To refresh everyone’s memory, Garrett Oliver, brewmaster of Brooklyn Brewery, has used the lees from naturally fermented wine for either a primary or secondary fermentation of wort. Some of these beers are described here. His overall goal is to isolate wild yeast from spontaneously fermented wine to eventually brew wild beers. Interestingly, spontaneously fermented wine can have any number of yeast species depending on the grapes used in the must and where they were grown. This includes species such as Saccharomyces, Pichia, Candida, and Brettanomyces.

For these photos, I picked one colony from the TO sample and five colonies from the GL sample. GL stands for Gross Lees and is taken directly from the fermented must. I’m only showing one colony of TO since all of the colonies that I picked from this sample looked exactly the same:

The cells are very different from I expected compared to Brettanomyces bruxellensis. These cells are not long and sausage-shaped, but more ovoid. They do not appear as round as Saccharomyces cerevisae.

GL-1. Although the yeast in the sample was diluted, cells that are clumped together appear slightly elongated while cells alone in suspension are more ovoid. This is very distinct from TO-1

GL-2. This was the only sample that have very long shaped cells, but in very low abundance. Could this be the teleomorph (sexual reproduction) stage of the yeast.

GL-3. Similar to TO-1.

GL-4. A bit more elongated and thicker (see cell in above right corner).

GL-5. Very similar to GL-3.

Conclusions

Hard to say what strains I have. All of these strains have different abilities to metabolize the bromocresol dye suggesting different strains. Some of the colonies look different, but some are the same, as in GL-3 and GL-5. I cannot rule out that I’ve isolated the same strain either. These cells look very different from the Brettanomyces that I have isolated from Lambics. More importantly, I was hoping to get some wild Saccharomyces in these samples but I found none, since all the colonies that I grew all had the classic funky Brett character. I refuse to believe that the gross lees has no Saccharomyces since it must appear during spontaneous fermentation of wine. My growth media might be missing them somehow and I may have to make media selective for only wild Saccharomyces. Importantly, I’m coming to realize that just looking at cell and colony morphology is not enough to ascertain what these strains are. To truly identify these strains from different classes of fungi, PCR genotyping and growth on limited carbon sources might be the way to go.

Future

I will next take these six strains (same or different) and run some basic fermentation trails to test their ability to ferment wort. I may also include coumaric acid as a test for Brett character since it worked well on my previous plates. As an alternate approach, I am going to inoculate the gross lees with sterile wort, stimulating whatever is growing there. Hopefully, any Saccharomyces that is there will grow faster than Brettanomyces.

1. CR: Crochet Rouge Rose
2. GL: Gross Lees
3. TO: Weisse wort inoculated with gross lees. Currently a nameless and experimental brew.

TO on Brett Agar: Sample was diluted 1:1000 and 50 uls was plated. This sample had the highest amount of wild yeast. If you click on the image, notice the colonies that are greenish. These yeast metabolized the bromocresol green dye to a lesser extent and suggests these are unique strains. Since Brett agar contains chloramphenicol and cycloheximide, brewers yeast and bacteria should be inhibited.

TO on CuSO4 Agar: This was diluted as the sample before. There were fewer number of colonies on this plate, indicating that this media is far more stringent in isolating wild yeast. As before some colonies are different in color. Click on the image for a full size view.

Brettanomyces may not be the only type of yeast that can be found on the grape skins. For example, this article found species of Candida, Hanseniaspora, and Issatchenkia on the skins of grapes. Even regular Saccharomyces cerevisae is found on grapes and often becomes dominant in the later half of wine fermentation. This article in Wine Make Magazine describes differences between spontaneous wine fermentation versus inoculated and is a good read. In relation to my project with Brooklyn Brewery, any indigenous yeast would be of interest to Garrett, including Saccharomyces cerevisae. To this end, I made Brett Agar plates as in my last post but without the drugs chloramphenicol and cycloheximide. This should allow everything to grow and any potential indigenous Saccharomyces cerevisae should not be able to metabolize the dye. These should be greener in color compared to the other colonies (Brett).

The above photo is the TO sample with the Brett Agar (-drugs) on the left and Brett Agar (+drugs) on the right. It is pretty apparent that the dominant microflora is bacteria (shallow glossy colonies). This plate also smelled normal – no Brett funkiness. The plate on the right is basically a replicate of photos at the beginning of the post. It seems that bacteria, most likely lactobacillus, is present at high levels in Weisse wort barrels. Garrett expressed an interest in characterizing Brett samples (plate on the right) for a future brew.

Now here is where things get interesting. Make sure to click on the photo for a closer look. This is the gross lees (GL) plated on Brett Agar without drugs (left) and with drugs (right). Instead of bacteria, colonies are predominantly wild yeast. However, the left plate there are numerous colonies of different shades and colors suggesting different species of indigenous yeast. This diverse microflora reflects the final stages of the fermentation as the wine was racked off the lees. The plate on the right indicates only Brettanomyces growth.

Future:

I’m basically in the final stages of the project. have already picked a bunch colonies from both GL and TO samples to grow in small fermentations. Next I will post microscopy pictures on the cell morphology of the colonies I picked and run mini-fermentations (3 ml volumes).

I need something a bit more stringent, but first a disclaimer for everyone reading. The ingredients for these recipes are tough to come by and the Brooklyn Brewery helped me in ordering some reagents. The recipes are great if you have a yeast lab in the brewery, but not very approachable if you are a homebrewer. Which brings me to my next point – check out Dimitri’s blog over at BK Yeast. He has some great recipes for isolating all sorts of critters for the homebrewer.

I decided to start with four new media recipes (all recipes for 500 mls). The first is Sabouraud Agar:

• 20 g Dextrose
• 5 g Bacto-Peptone
• 10 g Agar
• pH of 5.6

This is a rich all purpose media designed to grow any yeast and mold. I then made a separate formulation with the usual cycloheximide but added an antibiotic – Chloramphenicol. This is a strong antimicrobial designed to kill most Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria.

• 0.25 g Chloramphenicol
• 10 mg/L Cycloheximide

The third differential media that I used was CuSO4 MYPG media. Copper sulfate is generally used to differentiate between Saccharomyces and wild Saccharomyces strains, not Brettanomyces. Although, Chad Yakobson of Crooked Stave has had some luck with growing Brett on CuSO4 plates:

• 1.5 g Malt extract
• 1.5 g Yeast extract (this is not the same yeast extract from Wyeast)
• 5.0 g Glucose
• 2.5 g Bacto-peptone
• 156 mg of CuSO4 – 5 H2O
• pH of 6.2

Lastly I made Brettanomyces Agar. I found this recipe in the Handbook of Food Spoilage Yeasts. This formulation specifically grows Brettanomyces species. Interestingly, I added p-coumaric acid (courtesy of Brooklyn Brewery). This molecule is converted to 4-ethylphenol by Brettanomyces and produces the classic Brett smell – horse blanket, barnyard, and mousy. Colonies can be identified by smell.

• 5.0 g of Dextrose
• 2.5 g of Bacto-peptone
• 1.5 g of Malt extract
• 1.5 g of Yeast extract
• 1.5 g of Yeast nitrogenous base (YNB)
• 0.5 g of Chloramphenicol
• 0.011 g of Bromocresol Green
• 0.01 g of Thiamine
• 0.05 g of p-coumaric acid
• Cycloheximide to 10 mg/L
• 10 g of Agar

To test these plates before I used Garrett’s samples, I plated WYeast 1056 (Chico), Brettanomyces bruxellensis, and Brettanomyces Lambicus on each. In the images below 1056, Brett B, and Brett L are ordered clockwise with 1056 at the top:

SAB media: Normal colony growth from all strains.

SAB media + drugs: As expected, Wyeast 1056 did not grow at all. However, Brett B and L also barely grew. I might have to titrate down the amount of chloramphenicol that I used.

Brettanomyces Agar: Ahh! If only my controls worked this well in my experiments in the lab. 1056 did not grow, but both Brett B and L did. Also, the coumaric acid did it’s job as both B and L plates smelled liked a barnyard full of mice.

CuSO4 Agar: This worked similar to the Brettanomyces agar but with a few number of colonies growing in the 1056 sample. Interestingly this agar can differentiate between the two different Brettanomyces tested as Brett L colonies looked rough while the Brett B colonies were round and smooth:

Brettanomyces Lambicus

Brettanomyces Bruxellensis

Next I will post initial plating results from the samples that Garrett gave me.

Just wanted to shoot out a quick post that tomorrow at 5pm I’ll be on live air for the Beer Sessions Radio at Roberta’s in Bushwick. They invited me to speak along with Garrett Oliver of Brooklyn Brewery, BR Rolya from The Shelton Brothers, and Dr. Charlie Bamforth, also known as the “Pope of Foam”.

Tune in if you have time!

One career possibility is craft beer. Yes, I have had some ideas about getting into the industry, be it starting up brewery, working as a brewer, or even focusing on yeast (yeast company?). All of these options seem a bit impractical at the moment considering my love of research and the need to take care of my family. Seeking advice about joining the craft beer industry, I decided to contact Garrett Oliver, brewmaster of Brooklyn Brewery. Garrett is a wonderfully friendly person and extremely passionate about craft beer. In addition to brewmaster at Brooklyn Brewery, he is also a culinary genius, pairing different styles of craft beer with many cuisines as is evident from his book, The Brewmaster’s table. His beer and food pairings are the stuff of legends in New York City. His most recent literary accomplishment, The Oxford Companion to Beer, is an encyclopedia of all things beer and is a trove of information, both for professional and amateur brewer.

I met Garrett at the brewery and while he gave me some great career advice, he also offered me the chance for a collaboration. Garrett and colleagues have been experimenting with wild yeast in the past few years as their famous Wild One can attest. This beer is Local One aged in bourbon barrels for nine months in the presence of Brettanomyces for an extended period of time and is fantastic. To push the boundaries of wild yeast fermentation even further, Garrett has begun to age beer, and one day ferment beer, on lees from naturally fermented wine from Red Hook Winery. Along with Tom Price, another brewer at Brooklyn who also heads their laboratory, we did a small tasting of several new beers. As a control we tasted Local One, then moved on to Wild One. The third beer was something completely new and known only to a few lucky recipients of Garrett’s generosity. Crochet Rouge Rose is Local One aged on lees from two chardonnay barrels and one pinot noir barrel, and aged on wood for an extended period of time. This beer is sublime, and blurs the boundaries of a summer rose and a strong Belgian Saison. We also tasted one other beer that is currently a work in progress. This beer is currently nameless, but fermenting wine lees used to inoculate a carboy of Weisse wort which was then used to inoculate a barrel of Weisse wort. Pulled straight from the baerrl, this brew had a yogurty-lactic quality mixed in with a funky Brettanomyces profile. A complex beer to be sure.

Garrett’s request was simple. What wild yeast is growing in the fermented wine lees used to make these beers? In my spare time in the lab I will work on trying to identify what is growing in these beers with the goal of the brewery using whatever strains I find to make future wild beers. Garrett gave me several samples to work with:

1. A bottle of Wild One
2. A bottle of Crochet Rouge Rose (CR)
3. A pull from the Wiesse barrel (TO)
4. Gross lees (GL). This is the “trub” from finished wine fermentation.

This has been an ongoing and slow project since my main priority is to my research and future career. However, Brooklyn brewery has been kind enough to supply some reagents not present in my lab to make new culture media that differentiates between Brettanomyces, wild yeast, brewers yeast, and bacteria. In my next post I will write about the formulation and growth characteristics of different Brett strains and show the results of plating the above samples on these new culture mediums.

As of now though, some microscopy pictures of the samples (500x magnification):

Crochet Rouge Rose (CR): Saccharomyces cerevisae most likely from the bottle fermentation (selective plating supports this conclusion as well – a future post). There are some Brett cells here, but they are few and far between.

Gross Lees (GL): This sample had the most the heterogeneous microflora. Lots of Brettanomyces like cells in addition to rod-shaped bacteria that makes me think lactobacillus.

Weisse wort (sample will be called TO): Mostly Brettanomyces but most of the cells were either dead, dormant, or reverted to spores. You can see this by the dense and dark cells from the bright field. There was also plenty of bacteria in this sample as well.

Future: With my time limited, future posts will be focused on my collaboration with Brooklyn Brewery and some recipes that I managed to scrounge time for. The Wild Yeast Project unfortunately has taken a back seat, however I still have samples of CB-1 and CB-2 stored away for future experiments. The next post will detail new differential media recipes to stringently detect Brettanomyces and how they fared on a control and Garrett’s samples.

The second attempt went much smoother and this post is about the results. I obtained some interesting results and some great comments from Garrett Oliver, Brewmaster at Brooklyn Brewery. To recap, over-pitching yeast for fermentation supposedly produces a thinner and cleaner beer, while an under-pitched fermentation stresses the yeast to the point where unwanted off-flavors are present. There is a sweet spot that brewers, both commercial and amateur, aim for.

The beer was a simple Belgian Pale ale brewed with WYeast 3522, Belgian Ardennes strain. I chose this strain because, at least in my hands, I have seen different flavor profiles at different fermentation temperatures and thought this may translate to pitching rates. There were three conditions and each brewed exactly the same and fermented in one gallon carboys:

1. Control pitch rate: 0.75 million cells / ml wort / Plato
2. Under-pitch rate: 0.1 million cells / ml wort / Plato
3. Over-pitch rate: 4.0 million cells / ml wort / Plato

Fermentation lasted two weeks and the beers were bottle conditioned for another three. I only sampled one beer of each, while the rest went to my yeast class that I was teaching at Brooklyn Hombrew, my local homebrew supply store. Each student sampled the beer and recorded different flavors they detected so I could plot some data. As before, my wife set up a blind tasting for me so I try to guess which beer was which.

Results:

I decided not to monitor fermentation kinetics this time around since I was away for four days during fermentation. However, fermentation occurred similar to last time; The over-pitch sample never had a lag time (i.e. krausen in an hour!), while the under pitch took 2 days to get a visible krausen. The control pitch had a krausen by 12 hours.

After I bottle conditioned the beers, I tried them in a blind sampling. I could only pick out the over-pitch but the missed the other two. In my personal notes, I noted that the over-pitch was a tad thin and one-dimensional. The control had some unique phenolics that I pegged as the under-pitched beer. As I let the beers warm up however, differences became more apparent. The under-pitched was fuller on the palate and contained more fruity esters that reminded me apples, pears, and some peach. The over-pitch beer was clearly thinner bodied and scrubbed of many flavors. It just seemed duller. The control brew had some spicy phenolics going on and the pilsner malt really shined through. All beers were good, but the control seemed that much more approachable. I liked the over-pitched beer over the under-pitched.

I also examined the poured beers for any differences. There were none. The beers had the same color and same head retention throughout the pour. In the photo below you can see an example. Unfortunately, it was very difficult to pour three beer exactly the same hence the slightly larger volume in the over-pitch. Despite this, the level of foam stayed the same with each sample.

This past Sunday I taught a class on using yeast for homebrewing and part of the lecture was about pitching rates and their effect on fermentation. The class blind tasted each sample and, in avery basic way, scored different flavors that they found. Below is a graph of the data. There were 12 students.

After everyone sampled the brews I asked them which beers they thought were which. It is pretty clear that my judgment, and perhaps my palete, is not as refined the students since most  easily picked out the over-pitch versus under-pitch! The experiment beer was definitely warmer than when I sampled them which allowed for more flavors to come through. The data are clear, and follows expectations from different pitching rates; the under-pitch had more esters and was a fuller beer, while the over-pitch was thin in body and low in fruity esters. The control beer seemed to hit every category.

There were some unexpected results, which may be a property of the yeast that I chose, Wyeast 3522 (Belgian Ardennes). The over-pitched beer was consistently bitter compared to the others. Just as I detected, the control sample had some phenolics that the class described as smokey; this was reduced in the over and under-pitched. Fusel alcohols were diminished in the over-pitched samples but were present in the other two beers. These characteristics may be distinct for the Belgian Ardennes strain in particular, and may be different for other yeast strains. One interesting thing to do would be to make a “flavor profile” library of every strain with different pitching rates. Something that I have no time for…

One curious result to the experiment was the finishing gravity. Both the over-pitch and under-pitched finished at a dramatically lower final gravity than the control beer:

1. Control-pitch FG: 1.013
2. Under-pitch FG: 1.009
3. Over-pitch FG: 1.009

I was surprised to see, despite the lag time of two days, the under-pitch beer cranking away while the control pitch slowed down. My first assumption was that both the over and under-pitches created a stressful situation that pushed the yeast to ferment to a higher level of attenuation. I decided to contact Garrett Oliver, brewmaster at the Brooklyn Brewery, to get his feedback. Garrett and I have been working on a wild yeast project together (a future post!) and we’ve been in contact over my results. His suggestions:

“Jason,

 It is my suspicion that the overpitch achieves a lower gravity, as expected, because of the high numbers of cells available to do the work. The underpitch, however, eventually has a higher percentage of daughters vs older cells. The daughters have near 100% viability, high sterol levels and are raring to go, while older cells will have various viabilities, membrane condition, etc. Many of them may not be as ready for active fermentation as the daughters. I’d expect, therefore, for the underpitch to have a slower start than the overpitch or the control, but then to catch up pretty suddenly and attenuate well. Of course, all assumes relatively healthy yeasts, etc.”

I then asked if this is something they see in the brewery:

“I’d say yes, but only to a point. I think there is a curve to it. My gut feeling is that for a wort of average strength, you could cut the pitch rate from 30 – 50% and still achieve or exceed final attenuation vs a control. You’d have higher esters, but a revitalized (younger) yeast set afterwards. We will sometimes slightly underpitch when we want to put some more vigor back in a culture that otherwise seems healthy. Conversely, overpitching ages the culture – fewer daughters, over time, leaves you with a lot of battle-weary scarred cells with inflexible membranes that are no longer at their best. And not as many young, scar-free new cells.”

Conclusions:

I think Garrett Oliver’s advice makes perfect sense and is something to keep in mind when playing around with different pitching rates. If you want a beer with very healthy cells, slightly higher attenuation, then under-pitching the beer to some degree might be applicable. However, expect to get more esters which is something that has to be optimized. I think over-pitching a beer has its place too. If one wanted to brew a very clean, thin beer and achieve maximal attenuation, then over-pitching may be the way to go. However, don’t expect to use the yeast for successive generations. It is important to note that despite the drastic differences in pitching rates, all the samples were not bad beers, and the yeast class students thought so too. Hopefully, this post gives one more weapon in the arsenal to brew great beer, it has for me.

After Munich, the beer took on different faces when brewed in different regions, and the beer turned into such cousins as Maibocks, Doppelbocks, and Eisbocks. The name Bock actually means goat in German, phonetically similar to Einbeck and no doubt changed into something that would give a happy imbiber a kick.

According to the BJCP, a traditional bock beer is a dark beer of moderate strength. Hop bitterness takes a back seat to strong malty flavors and can be perceived as sweet due to slightly lower attenuation. Toast, caramel notes, and melanoiden dominate the malt profile of the beer. Noble hops are the traditional hops for this brew. The beer should be clean with no diacetyl or off-flavors.

This beer will be all Munich malt (except for a ver small amount of chocolate malt to adjust color) and a double decoction scheme traditionally employed by German brewmasters.

A decoction mash involves taking the thick portion of your mash into a separate kettle as a side mash. One then raises the temperature of the side mash through several steps and ultimately boils the grist. The side mash then is added back to the main mash to reach the next temperature rest. A double decoction repeats this process, while a triple decoction boils portions of the grist three times. Here are a few things that happen to mash during this process:

• Starch granules become more accessible through heat, leading to a slight bump in efficiency.
• Maillard reactions occur due to vigorous boiling of wort and contributes to caramel flavors.
• The wort becomes darker.

There is some debate as to the benefits of a decoction mash and I’m on the fence whether it is truly beneficial. If one wants the flavor of decoction scheme, this can be accomplished through specialty malts. However, some brewers swear by the process. I’ve actually done one before for my Bohemian Pilsner, but it wasn’t quite right; I boiled the side mash instead of raising it through its own temperature rests.

The recipe (5.5 gallons):

• 8 pounds Munich malt (15.5L)
• 7 pounds Munich malt (9.0L)
• 2.1 oz of Chocolate malt (Briess – 350L)

• First decoction: 
  • Doughed in at 122ºF. Transfered 9.7 qts of thick mash to new pot and quickly ramped up to 150ºF.
  • Held at this temp for 15 mintues. Brought to boiling, which took 16 minutes, and then boiled for 15 minutes.
  • Added back to main mash and hit 145.5ºF. Brought up to 147ºF using flame. Held at this temp for 15 minutes.
• Second decoction:
  • Took 4.8 qts of thick mash and heated to 158ºF and held for 15 minutes.
  • Reached boiling point in 10 minutes, and boiled for 15 minutes.
  • Added back to main mash to raise to 162ºF. My target was 156ºF and I was off by adding medium-low heat to the main mash prior to adding back the decoction, hence the increase. Let the mash rest at this temp or lower for 25 minutes.
• Mashed out at 169ºF. First runnings at 1.066. Collected 6.8 gallons of 1.056 wort

Boiled from 6.8 gallons down to 6.3 and started hop additions:

• 2 ozs of Hallertauer (4.3% alpha acid) at 60 minutes.
• Whirlfloc and Wyeast nutrient at 15 minutes.

Cooled to 59ºF and put into chestfreezer to cool down to 49ºF overnight. The next day, I oxygenated for 1 minute and 30 seconds and pitched 700 billion yeast cells (Wyeast Bavarian lager 2206). I brewed this beer two months ago and it has since finish fermentation. I raised the temperature slowly over 3 days to 60ºF for a diacetyl rest. Racked to a keg, the beer is comfortably lagering at 33ºF. Below is a picture of the beer from the primary.

Victuals:

• OG: 1.076
• FG: 1.022
• 7.1% ABV
• 25.1 IBUs

I submitted this beer along with my Imperial Russian Stout and my 100% Brettanomyces ale. Both the Brett beer and Imperial Rye Biere de Garde (BdG) were submitted to the Belgian specialty ale category (16E) of the BJCP which states: “This is a catch-all category for any Belgian-style beer not fitting any other Belgian style category. The category can be used for clones of specific beers (e.g., Orval, La Chouffe); to produce a beer fitting a broader style that doesn’t have its own category; or to create an artisanal or experimental beer of the brewer’s own choosing.”

The Imperial Stout received a score of 31.5 (out of 50), which is OK but not great. The biggest flaw, and I agree with judges, is the overpowering oak in the beer. Three weeks of oak cubes in secondary was too much and it may take years for this flavor to mellow. The Brettanomyces beer scored very well – 40 points. This beer was very clean and showed off the fruity esters (strawberry, pineapple, pear) when Brett is used as a primary fermenter. The Imperial Rye BdG scored lower in the same category (37.5 points) but still won first place. The Brett beer never placed. I was at the awards ceremony at Brooklyn Brewery, when I heard my name called for first place but did not hear the beer that was named. I was so convinced it was the Brett beer, I posted it on facebook immediately. According to BJCP events, not all 1st, 2nd, and 3rd placings in a category are based on score. There are certain intangibles to the beer and the judges vote.

I opened one of two bottles (one is for a friend of mine) to review on my blog. The main reason I did not like the beer was attenuation. The Wyeast Biere de Garde yeast super-attenuated a 1.074 beer down to 1.003 and produced lots of weird esters:

Appearance: Pours crystal clear reddish-orange in color. Ample carbonation provides a two finger head that slowly recedes. The clarity was the result of lagering for 4 months before bottling. The best thing about this beer is the way it looks.

Aroma: Some booze, stone fruit, and honey glazed apples. Some earthy yeast and very little in the way of malt character. The nose is quite alcoholic for my taste, with notes of cracked pepper and methanol.

Taste: Prickly sweet, over-ripe peaches, dates and stone fruit. The rye is very apparent and gives the beer a spicy and floral taste. The alcohol is noticable, warming, and also contributes to the spice. Full thick mouthfeel (flaked rye) and counter-balanced by ample carbonation.

Overall: This beer was not what I was after, but the judges didn’t mind! One judge did pick up on the alcoholic bite: “The biggest flaw is overly hot alcohol warmth, which detracts from the other flavors.” Spot on in my opinion.

I’m also teaching another yeast class at Brooklyn Homebrew on February 26th where I can get some feedback on this experiment and plot some data. This time the class will be completely different. I will no longer focus on the biochemical details of fermentation, although this is my favorite part being a biochem major in college, and instead I will focus on working with yeast at home. In the latter part of the class I will discuss how to make great beer with the healthiest yeast possible.

I have to mention the wonderful generosity of Danielle and Benjamin, owners of Brooklyn Homebrew. They have generously funded this experiment by providing the malt and the yeast. Organizer’s of Brooklyn’s own homebrew competition, brewing classes, and many other beer-related activities, these two are world-class.

Onto the experiment. My hypothesis is that changing the pitching rates on the homebrew level can change the outcome of a beer during fermentation. For the second try I decided to change a few things:

1. Beer style: This time I will be brewing a Belgian Pale Ale.
2. Yeast strain: Instead of the very neutral Wyeast 1056 Chico strain, I decided to go with Wyeast 3522 – Belgian Ardennes. In my hands, this yeast can change ester and phenol profiles at different fermentation temps. Hopefully the same holds true for pitching rates.
3. This time I will oxygenate the wort before pitching.
4. Fermentations will be covered to avoid skunking.

The recipe (4 gallons):

• 7 pounds of Pilsner malt
• 0.5 pound of Victory malt (Biscuit malt substitute)
• 0.5 pound of Caravienne malt

Mashed in at 153°F for one hour and batch sparged as usual. Collected 5.45 gallons of 1.038 wort and boiled for 90 minutes:

• 1.25 ozs of Saaz (grown in USA) at 60 minutes
• 1 oz of Saaz (grown in USA) at flameout and whirlpool.
• Wyeast nutrient and Whirlfloc at 15 minutes.

Whirlpooled and cooled with my immersion chiller to 70°F and pitched the yeast into three separate one gallon fermentors:

• Control-pitch: 0.75 million cells/ml/Plato (37 billion cells)
• Under-pitch: 0.1 million cells/ml/Plato (4.9 million cells)
• Over-pitch: 4 million cells/ml/Plato (196 billion cells – typical pitch rate of a 5 gallon medium strength ale)

Oh, and a word on my methods. Some people have mentioned, both on my blog and in homebrewing forums, that the experiment doesn’t really follow the scientific process. To some degree this is true. However my time for brewing these experiments is limited and my samples even more limited (I can only brew three samples at a time). More importantly, I feel that some readers of my blog appreciate that my experiments are not uber-scientific or technical and I hope these experiments target a more general audience. At the end of the day, it’s all about brewing a batch of beer, having fun, and learning through the process.

Brew on!

While being extremely malty, barleywines also have enough bitterness to balance the beer with some even being dry-hopped. The English barleywine denotes a brew made with British hops, while American barleywines naturally promotes citrusy and resiny hops. According to the BJCP guidelines, an English barleywine is a strongly malty brew with notes of caramel, toffee, and biscuit. Esters can promote a fruity character to the beer and the alcohol should be preceived as warming, never hot or solventy.

My own goal for brewing an english barleywine was to have a strong malty beer that could be aged for years. The recipe below is fairly complex. I usually brew simpler recipes with fewer malts, but wanted the complexity that comes from malt layering. As for the name, I got it from a book I was reading to my daughter, Alice in Wonderland. Hopefully this beer will stand the test of time for her to try one day. The recipe:

Mad Hatter English Barleywine (5.5 gallons):

• 10 lbs Crisp Marris Otter
• 5 lbs Munich malt (9L)
• 4 lbs Vienna malt
• 1 lb Crisp Amber malt (27.5L)
• 1 lb Biscuit malt (23L)
• 0.5 lb Crystal 120L
• 0.5 lb Special Roast (50L)
• 0.25 lb Special B (180L)
• 2 lbs of Turbinado sugar (10 SRM) – added at 5 min.

Mashed in at 155ºF and almost maxed out my Blichmann Boilermaker. I still may be able to fit 2-3 more pounds. First runnings came in at an amazing 1.091. Batch sparged and second runnings were 1.052. Collected 7.75 gallons of 1.073 wort. Boiled for 3-4 hours before adding bittering addition:

• 2 ozs Northern Brewer (48 IBUs)
• Whirlfloc tablet
• 1/2 tsp of Wyeast nutrient

Collected 5.2 gallons of 1.120 wort and cooled to 70ºF and oxygenated for two minutes. Pitched a blend of yeast – 350 billion cells of Wyeast 1056 (Chico strain) and 100 billion cells (one smack pack) of WYeast 1098 British Ale yeast. I pitched 1056 for attenuation and 1098 for some British character.

I brewed the beer back in October of last year and I’m just getting around to writing about it. The picture above is straight from the primary and it tastes like liquid caramel! Right now, the beer is kegged and carbonating. I will bottle soon and sample the beer when its relatively young.

OG: 1.120

FG: 1.035

IBU: ~ 48

ABV: 11.4%!! This is the most alcoholic beer I have made so far.