| Author |
Message |
    
J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870
Post Number: 159
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 02:18 am: | 
|
The use of carapils or dextrine malt
My belief was that the main utility of this malt was to add body or sweetness to a beer without adding color. This raises my curiosity over why so many professional brewers are using this in about 3-5% quantities in their strong bitter ales. Certainly, beers like 90 minute, Racer 5 or Ruination are not needing to preserve a very pale color, as all are amber to copper colored ales. Furthermore, such large beers are not lacking in body, standing on the base malt alone. Head qualities are not usually an issue in such highly hopped ales, either (which also makes me wonder why some of the brewers use small quantites of wheat, as well).
I could believe that these brewers designed empirically some beer with their base and color malts and found that the high bitterness levels needed also some additional body for balance, and they did not feel like reformulating the entire recipe, so threw in a handful of carapils. One could just as effectively achieve the same body/color/flavor combination using a combination of crystal/Munich/Vienna malts, could they not?
What's your impression? How do some of you use carapils and for what purposes? I've used it only in Pilsners.
Steinhauer |
robert rulmyr
Intermediate Member
Username: Wacobob
Post Number: 355
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 11:25 am: |
|
Good question. One of our 'experts' surely will answer. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 324
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 01:37 pm: |
|
"Expert" is a very relative term.
Yes, it is a good question. I wouldn't call the flavor of Carapils malt "sweet"; to me, it's slightly grainy and subtle if used in amounts less than 6-7 percent of the grist. It can improve the body of lower gravity beers. When I brewed in Utah, where the law limits the alcohol content to 4 percent by volume, we used it in almost all of our recipes, and it did a good job of making them seem "bigger." Of course an additional method of increasing body is to convert at a higher temperature.
You're likely correct, Steinhauer, that the brewers of these "turbo" IPAs felt they needed more body to support the high bittering rates. I would agree that more base malt is a better choice; these beers need a lot of malty flavor for balance.
My own IPA standard recipe remains Sister Star of the Sun. There is no Carapils in the grain bill, merely British pale ale malt, dark crystal and a little malted wheat for heading. I also like Dean Larson's Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale clone recipe, which again has a very simple grain bill and no Carapils.
I confess I'm something of a curmudgeon about hops and IBUs. I can't imagine a beer much hoppier than SSoS; there is clearly a limit to the isomerization of alpha acids in wort and the extent to which the palate can perceive hops. Moreover, I think there needs to be a lot of malt to support them. A small percentage of Carapils seems rather superfluous in achieving this. |
Skotrat
Advanced Member
Username: Skotrat
Post Number: 600
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 01:54 pm: |
|
Hey Now,
I have this crazy thought... Perhaps... Just maybe... Now stay with me here... Do you think that the yeast choice and fermentation temps and mashing temps have something to do with the full body of these beers???
Crazy I know but hey... You never know right?
Also, highly hopped and bitterness are two very different things. Many brewers make the mistake of over doing the initial hop addition causing the final product to be out of balance and extremely bitter. A well rounded hop schedule that is thought out around the malt bill could really make a big difference.
Yes... I know... Shear Craziness...
C'ya!
-Scott |
Mike Walker
Junior Member
Username: Mikew
Post Number: 35
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 02:09 pm: |
|
Vinnie Cilurzo from Russian River Brewing uses about 5% light crystal (30-40L) and 5% carapils in Pliny the Elder to add dextrins for body. Here's a quote from the Zymurgy Hop Explosion issue from earlier this year, "The only malt I increase over my regular IPA is the base malt". Vinnie's Double IPA presentation at the AHA conference was very informative and entertaining.
I've always preferred beers with simple grain bills and don't really see a big issue with ~5% carapils. Sounds like I should brew a couple double IPA's - one with carapils and one without |
aleman
Member
Username: Aleman
Post Number: 105
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 02:49 pm: |
|
Mike, instead consider using the same recipe including mash scedule.
Brew one batch with 1056 and the other with 1728. |
Midwest Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Midwestbrewer
Post Number: 287
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 02:50 pm: |
|
Dextrin malt can also give a very nice breadlike aroma to lighter styles of beer. I've used it in American Lagers, Blonde Ales, IPA, even Barleywine. At low percentages it contributes a bit but at higher percentages it can become quite noticeable. It is a good malt when used properly - I think it works well with a beer that uses honey or other highly fermentable sugars.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
|
Mike Walker
Junior Member
Username: Mikew
Post Number: 36
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 03:45 pm: |
|
Aleman - Good idea, but it wouldn't help determine what the carapils does for the recipe, which would be the goal. That would be yet another experiment for me to do this fall/winter.
How many other hobbies allow for as much fun experimentation as brewing does?
Mike |
Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik
Post Number: 1521
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 04:31 pm: |
|
Could it be tradeoff simple grain bills vs simple mashing schemes? In theory I guess you could change the mashing scheme to give you any fermentability you want, but to do that and know *exactly how much* it will change the FG sounds more complicated than adding some more starch to an existing procedure that you can reproduce well. As I understand carapils doesn't add any enzyme power.
I am leaning towards this idea myself. I do not have any advanced mash equipment and will not be able to tweak the mashing in an advanced way, and in particular not without a full blown mashing model, so I'd rather tweak the receipe and rely on a standard mashing procedure. I am thinking of trying out a standard routine for myself, with standard temps and standard conditions in general in the way that is easiest to reproduce. I think adjusting the receipe sounds more easy, than adjusting your mashing scheme and hitting the target on the first run?
I mean, you know increasing the mash temp 1F will increase the FG, but how much? 1 point? 2,3,4 points?
Or maybe I missed the point?
/Fredrik |
Skotrat
Advanced Member
Username: Skotrat
Post Number: 601
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 04:35 pm: |
|
Hmmm
This post was too Fat and Mean... Even for me...
Therefore I removed it...
(Message edited by skotrat on August 23, 2004) |
David Woods
Intermediate Member
Username: Beericon
Post Number: 370
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 04:44 pm: |
|
Fredrick,
Good question, but that would be hard to duplicate unless you had a really good system. Lots of variables can come into play in duplicating a mash (or a recipe); grain crush, mash time, amount of water in the mash just to name a few.
So what is the most important in duplicating a recipe? The Temp? The time for conversion?
I need to brew again, I am definatly thinking too much. 
David
Onslo: "Get me a beer!"
Daisy: "We're out of beer."
Onslo: "I can't believe it! I'm completely surrounded by NO BEER!"
|
Skotrat
Advanced Member
Username: Skotrat
Post Number: 602
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2004 - 04:51 pm: |
|
Hey Now,
Good question, but that would be hard to duplicate unless you had a really good system. Lots of variables can come into play in duplicating a mash (or a recipe); grain crush, mash time, amount of water in the mash just to name a few.
Dave... Good Notes... Following the recipe... all of the above.
So what is the most important in duplicating a recipe? The Temp? The time for conversion?
Research... Research... Research...
Do your homework. You can get close enough to fool the brewer or at least make them proud that their beer is good enough for a Homebrewer to want to clone it.
C'ya!
-Scott |
J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870
Post Number: 161
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 02:35 am: |
|
Forget it. |
Adam W
Intermediate Member
Username: Adam_w
Post Number: 303
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 04:52 pm: |
|
Fredrik opines:
"I do not have any advanced mash equipment and will not be able to tweak the mashing in an advanced way, and in particular not without a full blown mashing model"
I am not fat but I am mean. A mashing "model", (or any other "model") is irrelavant to the practicality of making beer. You do not need a model to try different mashing regimes. All you need is a thermometer. If you don't have one of those, then you can do it the old fashioned pre-thermometer way, i.e. decoctions. |
J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870
Post Number: 163
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 03:10 am: |
|
I wasn't in the mood at the time to say anything, but what can be more consistent and repeatable than a good old single infusion mash in a Rubbermaid cooler.
Furthermore, I must agree with Scott in that the true answer can be found with a little research. The problem is that research in homebrewing takes lots of time and space and help analyzing the results. Around here, time and help are what's lacking most. Space is not much of a problem. I was hoping some homebrewers had conducted a little research.
The basic recipe is the "model". Let's start with 100% pale ale malt...good stuff. You want to make an amber colored ale, 8.5%ABV at 1BU/GU a la Daniels. At what point does a brewer say "Aha!, What this beer needs some dextrine malt!" instead of "I think this should mash at 156, instead of 152" or "swap out some pale ale malt for pilsner malt and add some 40L crystal." Subtle flavor changes, perhaps, but noticed by the populace at 100IBU's, I doubt it.
It was really an unnecessary question to begin with, since I almost never follow recipes, and don't believe the stories of many homebrewers. I read them only for ideas, and I simply couldn't decide if this is a good idea.
Brewing is like fishing and golf and ex-girlfriends, isn't it?
Steinhauer |
Dan Listermann
Intermediate Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 394
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:00 am: |
|
Research is fine and all that, but one should not allow it to interfere with brewing. I have met far too many "mental brewers" who talk far more then they seem to want to make beer.
A former president of our club built a wonderful brewery but could not bring himself to "break its cherry." I suppose he thought it might not be able to produce the thing of perfection he had brewed in his head. Fear of failure is a horrible thing.
Dan Listermann |
PalerThanAle
Senior Member
Username: Palerthanale
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 05:39 am: |
|
"Brewing is like fishing and golf and ex-girlfriends, isn't it? "
I'm confused - there is no ball play in fishing, right?
PTA |
J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870
Post Number: 167
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 01:20 pm: |
|
What is research? I can't speak for Scott. Brewing two IPA's side by side and changing a single variable (inasmuch as that is possible on our scale) then tasting the results is research that doesn't really interfere with brewing - unless you want to have an IPA and an maibock in the fermenters at the same time. This is largely what has kept me from this sort of research.
Dan, some talkative brewers also brew and have extraordinary and inappropriate opinions of their own produce and don't like critique. They have no fear of failure, but they fail to recognize it, either.
Steinhauer |
Hophead
Advanced Member
Username: Hophead
Post Number: 951
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 04:17 pm: |
|
Fishing has bobbers...
Changing single variables in brewing is, as skotrat would say, the true path to the happy hunting grounds...
Of course, I rarely make the exact same beer twice, as I am apparently an avid tweaker (but I ALWAYS use 6row in B52)... |
Dan Listermann
Intermediate Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 397
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 07:09 pm: |
|
Hophead, the "Happy Hunting Grounds" is all well and good, but if you want to go to the "Orgasmic Hunting Grounds," learn about "Design of Experiments" al la Taguchi (http://www.wtec.org/loyola/polymers/c7_s6.htm) I have done brews with three variables at two levels each. It is also possible to do a double blind test on yourself if you don't have a photographic memory. It is a lot of work so I have only done it twice.
Dan Listermann |
Dan Listermann
Intermediate Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 398
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 07:12 pm: |
|
Here is a better site: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section5/pri56.htm
Dan Listermann |
robin griller
Junior Member
Username: Robin
Post Number: 67
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 07:26 pm: |
|
Scott,
Deleting fat and mean posts before I get to read them is, well, fat and mean.
I've never used carapils. I like simple grain bills for the most part and like to muck around with mash temps and thickness of the mash to change the fermentability of the wort. Homebrewing books (i.e. Clonebrews iirc) that have recipes with tons of carapils in them do so because they're really directed at extract brewers (who can't control the fermentability of the extract and therefore will need other ways to bump up the body of the beer in certain cases)...
Robin
ps I double blind tested this posting on myself, as I have no memory. I liked it, I think. What was I testing? |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 3375
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 09:12 pm: |
|
What's the big deal? Use carapils if ya want, don't use it if ya don't! Personally, I find it perfectly appropriate in some cases. Heck, if John Maier can use it, so can I!
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
gregory gettman
Intermediate Member
Username: Gregman
Post Number: 352
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 11:13 pm: |
|
I think brewing is like fishing, golf, and ex-girl friends means this:
In all these things people tend to exagerate the truth or lie.
Fishing.........how big it was
Golf............how few strokes
Ex-girls........how much she liked it
Brewing.........how awesome the beer came out
In any case someone might not have been there but they still make for a good story. |
J. Steinhauer
Member
Username: Jstein6870
Post Number: 171
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 01:25 pm: |
|
So what is the sense in using some dextrine malt, to increase the body and decrease the fermentability of the wort, then adding some sugar to the fermenter, to reduce the body and increase the fermentability?
Again, I'm not suggesting that anyone refrain from doing what they WANT to do in their brews. I want to know what is achieved by this practice. There is no reason to experiment with what is not worth researching. Like egg beer, this might not even be worth looking into.
Steinhauer |
Hophead
Advanced Member
Username: Hophead
Post Number: 953
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 04:11 pm: |
|
Egg beer would need a long protein rest.
I would summise that many people use dextrin/carapils in their recipes because that's the way they were taught from the beginning. Most of the older recipes I have seen always throw in a small amount of carapils, and usually a small amount of wheat, for the 'body' and 'head retention' effects... |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 3379
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 05:51 pm: |
|
My rye IPA uses both carapils and wheat malt. It started out without either. I was generally happy with the results, but felt it needed a bit more body, so I tossed in the carapils so I din't have to change the rest of the recipe. It was an easy fix, and wasn't detrimental to the beer, so why not? The wheat got added as an experiment to see if head was improved. It seemed to be, and again wasn't detrimental, so I figured "Why not?". Decidedly unscientific, but empirical.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 385
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 05:59 pm: |
|
Steinhauer, I agree that virtually no recipe with sugar should use Carapils, and vice versa. These two ingredients very largely cancel out the effect of each other.
Denny is likely correct; it's a matter of "it didn't seem to hurt anything, so why not?" Of course the next step is to brew another batch without the ingredient in question and take good notes. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 3380
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 06:05 pm: |
|
Bill, I started out without the carapils and wheat, added them each in separate batches to see what happened, and determined that the results with were better than the results without. I know that Rogue's version of my beer uses a smaller % of both than my beer, and so far, everyone who's tasted them side by side prefers mine. The first thing my wife mentioned when trying the Rogue was a lack of body compared to mine. Same mash temp and mash schedule, though. I realize that sounds a little, um, bigheaded, but that's what's happened.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Hophead
Advanced Member
Username: Hophead
Post Number: 954
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 06:23 pm: |
|
Sounds like that recipe has gone awrye...
DC, you'd need to do a double blind taste test on yourself to really know which you prefer! |
Dan Listermann
Intermediate Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 402
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 06:41 pm: |
|
Hophead, let me know if you are interested in double blind testing. I will try to remember how to set it up. I haven't done it in about 12 years.
You don't have a photographic memory, do you?
Dan Listermann |
PalerThanAle
Senior Member
Username: Palerthanale
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 06:45 pm: |
|
He does, but the lens cap is glued on.
PTA |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 3381
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 06:56 pm: |
|
"DC, you'd need to do a double blind taste test on yourself to really know which you prefer!"...very true, but I know mine so well I don't think it'd be possible! What I have done, though, is give both to others without telling them which is which.
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Doug E. Fresh
Intermediate Member
Username: Dougiefresh
Post Number: 271
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 07:36 pm: |
|
I am not sure drinking my own beer would bias me towards liking it more than a similar microbrew  . Maybe even the opposite. Sometimes I think my beers are better than some I've had at the brewpub and sometimes (ok probably most times) I don't . I am my own worst critic. |
Hophead
Advanced Member
Username: Hophead
Post Number: 955
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 08:09 pm: |
|
PiTA, I actually laughed at that one... That's twice this year now.
I'm trying to determine what having a photographic memory has to do with a blind "taste" test, unless it has to do with looking at the beer in a glass, which I imagine you could simply put in a mug instead. I've done the triangle (chi square) test, and it is very good at testing your tasting abilities... |
Dan Listermann
Intermediate Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 403
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 09:45 pm: |
|
There is a lot of coding that needs to be kept track of. If you had a photographic memory, you would not be blind to the coding.
Dan Listermann |
brett matthews
New Member
Username: Brettj
Post Number: 3
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 08:50 am: |
|
Reading this banter down here in Oz. You blokes are funny! |
Doug J
New Member
Username: Doug_j
Post Number: 15
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 06:41 pm: |
|
Dan "double-blind" just means that neither the testers or the people giving the beer to the testers would know which beer was which.
I don't know what you mean by "coding", unles you mean that one beer would be labelled 'A' and the other 'B'. |
Dan Listermann
Intermediate Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 422
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 07:34 pm: |
|
The coding is enough the the tester (me)and the testee ( is this a word?) ( me as well) cannot tell which sample is which sample. The samples are randomly numbered with consecutive numbers. When I did it, I had 72 bottles and tasted only two a night, an even and odd number. I had to decide which I prefered. I had no idea which was which since I did not consult the key until all were tasted. |
Sand
Member
Username: Sand
Post Number: 118
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 02:38 am: |
|
Brewing is not like golf! I try to golf but I do brew. |
Brews and Views Archive 2004 
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page