Genesis of a Recipe: GPA 4.0

Every brewer reaches a point in their hobby (/career/obsession/etc) that they are tired of following recipes found in kits, books, and magazines and want to create their own recipe. This happened to me pretty early on – batch #4 I believe – and the results were less than stellar.

Fast forward a few years and most of the recipes I use are of my own design. I’ve become a lot more comfortable with the ingredients and processes I use on brew day. This is familiarity is key to recipe creation, but I’m not going to cover how to create your own recipe in this article (that will come later), but I will cover how I created one recipe in particular. In this case, it’s my German Pale Ale, GPA 4.0.

I plan on doing a few of these articles. I’ll be the first to admit I’m no expert, but maybe you’ll pick up a tip or two. At the very least, you’ll get some insight into my brewing thought process.

Inspiration

On the road, you have to make do with what you have

On the road, you have to make do with what you have

Every recipe and therefore every beer can be traced back to a point of conception. In the case of GPA 4.0 it was in August of 2010 on a business trip to Nacogdoches, Texas. The week I was there, the daily high temperature was somewhere between 95-100F. Fortunately, I was able to find a few beers to help beat the heat. One of these was Real Ale’s Rio Blanco Pale Ale. I tried all of their year-round beers that week, and they were all fantastic, but the Rio Blanco was my favorite.

It poured lighter in color than most American Pale Ales, almost leaning more towards a Cream Ale. In the nose there was a more biscuity and spicy aroma than any APA I’ve ever had before. Sure enough, when I took a drink I knew this wasn’t an average APA. Those biscuit notes from the aroma carried into the flavor along with a soft wheat flavor I would wager was white wheat. I use white wheat malt a lot in my beers, but most prevalently in my Honey Do Honey Brew. The spiciness I smelled reminded me of light Belgian ales. My guess was Saaz – which to me is one of my favorite and most easily identifiable hops. Sure enough, the bottle’s label proudly states the beer is brewed with Saaz. It wasn’t a punch-you-in-the-face hop character many APA’s are guilty of, and it didn’t finish quite as harshly dry. The key descriptors that kept popping up in my mind were “soft” and “round”.

I wanted to brew this beer. I thought it would make the perfect warm weather brew. It would be over 6 months later before I actually did brew a similar beer.

As much as I liked the Rio Blanco Pale Ale, I didn’t want to exactly clone it. The beer was in class of its own – a new style separate from American Pale Ale. Ideas for the recipe were in the back of my mind those 6 months after I left Texas. Then a friend and fellow brewer enthusiastically told me of a beer he discovered at the Einfach Brewery in McGregor, Iowa – it was a “German Pale Ale”. For some reason finding a name of this new “style” of beer was enough for the gears in my mind to click in place and start designing a recipe.

Choosing the Ingredients

I set out thinking about what would constitute a German Pale Ale. If the style were to be added to the BJCP Guidelines tomorrow, what would be in the definition? German malts: Pilsener, Munich, and Wheat; German hops: Tettnang, Pearle, Saaz (I know it’s not truly a German hop, but it does make appearances in German style beers); a yeast that allows for a clean finish that favors malt emphasis over hops; and a flavor profile that leans towards malt-hop balance. I also need to think about the size of the beer. I want to be able to have a couple of these in a night, but I don’t want to turn this into a session beer. An average (~1.050) starting gravity should be perfect.

Grain

I should start by saying that when deciding on what grain to use, almost all of my beers adhere to the following two rules:

1) The base malt (or malts) make up at least 80% of the grist. Any less than that and there’s a good chance you won’t hit your finishing gravity and the beer will come out on the sweet side. Conversely, I have made beers with 100% base malt that have turned out very nicely.

2) There are no more than 4 different grains in any beer. In my experience, the simpler the better. The first recipes I created were monstrously complex and this complexity carried into the finished product. There is a time and a place for complexity, such as with a Robust Porter or a Saison, but most of the time you’re just muddying the waters. Pick a few quality ingredients and let them stand out.

With those rules in mind, I started looking at malts. Although this is a German-style beer, I didn’t want too much of a grainy/biscuity flavor, so that ruled out Pilsener and Munich as the base, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized what I wanted was a “German take” on an American style. Most American styles use 2-Row as their base. 2-Row by itself would make for a pretty bland beer, so I want to include a little Munich. I’ve found that adding a pound of Munich to a recipe adds a grainy/biscuit flavor that isn’t overpowering. Oh, and I don’t want to forget the white wheat that stood out in my mind when I drank the Rio Blanco.

So now I have three grains picked out. And all three of them are pretty fermentable and can be used as base malts. American Pale Ales tend to use crystal malt, so let’s throw some of that in. I originally thought Crystal 60 would be the one to use here, but it added too much color and I would imagine too much caramel flavor, so let’s go with Crystal 40.

Now I need to pick the ratios. The 2-Row and White Wheat are my main players here. Too much 2-Row and the beer could come out bland. Too much wheat and the beer will get hazy and venture into wheat beer territory. My wheat beers tend to be 60/40 barley/wheat, so I don’t want to use 40% wheat. 75/25 might be better. That calculates out to 60% US 2-Row and 20% White Wheat to start off my base. I don’t want to use a lot of crystal either, since I want this to finish dry, so we’ll keep that at 5%. There’s 15% left over, so it goes to the Munich.

So to summarize my malt bill:

60% US 2-Row

20% White Wheat

15% Munich

5%  Crystal 40

I like to use percentages when formulating recipes. It’s much easier than calculating efficiency and exact amounts. When I’ve settled on the percentages, I’ll translate those into pounds on BeerSmith and set my target starting gravity. So, in this case I’ll have 7 pounds of 2-Row, 2 pounds of white wheat, 1.5 of Munich, and 0.5 of C40. With my average efficiency sitting right around 70%, I can actually use those amounts and hit a starting gravity of 1.057. That sounds good to me.

Hops

I definitely need to use Saaz, and use it in a way that it has the dominant hop character. I don’t want to use it as the only hop, since I’ve found that this can result in a beer with a very 1-dimensional hop character. And this is a Pale Ale afterall, so hops are important. I have also found from personal experience that you generally get the best hop character by using hops from the same country or region in a recipe. I have a big bag of Pearle hops in my freezer, so let’s use that along with the Saaz. I’m a little ashamed to admit that, and its country of origin are my only reasons for using Pearle here and not another German hop.

Many published recipes give hop additions in weight (1.5oz Cascade at 60 minutes, etc) with no mention of Alpha Acid Units (AAUs), but then list a target IBU to allow you to hope for the best. The AAUs are hugely important – they are what determines the bitterness contribution of a hop. So I make sure these are correct in BeerSmith before I continue.

More important than IBUs is the MBR of a beer. I covered this in a previous article, so I won’t define it here. I found the OG, ABV, and IBUs for Rio Blanco off of the Real Ale site, so I had everything I needed to get the FG, and therefore derive their MBR, which is 44.1 (it’s interesting to note that the most famous APA, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale has a dangerously close MBR of 43.8). 44 sounds like a good number for my beer too, so I multiple .44 by my target OG+FG to get 30.8. That’s my target IBU for this recipe.

Now I just need to find a way to split up the hop additions. I really only consider 4 points for adding hops in any recipe – bitterness (90-60 minutes before KO), flavor (30-15 minutes before KO), aroma (0, Knockout), and dry hopping. I want to use all 4 in this recipe as it is at its heart, an APA. I don’t want too much at bitterness since that can cause a harsh, overly dry finish. I think most of the hop character should come at the flavor addition or later. Using BeerSmith, I spread these out across the three boil additions in 10 IBU, 15 IBU, and 5 IBU increments respectively. Keep in mind that you extract more IBUs the longer the hops isomerize, so although it looks like my biggest addition is the flavor hops, it is in fact the aroma addition. On the same note, the flavor addition isn’t 1.5x the bitterness addition, but 3x due to isomerization.

I split these out so that each addition is about 3:1 between Saaz and Pearle hops.

Yeast

Last, but certainly not least is the yeast. I debated this one for a while. I wanted to keep to the German spirit of the rest of the recipe, but I really couldn’t find a yeast that met my criteria. That criteria was: highly attenuative, highly flocculent, and favoring malt character. That combination doesn’t really exist and is a contradiction of sorts. I started searching Northern Brewer for their excellent comparative yeast statistics.

I’m a big fan of White Labs so I really only considered them. My first thought was WLP001, “California Ale” – the Chico (aka Sierra Nevada) strain. I didn’t think that would really play well with the maltiness of the Munich, so I kept looking. Ah, WLP007, Dry English Ale (or the “Bond” strain as I like to call it ;-) . It’s one of my favorites. It’s very similar to WLP001, but mutes the hops just a little in favor of malt. 70-80% attenuative, medium-high flocculation. Perfect.

Conclusion

Well, at this point I had my recipe. I brewed it last week and haven’t had the chance to try it yet, but it looks and smells amazing. I’ll keep you posted on how it turns out.

To recap, here’s the recipe

1.057 OG, 30 IBUs

60% US 2-Row

20% White Wheat

15% Munich

5%  Crystal 40

10 IBUs Pearle/Saaz @ 60

15 IBUs Pearle/Saaz @ 20

5  IBUs Pearle/Saaz @ 0

1oz Saaz and 0.5oz Pearle to dry hop

WLP007 yeast (with a starter)

NHC Seminar Schedule

The 2010 National Homebrewer Conference is less than a week away and I am excited. So excited, in fact, that I have created my own personal conference schedule. Most of the time slots have 3 seminars going at once so some were a tough call, but here’s my schedule:

Thursday:
13:00 Opening Toast
13:45 Tips & Tricks To Set Up Your Own HomeBrewery
15:00 Aged to Perfection: The Maturation of Beer
16:15 Everything I Learned About Brewing I Learned From You!

Friday:
09:00 Specialty Malts
10:15 Varietal Mead Comparison
13:30 Keynote Address
14:45 Exploring Yeast
16:00 Bottle Conditioning Like a Pro
17:15 AHA Members Meeting

Saturday:
09:00 Lesser Known and Misunderstood English Beer Styles
10:15 Starting Your Own Brewery Panel
13:30 Cellarmanship: Skills and Techniques for Serving Cask Conditioned Beer
14:45 “Plastic” Yeast Strains From Belgium and Germany: Learning to Compromise
16:00 Live Taping of Basic Brewing

I’m particularly excited about the British and cask seminars. I’m hoping the varietal mead seminar has samples!

A Proud Day to be an Iowan

I’m talking about Chuck Grassley’s recent suggestion on how to clean up the oil spill in the gulf, detailed here: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/102247-grassley-suggests-beer-brewing-process-as-oil-spill-solution and I’m of course being facetious.

Although I haven’t listened to the conference call mp3, the important bit is this gem of a quote:
“There’s a process for making beer — I don’t know if it’s the yeast or what it is in making beer. You can put those microscopic things on oil and they die, and all you’ve got is some methane gas left.”

I haven’t the slightest idea what he’s talking about. Is he suggesting we ferment the ocean? I won’t say he’s wrong, but I don’t understand how this could possibly work. Is he saying yeast would consume the oil, convert it to methane, and die in the process? Is there any actual science to his suggestion?

MUGZ “Mythbuster” Handout

I gave the educational presentation at my homebrew club’s May meeting two weeks ago and have finally gotten around to posting about it. I discussed the first two BBR/BYO experiments I participated in (which I’ve already discussed on here… Experiment #1, Experiment #2). It spurred a lot of great questions and comments.

I created a handout for the talk which I will post soon.

Homebrew Experiment #3: Bittering Hop Substitutions

I’ve become a big fan of homebrew experiments in the past few months. I think that experimentation aspect is a large part of why I got into the hobby in the first place. I’ve done a lot of one-off recipes, strange ingredients, and process tweaks, but not until the BBR/BYO experiments that started last year did I actually start to perform these experiments “scientifically”. I put that in quotes since my experiments are still somewhat subjective. I’m sure there are published studies on the topics I experiment with, but as my uncle was fond of saying “some people can be told not to pee on an electric fence and that’s good enough, but some have to get zapped before they’ll learn”.

At any rate, my newest experiment was to test if the variety of hop used for bittering had any effect other than bitterness in the boil, fermentation, and finally, the taste of the beer. Often times, when I brew from a recipe found in a book or magazine, I don’t have the correct bittering hop on hand, so I substitute it with another hop by changing the volume of the addition to match the same IBU. We’re taught that this shouldn’t make a difference. I find it odd that if it really doesn’t make any difference why do British recipes insist on British bittering hops, German recipes insist on German bittering hops, and so on. On top of that, what about the popularity of hop extract, like HopShot, where the hops the extract came from doesn’t even really matter.

To test this, I picked a recipe that was mild enough that any difference in hop character should be easily noticeable. Since my experiment concerned bittering hops, I wanted a recipe that didn’t use any flavor or aroma hops. I settled on a British Mild – well, somewhere between that and a Bitter – I wasn’t trying to win a BJCP medal here. 32 IBUs is a little high, making a MBR of .6 repeating, but not undrinkable. I didn’t want a lot of beer sitting around if the beer turned out less than palatable, so I decided on making a 2-gallon batch, split into two 1-gallon boils. Here’s the recipe:

2 gallons All-Grain @ 70% efficiency
1.040 OG / 1.009 FG / 32 IBU
1.14kg Maris Otter
60g Crystal 60
60g Flaked Barley

Mashed at 152F for 60 minutes.
2g Safale US-05 between each gallon.
Fermented @ 64F for two weeks in primary, no secondary
Carbonated using 1 Coopers Carb Drop per bottle

Pardon my mixing of metric and imperial measurements. Grams and kilograms tend to make more sense to me in recipes, and as you’ll see soon, was almost necessary when measuring the hops. I’m slowly transitioning to using all metric in my recipes, but that’s another post for another day.

So let’s talk hops. I wanted a big difference between the two hops used. I settled on some Willamette @ 3.4% AAU and Summit @ 18% AAU. To equal 32 IBUs at 60 minutes, using Tinseth (by way of Beersmith), the additions were 13.2g Willamette and a measly 2.5g Summit.

Summit on the left, Willamette on the right

I had two kettles set up on separate burners on the stove top going at the same time. Hops were added at the same time and burners were turned off at the same time. Nothing to note between the boils other than the not-surprising fact that I was busier preventing a boil over with the Willamette batch than the Summit batch. Both kettles cooled down in an ice bath afterwards.

The worts were poured into separate 1-gallon glass carboys and shaken vigorously for a couple minutes each. The 2 grams of yeast each were pitched and each carboy was shaken again briefly. Here they are right after shaking:

Low AAU (Willamette) batch on the left, High AAU (Summit) batch on the right

I stuck them in my brew closet, which stays at a steady 64F during the winter. I started taking pictures every 12 hours.

Low AAU (Willamette) batch on the left, High AAU (Summit) batch on the right

It looks like the Willamette batch started fermenting before the Summit batch. It finished sooner too. Both finished at a gravity of 1.009.

I bottled in 12oz bottles and added one Cooper’s Carbonation Drop to each bottle. This was probably overkill given the style and the low gravity, but I think they’re a must for experimentation. It would be very easy to get inconsistent carbonation and therefore inconsistent results by mixing the priming solution into the entire batch and I wasn’t willing to put one gallon on keg and force carbonate.

Here is a few ounces of each prior to bottling.

High AAU (Summit) batch on the left, Low AAU (Willamette) batch on the right

There’s a significant difference in the clarity between the two samples. It appears that more hop matter means more cloudiness in the finished beer (something that shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has ever brewed an IPA).

Here they are after carbonating in the bottle for 8 days.

Low AAU (Willamette) batch on the left, High AAU (Summit) batch on the right

Unsurprisingly, nothing changed in the bottle. The differences in clarity were still very visible after sitting out for an hour at room temperature as well.

Now, the important part – taste. I did this blind (as in with my eyes closed) with the help of my lovely research assistant wife. She poured me four ounces of each in clean (glass) beer flight glasses. The bitterness did appear to be identical between the samples, but the flavor and aroma had an ever-so-slight difference between them. One didn’t smell or taste as clean as the other, but that’s really splitting hairs. If you were to hand me a pint of one and then a pint of the other without telling me anything was different between them I may not notice the difference (other than in appearance). However, after having a couple of one in a row and then a couple of the other in one night (which I had to do of course… for science!), I did notice a slight difference and the Summit batch was preferred. I had my wife taste the samples and she didn’t notice a difference. I had the rest of the bottles out at a party without telling anyone about the experiment and no one commented or seemed to prefer one over the other.

So in conclusion, I say go ahead and substitute one bittering hop for another as long as they’re not TOO different. Willamette and Summit are probably too different. A 5% AAU hop and a 7% AAU hop probably aren’t. If you’re concerned about clarity and making a sparkling clean beer, use a high AAU hop. I should add that I made an Irish Red Ale with only hop extract once and it seemed TOO clean. The EKG batch I made following that seemed preferable, but that’s a bit inconclusive as they were brewed weeks apart.

I may try this experiment sometime again in the future with a very hoppy beer to see if the flavor and aroma hops cover any difference in bittering hops, but until then I’m happy knowing that subbing one hop over another is important, but only if the hops are wildly different.

Tags: , ,