Agreed. I would recommend just scaling it right up to your 2 gallon batch size and have a go at it. It will take you the same amount of time and you will get twice the beer. Seems like an awful lot of work and planning for about 6 bottles of beer.
awful lot going on there. Not sure what the point of the Marris Otter is. I think I’d just replace it with more munich. or maybe half and half munich and pils.
the mash schedule looks crazy complicated as well. If it’s just to flex your mashing muscles then have at but you don’t need/want a protein rest with modern malt. the protein has been modified so well and evenly in the malting process that what is left is just what you want for body and head retention. This is especially true with continental malts where brewers don’t intend to use low protein adjuncts.
Not sure what your Unit of Measure is but a mash thickness of 1.5 qt/lb might be not thick enough if you’re doing step infusion with all those steps and pretty thick if you are doing decoction steps. If you are using l/kg then that is way too thick unless you’re doing infusion.
The recipe you have will make a good beer, even if it is overly complicated to my tastes, but it won’t probably remind you much of a dubbel. pils malt, dark candi syrup maybe a little special b, maybe a little dark munch s you want and maybe a touch of dark malt to deepen the color.
Agree on all accounts about the batch size, lots of work for very little beer.
Just realized I didn’t tell you what mash regime I would use:
Single infusion at 150-155 for 60-90 minutes. You’ve got the sugar in there so it will dry out well even at 155. I don’t usually bother with a mash out unless I’m doing no sparge and I need to get the last of the water in there.
All great points. As far as a step mash I really just wanted to see if my excel calculator was up to the task to produce accurate numbers. Also, I guess I was under the assumption that in contrast to domestic malts, that the euro malts were a bit less modified. In my reading of the Trappist and Belgian brewers, it seems they all conduct step mashes. Figured it couldn’t hurt and would be a good opportunity to test my equipment.
As far as the mash thickness, I adjusted the initial strike water infusion to thicken the mash and account for the additional infusions so that the ash out volume would bring me up to 1.5 qts./lb.
It’s a matter of taste I guess. I don’t buy into the maxim that more beer is the same work. Maybe boiling and mashing times are the same but cooling, cleaning, bringing wort to boil, etc. are all shorter. Also, I can divide a vial of yeast into two starters and have a pitch for the next batch, doubling my yield from a single vial. In addition to this I have all the time in the world and I want to experiment before I make the jump to more high volume equipment. Plus I can boil on my gas grill burner.
EDIT - Plus my wife will bust my balls less! The all important driver in every man’s life!
if it’s about testing your system then go for it. It’s not going to ruin anything to do those steps, just not really necesary.
on the less/more modified front, floor maltings produce a less modified malt and I’m sure there is some difference but as far as I can tell there is no need to do a protein rest with continental malts. I’ve never had a problem with floor malted british malt either but some others have.
I tried to model in reference to the “Parting Glass Dubbel” article I viewed on Serious Eats. This and the “St. Benedict” Dark Strong were the first that piqued my interest in brewing.
For what it’s worth, I have revamped the recipe in the interim:
I’m following the lead of the “Parting Glass” recipe pretty closely here. I am trying to use some specialty malt to get me some flavor complexity in the absence of dark syrup (the shop I go to that carries CSI is a bit farther than i’m willing to travel for this brew) and all told specialty malts are only accounting for 11% of the recipe.
I agree it seems busy, especially considering that the Dark Strong recipe I have on deck has only 3 malts and Sugar, but it seems that everything has a place.
I’m a humble guy and I am certainly open to suggestions. I appreciate all the input.
Why the acid malt? Acid malt is used primarily to used to adjust pH on very pale beers. You not need it here, in fact it could totally screw with your pH.
You will want a lot of plumb and raisin character so if it were me, and I wasn’t going to use dark candi, I would dump the caravienne and bump up your special b. I don’t think you will need the aromatic malt either, since you are using a lint of Munich already. When you design a recipe be sure that each of your ingredients have a purpose and know what they will do to your beer, otherwise don’t use them. Often times simpler is better. Most of my recipes do not use more than 2 or 3 malts, with a few exceptions.
The acid malt brought my pH down into the 5.2-5.4 range.
Not looking to go overboard on the plum and raisin so maybe “Belgian Brown Ale” is a better moniker. I agree on the Aromatic though. Forgot about it’s “Super Munich” appellation and with the dark and light munich it may be a bit much. Good call.
I agree with this statement and as an engineer it permeates everything I do. In this case I guess I was trying to capture the spirit of the Serious Eats recipe. My Dark Strong recipe for next week is just Pils, Pale, A bit of Munich, D90 and D180.
I do 148 for 15 minutes then infuse up to 155 for 45 minutes then mash out (aim for 168-170) because I need to get the water in there and it might as well also mashout.
Not that I don’t enjoy those flavors, because I have had plenty of Belgian beer and enjoy all of it, but I guess this recipe is more a nuttier, brown Belgian ale if that makes sense. Calling it a Dubbel was bound to stir the pot a little.
I have plans for more authentic Dubbel/Tripel/Quad style beers but for this one I guess the Dubbel designation may not fit. Belgian Strong Brown Ale?