhaps the methods large German lager brewers use to prevent hot side aeration (that do not employ sodium metabisulfite) may very well be effective in maintaining a fresh malt character in their beers. As a homebrewer, I’d say the use of sodium metabisulfite as an oxygen scavenger should be cautioned against, at least at the 55 mG/L levels that seem to leave residual sulfur in the beer.

Low Dissolved Oxygen Lager Brewing

Posted on March 27, 2017 by Nick Ladd

We brewed a Vienna lager and dry hoppy pilsner to test the merits of low dissolved oxygen brewing.

It’s no secret that I am a huge fan of brewing and consuming lager beers. I’ve brewed an iteration of my Vienna recipe at least a dozen times and feel like I’ve gotten to the point that I know I can brew a reliably delicious lager. That said, I’m not one to rest on my laurels so when I heard about a technique that promised to further improve my lager beers, I had to give it a try.

Earlier this year, I read a post from The Mad Fermentationist regarding low dissolved oxygen brewing and its use in German lager breweries. Learning about this idea from a respected voice within the homebrewing community gave the concept enough validity for me to give it a try.

The Mad Fermentationist post was spurred by a paper, published on germanbrewing.net in which the authors argue that large scale German brewers are able to achieve a fresh German malt flavor in their beers by dogmatically prescribing to a process which eliminates oxidation on the hot side of their brew house. While most homebrewers have written off hot side aeration as the boogeyman, the paper’s authors argue that the true malt character of a beer is quickly destroyed by the introduction of even minimal quantities of oxygen to the hot side of the brewing process.

It is at this point that the paper gets really interesting, proposing methods in which you can employ low dissolved oxygen brewing on a homebrew level. I won’t rehash the entire paper, but I used the recommended steps below to limit oxygen exposure during my brew process:

Pre Boiling Brewing Liquor: All of the hot water used in my mash was first boiled for 5 minutes, prior to being quickly cooled via a plate chiller to mash temperature and then gently stirred into the mash.
No Sparge: I eliminated the sparging step from my normal brewing process as it offers another opportunity for oxygen ingress into the mash.
Chemical Oxygen Scavengers: Prior to mashing in, my strike water was dosed with sodium metabisulfite which acts as an oxygen scavenger during the mash. I aimed to dose the water with 55 mg/L, the recommended dosing rate for beers employing a no-sparge method.
No Vourlauf: I skipped my normal vourlauf stage as, again, it could be another potential source of aeration in the mash.

The Brew Day

To give low dissolved oxygen brewing a shot, I opted to brew two different beers, a hoppy dry pilsner and a Vienna lager. The paper from germanbrewing.net cites improvements in both hop and malt character, so I figured brewing a hoppy and malty beer would be a good test. Both beers were brewed back-to-back on a single day and fermented with two individually grown cultures of White Labs WLP833.

Pretty early in the brew day, it became apparent that there was going to be a definite impact on the final beer. The first hint was that the mash didn’t smell the way a mash normally does. The aromas seemed muted, with a hint of sulfur in the air. I’ve never used sodium metabisulfite before and figured this was normal and would eventually blow off during the boil and fermentation. Unfortunately, it did not. Again, during the boil, the wort simply did not smell right. More sulfur.

Fermentation & Packaging

Post boil, I rapidly chilled the beer to 50°F and oxygenated the beer as I normally do, inline en route to my fermenter. I immediately pitched my healthy lager yeast starters and set my temperature controller to 50°F. Within 12 hours I had an active fermentation going. Again, smelling the blow-off from the fermentation it seemed to contain a ton of sulfur (much more than I normally get, even with lager yeast).

After about 2.5 weeks of fermentation, inclusive of a diacetyl rest, I carefully racked the beers to kegs using a closed system pressurized with CO2. Once in keg, I pulled a sample to taste. The beers absolutely stank of sulfur and were an undrinkable mess. Ever the optimist, I went ahead a decided to lager the beers under pressure, faithfully purging the keg daily hoping to expunge the vile aromas from the beers. After another 6 weeks of lagering at near freezing, the sulfur compounds remained. Unfortunately, both beers were a lost cause.

Conclusions

These are the first beers that I’ve made in at least the past 5 years that I’ve considered completely unsalvageable.This seemed really odd to me, as the Mad Fermentationist did not have nearly as horrendous results. Something stunk, and it wasn’t just my beer. So I went back to my notes.

My first thought was perhaps I had overdosed the beer with sodium metabisulfite. For the pilsner beer, I dosed the strike water with 11.24 grams of sodium metabisulfite into 20.4 liters of water. Redoing the math, this works our to 550 mg/L of sodium metabilsulfite, not the 55 mg/L that I was shooting for. Evidently I failed in my studies of the metric system and buggered up a decimal point, not just once, but twice. I felt like a complete idiot having only definitively proven that dosing a mash with 550 mg/L of sodium metabisulfite will make your beer stink really badly. That said, this project serves as a good reminder that attention to detail is key to successful brewing and even the most minor of an error can really screw up your beer.

Now that I have a clear grasp of junior high school level math, I think it’s mandatory I repeat the experiment using the appropriate levels of sodium metabisulfite. Stay tuned!

Hoppy Dry Pilsner Recipe

Specifications:
Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 70% (No Sparge)
Attenuation: 84%

Original Gravity: 1.052
Terminal Gravity: 1.008
Color: 4.25 SRM
Alcohol: 5.78% ABV (calculated)
Bitterness: 18.8 IBU (does not account for significant whirlpool isomerization)

Malt Bill:
5.0 lbs. (74.1%) Weyermann Pilsner Malt
1.0 lbs. (14.8%) Weyermann Vienna Malt

Sugar Additions:
0.75 lb. (11.1%) Dextrose (Corn Sugar)

Mash Profile:
149°F – 60m

Water Treatment:
Extremely Soft NYC Water
3 g. Calcium Chloride (to mash)
55 mg/L Sodium Metabisulfite (to strike water).

Hopping:
6 g. Warrior (15.4% AA) – 90m
25 g. Hallertauer Hersbrucker (2.5% AA) – Whirlpool 10m
25 g. Cascade (6.9% AA) – Whirlpool – 10m
25 g. Czech Saaz (2.2% AA) – Whirlpool – 10m

20 g. Czech Saaz (2.2% AA) – Dry Hop 3 Days
20 g. Hallertauer Hersbrucker (2.5% AA) – Dry Hop 3 Days

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

Yeast:
White Labs WLP833 German Bock Lager

Hoppy Dry Pilsner Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP 5D German Pilsner

Aroma (2/12):
This beer has a very high sulfur aroma that reminds one of burnt matches, egg, and perhaps even a little bit of cooked cabbage. It is very hard to get past the overwhelming sulfur in this beer. That said, there is some light bready malt. The ample hopping is just barely perceptible, largely due to the abundance of sulfur. This is pretty offensive.

Appearance (3/3):
This is a beautiful beer. The beer strikes a crystal clear, light golden hue. There is a low white persistent head with big foamy bubbles and excellent lacing.

Flavor (4/20):
I recently heard during a brewer interview on The Brewing Network that sulfur compounds are largely not perceivable by our taste buds and that most of the perception we get of sulfur in beer is either on the nose or via retronasal breathing after we swallow. This certainly is apparent in this beer as the actual flavor is much better than the aroma with the most offensive sulfur coming through post swallow. The malt character of this beer is pretty pleasant, clean, slightly sweet, and bready. The beer is quite crisp and dry. There is a medium-plus hop flavor that is a bit floral with just a hint of citrus. The bitterness is firm, but pleasant. This would be an excellent beer if there wasn’t such a blast of sulfur.

Mouthfeel (5/5):
The beer has a medium-low body and features a great crisp effervescence. Very lean and drinkable.

Overall Impression (2/10):
Without the sulfur, I’d be willing to bet that this is a 40+ point beer. Unfortunately, the sulfur is so utterly offensive that it is tough to evaluate the beer that lies beneath.

Fair (16/50)

Bonus: See how judges scored this German Pilsner at the 2017 Homebrew Alley competition in NYC.

Vienna Lager Recipe

Specifications:
Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 64% (No Sparge)
Attenuation: 84%

Original Gravity: 1.052
Terminal Gravity: 1.008
Color: 10.75 SRM
Alcohol: 5.73% ABV (calculated)
Bitterness: 21.6 IBU

Malt Bill:
5.0 lbs. (64.5%) Weyermann Vienna Malt
1.50 lbs. (19.4%) Weyermann Dark Munich Malt
1.25 lbs. (16.1%) Weyermann Pilsner Malt

Mash Profile:
147°F – 60m

Water Treatment:
Extremely Soft NYC Water
3 g. Calcium Chloride (to mash)
55 mg/L Sodium Metabisulfite (to strike water).

Hopping:
1.5 oz. Hallertauer Hersbrucker (2.5% AA) – 90m
0.5 oz. Hallertauer Hersbrucker (2.5% AA) – Whirlpool 10m

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

Yeast:
White Labs WLP833 German Bock Lager

Vienna Lager Tasting Notes:

Judged as a BJCP 7A. Vienna Lager

Aroma (4/12):
The beer has a medium-plus sulfur nose reminiscent of cooked eggs and burnt matches. Compared to the pilsner, the sulfur is less intense, although the character is extremely similar. There are some nice toasty malt aromas that just peek out beyond the sulfur.

Appearance (3/3):
The beer is a beautiful sparkling clear light copper color that sits just at the bottom end of the SRM range for the style. The beer features golden orange highlights when held up to the light and is capped with a mousey white head that persists. Some judges may argue that the beer is too light, but I think it’s spot on.

Flavor (8/20):
As with the pilsner, the sulfur is present, but much less dominate on the palate than the nose. Getting past the sulfur, there is a really nice toasty malt component that has a drying character to it. This beer is not nearly as intense in malt sweetness and complexity as many craft examples, but is perfect for being the session beer that I think Vienna Lager should be. On the finish is a firm bitterness that further accentuates the beer’s dryness. This beer reminds me of Sierra Nevada’s 2016 version of Oktoberfest which this past year was lean on the malt, and spicy in its hop character.

Mouthfeel (3/5):
The beer has a medium-low body with plenty of crisp carbonation that is perhaps a touch high, but quite pleasant and refreshing.

Overall Impression (4/10):
Again, this could have been a really excellent beer if it wasn’t for the offensive sulfur character that is dominating, particularly on the nose. The recipe is somewhat on the lower end of the intensity spectrum for the style, leaving it much more quenching than many of the craft examples that I’ve tasted.

Good (22/50)

Bonus: See how judges scored this Vienna at the 2017 Homebrew Alley competition in NYC.

Vienna Lager 5.0 Recipe and Review

Posted on June 1, 2016 by Nick Ladd

How time flies! My apologies for the radio silence over the past two months. Between moving apartments, a trip to CBC, the announcement of a brewery that I’ve working on, and an awesome trip to Asheville, NC, things have been crazy! More information on all of those things to come, but in the meantime, here’s a quick post about my latest batch of Vienna Lager. Cheers!

It’s a little baffling to realize that this is the fifth iteration of Vienna Lager which I have brewed. Not only does this make me do a double take in terms of realizing how much I’ve brewed over the past 6.5 years (over 150 batches and counting), but also illustrates how much I love this style.

Considering the number of different batches I brew, the breadth of styles that I have attempted to master, and the period of time that a lager like this occupies my fermentation space, it speaks volumes about the amount of respect I give a humble beer like this.

In many ways, Vienna Lager is the perfect beer for my tastes. I find it somewhat intangible trying to pinpoint why I love this beer as much as I do. It circumvents reason and defies cogent prose, but the closest I can get to describing why I enjoy this beer so much has to do with malt’s ability to be delicate and nuanced, while maintaining a quenching minimalistic lager dryness and boundless sessionability.

Being the constant tinkerer that I am, I made a couple tweaks over previous versions of this beer. As time has progressed, I’ve consistently lowered the amount of crystal malt in this beer. This version eschews crystal malts completely, making the beer a pure expression of the high-quality German base malts of which it is solely comprised.

Vienna Lager 5.0 Recipe

Specifications:
Size: 3.25gal
Efficiency: 76%
Attenuation: 76.0%

Original Gravity: 1.052
Terminal Gravity: 1.013
Color: 13.35 SRM
Alcohol: 5.21% ABV
Bitterness: 23.0 IBUs

Malt Bill:
4lb (61.0%) Weyermann Vienna Malt
1lb (15.2%) Weyermann Pilsner Malt
1.5lb (22.9%) Weyermann Munich TYPE II
1oz (1.0%) Weyermann Carafa® TYPE II

Mash Profile:
144°F – 30m
151°F – 30m
170°F – 5m

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

Hopping:
42g Hallertauer Mittelfrüher (2.7% AA) – 60m

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

Yeast:
White Labs WLP833 German Bock Lager – Decanted 2L Starter on Stir Plate

Tasting Notes:

Judged as 2015 BJCP Category 7A Vienna Lager.

Aroma (10/12):
Bready malt wafts from the glass accompanied by complimentary amounts of toasty crust and just a hint of toffee. There is some slight malt sweetness coming through on the nose. There isn’t any real apparent fermentation character, although there is a touch of grape-like fruitiness. It is unclear if this is a fermentation by-product or coming from the Munich malt. No apparent hop aroma.

Appearance (3/3):
Medium copper color with pristine clarity. Tightly spaced, off-white bubbles form a great foam cap which persists.

Flavor (17/20):
Beautifully balanced malt with nuanced layers of toasty malt and just a hint of caramel or toffee. The malt is balanced far more towards toasty and dry rather than sweet and caramel-rich. A touch of hop bitterness balances out the slight perception of sweetness attributed to the malt. Exceptionally clean lager fermentation with no hints of alcohol, ester, or diacetyl.

Mouthfeel (5/5):
Medium to medium-low bodied with moderate carbonation. Soft and round with no perceptible astringency.

Overall Impression (9/10):
This is a beautiful, clean malty beer without being overwhelmingly melanoidin-rich or overbearingly complex. The beer finishes clean and dry making it a crushable pint. Dropping out the crystal malt only seems to have enhanced the beer as the base malts are still capable of producing some perception of caramel flavors without any of the associated sweetness or contributions of unfermentable sugars. This beer is a great alternative to Octoberfest beers which offer a great malt richness, but can often be a touch overbearing in terms of fullness and alcohol.

Excellent (44/50)

Rauchbier Recipe and Review

Posted on February 9, 2016 by Nick Ladd

Update: This beer was awarded 2nd place in combined categories 6&7 at Homebrew Alley X.

Rauchbier is probably one of the most polarizing styles of beer to brew and consume. I take great joy in serving it to friends and co-workers unfamiliar with the style as it tends to elicit a broad range of reactions. Perhaps 10-20% of the people I’ve served it to emphatically enjoy the beer; while the rest find it an interesting curiosity, but not something they’d likely come back to pint after pint. I don’t feel like there is much of a middle ground in terms of the enjoyment of rauchbier.

Luckily for me, I tend to enjoy the clean bacon-y smoke and neutral lager character exhibited by a good rauchbier. The first few sips are almost always unfailingly over-the-top, but this beer tends to grow on you as your palate adapts and becomes accustomed to the smokey malt. The key, however, is to not overdo the smoke—allowing it to be confidently present while finding a balancing element in the rest of the malt character. While not a beer with universal appeal, those willing to delve deeper into the style and find nuance beyond the smoke will be rewarded with a great imbibing experience. Whatever you do however, please don’t use peat-smoked malt in this beer. Peat has a place in scotch, but is pretty gross in a rauchbier.

Rauchbier Recipe

Specifications:
Size: 3.25 gal
Efficiency: 72%
Attenuation: 76%

Original Gravity: 1.056
Terminal Gravity: 1.013
Color: 13.73 SRM
Alcohol: 5.58% ABV
Bitterness: 23.0 IBUs

Malt Bill:
2.75 lb (36.7%) Weyermann Smoked Malt (Beechwood)
2 lb (26.7%) Weyermann Munich TYPE II
2 lb (26.7%) Weyermann Vienna Malt
8 oz (6.7%) Weyermann Caramunich® TYPE II
4 oz (3.3%) Weyermann Melanoidin Malt

Mash Profile:
144 °F – 30m
151 °F – 30m
170 °F – 5m

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

Hopping:
42g Hallertauer (2.7% AA) – 60 m

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

Yeast:
White Labs WLP833 German Bock Lager- Decanted 2L Starter on Stir Plate

Tasting Notes:

Judged as 2015 BJCP Category 6B. Rauchbier

Aroma (12/12):
For what it is, the beer actually has a fairly mellow smoke note on the nose that is reminiscent of bacon and perhaps smoked kielbasa. The smoke is clean and crisp. Beyond the smoke is a moderate caramel and toffee malt presence followed by abundant amounts of toasty bread crust. The malt provides a certain level of sweet aroma acting to mediate the upfront smoke. The fermentation character is amazingly clean with no alcohol or ester character.

Appearance (3/3):
Deep copper with great highlights somewhere in hue between a ruby and garnet. The beer is crystal clear and would appease even the most dogmatic German brewmaster. The beer is topped with a tan foam comprised of tight tiny bubbles with outstanding persistence.

Flavor (18/20):
A smokey, bacon-like flavor assertively holds the palate while managing to not dominate the entire beer. There are layers of malt flavor beyond the smoke with abundant toasty bread crust, hints of deep caramel, and touches of almost dark fruit or grape. There is a very low hop bitterness providing just a bit of a counterpoint to the touch of residual malt sweetness. Most of the balance in this beer is achieved through the contrast between smoke and residual malt sweetness. The beer showcases an exceptionally clean fermentation profile without even a hint of ester, alcohol, or residual diacetyl.

Mouthfeel (4/5):
Medium-bodied with a touch of creaminess on the finish. The carbonation is moderate and quenching. No astringency.

Overall Impression (8/10):
This is a great rauchbier that falls at the medium to low-end of the pack in terms of smoke intensity. The beechwood-smoked malt used in this beer exhibits a bacon or ham-like character that may not be for everyone, but is true to the style. I really enjoy how the smoke in a beer like this provides a balancing counterpoint to what otherwise is a fairly complex and rich malt character.

Outstanding (45/50)

Doppelbock Recipe and Review

Posted on January 13, 2016 by Nick Ladd

For me, the best Doppelbocks are pure expressions of German Munich malt. Providing a ton of flavor and richness through its high melanoidin content without bringing too much sweetness to a beer, Munich malt is a favorite of mine to brew with. Melanoidins are byproducts of Maillard reactions and differ in flavor from caramelization in that they lean more towards bready/biscuity/toasty as opposed to the caramel/toffee/burnt sugar exhibited by crystal malts. Varying amounts of Munich malt can bring different qualities to a beer. In small percentages, it enhances the overall malty impression of a base malt. When used in high percentages, such as in this beer, it provides an extremely rich toasty bread crust flavor.

Doppelbocks tend to be rich, highly-alcoholic beers that manage to not bog you down in the ways other high-alcohol beers can. This recipe is a work-in-progress as it continues to feel heavier than I would like. Future tweaks to the recipe will likely push the beer to attenuate better.

Doppelbock Recipe

Specifications:
Size: 3.25
Efficiency: 73%
Attenuation: 71.4%

Original Gravity: 1.084
Terminal Gravity: 1.024
Color: 22.23 SRM
Alcohol: 7.94% ABV
Bitterness: 25 IBU

Malt Bill:
8 lb (67.4%) Weyermann Munich II Malt
3 lb (25.3%) Weyermann Pilsner Malt
0.5 lb (4.2%) Weyermann Caramunich Type III
0.25 lb (2.1%) Weyermann Melanoidin Malt
2 oz. (1.1 %) Thomas Fawcett Chocolate Malt

Mash Profile:
146 °F – 25m
150 °F – 25m
154 °F – 20m
170 °F – 5m

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

Hopping:
1.5 oz Hallertau (2.7% AA) – 60 m
0.5 oz Hallertau (2.7% AA) – 5 m

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

Yeast:
Wyeast 2206 Bavarian Lager – Decanted 2L Starter on Stir Plate

Tasting Notes:

Judged as 2015 BJCP Category 9A. Doppelbock.

Aroma (12/12):
Liquid bread. Rich toasty bread crust dominates the aroma. The malt profile is very complex, possessing some slightly grape-like dark fruit aspects. There is a hint of a floral hop character that is somewhat surprising considering the low amount of finishing hops in the beer. Just a hint of toffee and caramel sits in the background. This beer exhibits a very clean ferment with no ester or alcohols apparent.

Appearance (3/3):
Deep brown with some garnet highlights. Crystal clear with a beautiful tightly-bound tan foam. Foam lasts for days. Perfect appearance.

Flavor (12/20):
This beer hits all the notes in terms of malt richness and complexity. Flavors of freshly baked bread crust dominate, but intermingle with some nice dark fruit components as well as a hint of toffee and perhaps just the faintest amount of dark cocoa. There is a bit of hot alcohol heat that hits the back of the throat. The beer has a considerable level of sweetness that reaches just beyond the range described in the style guideline. Hop bitterness is present, but more of a background balancing note.

Mouthfeel (2/5):
This is a full beer with a moderate level of carbonation. I wish the beer was a touch less full, which would enhance the quaffability of the beer.

Overall Impression (5/10):
This beer is so close to great. If I can get it to attenuate perhaps another 4-6 gravity points, it would be right up there with world-class examples. The sweetness is manageable, but makes it drink closer to a melanoidin-heavy barleywine rather than a true doppelbock.

Very Good (34/50)