#21 Belgian Tripel

The Cascade Wet Hop Harvest Ale

Now with the brewing and serving of O Hike Ale over with, I am excited to get into brewing more outside of the 1056 American Ale brewing. Brewing the test batch of the O Hike, the Terrapin Rye Pale Ale, the American Wheat Ale, the O Hike final batch, and the Wet Hopped IPA has allowed me to brew a lot with the very typical and very common 1056 strain a lot in the last few weeks. It's a grain strain to use; very resilient to any mistakes you make as a brewer and often produces a great beer, but I'd like to produce beers with some additional variety for the fall and winter months.

The Trappist High Gravity 3787 strain from Wyeast should get me out of my American Ale yeast funk. I've wanted to brew either a Belgian Tripel, Belgian Golden Strong, Belgian Quad, and/or a Belgian Strong Dark for some time now, and I think this yeast will make for a fantastic Belgian strong ale if I use it correctly. Since I have a few dark strong ales available at the moment, I thought that a Tripel or Golden Strong would make the most sense, possibly a brew for mid-winter. Jamil Zainascheff had yet another seemingly straightforward yet quality recipe for the Tripel style, so I chose to go with it.

Belgian Tripel

Batch Volume (Gal): 6.0

Pre-Boil Volume (Gal): 7.0

Total Grain (Lbs): 14.25

OG: Post-Boil: 1.060   With additional sugar during fermentation: 1.080

Anticipated FG: ~1.012

Anticipated ABV: ~9.02%

IBUs: 33.8

SRM: 6.8 (most likely darker)

Brewhouse Efficiency: 67%

Boil Duration: 95 min

Grain                                                (Lbs/oz.) (%)

Weyerman German Pilsner Malt       14       83.6

(What I believe to be) CaraAroma    4 oz.     1.5

Cane Sugar (added during ferment)  2.5     14.9

Hops                     (AA%) (IBU) (Oz.) (Boil[min])

Styrian Goldings    4.5      32.8    1.7          90

Czech Saaz              3.0       1.0    0.5           5

Yeast

Propagated 3787 Trappist High Gravity propagator pack three times to produce ~150 mL of yeast. Pitched ~110 mL of thick yeast slurry, pitched remaining yeast from starter diluted with water. Aimed and hit to pitch between 112 mL and 150 mL of yeast. 112 mL suggested pitching rate for 1.060 OG (when fermentation began), 150 mL suggested rate for 1.080 OG (after additions of cane sugar).

Water

Ca: 85 Mg: 2 SO4: 19 Na: 15 Cl: 17 HCO3: 164

(targeted Chimay water profile, carbonates lower than desired)

1 Whirlfloc tablet (5 min)   1/2 tsp yeast nutrient (5 min)

Mash Schedule:

Single Infusion   60 min (roughly 148-149 F, dropping at mash progressed)

10 min mashout at 170 F

1 g NaHCO3, 0.5 g CaSO4, 0.5 g CaCl2, 4.5 g CaCO3,

6.5 mL Lactic Acid (60 min), ~5.4 pH (30 min),

added additional 2.5 mL Lactic Acid (30 min, ~5.4 pH (5 min)

Yet another seemingly hellish brewday, but I'll have to see how the beer turns out to make the final judgement. My mill continues to create issues. I think at this point I will have to abandon wet milling altogether, if not for a while and begin wetting the grain to a lesser extent. The mill rollers, even though I am taking much better care of them now, still struggle towards the end of milling. The drill is unable to continue to mill once the rollers have turned the grains to mush. This can't be a good thing for mashing and could be resulting in tannin extraction, although I think overall wet milling has likely decreased tannin extraction. I'm not sure if the failure is the drill being weak, the grain being too wet, or this mill not being capable of handling wet grains. I'll have to go back to dry milling, and at some point, possibly begin experimenting with wetting the grains to a lesser extent.

My mash numbers seemed to be a bit off, and I continue to be a bit confused over what exactly I should be measuring when it comes to mash pH and mash temperature. I chose to measure temperature on top of the grain bed and below as I had on the previous brew. My measured temp I went with was the one I measured below the level of the grain bed (~148 F), but I have little way of knowing what temperature is most significant. I would like to get a thermowell and thermometer and install both in my mashtun, but this may be an upgrade for the future. In the meantime I'll have to monitor some area of the mashtun consistently to get an idea of the final that will be produced. pH was especially confusing since I initially hit a pH of 5.4, then added an additional 2.5 mL of Lactic Acid and still hit the 5.4 mash pH. This is a beer that is more likely to benefit from a "softer" texture, and so I am ok with a higher mash pH, but I am a bit confused as to how adding the additional acid resulted in no pH change. I think this is another area where investing in equipment to measure weight in grams, volume in mL, and a legitimate pH meter may come in handy in the future.

My issue with my mill would not ultimately be my only issue. I again had a stuck mash (2nd time in the last three brews), however this stuck mash was most likely due to me not attaching my outlet tubing in the mashtun to the false bottom with a hose clamp. Since first brewing with this mashtun assembly from Northern Brewer, I haven't been using the hose clamp that clamps the outlet tubing to the false bottom since I had one particular brew where I had a stuck mash due to the outlet tubing being twisted, crimping, and making it impossible for any wort to drain from the mash. In the future, I'll either have to either clamp this tube as I should be doing and make sure not to twist the outlet tubing, or clamp tubing that is unlikely to crimp due to the high temperatures silicone tubing experiences in the mash. This issue, as with the mill, are most likely only frustrations on brew day, and are not likely to result in a lower quality final beer, but the mash issue most likely did result in my lower efficiency (67%). It would make things more enjoyable to avoid issues like this altogether in future brews.

For the first time, I had a blockage in the flow of wort into the fermenter after chilling. I've never had this happen, and after this particular brewday, it didn't really surprise me. With such a small addition of hops, I had not idea how the strainer could be blocked. After using a sanitized ruler to strip away some of the hops from the strainer, I was finally able to collect a little over 5.5 gallons. It looked like it was only hops that clogged the filter, not protein. I'm thinking this is most likely due to not allowing enough time for the trub to settle to the bottom before draining the boil kettle. Again, I'll have to see how the strainer works during the next couple brews, although I've never had an issue with it before so I'm confident it won't be a reoccurring problem.

One issue that I think may be more significant in the resultant beer is the fact that I think I was given CaraAroma malt instead of Aromatic malt at my local homebrew store. I guy filling in for the homebrew store owner I think must have seen "aroma" when I asked for "aromatic" and thought it was the same type of malt. The CaraAroma is much much darker and will likely result in a different flavor, similar to the flavors in a Belgian Dubbel or Belgian Dark Strong, but it will be interesting to see how this malt plays out in a Tripel. The beer came out of the boil kettle a dark amber, so I'm hoping the flavor isn't overpowered by this malt.

Once the equipment I have ordered for the fermentation chamber arrives, I hope to keep this fermentation under control as I add the additional cane sugar needed to dry out and strengthen this brew. Then, I may or may not repropagate this particular yeast, and either try brewing a dubbel or dark strong for the colder months.

Labeling the O Hike Ale

After a week of fermentation, a little over a week of dry hopping, and two weeks bottle conditioning, the O Hike Ale is as ready as it's going to be for reunion.

The batch yielded a total of forty-five 12 oz. bottles, forty of which I'll be serving at reunion; the other five I chose to sample over the past week to ensure this was a beer I was confident in serving. The first bottle I tasted was still in the process of conditioning, so I was a bit concerned that the rest of the batch would continue to taste as that first one had. Luckily the other beers I've had from the batch have conditioned, carbonated, and cleaned up nicely.

The most noticeable quality of the beer that, I feel is a detriment to the overall perception of the beer, is the level of hop bitterness. The test batch came out quite sweet, and I was somewhat more comfortable serving a beer like it at reunion than an overly bitter beer. A bitter beer may be more appreciable by a seasoned craft beer drinker like myself. For the typical American beer drinker (or non-drinker) that is unfamiliar with hoppy beers, the final batch may be less palatable.

On a positive note, I feel that the final batch came a lot closer to  the beer I attempted to clone, Gordon (aka G'Knight) from Oskar Blues. I believe the fermentation chamber I built helped quite a bit by allowing for lower fermentation temperatures. The fermentation was much "cleaner" than with the test batch, and thus the final beer has less of the fruity esters and hot alcohols of the test batch. The lower mash pH I also believe greatly improved the quality of the beer. As the result of hitting 5.1~5.2 pH during the mash, I believe it made for a much crisper and brighter beer as I had expected. Whether this was actually due to mash pH or not, I'll have to see with future brews. The beer finished perceivably drier as well, and although this may not be due to a lower final gravity (I last measured it at 1.020, the same FG as the test batch), the resulting taste of the beer is not as overly sweet as the test batch tasted.

It took a while to finalize the label, but I think it came out well and will hopefully offer a few laughs for people during reunion. I feel like I can't go wrong with an ode to Doc Overaker (the subject in both the front and back labels). He's one of the few figures at Holderness that is both instantly recognizable and central to the identity of the school, as well as capable of inspiring amusement with any of the anecdotes that surround his time as a teacher. Glad to hear he is back teaching at Holderness, and I hope he never hears he was the subject of this particular project!

#20 Cascade Wet Hop Harvest Ale

The American Wheat Ale with Willamette Wet Hops

Seeing as my first attempt at growing hops did not result in the yield I had hoped for (three dead hop rhizomes and no hops) I thought that there would be no chance to make a true "Hop Harvest" beer, a style common during the months of August and September. The end of summer and beginning of fall is the perfect time to harvest hops, and many homebrewers/craft brewers often use all or a portion of their fresh hops in hop harvest ales.

Wet Hops still on the bine before picking

I was lucky enough to have my local homebrew show owner, Todd Tilton of the Fermentation Station, give me a huge crop of Cascade wet hops that he was unable to harvest. After hours of picking, I was able to fill a five gallon bucket just under the brim. Half of the hops went to Todd, and my half yielded roughly 43 ounces of wet hops. Wet hops can weigh anywhere from 7 times to 5 times as much as dried hops. Based on an estimated 6:1 ratio of wet weight to dry weight, I yielded roughly 7.16 ounces of dried hops, had they been dried rather than used as wet hops.

Using this many wet hops proved to be difficult as I had no idea of their alpha acid percentage and my true dried weight yield. In order to get my IBUs within the correct range for an American IPA, the majority of the bittering came from the Columbus hop addition at 90 min. Knowing the alpha acid content for this particular hop allowed me to get my IBU value within the accepted range for an IPA. The only potential for variance in my actual IBU level will be the ten minute addition of the wet Cascade hops, which will result in very little influence in the overall bitterness of the beer.

Wet Hops after picking

In the future, when brewing with wet hops, I hope to brew with them closer to the time at which they are harvested. I got these hops a couple days after they were harvested, it took me a few days to pick them all, and it took me a few days to actually get to brew the beer. Likely during this time I lost some of the aromatics of the hops, and this could result in a beer that lacks the intensity of aroma I was hoping for. However I believe that since my hop additions of the wet hops were so large, this will likely compensate for any loss in aromatic potency. During storage, these hops did begin to mold as well, and the aroma in the bags in which I stored the hops took on a very vegetal, tea like aroma. I don't think this will contribute much to the aroma of the final beer due to the boiling of the wort and evolution of this aroma, but it is something I am very worried about tasting in the final beer.

Cascade Wet Hop Harvest Ale

Batch Volume (Gal): 6.0

Pre-Boil Volume (Gal): 6.33

Total Grain (Lbs): 14.26

OG: 1.060 

Anticipated FG: ~1.012   

Anticipated ABV: ~6.33%

IBUs: 55.2 - 65.1 

(estimated at 63.4)

SRM: 9.6

Brewhouse Efficiency: 71%

Boil Duration: 95

Grain                                                 (Lbs/oz.) (%)

Malteurop North American 2-row       12     84.2

Crystal 40                                                 1          7

Munich Malt                                         6.5 oz.   2.8

Victory Malt                                           6 oz.     2.6

Crystal 60                                            4.15 oz.   1.8

Rye Malt                                               3.5 oz.     1.5

Hops         (AA%) (IBU)                (Oz.)                   (Boil[min])

Columbus    14       54.1                  0.9                            90

Cascade    ~5.75    0-9.9 ~2 oz. dry (12 oz. wet)            10

Columbus    14        1.1                    0.1                            10

Cascade        ~          0  ~5.16 oz. dry (40 oz. wet)          0

Yeast

Harvested 1056 American Ale yeast from O Hike Ale, built up yeast in two starters, and separated yeast from majority of hop/trub material from the O Hike Ale. Pitched ~125 mL of fresh yeast with moderate amount of hop material in slurry.

Water

Ca: 123 Mg: 2 SO4: 242 Na: 16 Cl: 38 HCO3: 59 

(targeted Randy Mosher Pale Ale water profile)

1 Whirlfloc tablet (10 min)   1/2 tsp yeast nutrient (10 min)

Mash Schedule:

Single Infusion   60 min (top of mash lower than 150 F) middle of mash 151-152 F, 10 min mashout at 170 F

1 g Baking Soda (NaHCO3), 10 g SO4, 1.5 g CaCl2, 

2.5 mL Lactic Acid (60 min), 1 mL Lactic Acid (50 min)

(all in mash); ~5.4 pH (55 min), ~5.1 - 5.0 pH (45 min), ~5.2 pH (15 min)

Measuring original gravity of the wort

It'll be interesting to see how this beer turns out due to all the variables and unknowns I experienced during the brewday. The hops are a big question; not sure how well they will produce aroma in the final beer, and there could be an off flavor produced by the fact that the hops had started to spoil on the day I brewed with them. 

My malt mill screwed up my first attempt to brew this beer the day before, and after milling 2/3rds of my total grain bill, I was forced to stop. On what ended up being my actual brewday, I finished the milling of the grains to find that the grains I had wet milled the day prior had started to get a little funky, most likely from the moisture, the cracked and exposed starch, and the bacteria (I think lactobacillus) that exist naturally on barley husk. After tasting the wort and some of the grains, there didn't seem to be any flavor from this possibly souring of the grains, but there may be some influence perceived in the final beer. 

Trying to avoid a boil over during the hot break

My measurements of the mash were also confusing, as I decided that I should begin to measure mash temperature in multiple locations within the mash itself. Using brewing software, I typically add two degrees to my strike water's temperature in addition to the temperature calculated by the software. This has often allowed me to hit my mash temperature exactly; however, I've begun to think that it has only been necessary for me to compensate by adding two degrees simply because I measure my mash temperature at the top of the grain bed where the mash is likely to be a bit colder. This is not entirely significant, as the purpose for measuring mash temperature is simply for consistency's sake, and evaluation of whether a mash temp should be changed is simply due to the final taste of the beer. After brewing the O Hike test batch and the final batch and discovering that both beers finished higher than I had hoped, I began to think that this could ultimately be due to an inaccurate measure of my mash temperature. I submerged one thermometer while also measuring mash temperature on the top of the grain bed as I usually do, and I found the temperatures to differ widely. The top of the grain bed (even though I had aimed for 152 F) was below 150 F, while the interior of the mash was measured anywhere from 151 F to 154 F at one point. I can't exactly find a reasonable average for the temperatures I observed, so it will only be after tasting the finished product that I will be able to come to some conclusion about my mash temperature. I will have to monitor this variable much closer in the next few brews, and hopefully I will come to more of an understanding about the temperatures I should be aiming for.

Just after adding the 10 minute addition of wet Cascade hops

Mash pH was another variable I found to be inconsistent during the duration of the mash. Initially I had hit a fairly high pH (~5.4 pH at mash temp, ~5.7 pH room temp). The software I use to predict mash pH has mentioned that it may take up to 15 minutes for mash pH to equilibrate, and therefore this high pH measure may have been taken too soon. I chose to add an additional mL of Lactic acid to try and bring the mash pH down, and soon after it appeared mash pH had dropped to ~5.1 (the value I have been aiming for ever since realizing that 5.1 pH at mash temp is equivalent to 5.4 pH mash temp at room temperature, which is ideal). Towards the end of the mash I chose to measure pH once more and found that it had risen slightly to 5.2. However, all these measurements are taken using pH test strips, which due to their color coding are difficult to get a definitive measurement of pH. As with mash temperature, I'll just have to observe pH in the next few brews, and see if I can come to understand mash pH a bit more than I do currently.

Chilling the wort

Overall however, I'm fairly confident that this beer will turn out well. This beer was my first time brewing with American 2-row malt which will make for an interesting comparison with my prior beers that have used only British 2-row. I also aimed for the Pale Ale water profile described by Randy Mosher, and so I am excited to see how my salt additions will influence the final beer. I have never had my calcium levels as high and I have yet to add sodium in a beer, so it will be interesting to see just how these ions influence the final flavor. If I can find epsom salt (MgSO4), I should finally have all the tools necessary to more closely mimic various water profiles, something that I increasingly believe is (behind fermentation variables) the variable in beer that will turn a good beer into a great beer. Since the fermentation chamber has done so well maintaining proper fermentation temperatures for the O Hike final batch and currently the Harvest Ale (fermenting at 66 F), I feel like I am getting closer to ideal fermentations (provided that my yeast pitching is sufficient as well), and therefore water profiles will become more important in my efforts to make even better beer.

O Hike Ale test batch