The inspiration for this recipe is leftovers. Frank left a whole bag (1 oz.) of Citra hops in my fridge. I needed to put them to good use. Enter the Citra Session IPA. Continue reading “Citra Session”
The inspiration for this recipe came from a whim – dropping a tea bag into a cup of coffee. The peppermint tea changed what was an ordinary cup of coffee into something special. So – why not make a beer out of it? Plus, Amy likes brown ales. It’s a double win!
A mix of chocolate and lightly roasted malts were used for this recipe. A touch of rye increases the body of the beer – important for a dark beer. This is especially the case since a previous home brew project (a chocolate mint stout) left Frank wanting something more substantial.
For this recipe, we’re using a very special variety of hops: Mintras. The hops imparts both an herbal and a minty quality. The mint notes should compliment the real mint used in this recipe. The particular hops used are whole cone hops. This is unlike the hops used in most brewing – which uses hop pellets. (The includes commercial production. It is a special event when a brewery uses whole cone hops.). Hop pellets still do the job – contributing their floral notes and bitter flavors. However, using whole cone hops is always something fun to do.
True to the recipe’s name, we used ground coffee and a fresh mint. The mint was the same kind as what is available at your local market. We opted for fresh mint – as opposed to mint extract in the primary.
Since the mint goes in at the end of the boil, we’re able to kill any of the particular foreign bacteria that could ruin the fermentation process. Using mint extract for the secondary fermenter helps keep out some of the various bacteria that could spoil a beer.
As with our other brewing attempts, we fell a bit short of the target original gravity: 1.050 vs. 1058. The result will be a beer with a smaller alcohol content than intended. The final gravity clocked in at 1.010.
Six weeks later, the brew is ready to enjoy. Sampling it, the mint comes off the nose and the coolness is felt on the tongue. The flavor contributed by the mint is almost indistinguishable, but that’s OK because it still works. The body is balanced by the carbonation. The coffee notes however are lacking.
Mint Coffee Brown #2
Of course, the amount of the the add-ins used, and their timing are always a variable. Another way to experiment with this recipe is to tweak the amount of rye used. This will make a small difference in the alcohol content, but a larger difference in the body of the beer. In a future iteration, let’s add more coffee.
The inspiration for this take on a white ale comes from Saint Archer Brewery – for their white ale. This is one of my favorite white ales – because of the way the brew is generously spiced with add-ins. In fact, I liked Saint Archer’s white ale so much, that we had it served at our wedding! For our following recipe, we mimicked the add-ins used by Saint Archer uses, but went our own way with the choice of malts.
What is a White Ale?
If you’re not familiar with what makes a wheat beer, a wheat beer – it’s the use of WHEAT. Wheat, however, is not the only grain used to brew a Hefeweizen or white ale – other names by which a wheat beer goes by. Barely is commonly used as well.
According to BeerAdvocate.com, the term white ale is derived from the color of a beer brewed with wheat. There may be several reasons for this. Firstly, the wheat malt is never roasted to the extent that barely can be roasted to – such as in a stout. Less roasting time means (in part) a lighter-colored beer. Also, wheat beers are traditionally unfiltered – unlike other beers. This means more wheat and yeast particles floating around in your beverage – producing an opaque but white coloration. (Homebrew is also commonly unfiltered.)
Our particular recipe called for equal parts wheat and barely – with a moderate amount of each. The result is a product with a conventional ABV for a wheat ale: almost 5%. This assumes a 60% efficiency – which is what we are assuming using the brew in a bag (BIAB) technique.
We used 0.1 oz. of Vons private label powdered coriander. Fun fact:
Coriander is the seed of the cilantro plant.
However, the seed is distinct from the leafy part of the plant. Coriander has a lemony aroma – something that just begs to be added to taco seasoning. I wanted to use it for taco seasoning, but Frank wouldn’t let me.
We used 1 oz. of freshly zested orange peel. Both went in at the end of the boil. Putting both add-ins (or any add-ins) just at the end of the boil should help with any contamination issues. With the wort still hot, any foreign bacteria should be killed by the temperature which is just shy of boiling.
While both the elements of the add-ins came through in the wort the final product is a different story. The addition of these add-ins were impacted by the flavors imparted by the yeast – as well as the subtle bite of alcohol from fermentation. So, as with our other brews, sampling the wort can give you an idea of how the final product may turn out – but the wort itself is by no means a replica of the final product. This is especially the case as the add-ins’s impact to the beer changes over time.
When sampling the final product, the coriander notes come out to play. The coriander is there – and it is welcome. It certainly works with the beer. Unfortunately, the beer needs more orange. The contribution made by the orange add-in is bordering on non-existent. Maybe it’s the orange, but the beer definitely feels like it’s missing something. A final touch would be some late stage hops for floral notes. I imagine that just a smidgen could add a little something extra to the brew.
American Wheat #2
Let’s consider doubling the orange contribution – and doing it at a later stage in the game. One possible idea is to keep the recipe as, but add a little bit of Citra hops and orange extract at day 14. This will contribute those notes that I found lacking in the final product.
The inspiration for our Marzipan Chocolate Stout home brew came from the brainchild of yours truly – and the lack of available ingredients. I initially dreamed up a chocolate hazelnut beer – and Frank put the recipe together. By the time brew day came around, we had not yet sourced hazelnut extract – or any other medium for getting hazelnuts in there. But, I did find almond extract – which smells exactly like marzipan! In the future, we’ll be trying a hazelnut chocolate stout. But for this recipe, it’ll be chocolate and almonds.
If you’re looking for inspiration from a chocolate stout, might I suggest Boatswain Chocolate Stout. I think that the Boatswain beer is very well balanced, and that the chocolate flavor comes out quite well. Moreover, in a world of expensive craft brews, the price is extremely reasonable.
One fun thing about this recipe is the wide variety of grains used. The were light and dark roasted malts included, as well as oats. When photographed (below), the diversity of grains is apparent.
Fun fact from Brewmaster Frank: the difference between a sweet stout and your traditional stout is the choice of malts. And, what makes a milk stout is the addition of milk sugar to the brew. Since this brew is not a milk stout, we are not using milk sugar.
For our recipe, we used the Kroger (Vons private label) brand extract almond extract. The cacao nibs are from Navitas Naturals. Frank observed that they make a nice snack. They taste like dark chocolate on the end, although are very bitter.
One oz. of cacao nibs are put in the end of the boil. One oz. is also added to the secondary fermenter. Two oz. of almond extract went at the end of the boil. Adding raw, unsanitized ingredients to the secondary fermenter may have been the culprit of our fermentation issues – discussed in the gravity section.
The wort was simply overpowered by the almond extract. Frank suggested that the wort reminded him of Amaretto. How wort changed into beer over the course of the process was surprising. As for the color – it’s a stout: the wort was black as night.
Original Gravity & Final Gravity
Perhaps it was the heavily roasted malt – but for our homebrew session for the weekend, we missed the greatest mark on our stout. Our goal was 1.066, with an actual of 1.058, for a difference of 0.008. Maybe the dark roast was in impediment to squeezing the bag of grain. The lesson remains the same: squeeze the bag harder. Alternatively, we can twice mill the malt or sparge via pouring hot water over the grains after soaking in the mash tun.
The final gravity also fell short of our target. Fermentation was incomplete – because of either one or two reasons. Firstly, there is the dastardly temperature control. Secondly is any contamination from from the cacao nibs into the secondary. While the latter is possible, the former is more likely.
After the cacao nibs and almond extract danced with our dark brew for six weeks we had our results! The resultant product was a smooth delicious chocolatey stout. Unfortunately, the marzipan was nowhere to be seen. This was quite distinct from the wort – which was over powered by the almond extract. This would appear that just like the floral notes added by hops to a brew, the contribution made by almond extract is ephemeral; it fades over time – and relatively quickly at that.
Chocolate Marzipan Stout #2?
The only possible solution – or the only solution that I can think of – is putting more almond extract, or at a different time. Instead of adding the extract to the wort, it will be added just prior to bottling, alongside the priming sugar.
This is Frank’s second attempt at a mint chocolate stout. This version has a small tweak compared to his last attempt. What’s the tweak? It’s not more or less mint and cacao. It’s not a different ABV. It’s a modification to what’s called the “body” of the beer. You know you’re a beer geek when you’re using such articulate language to describe a beer. And onto the recipe!
As with all chocolate stouts, there is blend of lightly and darkly roasted malts. Check out the below. It is a prototype of what could arrive at your door for our all-grain mint chocolate stout homebrew recipe. Note the variety of grains used.
As with our other mint recipes, we’ll be using fresh mint (put in at the end of the boil), and mint extract (put into the secondary fermenter). There are contamination benefits of using an extract in the secondary – in that the extract is already pasteurized so there’s no risk of contamination from foreign organisms. For our own test, we used fresh mint in the secondary carboy as well. To stave off bacterial infection, I soaked the mint in iodophor before it went into the secondary.
To add a chocolate flavor to the brew, we’re using cacao nibs – which are delicious in beer as well as for a snack. To keep foreign germs at bay, the cacao can be added at the end of the boil instead of going straight into the primary fermenter.
The wort was rich and sweet – as is to be expected. The mint was there – noticeable, but not overpowering. In my experience, add-ins present in the wort can disappear over the six weeks it takes for wort to change into beer. This is why sampling the wort with add-ins can be misleading.
We off the mark a good deal withthis stout. Frank noticed a pattern on the short-comings for achieving original gravity: higher alcohol beers are the ones that come in most distant from the target. Perhaps this has to do with the smaller surface when the grain is in the pot. As we continue to brew, we’re refining our list of best practices. This will not only get us closer to our target ABV and final gravity, but allow us to share with you the best way to brew. (Yeah! That rhymes!)
Living in the micro brew capital of the world, our mutual friend Kyle Kiesel knows a thing or two about beer. He approves of our second iteration of the mint chocolate stout, noting:
It’s easy to drink.
The brew is indeed a crowd pleaser. The dark roast suggests a hint of coffee of the nose. The body is rich and thick – with the mint character adding yet another level to the beverage. And for that, I’m inclined to agree with old Kyle, the beer is good! I look forward to this beer being one of our first offerings.
Mint Chocolate Stout #3?
We may not necessarily need to do a third iteration of this beer. The only possible change is the amount of malt added. Otherwise, as a sweet, chocolaty, minty
In this brew, the Belgian yeast does its thing – imparting the usual fruity banana and clove notes. The fun part about this particular beer is the add-ins, and how the add-ins work with the yeast to create something special. I must add that if the beer stood out for Frank, it must indeed be something special. (Frank has been known to enjoy some very fine beer.) For this brew, we’ll be mimicking the Belgian yeast, as well as throwing in some very interesting add-ins.
The beer calls for two special add-ins:
• hatch chiles, sourced from New Mexico
We used both of these wild and crazy ingredients in our own home brew attempt. For the primary fermenter, the hatch chilies were sourced from Amazon, where they came cooked and peeled – pasteurized in a can. We put in just 1 oz. for our recipe. (Frank attests to success when using the excess chiles on pizza.) Not that a lot weight comes from water, so how just how much flavor is actually going into the wort at this time may be slight.
Ideally, crushed and dried hatch chiles would be used. In a pinch, we made a substation to the canned product. As such, we’ll be reporting on this recipe as it was executed. For the secondary carboy, one oz. of dried and crushed hatch chiles are used. Again, the dried and crushed chiles are the most ideal form when utilizing the add-in.
The color of the wort is your standard for a Belgian, if slightly darker. The attractive copper color hints at the American – Caramel / Crystal 120L malt used. For you beer geeks, “L” in the American – Caramel / Crystal 120L refers to a metric that accounts for the degree to which the barely is roasted. (Greater roasting means a darker beer). Consider that Caramel / Crystal 10L is available – with this recipe calling for 120 – and thus the relatively darker copper-colored beer, at least relative to a larger, such as Coors, Miller, etc.
When sampling the wort, the add-ins were indistinguishable. Given time (six weeks out), and the existing chiles already in the wort, and the additional chiles added to the secondary fermenter, chiles and cinnamon do ultimately impact the final product.
The Original Gravity (OG)
We missed the target original gravity by 0.004, with our actual result being 1.077. This occurred even with a 60% efficiency target. (We are using the brew in a bag technique for our homebrewing.) As we continue to refine the brewing process, we’ll come to create our own efficiency metric (perhaps 55%?) that we can use in crafting future recipes. Best practices dictate that in the future, achieving our target gravity can mean squeezing the bag of malts more aggressively following their 150 degree bath. Alternatively, the malt can be “sparged” via boiling water over the grains and into the brew kettle below. In the end, 0.004 is a small difference.
As the homebrewing forums assured us, this difference was inconsequential – with our final ABV being perhaps half a percent (0.5%) short of our target. I imagine that such a small difference would also be unnoticeable to the palate.
As is standard in our home brewing process, the wort ferments in the primary fermenter for two weeks. The beer is then transferred to the secondary fermenter. Additional add-ins are then added in. Another two weeks later, the beer is bottled. After another final two weeks, the beer is enjoyed. It is at that time that the yeasty Belgian flavors present themselves, with a little bit of heat and spice thrown into the mix. The add-ins are very subtle.
Belgian Spice #2
Moar! It may be worth increasing the add-ins in a successive round. For me, I’m looking for something that knocks you on your butt, to say:
Hello. My name is Hatch Chile. You killed my father. Prepare to die!
For me, I didn’t quite get that from this brew. But that’s just one man’s opinion. For a successive iteration of this twist on a Stone clone of a Belgian brew, I’d like to double (if not triple) the amount of add-ins. Pureeing the fresh hatch chiles may be an additional option to imparting more flavor to the beer.
Can I interest you in light-bodied, hoppy brew with a dash of earthy notes? Enter our first attempt at a session – with a bit of an interesting twist. The inspiration for this fun recipe came from a variety of places:
• access to a unique variety of whole cone hops
• Frank’s desire for a bright, refreshing fruity beer
• my very own lemon tree
As with our other interesting add-in IPA (where we used basil), we’ve included the specialty grain rye. The amount of rye used in this recipe was relatively small. Therefore, the spicy character of the rye was not noticeable wort. Also, the red color offered by rye was also not present. Our beer showed up as an opaque yellow.
As with our other mint-inspired recipes, we used whole-cone mintras hops. The zesty character of the hops will compliment the zesty flavor of the lemon zest add-in. The contribution of the hops in the final product is unmistakable.
Besides the hops, home-grown lemons are the special ingredients for this brew. One fifth of an ounce of lemon zest was used for the primary carboy. This went in at the boil. Twice that amount went into the secondary fermenter. It takes about one small-medium lemon to get 0.1 oz. of lemon zest. So, be sure to have enough lemons on hand for this recipe. To stave off contamination, both the lemons and the zesting tool were soaked in sanitizing solution. Lemon zest was collected into a sanitized bowl before going into the secondary carboy.
Using whole cone hops in the primary worked fine. There was not an issue from either the size and/or the volume of the whole cone hops used. The hops are able to be be wholly submerged in a boiling pot of wort. However, putting a large volume of whole cones hops into the secondary was an issue. This is because the hops floated on top of the now beer. (It’s no longer wort since the we are already two weeks into fermentation.) In short, a lot of the hops, I believe, were wasted. This is because the hops never had a chance to to physically contact the beer. The extra hops simply floated on top of the other hops. Check out the photo above. Obviously not all of the hops are in contact with the beer.
When sampling the wort, the lemon notes were present. The flavor imparted by the lemon zest was most definitely subtle. Even when adding more lemon zest to the secondary fermenter, the final beer is only somewhat lemony. (There are timing issues to add-ins, discussed later.)
The target original gravity was almost spot on for this batch. The difference was so small, that it could be considered negligible: 0.002. The difference in final gravity is more substantial, with the final gravity for the beverage clocking in at 1.020. This is short of the goal of 1.010. The result is an alcohol content short of our target – resulting in a very, very sessionable session ale – because the final ABV will be very low: 3.81%
The hops in this beer are absolutely incredible. The impart a grassy, earthy flavor. And because there’s lots of hops in there, it’s hard to not notice. I can’t quite tell what the lemon is doing in there – or if it’s even there. But at the very least, it is contributing a pretty, bright opaque yellow hue.
Lemon Session Rye IPA #2
The natural modification on this recipe going forward would be to play with the timing and amount of lemon zest additions. An alternative is to add lemon extract at bottling because it’s:
- • simple
- • sanitary
- • cheap
- • gives the extract less time to fade (w/ only two weeks to go before enjoying)
The challenge with re-creating this recipe is that the special hops used may not be available going forward. Any further tweaks to the recipes with respect to the lemons will be an apples-to-oranges comparison because of the change in hops. As a final note, one could also play with the amount of rye used in the malt. Of course, we would not use whole cone hops in the secondary – instead opting for hop pellets, preventing waste.
The inspiration for this recipe came from leafing through the beer resource, “Designing Great Beers,” by Ray Daniels. In the stouts section, the book described the “Oyster Stout.” Traditionally, either the oyster meat, brine, or even the shell were added to the list of ingredients to create the final beer. That sounded like an interesting idea – so we decided to give it a go for our next homebrew recipe!
The goal here is for the oyster to impart its flavor to the beer – in all its salty goodness. Whole, fresh oysters were sourced from the local seafood market. The meat of the oyster was added 15 minutes before the end of the boil. The oysters were left in the primary fermenter. Going forward, the oyster may be taken out of the wort before going into the carboy.
Since the oysters were put into the wort with a whole fifteen minutes left to boil, any and all germs were killed off – with fifteen minutes of boiling being sufficient to kill anything, oyster germs included. If you’re reluctant to put oyster meat into your brew, there are alternatives. Consider the oyster shells themselves, oyster brine, or simply salt. Even a small amount of the latter should make the biggest impact.
For our brewing for the weekend, we milled the grains twice in an attempt to hit our target gravity. Our previous weekend of brewing landed us short of this mark. Running the grains through the mill a second time only takes a few more minutes but gets us closer to our target brew.
Our target original gravity for this recipe was 1.050. We struck 1.053. Naturally, milling the grain twice did the trick. Alternatively or additionally, the grains could be “sparged” by pouring additional boiling over the grains (when the grains are in a strainer atop the brew kettle).
When we sampled the wort it came across as a regular wort stout. The addition of the oysters were indistinguishable. Since fermentation had not yet begun, the wort was sweet. Were the oyster meat to make an impact to the beer, it would do so over the four weeks that the oyster meat was left to hang out in the fermentation vessel.
Six weeks from brew day, the oyster stout was ready to enjoy. And my only response is:
where’s my oyster at?
Unfortunately, this brew tastes just like any old stout. It’s a good stout – but there is nothing crazy about this one. There is most certainly nothing oyster-ery about it.
However, the lack of any oyster flavor seems to be the consensus among all the oyster stouts I’ve ever enjoyed. One example being “Marooned on Hog Island” by 21st Amendment Brewery. Like our own oyster stout attempt, the brew proudly states the use of oyster ingredients front and center (the label is above). Yet, any oyster flavor is indistinguishable.
Oyster Stout #2
Tweaking the amount of the oyster added – and how long it stays in there – would be the number one variable for this recipe. For the next recipe, we could add more oysters towards the end of the boil. Alternatively, we could take oyster meat out of the wort before putting everything into the primary fermenter. However, given the lack of any strong oyster flavor in the brew, this latter suggestion is less likely.
Another idea would be to add salt to the recipe. This could be done in addition to the oysters, or as an alternative to. Using salt alone would make the logistics of the recipe much simpler. Salt could also be added to the secondary fermenter – two weeks after fermentation has begun.
The inspiration for this beer came from a short bought of insanity. Having recently been enjoying New Belgium’s Lips of Faith specialty series offering, Cocoa Molé and having an uninspiring IPA brew kit lying around, I decided to invent a new beer: the Molé IPA. It’s just like regular IPA, but with all the add-ins that go into a molé. It may just be the most awful beer ever made.
If you’re not familiar with a molé beer, think of Mexican hot chocolate – which is hot chocolate with cinnamon and chile peppers and other spices added. Sometimes these molé brews are lumped into the broader category of chile beers – but molés are quite distinct from what would otherwise a be blonde ale with jalapeno added. So, consider molé beers as a sub category within the chile beer category.
Thick! It’s so thick from all the stuff floating around in there. Going forward, I would extracts where possible for substitutions – and brewed coffee instead of coffee grains. This would help to clarify the beer. But, I will never make this beer again – because it’s terrible.
Just scroll down to the recipe below to see all the good stuff I threw in there:
• vanilla extract
• ground coffee
• cocoa powder
Check out the photo above. You can see the bit of the jalapeno floating towards the top of the fermenter. Down towards the bottom of the glass carboy, you can see everything else – everything that will contribute it’s flavor to making our molé IPA.
The nose is floral. However, you can tell that there are lots of other things going on there. The heat is subtle, but lingers all the way down your esophagus. And then it stays there for a long time. It’s almost like getting heartburn. The other flavors are there too: cinnamon, coffee. The coffee is most subtle.
It’s not nearly as terrible as I thought it would be, but it’s still pretty bad. I poured myself a 12 oz bottle and I won’t be finishing it. All that said,I don’t think the mole IPA is a bad idea. It’s just the execution was a failure. Will I make a further iteration – testing the validity of the mole IPA idea? Maybe. But it probably won’t be anytime soon.
The inspiration for this brew came from a couple different beers – but mostly from New Belgium’s Lips of Faith specialty series offering, Cocoa Molé. If you’re not familiar with a molé beer, think of Mexican hot chocolate – which is hot chocolate with cinnamon and chile peppers and other spices added. Sometimes these molé brews are lumped into the broader category of chile beers – but molés are quite distinct from what would otherwise a be blonde ale with jalapeno added. So, consider molé beers as a sub category within the chile beer category.
Another simply fantastic molé beer is made by San Diego brewery Stone Brewing Co. Their Xocoveza has come out the last two holiday seasons – with the more recent release being even better than the first. It’s a combination of peppers, chocolate, vanilla, coffee and other spices. The beer is very flavorful, but not overly heavy.
Our clone brew for the New Belgium Lips of Faith Cocoa Molé clone starts with the malt. As with all dark brews, we used a combination or light and dark malts. This includes rye, in addition to the usual barely. The grain was finely milled, once. We fined milled the grain to help us better achieve our target original gravity. Fine milling, over coarse milling, helps to further open up the malt, exposing their sugars that will be captured by the boiling water.
For our own attempt at a mole beer, we’ve limited our add-ins to just three very special ingredients:
• whole cinnamon sticks
• retail chile powder
• 100% pure cacao
All of the ingredients we used are available at your local retail grocery market. Though the add-ins are unusual for a beer, they are easy to obtain – as opposed to some of the more special hops we’ve used in our brews.
As with our previous brews, the original gravity of the wort clocked in at 1.045 – which was short of our recipe’s calculation of 1.051. As a side note, we measured the original gravity with both an inexpensive hydrometer as well as more expensive refractometer. We’ve been experimenting with the repetition and level of milling. Even with milling the grain finely (as opposed to coarsely), we still fell short of our target gravity.
Sampling the wort, the add-ins were barely distiniguishable. Perhaps only the chili powder made itself known. However, there were ample hops in the brew that stood out in the wort sample. Will this beer be molé-y? We can only know that six weeks in. It will, however, definitely be bitter from the hops.
It’s not bad, if not a little underwhelming. The base of the brew is good with some chocolaty notes present. Then there is also a small to moderate kick coming from the chili and cinnamon powders. It’s not bad. But I want more – more of everything: more chocolate, more cinnamon, more peppers – and I want coffee and vanilla and nut meg too. In short, I would consider this a sort of mole-light. It’s a good introductory beer for those who are just ever so slightly adventurous.
What’s more, the character of (some of) the add-ins persevered over the course of a few weeks. This is different from some of the other brews we’ve concocted – where the character contributed by the add-ins fades exponentially with age. Two and half weeks after the “drink” date (the drink date is usually two weeks after bottling), the presence of the add-ins were still there. Yay!
As mentioned, I’d like to try additional add-ins, especially vanilla and coffee – closer to the style that Stone Brewing puts out in their Xocoveza. I’d also like to see what adding more cacao does – or what happens when introducing these add-ins at different parts of the brewing process. For example, instead of going into the primary fermenter – these add-ins could go into the boil. They may – or may not – help to impart more flavor of the add-in into the final brew. A final option for tweaking the add-ins could involve changing the granularity of the add-ins. Specifically, using a whole chile pepper instead of just chile power, or grading/shredding the cinnamon sticks and bit of cacao.