Membership questions? Log in issues? Email info@brewersassociation.org

Author Topic: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot  (Read 5620 times)

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2014, 12:40:44 am »
I fall into that camp of "too much crystal ruins a good beer" too.  I tend to "top out" at about a lb in a 5 gallon batch as being that tipping point in a pale ale type beer.  I'm afraid your small batch size comes out almost twice that level.

That said, I hope you'll try it again but scale down the crystal malts so you end up with roughly a half pound in 2.5 gals.  I think you'll like the crystal again if its used with restraint.  It definitely has its place.

HTH-


The batch size is 3.66 gallons.  Avangard Caramel 8L is not really crystal malt.  It's what Avangard calls their CaraPils/Dextrin malt. CaraPils has none of the flavors that we associate with the true crystal malts.  The two true crystal malt additions add up to 5/8ths of a pound, which is a lower ratio per gallon than a pound per 5 gallons.  Sixteen ounces of crystal in 5 gallons results equates to 3.2 ounces of crystal malt per gallon whereas 10 ounces in 3.66 gallons equates to 2.73 ounces per pound.

Here are the grist percentages:

86.67% Pils
5% CaraPils
5% CaraVienne
3.33% Special B

As mentioned above, CaraPils is not really crystal malt; therefore, the beer has 8.33% crystal malt, which is way over the top for me.  However, it is par for the course for many brewers.

With that said, the malt that has me worried is Special B.  That stuff is intensely flavored.

Offline erockrph

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7788
  • Chepachet, RI
    • The Hop WHisperer
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2014, 07:24:30 am »
Special B isn't exactly the malt I'd choose if I wanted to evaluate my impressions on Crystal malt in general. I love the stuff, but it's a distinct flavor that I wouldn't necessarily equate with other Crystal malts.

My recommendation for giving Crystal a good taste test would be:
93% UK Pale Ale malt of your preference
7% Dark English Crystal
WY1968
35 IBU's and ~1 oz late hops of the UK hops of your choice
dry hop with EKG
Eric B.

Finally got around to starting a homebrewing blog: The Hop Whisperer

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2014, 03:42:58 pm »
I know that Wy1968 is a wildly popular strain, but I have never cared for the Fuller's strain.  I prefer the fermentation profile of its kissing cousin Wy1768 (Young's).    If I had to go back to using liquid yeast, I would probably stick with Brewtek CL-50 (a.k.a. Wyeast 1450).  I have a couple of British strains that I have to yet use.  I plan to use them as soon as the weather turns cold and the airborne microflora count drops.  I also have bank maintenance to perform, so I will not be using any home brew trade yeast strains once that activity starts.

I have not dry hopped anything in at least 19 years.  Like my "everything needs crystal malt" period, I went through a period where everything that I brewed was dry-hopped to some extent. I abandoned the technique after building a hopback.  I prefer late hopping to dry hopping, especially when using English cultivars.   Lately, I am digging 20 minute hop stands at 71C (~160F).  Hop stands at this temperature mimic the flavor and aroma produced by a hopback very well while allowing one to get out of having to clean and sanitize a counterflow or plate chiller.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 09:24:05 am by S. cerevisiae »

Offline tommymorris

  • Official Poobah of No Life. (I Got Ban Hammered by Drew)
  • *********
  • Posts: 3869
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2014, 03:49:13 pm »

Lately, I am digging 20 minutes hop stands at 71C (~160F).  Hop stands at this temperature mimic the flavor and aroma produced by a hopback very well while allowing one to get out of having to clean and sanitize a counterflow or plate chiller.

Good tip. I think I will try that.

Offline HoosierBrew

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Indianapolis,IN
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2014, 04:00:03 pm »
I know that Wy1968 is a wildly popular strain, but I have never cared for the Fuller's strain.  I prefer the fermentation profile of its kissing cousin Wy1768 (Young's).    If I had to go back to using liquid yeast, I would probably stick with Brewtek CL-50 (a.k.a. Wyeast 1450).  I have a couple of British strains that I have to yet use.  I plan to use them as soon as the weather turns cold and the airborne microflora count drops.  I also have bank maintenance to perform, so I will not be using any home brew trade yeast strains once that activity starts.

I have not dry hopped anything in at least 19 years.  Like my "everything needs crystal malt" period, I went through a period where everything that I brewed was dry-hopped to some extent. I abandoned the technique after building a hopback.  I prefer late hopping to dry hopping, especially when using English cultivars.   Lately, I am digging 20 minutes hop stands at 71C (~160F).  Hop stands at this temperature mimic the flavor and aroma produced by a hopback very well while allowing one to get out of having to clean and sanitize a counterflow or plate chiller.


+1 to WY1450 and hopstands - I love both. And I like the cooler hopstands like you mention the best. The flavor (and aroma ) are better at cooler temps IMO. I'm down in the 170 - 165F range now, working my way incrementally down the temp scale to see what I like best. So 160F would be next.
Jon H.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2014, 09:31:07 am »
+1 to WY1450 and hopstands - I love both. And I like the cooler hopstands like you mention the best. The flavor (and aroma ) are better at cooler temps IMO. I'm down in the 170 - 165F range now, working my way incrementally down the temp scale to see what I like best. So 160F would be next.

I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.


Offline HoosierBrew

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Indianapolis,IN
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2014, 09:44:02 am »
+1 to WY1450 and hopstands - I love both. And I like the cooler hopstands like you mention the best. The flavor (and aroma ) are better at cooler temps IMO. I'm down in the 170 - 165F range now, working my way incrementally down the temp scale to see what I like best. So 160F would be next.

I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.



Right. I always assumed that there's a point of diminishing returns on the low end. I've heard of it being done around 140F too though. And I agree about sub-180F being the threshold where little or no bitterness gets extracted. I like picking up a controlled bitterness in the kettle and getting the flavor and aroma (with no added bitterness )from the hop stand.
Jon H.

Offline yso191

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1816
  • Yakima, WA
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2014, 09:49:04 am »
+1 to WY1450 and hopstands - I love both. And I like the cooler hopstands like you mention the best. The flavor (and aroma ) are better at cooler temps IMO. I'm down in the 170 - 165F range now, working my way incrementally down the temp scale to see what I like best. So 160F would be next.

I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.

Do you chill to 160 then add your hops or do you add the hops, chill and let stand for 20?
Steve
BJCP #D1667

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” ― G.K. Chesterton

Offline HoosierBrew

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Indianapolis,IN
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2014, 09:54:59 am »
+1 to WY1450 and hopstands - I love both. And I like the cooler hopstands like you mention the best. The flavor (and aroma ) are better at cooler temps IMO. I'm down in the 170 - 165F range now, working my way incrementally down the temp scale to see what I like best. So 160F would be next.

I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.

Do you chill to 160 then add your hops or do you add the hops, chill and let stand for 20?

Chill to your temp first, then add the hops, stir and cover.  The time (for me ) depends on the style -  20 -30 minutes for APA, ~ 45 minutes for AIPA. That's where it's fun to experiment.
Jon H.

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7781
  • Underhill VT
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2014, 10:18:31 am »
+1 to WY1450 and hopstands - I love both. And I like the cooler hopstands like you mention the best. The flavor (and aroma ) are better at cooler temps IMO. I'm down in the 170 - 165F range now, working my way incrementally down the temp scale to see what I like best. So 160F would be next.

I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.

are you concerned about the sanitation aspect? or the extraction being too low to be effective? I can't imagine adding hops to 130F degree wort for 20 minutes before introducing your yeast culture is significantly less sanitary than adding hops to fermented beer at 60F
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce

Offline HoosierBrew

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 13031
  • Indianapolis,IN
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2014, 10:57:24 am »
+1 to WY1450 and hopstands - I love both. And I like the cooler hopstands like you mention the best. The flavor (and aroma ) are better at cooler temps IMO. I'm down in the 170 - 165F range now, working my way incrementally down the temp scale to see what I like best. So 160F would be next.

I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.

are you concerned about the sanitation aspect? or the extraction being too low to be effective? I can't imagine adding hops to 130F degree wort for 20 minutes before introducing your yeast culture is significantly less sanitary than adding hops to fermented beer at 60F

For me, the latter (extraction).  I just feel like there will come a point going down in temp where the extraction levels off or gets worse. Luckily, I haven't gotten there yet.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 11:10:29 am by HoosierBrew »
Jon H.

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2014, 10:57:53 am »
I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.

are you concerned about the sanitation aspect? or the extraction being too low to be effective? I can't imagine adding hops to 130F degree wort for 20 minutes before introducing your yeast culture is significantly less sanitary than adding hops to fermented beer at 60F

Pre-fermentation wort versus post-fermentation green beer is an apples to oranges comparison.  Post-fermentation green beer is a significantly more hostile environment for picking up unwanted vegetative cells.  In reality, 140F is a low pasteurization temperature.  The target temperature for ensuring that all vegetative cells are dead is 70C (158F), which is why I do not go below 160F.  The temperature of a liquid has to be raised at least 40 degrees C above 70C in order to inactivate spores (110C/230F).

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2014, 11:00:43 am »
Do you chill to 160 then add your hops or do you add the hops, chill and let stand for 20?

I chill to 160F before adding the hops.

Offline morticaixavier

  • I must live here
  • **********
  • Posts: 7781
  • Underhill VT
    • The Best Artist in the WORLD!!!!!
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2014, 11:01:17 am »
I am afraid to go much lower than 160F.  One could theoretically go as low as 140F, which is the batch pasteurization temperature that is used for milk; however, 180F seems to be the demarcation line at which flavor and aroma improve without increasing perceived bitterness, so 160F adds safe a margin of error.

are you concerned about the sanitation aspect? or the extraction being too low to be effective? I can't imagine adding hops to 130F degree wort for 20 minutes before introducing your yeast culture is significantly less sanitary than adding hops to fermented beer at 60F

Pre-fermentation wort versus post-fermentation green beer is an apples to oranges comparison.  Post-fermentation green beer is a significantly more hostile environment for picking up unwanted vegetative cells.  In reality, 140F is a low pasteurization temperature.  The target temperature for ensuring that all vegetative cells are dead is 70C (158F), which is why I do not go below 160F.  The temperature of a liquid has to be raised at least 40 degrees C above 70C in order to inactivate spores (110C/230F).

I understand that difference between unfermented wort vs. green beer. However the unfermented wort will be green beer in a matter of fractions of hours after your steep process. The pH drop and production of alcohol will wipe out any gains made my unwanted cells in that time surely. If I recall your process has you chilling to pitching temps very quickly.
"Creativity is the residue of wasted time"
-A Einstein

"errors are [...] the portals of discovery"
- J Joyce

S. cerevisiae

  • Guest
Re: A crystal malt hater gives crystal malt another shot
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2014, 12:40:46 pm »
I understand that difference between unfermented wort vs. green beer. However the unfermented wort will be green beer in a matter of fractions of hours after your steep process. The pH drop and production of alcohol will wipe out any gains made my unwanted cells in that time surely. If I recall your process has you chilling to pitching temps very quickly.

However, bacteria divides three time faster than yeast, so why risk it?  We are dealing with an exponential growth pattern that favors bacteria.

bacteria_cell_count_at_time_t =  initial_bacteria_cell_count x 2(integer(t / 30))

yeast_cell_count_at_time_t =  initial_yeast_cell_count x 2(integer(t / 90))

Let's look at some numbers.

Yeast cell counts at ninety minute intervals

Time  = 90:  initial_cell_count x 21 = initial_cell_count x 2
Time = 180: initial_cell_count x 22 = initial_cell_count x 4
Time = 270: initial_cell_count x 23 = initial_cell_count x 8 
Time = 360: initial_cell_count x 24 = initial_cell_count x 16
Time = 450: initial_cell_count x 25 = initial_cell_count x 32
Time = 540: initial_cell_count x 26 = initial_cell_count x 64
Time = 630: initial_cell_count x 27 = initial_cell_count x 128
Time = 720: initial_cell_count x 28 = initial_cell_count x 256

Bacteria cell counts at ninety minute intervals

Time  = 90: initial_cell_count x 23 = initial_cell_count x 8
Time = 180: initial_cell_count x 26 = initial_cell_count x 64
Time = 270: initial_cell_count x 29 = initial_cell_count x 512
Time = 360: initial_cell_count x 212 = initial_cell_count x 4,096
Time = 450: initial_cell_count x 215 = initial_cell_count x 32,768
Time = 540: initial_cell_count x 218 = initial_cell_count x 262,144
Time = 630: initial_cell_count x 221 = initial_cell_count x 2,097,152
Time = 720: initial_cell_count x 224 = initial_cell_count x 16,777,216


If anyone has ever wondered why pitching a large healthy yeast starter is standard practice, the data presented above should give you insight.

« Last Edit: September 24, 2014, 05:58:36 pm by S. cerevisiae »