Hochkurz double decoction AND a really long boil for an impy stout?

[phillamb168]

Is it going overboard to do a Hochkurz and a 150 minute boil?

Here's the recipe overall:
Cuvée J+D
   Style: Imperial Stout   OG: 1.123   
   Type: All Grain   FG: 1.031   
   Rating: 0.0   ABV: 12.05 %   
   Calories: 401   IBU's: 115.29   
   Efficiency: 70 %   Boil Size: 42.29 L   
   Color:   49.6 SRM     Batch Size: 37.80 L   
      Boil Time: 150 minutes

Grains & Adjuncts
Amount   Percentage      Name   Time   Gravity
18.00 kg   79.12 %      Fawcett Maris Otter Pale Malt   60 mins   1.038
500.00 g   2.20 %      Briess Caramel 120L   60 mins   1.032
1.50 kg   6.59 %      Dingemans Special B   60 mins   1.030
500.00 g   2.20 %      Black Barley (Stout)   60 mins   1.025
250.00 g   1.10 %      Black (Patent) Malt   60 mins   1.025
1.50 kg   6.59 %      Aromatic Malt   60 mins   1.036
0.50 kg   2.20 %      Barley, Flaked   60 mins   1.032
 
Hops
Amount   IBU's      Name   Time   AA %
0.10 kg   44.19      Nugget   60 mins   13.00
75.00 g   38.23      Warrior   60 mins   15.00
90.00 g   15.18      Centennial   15 mins   10.00
90.00 g   8.35      Williamette   15 mins   5.50
50.00 g   0.00      Centennial   0 mins   10.00
50.00 g   9.35      Williamette   60 mins   5.50
 
Yeasts
Amount   Name   Laboratory / ID
1.00 pkg   Safale US-05   Fermentis US-05
 
Additions
Amount   Name   Time   Stage
1.00 oz   Oak Chips   15 mins   Secondary


Full Body Infusion In   25 min @ 55.0°C
 Add 60.28 L ( 2.96 L/kg ) water @ 62.8°C
Full Body Infusion   5 min @ 62.0°C
 Add 12.85 L water @ 100.0°C
Protein Rest Decoction   60 min @ 70.0°C
 Decot 17.39 L ( 0.00 L/kg ) mash & heat to 100.0°C
Protein Rest Decoction   30 min @ 75.0°C
 Decot 13.77 L ( 0.00 L/kg ) mash & heat to 100.0°C

[Pawtucket Patriot]

Is it going overboard to do a Hochkurz and a 150 minute boil?

IMO, yes.  I can't imagine that Fawcett MO has a Kolbach index or S/T % that would warrant a protein rest at 55C.  What would you be aiming to accomplish with the separate beta/alpha rests?  I've done a fair amount of research (non-scientific) on the benefits of separate beta/alpha rests and it sounds like brewers use them to create a subtly complex and enhanced mouthfeel.  With an impy stout grainbill, I really doubt you would be able to perceive those benefits.

As for the 150 boil, I'm not sure you'd be able to perceive much of a difference in this beer if you boiled for, say, 60-90 minutes vs. 150.

Keep it simple and enjoy your brew session.  Maybe smoke some bacon and watch a Cubs game while you're at it.   

[hopfenundmalz]

You will need to boil a long time to get that OG.

The decoction might get you a little more from your grains, as it makes more starch available for conversion, and will be only .001 to .002 on the OG.

Its your beer and time, so your decission.

[phillamb168]

Re the decoc temps and times, I'm going mainly off of wikipedia and iBrewMaster, so the mash schedule is probably a mess. I didn't find any examples of double decoction mash schedules for imperial stouts, so I had to wing it a bit. Any suggestions on a better schedule?

hopfenundmalz, What's out-of-bounds about the OG? Is that the sort of thing that can be fixed by more grain? Or do I have to go the sugar addition route?

[hopfenundmalz]

If you want to go big, go real big. The bjcp says 1.115, but it is your beer.

I really don't think that yours is out of bounds, but you will only get in the 1.080 to 1.090 range using first runnings.  You add DME or other sugars to bump it up, or boil a long time.

Fred has some good advice on his site.  Look under thoughts on making a big beer.
beerdujour.com

[morticaixavier]

Yeah I don't think hopfen is saying you can't do it, it's just going to take a lot of water so you will have to boil a long time to get your post boil volume.

I know I can get around 1.110 with about 30 lbs grain to a 5 gallon batch, first runnings only but it does take a 120 minute boil. It's also only around 50% efficiency if you don't do a second runnings beer.

[nateo]

I would consider doing incremental feedings. Osmotic pressure starts to be an issue around 1.120.

If I were going to brew a beer that big, I'd start it at whatever OG I could easily get, let it ferment a good bit, then add malt extract to make up the difference in gravity. It will be kinder for your yeast and easier to achieve.

I would also use a good amount of simple sugar, maybe 10-15% of fermentables. Attenuation is going to be your biggest issue with a beer like that.

Here's the link Hopfen was talking about. That page was a godsend when I started making bigger beers. Before I found that my big beers sucked.
http://beerdujour.com/Howtobrewabigbeer.htm

[phillamb168]

Hey, good stuff guys, thank you! I've never, ever brewed anything above about 1.065 so this is new territory for me.

[phillamb168]

Re yeast, I've got a 1L starter clearing in the fridge and will boost that to a 5L starter - I was considering doing two, actually, one from the US05 pack (that's where the 1L came from) and one that's a transfer from a bottle of Old somethingorother I have from Stone - can't remember the name but it's their barleywine. Would that work? Is a 5L starter enough for 10 gal, or should I do double?

[morticaixavier]

Re yeast, I've got a 1L starter clearing in the fridge and will boost that to a 5L starter - I was considering doing two, actually, one from the US05 pack (that's where the 1L came from) and one that's a transfer from a bottle of Old somethingorother I have from Stone - can't remember the name but it's their barleywine. Would that work? Is a 5L starter enough for 10 gal, or should I do double?

yes more yeast!! Phil, if you have the time at all I would highly recommend knocking off a quick 5 gallon small beer with whatever yeast you want to use and use the cake. but I think that if you step up from 1L to 5L it will probably be okay, what does mr. malty say?

I would consider doing incremental feedings. Osmotic pressure starts to be an issue around 1.120.

I have always wondered about the whole incremental feeding thing, not understanding how it helps to feed incrementally when the net effect is the same level of alcohol. But if it's an issue of osmotic presure that makes sense to me. as the gravity goes down you can add more sugar without exceeding the presure threshold! thanks nateo!

[nateo]

I have always wondered about the whole incremental feeding thing, not understanding how it helps to feed incrementally when the net effect is the same level of alcohol. But if it's an issue of osmotic presure that makes sense to me. as the gravity goes down you can add more sugar without exceeding the presure threshold! thanks nateo!

Whether or not osmotic pressure matters really depends on the health of the cell walls, but even healthy cells have trouble over 1.120. I've read (don't remember where) that osmotic pressure inhibits fermentation even down at like 1.060 if the yeast have poor cell membranes. The pressure will literally squeeze nutrients out of the yeast, like squeezing a wet sponge, only instead of water, nitrogen comes out, inhibiting their fermentation performance.

[hopfenundmalz]

Was using my phone earlier.  Thanks for getting the link to Fred's page up, Nateo.

Here is what is on White Labs' page.
http://www.whitelabs.com/beer/homebrew_super.html

[nateo]

I would be incredibly careful adding nutrients, if you do. Wort has a really high level of yeast available nitrogen (relative to any other growth medium). Too much nutrient will cause off-flavors, and if you add too much at the wrong time and the yeast can't use it all, it could potentially feed bacteria.

Adding O2 multiple times keeps the yeast in growth mode. They make like 33x more alcohol per cell during the growth phase than during the stationary phase. This is related to incremental feeding of nitrogen, but again, be careful not to overdo it.

[nateo]

The more I think about it, the less adding nitrogen to beer fermentation makes sense to me. I haven't found many hard numbers for yeast available nitrogen content in wort, but one study found a typical range to be 1-2g/L, or 1000mg/L - 2000mg/L.

Brewers' yeasts' nitrogen requirements aren't published, but wine yeasts' are. The "standard" winemaking yeast available nitrogen recommendation at 28 Brix (1.120) would be 375-425mg/L. Wine yeast nitrogen requirements vary pretty widely, with some needing nearly twice as much as others. I assume beer yeasts are similar in that regard. Even if the yeast needed twice the nitrogen, that'd only be 850mg/L, well below the minimum reported amount of yeast available nitrogen in wort.

In order to need nitrogen for a wort fermentation, you'd need to have a very nitrogen-deficient wort, and a yeast with exceptionally high nitrogen needs.

EDIT: Thanks MX, fixed it. Nitrogen =/= nutrients.

[morticaixavier]

The more I think about it, the less adding nutrients to beer fermentation makes sense to me. I haven't found many hard numbers for yeast available nitrogen content in wort, but one study found a typical range to be 1-2g/L, or 1000mg/L - 2000mg/L.

Brewers' yeasts' nitrogen requirements aren't published, but wine yeasts' are. The "standard" winemaking yeast available nitrogen recommendation at 28 Brix (1.120) would be 375-425mg/L. Wine yeast nitrogen requirements vary pretty widely, with some needing nearly twice as much as others. I assume beer yeasts are similar in that regard. Even if the yeast needed twice the nutrients, that'd only be 850mg/L, well below the minimum reported amount of yeast available nitrogen in wort.

In order to need nutrients for a wort fermentation, you'd need to have a very nutrient-deficient wort, and a yeast with exceptionally high nutrient needs.

this is an interesting idea. However you are only looking at 1 nutrient. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to find a yeast nutrient with low or no N but I have noticed (in a very unscientific way) better results when using nutrients then when not, at least with big beers.