Author Topic: Belgian Tripel  (Read 8910 times)

Offline hokerer

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2639
  • Manassas, VA
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2011, 11:38:49 AM »
Pretty much the same as yours, but I use Tinseth.

Thanks --concenration factor must be off  to then.  I will play with the numbers.

Actually, Tinseth and Rager give significantly different IBU numbers
Joe

Offline bearcat

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2011, 12:00:07 PM »
Pretty much the same as yours, but I use Tinseth.

Thanks --concenration factor must be off  to then.  I will play with the numbers.

Actually, Tinseth and Rager give significantly different IBU numbers

Yup,,,  I would just switch the recipe to Tinseth but my concentration factor must have been off ... still is. to get the same IBU as Denny's posted recipe. 

Offline ghumphrey

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • Highlands Ranch, CO
    • View Profile
    • Better Beer Scores - Online, Live and Interactive Craft Beer and BJCP Exam Study Webinar Series
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2011, 12:49:34 PM »
... but I thought the later sugar addition was a pretty smart idea.  I got it from Timothy's Tripel recipe in Homebrewopedia.

Why thank you! Timothy's is my creation and I'm convinced, after brewing it several times, that the sugar in the primary is the way to go. Those little yeasties, no matter how many are in attendance, are a lazy lot. They'll eat the simple sugars first before heading on to the other, more complex ones like maltose. Adding sugar 2-3 days into primary is like giving them a nice little dessert before a great big nap.

The yeast I use is also key - the strain I use is WLP545 Belgian Strong Ale (or Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes). It's a super attenuative yeast. Last time I brewed Timothy's, the FG was 1.002!  No joke, I checked it three times. It wasn't super dry though, probably from the use of a pale malt and a bit of aromatic malt, and has won four medals this year alone.
Geoff Humphrey
Better Beer Scores, LLC Managing Partner
Rock Hoppers Brew Club Competition Director and Webmaster
FREE browser-based brewing software:
BrewBlogger | Brew Competition Online Entry & Management

Offline majorvices

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 7864
  • Polka. If its too loud you're too young.
    • View Profile
    • Yellowhammer Brewing Company
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2011, 02:28:19 PM »
I've done the incremental feeding method ad it works pretty well. Right now I am brewing a tripel regularly and have had no problems reaching slightly above 90% aa by adding sugar to boil (about 15% I believe) and doing a long, low mash. But the incremental feeding is a good tool to use if you ever have a problem reaching proper attenuation.
Keith Y.

Vote Jonathan Fuller for Governing Committee!

Offline tygo

  • I spend way too much time on the AHA forum
  • ********
  • Posts: 2622
  • Sterling, VA
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2011, 03:04:46 PM »
I add up to 20% sugar in my golden strong ale, right to the boil, and hit at least 90% apparent attenuation every time.
Clint
Wort Hogs

Fermenting: Wit
On Tap: Lucifer's Hammer Golden Strong Ale, Dopplebock, Old Fuzzynut's Ale

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • Retired with too much time on my hands
  • *****
  • Posts: 13664
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2011, 03:37:29 PM »
I add up to 20% sugar in my golden strong ale, right to the boil, and hit at least 90% apparent attenuation every time.

Same here.  If I ever start having trouble, I'll try incremental feeding again, but at this point I don't have a good reason to do it.
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline uthristy

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Hot & sticky Fla.
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2011, 03:37:52 PM »
Why thank you! Timothy's is my creation and I'm convinced, after brewing it several times, that the sugar in the primary is the way to go.
<snip>
The yeast I use is also key - the strain I use is WLP545 Belgian Strong Ale (or Wyeast 3522 Belgian Ardennes). It's a super attenuative yeast. Last time I brewed Timothy's, the FG was 1.002!  No joke, I checked it three times. It wasn't super dry though, probably from the use of a pale malt and a bit of aromatic malt, and has won four medals this year alone.


Couple questions:
Have you tried adding to the boil?
my numbers always are the same -->boil vs fermentor. Thus I never saw any reason not to  add to the boil.

wlp545 isn't the same as wy3522 - - (wlp550 =wy3522 =achouffe)

@1.002 its already dryer than 90%+ of most triples, in fact thats in the range of some saisons & lambics.


Vital Statistics:      OG: 1.075 – 1.085
IBUs: 20 – 40    FG: 1.008 – 1.014
SRM: 4.5 – 7    ABV: 7.5 – 9.5%

Offline uintafly

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • SLC, Utah
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2011, 06:29:54 PM »
I came up with a recipe that's remarkably similar to Westmalle.  Although I'm nearly positive Westmalle doesn't FWH, doing it makes this beer nearly spot on for Westmalle.  For extract, just replace the pils malt with an equal number of gravity units of the lightest extract you can find.  My recipe is in the recipe wiki here...

http://wiki.homebrewersassociation.org/Westcoastmalle

If I add this recipe to me "to do list" it will make two of your recipes on my list as I already want to try your rye IPA. What's the line "Imitation is the greatest form of flattery."

A couple of people have mentioned I may want to go all grain, and I have been thinking about it myself but worry about how much time I have right now. I also need to get a larger kettle and a turkey fryer so I can do full boils. Not to mention my wife already thinks I'm nuts. I told her 25 gallons in 4 months is nothing compared to other people on the site. She says you all are crazy too.  ;D ;D

As far as attenuation goes, does the fact that I am doing smaller (2.5-3 gallon) boils affect that at all? I really can't go any bigger until I get a fryer because I already have trouble getting a good rolling boil on my stove top.

Offline a10t2

  • Official Poobah of No Life.
  • *
  • Posts: 3568
  • Ask me why I don't like Chico!
    • View Profile
    • SeanTerrill.com
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2011, 06:50:06 PM »
As far as attenuation goes, does the fact that I am doing smaller (2.5-3 gallon) boils affect that at all? I really can't go any bigger until I get a fryer because I already have trouble getting a good rolling boil on my stove top.

Technically, yes. Maillard reactions will bind up some fermentable sugars into unfermentable compounds. I kind of doubt the difference is as much as even one "point", though. If you ever do an identical recipe, but as a full boil, make sure you take good notes. ;)
Beer is like porn. You can buy it, but it's more fun to make your own.
seanterrill.com/category/brewing
twomilebrewing.com

Offline gordonstrong

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1355
    • View Profile
    • BJCP
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2011, 10:32:23 PM »
This is an old thread, but I'm catching up.  Good suggestions here.  I have one more to add.  Attenuation is important but so is final gravity.  You can get a highly attenuated beer, but it won't taste right if the FG is too high.  Like when making a Duvel-type beer, it's better to start low and finish low.  A tripel shouldn't taste like a barleywine.  I also wouldn't target much more than 9-9.5% ABV.  Again, it won't really taste right in the balance.

This is the biggest mistake I think I see with brewpub-type Tripels.
Gordon Strong • Beavercreek, Ohio • AHA Member since 1997 • Twitter: GordonStrong

Offline uintafly

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 80
  • SLC, Utah
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2011, 06:51:41 AM »
I am actually planning on brewing this up tomorrow. My recipe is just a variation on Denny's tripel in the wiki page. I was a little worried about getting it dry enough so I am shooting for an abv of 7.7. Here is the recipe, let me kow what you think:
7.5 lbs Muntons extra light dry extract
2 lbs. cane sugar

.5 oz. Tettnanger    60 min.    3.9 AA
1.25   Czech Saaz  60 min.    3.0 AA
1.5 oz. Hallertau     30 min.    4.6 AA
.75 oz. Czech Saaz  5 min.    3.0 AA

White Labs Abbey Ale

1.075 OG

29.8 IBU

Offline gordonstrong

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1355
    • View Profile
    • BJCP
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2011, 07:09:23 AM »
Sounds great.  I always worry about the fermentability of extracts, but there isn't a whole lot you can do about it.  Looks like you had already incorporated the suggestions I had for you.  I like the percentage of sugar, the choice of hops, the OG and IBU, and the yeast.  So no further suggestions there; looks like you're in good shape.

Only thing it doesn't mention is the fermentation temperature.  I'd start in the low-mid 60s and let it rise on its own as it goes.  Don't try to rein it in, but also don't start it too hot.  You want to avoid making liquid headache.

It's rather see a tripel a little small than one that's too big.  Especially if you're working with extract.
Gordon Strong • Beavercreek, Ohio • AHA Member since 1997 • Twitter: GordonStrong

Offline brewsumore

  • Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
  • Spokane, WA
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2011, 12:59:02 PM »
Also, remember that with the added sugar and the active Belgian yeast, to be sure to err on the side of pitching cooler than hotter, or have enough temp control capacity to ensure that the beer doesn't get too hot too soon (first 3-4 days) via an active fermentation and high ambient temp, or you'll end up with solventy fusel alcohol taste that is just plain nasty.

Offline gordonstrong

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1355
    • View Profile
    • BJCP
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2011, 03:23:22 PM »
solventy fusel alcohol taste that is just plain nasty.

That's what I meant by "liquid headache"
Gordon Strong • Beavercreek, Ohio • AHA Member since 1997 • Twitter: GordonStrong

Offline ndcube

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
    • View Profile
Re: Belgian Tripel
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2011, 05:59:06 AM »
Agreed that the appropriate amount of Belgian yeast is always a great way to go, but I thought the later sugar addition was a pretty smart idea.  I got it from Timothy's Tripel recipe in Homebrewopedia.  My all pilsner malt triple was made to a gravity of 1.075 and then added sugar to reach 1.085 after four days of fermenting.  It shows 1.010 after another week.

While it can't hurt, I certainly haven't found any benefit from adding the sugar to the fermenter rather than the kettle.  In beers even in the 1.085-90 range, as long as you're pitching an adequate amount of healthy yeast, the sugar works just fine (for me) in the kettle.  It also means there's one less thing to deal to deal with down the road.

I find that adding sugar to the fermentation is invaluable when you forget to add it to the boil.   :'(