[69franx]

In cloning recipes, what is the most important thing to follow based on your own system? As an example, the recipe for Switchback Ale in the March/April issue of BYO. The brewer's specs call for OG 1.046, and est ABV of 5&. When I plug the ingredients into Beersmith(I know its only a tool, but I am trying to learn how to utilize this tool) setting eff at 72%, and following the all grain instructions, Beersmith can get me to the OG no problem for my system, but at called for mash of 154 for 60 minutes, the software yields ABV of only 4.5%. If I drop mash temp to 147, the est ABV shoots up to the called for 5%. So my question is (and I have never tasted the original brew) should I lower my mash temp to get that ABV, or should I follow the brewer's steps and mash at 154? I know its a huge jump from 154 down to 147, so I am looking essentially to make the best beer from this recipe. Grist follows:
7# 2 row
1# 1.5 oz crystal 40
11 oz crystal 20
2.5 oz Black patent
Follow up question is this: does the difference come from BYO's default setting of 65% eff compared to my estimated 72%?
Anything anyone can tell me would be great. Have wanted to make this beer since reading the issue as I think it sounds like a great jumping off point for my not so hoppy friends accustomed to BMC beers.

[erockrph]

The yeast and your fermentation practices determine the FG, not your software

After adjusting the grain bill for your efficiency, I would just follow the recipe to the letter. There's no way to 100% calibrate a recipe to your system until you brew it yourself. Better off to follow it exactly the first time around then you can adjust one or two variables when you rebrew (if needed).

I find that yeast tend to be a bit more attenuative than software suggests, at least with my setup. I wouldn't be surprised if you find yourself closer to 5% than 4.5%. For example, my software lists US-05 with a 72% attenuation, but I generally get in the upper 70's to 80ish.

[69franx]

The yeast and your fermentation practices determine the FG, not your software

After adjusting the grain bill for your efficiency, I would just follow the recipe to the letter. There's no way to 100% calibrate a recipe to your system until you brew it yourself. Better off to follow it exactly the first time around then you can adjust one or two variables when you rebrew (if needed).

I find that yeast tend to be a bit more attenuative than software suggests, at least with my setup. I wouldn't be surprised if you find yourself closer to 5% than 4.5%. For example, my software lists US-05 with a 72% attenuation, but I generally get in the upper 70's to 80ish.

Thanks Eric, when I do brew this, I will be planning on 001/1056/05, as that is what the recipe calls for. I have not really been tracking my attenuation using these strains, so I guess I dont know what my experience has been so far with them, but I have been hitting my FGs pretty regualrly, so I am probably close to what the software expects due to my system and fermentation procedures. I like the idea of just following the proposed steps, just wasn't really sure what other differences I would find with that big of a difference in ABVs. Not sure when I will brew this, but i have asked a lot of questions about this specific recipe, so I will try it out soon. thanks again.

[HoosierBrew]

Good advice from Eric. Set your software to your own observed efficiency, brew it, take good notes and you can adjust further next time. I'm not familiar with this beer, but mashing at 147 for the sake of a little higher abv will likely give you a thin bodied beer as compared to a more standard mash temp. I say set your efficiency and brew it as it is written.

[denny]

Stop looking at ABV and FG predictions in BS and you'll be fine.

[69franx]

Was really just using the software to find out if I am far off expectations. I brew, not the software, I know, but it is useful to a new brewer like myself to find out approximately where I should wind up. The huge difference in ABV just threw me off, so I started playing around with different scenarios and I posted what I came up with. I guess I should just RDWHAHB and brew away. In the end, If I like the beer or friends do, the software's expectations and numerical results dont matter worth a squat. I understand this, just got a little sidetracked. Thanks for getting me back on track to all who replied

[HoosierBrew]

When I started out brewing, it was extract beers with steeping grain.  In that style of brewing I remember attenuation predictions being a little closer to what I actually got, probably because I was pretty much locked in to the process the extract maufacturers used to make the extracts, ie., standard mash temp/fermentability. But with all grain brewing you have total control - one of the big selling points. Your mash temp, grist selection, yeast selection/health/pitching rate all figure in to your FG and therefore your attenuation. That's why it's really important to take detailed notes in AG brewing, so you can reference what attenuation you can REALLY expect to get in future batches.

[69franx]

Looking back at stats for my last fermented batch, I did achieve 78.4% attenuation with WLP001, so with that rate, this would turn into a 4.7% ABV, so I see what you all mean by Beersmith really is just using estimates that are not spot on for my system and procedures. Thanks again!

[morticaixavier]

I would add that .5% ABV is not a huge difference. you won't taste it and you won't notice the difference in how drunk you do/don't get. It's a tiny amount ~.06 floz of alcohol in a 12 ounce serving.

[69franx]

Thanks Jonathan, I mainly was not sure if I would notice a difference in flavors, mouthfeel, body or anything else. Just too new to know what kind of differences that would make if you catch my drift


Sent from The Alpine Brewery using Tapatalk

[69franx]

From the mash difference more than the ABV


Sent from The Alpine Brewery using Tapatalk

[morticaixavier]

I would be more concerned with the difference in body and mouthfeel you would realize with the change of the mash procedure than I would be with the difference in ABV. Assuming the difference is more than an artifact of the software.

[69franx]

So Jonathan, the three AG batches I have done so far have all been mashed at 148 or 152. What differences will I see in a beer that is mashed at 154?

[erockrph]

So Jonathan, the three AG batches I have done so far have all been mashed at 148 or 152. What differences will I see in a beer that is mashed at 154?

Compared to 152, next to nothing. Compared to 148, you might see a little extra body by mashing at 154. Even that is a maybe, honestly. I don't really see much more body until you hit the 158ish range. And to really get the extra attenuation/lower body from a mash in the 140's, you need to hold it there longer as well.

[morticaixavier]

So Jonathan, the three AG batches I have done so far have all been mashed at 148 or 152. What differences will I see in a beer that is mashed at 154?

Compared to 152, next to nothing. Compared to 148, you might see a little extra body by mashing at 154. Even that is a maybe, honestly. I don't really see much more body until you hit the 158ish range. And to really get the extra attenuation/lower body from a mash in the 140's, you need to hold it there longer as well.

yup, the difference between 152 and 154 is I suspect more or less non existent. 148 and 154 there might be a little more difference. I use ~148 for situations when I want maximum fermentability, 155 for middle of the road beers, and 162 for situations when I want maximum remaining sugars like session beers or scottish or old ales. And as Eric says, you have to mash at 148 for ~ 90 minutes to really get that big boost. enzymes work slowly at low temps.