D. Fraser (126.96.36.199)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 02:11 am: ||
This was my first AG with 7# pail malt, # oats, # unmalted barley, 1/2# each of roasted, chocolate, and crystal 80L. Mashed at 130 for 15min. and 153 for 45min. and had approx. 6.5gal. at 1.042 and boiled for 60 to get 5gal. at 1.048 (corrected for hydro. calibration) and pitched 22g of Nottingham last wed. night. Last night it was at 1.014 and tasted great but very thin for a beer made with 2# of unmalted barley and oats.
1) Not enough malt?
2) Cut the rest at 130?
3) Was it the Nottingham
So I was planning on splitting the batch at bottling and adding some lactose to half to see if it helps any. How much do I add to 2.5gal. and does it affect my priming rate? What other options are there besides leaving it alone? Thanks
Joe Alf (188.8.131.52)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 02:43 am: ||
It could be a perception thing; flat beer with lotsa roasted malt gives a dry impression on the palate. Carbonation may change this.
Beamish Stout seems really thin at first.
Nottingham probably added to the dry profile as well.
You're procedure and recipe look fine. Never used malto or lacto.
I say bottle as normal.
gregory gettman (184.108.40.206)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 02:50 am: ||
If I had to guess I'd say it was the 130 rest. At that temp your breaking up valuable protiens that you actually want in the beer.
Though with that grain bill I wonder why this beer did not still come out chewy? Nottingham is a notoriously dry strain but I doubt that's the cause.
More malt is always a good thing If you want a heavy body beer, just ask denny
As for the lactose that might give you the extra body you want plus it will sweeten it. You don't have to worry about priming though lactose is not fermentable and that's why it's added to sweet (or milk) stouts in the first place.
I belive the recomended amounts for 5 gallons is .5-1 lb. That's in the boil though, I don't know much about adding it to the secondary. I don't think it would matter that much?
I say leave it alone, sometimes beers that are not carbonated taste thin until there in bottles and aged to perfection.
Randy McCord (220.127.116.11)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 04:06 am: ||
Upon kegging my last batch, I thought it was too dry or thin also. After carbing and aging for a week or two it was just fine. It's hard to judge a beer before it's time.
Doug Pescatore (18.104.22.168)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:55 am: ||
I make an oatmeal stout with 42 oz. of quick oats on a 5 gallon batch. I have noticed that if a miss my mash in temp on the low side I end up with a beer that seems thick enough but has little of no head retention. If I hit my 153F goal I end up is a classic oatmeal stout with a velvetty smooth mouth feel.
Brandon Dachel (22.214.171.124)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 12:30 pm: ||
> This was my first AG
Therein may lie some of the issue. My experience was that my first few AG beers were pretty 'thin'. But as others have correctly pointed out, carbonation will help improve the perception of 'body'.
The 130 rest probably wasn't necessary. Chill haze is obviously a non-issue with dark beers and there isn't any wheat in your grist.
If I were you I'd leave it alone and see how it turns out. Maybe make sure your thermometer is calibrated and that your mash temperature is homogenous.
Bill Pierce (126.96.36.199)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 01:20 pm: ||
All three of your suggestions are good ones. Use more malt and raise the O.G. While 1.042 is in the range for the style, most oatmeal stouts have an O.G. in the area of 1.050. As Brandon said, skip the step mash. Modern malts are more than sufficiently modified for a single infusion in the vast majority of cases. And use a less attenuative strain than Nottingham to increase the F.G. and the body.
Bob McCouch (188.8.131.52)
|Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 02:51 pm: ||
I just brewed my Oatmeal Stout last Saturday. I tweaked the recipe significantly from the last time I brewed it and I'm pleased so far. I don't have the exact recipe here at work, but it's roughly 65% Marris Otter, 10% Choc, 5% flaked oats, 5% 60L, 5% roasted, 5% black patent, and a little wheat and such. I shyed away from Chinook hops for bittering and went with all Fuggles, about 30 IBU worth. OG was 1.049 and I pitched WLP023. Last night it was at 1.016 and still had a few sweet hints to it. My sacc rest was pretty high (158) and I think that's contributing to the high FG, which was my intention.
I think I really hit the mark with this beer, it's smooth and creamy, just a touch sweet, but still toasty and chocolatey. My previous attempts were mashed too low and I really think the Chinook hops gave them an unfitting taste.
Anyway, I say bottle as normal and see how it turns out. It will feel more full bodied with some carbonation, and 1.014 still isn't a rock bottom FG. That's got some body, it just isn't showing yet.
gregory gettman (184.108.40.206)
|Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 02:53 am: ||
And there's one more thing I just thought of duh!
Your mash to grist ratio:
If it was high say one lb to 1.5 qts that would create a more fermentable wort. Try 1 lb to 1.25 qts or less for more dextrins, which will add body.
D. Fraser (220.127.116.11)
|Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 04:53 am: ||
Leave it alone, that is exactly the answer that I thought I would get. I did't really want to add any thing to my beer anyways, plus I am too lazy. Next time I'll just up the malts and actually use a little math to hit my strick temps. The 130 rest was more an accident than intentional.