Father’s Day Lambic – A New Tradition?

Yesterday, here in the US, was Father’s Day where the patriarchs of the family get lauded with gifts and attention from the family. It is somewhat of a Hallmark Holiday, but I can live with that if I’m the one getting the attention. For me, other than a breakfast with the extended family and some morning activities, I intended to stay home with the family and get some relaxation in.

For a long time, I have had an itch to brew a lambic beer. One of my homebrewery limitations is the limited number of taps and serving space for kegs. An unintended motivations of the above constraints is that I have found myself planning beers that won’t spend time on tap and are destined to be bottled once they are ready. In this light, I had pick up a sour beer yeast culture (Wyeast’s Roeselare Ale Blend) with the intent of giving the lambic style a try in the near future. The lambic could ferment outside my fermentation fridge (i.e. not take up space) and after the 8-16 month fermentation, it could be bottled up with a long shelf life.

Getting back to Father’s Day, a great piece of advice I had read about lambic brewing was to brew the sour ale on the same day of the year, every year to build up a stable of beers for consumption and blending. Thinking of Father's Day, what other day occurs every year and gives me carte blance to brew with minimal risk of family obligations steam-rolling my plans? What other day can I ignore what everyone else wants me to brew and just brew what I want? It all just lined up perfectly – Father’s Day would be a lambic brew day. Plus on this day dedicated to Dads, I would have two little “helpers” who want to help Dad with his hobby.

With the bulk of the day reserved for brewing, I assembled the ingredients and planned out the recipe, which is listed below for reference. This recipe called for a multi-rest mash schedule, which was the only trouble I had throughout the brew day. The multi-rest mash could have been bypassed, but I wanted to include it to deal with the extra protein in all the wheat as well as enhance fermentability for the lambic bugs that will take hold. Plus, it made the brew session a bit more involved and “special”.



Drained out mash tun - the protien rest did its job!

 Using a new, high-capacity mash tun (which was used for our Eisbock), I was able to plan out multiple hot water infusions for each of the different rests without having all the infusions overflow the vessle. Of course, all the calculations went smoothly on paper, but in reality, the infusion mashing proved quite a bit more cumbersome than envisioned. From the very beginning, I missed my dough-in temperature and had to compensate by adding cold water. This, in turn, altered the volume of the mash, which then threw off all my subsequent infusion volumes (since the infusion calculations use the mash volume and mash temperature to determine how much boiling water is needed to bring the total volume up to a specified temperature). When all my subsequent infusions resulted in lower-than-expected temperatures, I had to ladle in more boiling water than planned to get to the targeted temp. Thankfully, the mash tun had the capacity to hold the 8+ gallons of water that were added in order to accomplish the mash schedule (other than the final mash out, which I gave up on).  When the tun was drained out for the first runnings, I had very little need to sparge as I was just about at my pre-boil volume already.

When the mash complete, the rest of the brew day was a snap – a 90 minute boil with one hop addition meant I had lots of down time to enjoy the day on the back porch or watching the kids tool around on their bikes. It made for a very enjoyable and memorable Father’s Day (or Vaderdag in Flemish).  Next year will demonstrate whether all the effort was worthwhile, but the day was deemed a success at its closing. Plus, it would give me great pleasure to return to the style and brew another example as part of a new Father’s Day tradition - assuming I have the discipline to see it through.

Vaderdag Lambic '12
Style: Striaght (Unblended) Lambic
(recipe modified from Jamil Zainasheff's Brewing Classic Styles)

Recipe Specifications
----------------------
Batch Size: 6.0 gal
Boil Size: 7.0 gal
Measured OG: 1.054
Measured FG: ???
Estimated SRM: 3.8
Estimated IBU: 5 (Rager)
ABV: ???%
Brewhouse Efficiency: 70%
Boil Time: 90 Min

Grain / Extract / Sugar
-----------------------
7.50 lb Weyerman Bohemian Pilsner Malt (60%)
5.00 lb Torrified Wheat (40%)

Hops
------
1.0 oz Tettnang (2.5% alpha) at 60 min - Note: these hops are from the 2006 harvest had have been in a freezer since.  Based on the condition, it is estimated that the alpha acid is now in the 1.0-1.4% range.  The hops certainly had a bit of a cheesy smell to them when the bag was opened.

Extras
------
30 drops of Foam Control in the boil

Yeast
------
1 Pack of Wyeast 3763 (Roeselare Ale Blend)

Mash Schedule
---------------
Protein rest at 122 F for 15 minutes
Saccharification I rest at 147 F for 45 minutes (target was 149 F)
Saccharification II rest at 157 F for 30 minutes (target was 158 F)
Mash Out rest at 162 F for 15 minutes (target was 169 F)
Batch sparged with 1 gallon to bring the total volume in the kettle up to 7 gallons.

Notes
--------
Brewed on 6/17/2012 by JW

The multi-rest infusions were carried out by having a 6+ gallon kettle full of boiling water and a 1quart pot for ladling boiling water into the mash.  Each infusion took considerable more boiling water volume than was calculated with BeerSmith.

90 minute boil because of all the Pilsner malt in the grist.

Oxygenation was accomplished with an O2 system and diffusion stone, run for 60 seconds.

June 17, 2012 - Lambic blend culture was pitched out of the smackpack directly into the oxygenated wort.  And airlock was secured and the carboy was placed in a corner of my basement without any temperature control.

Feb 27, 2013 - Pulled a sample of the lambic after 8 months of fermentation.  The tasting notes and impressions of the beer at this point can be found here.

*  *  *

Slainte!

-JW


“It’s not your father’s Budweiser!”
-Anonymous

Difficulty with Step Mashes

Last Monday night was a late night, a very late night.  Members of our local homebrewing club, the Charlottesville Area Masters of Real Ale, are preparing to refill the club's bourbon barrel.  Some readers may remember that our barrel soured unexpectedly on the first batch, an Imperial Porter (click here for posts about the bourbon barrel project).  There was not nearly the interest in the project now that the barrel was sour and for a while I feared it would become a planter.  But a few determined sour beer fans banded together, including one member who is brewing 20 gallons to hit the quota, and we are working towards the second fill.

The group selected the Flanders Red recipe out of the book, Wild Brews, by Jeff Sparrow.  If you look at the recipe, which is listed at the end of the post, you will note that it involves a multi-step mash.  Step mashing is a process that involves increasing the temperature of the mash in steps and holding each step for short periods of time.  Historically, step mashing was used because mash tuns were wooden vessels that could not be heated directly.  The temperature would be raised by adding specific volumes of boiling water and the process allowed brewers to consistently hit temperature ranges before the invention of the thermometer.  Step mashes can be very efficient when done properly, as they target specific enzyme sets and result in greater sugar extraction from the grains.  The can also set specific fermentability profiles for worts, though they are not required with today's highly modified malts.

The Flanders Red recipe listed a step mashing process that is based on the Rodenbach methodology.  It involves four steps (122 F, 145 F, 162 F, and 169 F) if flake maize is used.  I had never done so complex of a step mash before, so I joined forces with another brewer who had a kettle with a false bottom.  The plan was to use his kettle as a direct-fired mash tun and run the wort through a recirculation loop with my wort pump.  Then the mash could be heated to hit and maintain each mash step for the period required, all with little work on the part of the brewers.  Unfortunately, things did not go as planned.  The wort under the false bottom ended up boiling, which slowed the pull through to the wort pump and suddenly, we smelled the unmistakable aroma of scorched wort.  After dumping the mash out, and scrubbing the kettle vigorously, we elected to heat slower and stir constantly, which was more reliable.

In the end, we brewed 20 gallons of beer that night and it was a very memorable experience.  Even starting in the very early afternoon, we still got done after 1:00am in the morning, but it was the only day brewing could fit in both of our calendars.  The group is hoping to gather to fill the barrel with Flanders Red wort at the beginning of July.

If you ever find that you need to do a multi-step mash with a direct fired kettle, take the low-tech approach and stir while heating.  It provides a good arm workout and will avoid scorching if you stir diligently.

Cheers,

TW


Wild Brews Flanders Red recipe
50% Vienna
9% Carahell
9% Caravienna
9% Aromatic
3% Special "B"
20% Maize

Mash Schedule
Similar to Rodenbach
When using flaked maize, you can omit steps 1 and 3.
Assume 1.33 qts H2O/lb grain
1. Mash corn and 10% malted barley at 145 for 15 minutes.
2. Dough in grains and H2O to hit 122, and hold for 20 minutes.
3. Add adjunct mash to main mash.
4. Raise to 145 for 40 minutes.
5. Raise to 162 for 30 minutes.
6. Raise to 169 for 10 minutes.
7. Sparge with 176 H2O

Boiling Time: 2 hours

Bittering Hop addition: 10-12 IBUs.
Suggested hops: Hallertaur, Styrian goldings, E.K. Goldings
OG: 1.048 - 1.057
Fermentation: Wyeast 3763, Roeselare, at 68 for 1 week
Secondary: 80 for 8 weeks, or cellar for up to 3 years

Poll: How Many Entries Did You Have for NHC '12?

Like all our prior poll posts, this post takes a moment to memorialize the results we recieved on the most recent blog poll.  The readers' responses to the question " How many entries did you place in the 2012 National Homebrewing Competition?" are presented below.

Total Votes: 11

As much as I am a supporter of the National Homebrewing Competition, I am certainly not much of a participant.  In the last 3-4 years, I believe I have sent in only one entry to be included in the first round judging.   My interest always seems to be after the fact: prior to the deadline, I find myself too distracted to get together the registration and entry.  After the first round results have been released, my interest level skyrockets, but at that point, all I can do is kick myself and mumble "next year....next year". 

What I found compelling about this month's poll is that it looks like I am not alone.  Taking aside those that made the choice not to participate, nearly twice as many folks have an interest in the competition but just can't seem to get their regstration/entries in on time.  Why is that?  Is it just the procrastinator in all of us, or something else?

With regards to the large population that do not participate in NHC, I'm sure there is a multitude of reasons behind their motivations.  Many people are not into "style-based" competitions and would rather brew unabashed by the constraints of styles.  Kudos to you folks.  Others, I am sure, believe the NHC is too large of a venue and wonder why bother.  With ~750 entries in each region, its too easy to get lossed in the crowd.

Let us know what you think, or if you did particpate in NHC, how were your first round results?  And if you are reading this, our next blog poll is up and awaiting your participation.

Slainte!

-JW


"Everybody has to believe in something.....I believe I'll have another drink."
-W.C. Fields

Iron Brewer - Batch 3

This year's Iron Brewer competition, labeled Batch 3, began last night.  The Iron Brewer competition has been discussed here in the past and is one of my favorite events that has spun out of the recent spike of interest in homebrewing.  The competition organizer,  Peter Kennedy, selects three, somewhat atypical, ingredients to challenge the brewers for a given round (the ingredients for the first round are: rosemary, strisselspalt hops, and medium toast American oak chips).  Upon announcing the ingredients, the selected brewers have 8 weeks to produce a beer that highlights the ingredients while being drinkable and well-received.

Several months ago, Peter sent a survey around to those of us who had participated in Iron Brewer in the past to gauge responses for potential changes to the system.  Based on the questions he asked, I surmised that there were three main areas for potential improvement with the system:

• Expand participation - Iron Brewer has grown in popularity since its inception.  Consequently, under the current format, rounds fill up in a matter of minutes and leave many brewers out of the competition.  However, if the current system remains the same, increasing the number of people per round also increases each participant's costs (see below).  The other option would be to increase the number of rounds, which has logistical concerns.
• Cost of shipping - Under the current system, Iron Brewer participants ship two bottles of beer to each of the round's other participants and to the judges.  In the round I participated in last year, that meant shipping eight packages of beer, which resulted in shipping costs around $100.  These costs could be decreased by lowering the number of round participants, which is in contrast to Iron Brewer's increasing popularity, or to change how the program is structured.  Potential changes could include sending samples into one location like a normal homebrewing competition or eliminating the group tasting activity.
• Increased prize distribution - Iron Brewer has some generous sponsors that provide prizes to be given out to the competition winners.  Under the current system, those prizes are provided to the winner of the championship round only.  Providing prizes to the winners of the normal rounds, while still keeping a substantial grand prize, would be more difficult, given the number of rounds.

The email to participate in the first round of Batch 3 went out last night and closed within minutes, based on the Iron Brewer Twitter feed.  It looks like there will be six normal rounds in Batch 3 and there were seven selected participants in the first round.  When combined with the rules listed on the Iron Brewer website, it looks like the competition remains the same as last year.  Personally, I feel this is for the best, as it leaves in place the group tasting event and keeps the rounds small.  I loved the tasting event last year and felt that it brought a lot to experience to taste my competitors' beers and hear what other people thought about them.  While this means fewer can participate and the costs are higher, I think the experience is worth it.

If you want to participate in Iron Brewer, make sure that you register with the email list.  Also, be prepared to reply almost instantly to the email invitation for a round, as it fills up very quickly.

Cheers,

TW