Author Topic: SMaSH  (Read 11040 times)

Offline alcaponejunior

  • Having a homebrewed IPA
  • BeerSmith Master Brewer
  • ****
  • Posts: 69
  • Up next: ESB
    • Beer And Stuff
SMaSH
« on: September 04, 2012, 05:54:30 PM »
I plan to try a 3.5 gallon batch with maris otter and willamette. 

Post your best smash recipes here! 

I'm using a 5 gallon cooler mash tun and 5 gallon boil pot, so I can scale any recipes you might have!

Offline tom_hampton

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
    • Tom's Miata Racing Blog
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2012, 11:13:23 AM »
Hardly worth calling them recipes.  I always use Maris Otter for SMaSHes.

5 gallon batch, 1.52 OG, 1.06 FG

11 lbs Maris Otter
50 IBUs of your favorite hop

I like to do these as hop bursts.  So, I add 4-8 oz to get the calculated IBUs based on adding everything at 15 minutes to go. 



R.I.P.:Belgian Blonde
On Tap: Apfelwein, Kolsch(v2), Pumpkin Ale, Belgian Specialty 
Aging/Storing: Coffee Porter, Chocolate Porter, Flanders Red, English Barlywine
Fermenting: Maggie's Altbier
Next Up: PtE(1.1), Belgian Dubbel?

Working thru all BCS recipes

Offline Scott Ickes

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Brewing creatively and sharing the results!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2013, 05:25:13 AM »
I usually don't like resurrecting and old topic, but this one pertains to what I'm going to be doing in the near future.

My question is for Tom.

I understand the hop bursting schedule that you propose using on a smash.  Is it safe for me to assume that you get a lot more aroma and flavor by adding all of the hops at the end?  Is there any other reason for doing this?

I want to experiment with different hops, but I don't really want to use that much per 5 gallons.  I usually have a 60 minute addition to get most of my bitterness, and then other later additions to get my aroma and flavor.  I've never done a brew with all the hops at 15 minutes or later.  Please help me understand the reasoning behind this strategy better.

Thank you in advance for your words of wisdom!!
Kegs:
 Red IPA
 ESB
 Saison Solera
 Dubel (Aged in Malbec Wine Barrel
Aging:
 80 Shilling (In bourbon barrel)
Bottled
 Peppermint Patty Stout
 Wee Heavy

Scott Ickes
https://creativebrewing.wordpress.com

Offline MaltLicker

  • Global Moderator
  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 2004
    • Blue Ribbon Brews
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2013, 08:40:32 AM »
At the NHC, both Mitch Steele and Stan Heir.  talked about new research on hop oils and acids, etc.   Some of the things mentioned included reducing the risk of hop vegetal notes from boiling (more) hops for the duration of the boil, and preserving more of the volatile oils by waiting until under-20 minutes for all/most of the hop additions. 

Mitch specifically said they'd done a few beers with FWH and then no more hops until under-20 minutes. 

Stan talked about research on what yeast does to hop oils/acids during fermentation, and that's part of the change in approach.   The more oils that survive the boil, the more likely some will also survive the fermentation and make it to the final beer. 

So for a SMaSH, the more "identity" from that single hop to learn what it's capable of producing.

Offline tom_hampton

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
    • Tom's Miata Racing Blog
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2013, 02:25:29 PM »
I understand the hop bursting schedule that you propose using on a smash.  Is it safe for me to assume that you get a lot more aroma and flavor by adding all of the hops at the end? 

Yes.  it maximizes your perception of the unique varietal hop characteristics (floral, citrus, earthy, etc). 

Is there any other reason for doing this?

Um.  No, not really.  Hops are all about flavor and aroma.  There's no processes/chemical reason to do this.  I find the same computed IBU contribution will have a much difference overall character.  The bitterness will be less sharp.  I MUCH prefer the flavors from this approach versus the 60 minute additions.  There is probably a chemical reason for this, as well as flavor perceptions affected by the additional aromas. 

An interesting effect I've seen is that people who express distaste for "bitter" beers, don't have the same feeing about the hop bursted beers.  My mother is a case in point.  She "hates" anything approaching an english IPA (not to even look at an AIPA, or DIPA, or IIPA).  But, she loves these 50 IBU "bursted" beers.  She doesn't think they are "bitter". 

I want to experiment with different hops, but I don't really want to use that much per 5 gallons.  I usually have a 60 minute addition to get most of my bitterness, and then other later additions to get my aroma and flavor.  I've never done a brew with all the hops at 15 minutes or later.  Please help me understand the reasoning behind this strategy better.

There's nothing magic about the 50 IBU number I quoted above.  Try 30, or 25 or whatever.  However, now that I've said that...there IS something magical about the over-the-top hop-bursted IPA.  If you have any hop-head tendencies (maybe even if you don't)...you should consider trying it once.  Honestly there is something fun about tossing in an entire quarter POUND (or more) of hops into a 5 gallon batch for the first time. 

The first time I did this, I made 6 different beers this way with 6 (2 german, 2 english, to american) different hops (all using MO base malt).  I did it as a way to understand the unique flavor / aroma differences between the basic hop characteristics (floral, citrus, earthy, etc).  It is still my go-to method for understanding a new hop.  You can do the same thing with a single addition at different times (0, 5, 15, 30).  Control for IBU or mass, as you think appropriate and see what you think of the hop at various boil times.  Do both.  Which works better?  Conventional wisdom is that mass works better as a control under 15 minutes or so, than IBU does.  Do you perceptions agree with that theory? 

When it comes to hop experimentation, I do not recommend using a bittering addition AND a late addition.  It will confuse the differences, as you perceive more or less of the bittering addition.  Keep it simple.  I've tried it, and it just minimized the perception differences.  Go big, or...

Once you understand how each addition is different, try blending these beers.  What percentage works best: 50/50, 25/75, 90/10?  Do you like the blend or the constituents better?  Why? 

So for a SMaSH, the more "identity" from that single hop to learn what it's capable of producing.

Totally agree. 
R.I.P.:Belgian Blonde
On Tap: Apfelwein, Kolsch(v2), Pumpkin Ale, Belgian Specialty 
Aging/Storing: Coffee Porter, Chocolate Porter, Flanders Red, English Barlywine
Fermenting: Maggie's Altbier
Next Up: PtE(1.1), Belgian Dubbel?

Working thru all BCS recipes

Offline Scott Ickes

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Brewing creatively and sharing the results!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2013, 05:06:15 PM »
Thanks Tom and Maltlicker.  +1 to each of you!!

By the way, I've made some decisions.  First, I purchased a bag of grain and I'm going to keep all of the beers sessionable.  My experiments might run through to a second or even third bag of grains.  I don't know if sessionable is the way to go, but it's the way I have chosen to go.

My first experiment will not be with the hops, but with the base malt.  I'm going to make two malt forward beers first.  Both using exactly the same grain, hop, water and yeast bills. 

First malt forward beer: I'm going to batch sparge, lauter and drain as I normally used to do.  My efficiencies run in the low 70's this way. 

Second malt foward beer:  I'm going to take out a portion of the mash (decoction) and bring it to a boil and hold it at a slow rolling boil for 15 minutes.  I'm going to use the correct amount of the mash to have the single decoction mash out being my mash up to 170F when I add the boiling temperature wort back into the mash.

I want to taste the differences and get a good handle on the exact difference in efficiency, color perception, sweetness, maltiness, carmelization, etc., between the two methods.

Whichever malt forward beer method makes beer that I like best, will be the one that I use for all of my hop experiments.
Kegs:
 Red IPA
 ESB
 Saison Solera
 Dubel (Aged in Malbec Wine Barrel
Aging:
 80 Shilling (In bourbon barrel)
Bottled
 Peppermint Patty Stout
 Wee Heavy

Scott Ickes
https://creativebrewing.wordpress.com

Offline tom_hampton

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
    • Tom's Miata Racing Blog
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2013, 11:44:56 AM »
Second malt foward beer:  I'm going to take out a portion of the mash (decoction) and bring it to a boil and hold it at a slow rolling boil for 15 minutes.  I'm going to use the correct amount of the mash to have the single decoction mash out being my mash up to 170F when I add the boiling temperature wort back into the mash.

Scott-

I don't want to presume or be condescending....but, your description of decoction sounds like you are drawing off the LIQUID of the mash to heat.  If so, that is not the correct way to conduct a decoction.  You remove a portion of the GRAIN and bring that to a "boil".  Think porridge or oatmeal consistency.  The character that is created from this process comes from the low water content, and the ability for some of the porridge mixture to exceed 212F, ie get some real caramelization (versus melanoidin formation). 

Also, note that efficiency is sometimes affected (increased) through a decoction (but, not always...depends on the reasons for the lower efficiency...conversion or extraction limitations).  The process can help to gelatinize some starches trapped in the larger grain pieces and thus expose a greater percentage of the malt to the wet enzymes, resulting in increased conversion.  Something to consider when designing recipes around the two mash procedures. 

If I'm misunderstanding your description above, and you already understand this...please excuse me for perhaps sounding condescending. 

If you go with the decoction approach be sure you have a good consistent method before you use it as a base.  There exists the opportunity to introduce some variability in the basic wort flavor through the decoction process---if you don't have a well rehearsed procedure. 
R.I.P.:Belgian Blonde
On Tap: Apfelwein, Kolsch(v2), Pumpkin Ale, Belgian Specialty 
Aging/Storing: Coffee Porter, Chocolate Porter, Flanders Red, English Barlywine
Fermenting: Maggie's Altbier
Next Up: PtE(1.1), Belgian Dubbel?

Working thru all BCS recipes

Offline Scott Ickes

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Brewing creatively and sharing the results!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2013, 12:06:30 PM »
Second malt foward beer:  I'm going to take out a portion of the mash (decoction) and bring it to a boil and hold it at a slow rolling boil for 15 minutes.  I'm going to use the correct amount of the mash to have the single decoction mash out being my mash up to 170F when I add the boiling temperature wort back into the mash.

Scott-

I don't want to presume or be condescending....but, your description of decoction sounds like you are drawing off the LIQUID of the mash to heat.  If so, that is not the correct way to conduct a decoction.  You remove a portion of the GRAIN and bring that to a "boil".  Think porridge or oatmeal consistency.  The character that is created from this process comes from the low water content, and the ability for some of the porridge mixture to exceed 212F, ie get some real caramelization (versus melanoidin formation). 

Also, note that efficiency is sometimes affected (increased) through a decoction (but, not always...depends on the reasons for the lower efficiency...conversion or extraction limitations).  The process can help to gelatinize some starches trapped in the larger grain pieces and thus expose a greater percentage of the malt to the wet enzymes, resulting in increased conversion.  Something to consider when designing recipes around the two mash procedures. 

If I'm misunderstanding your description above, and you already understand this...please excuse me for perhaps sounding condescending. 

If you go with the decoction approach be sure you have a good consistent method before you use it as a base.  There exists the opportunity to introduce some variability in the basic wort flavor through the decoction process---if you don't have a well rehearsed procedure.

Tom,
I do understand it.  You're correct in that my current procedure was to draw off and heat lautered liquid only to get my mash up to 168F.  I preferred this over trying to add hot sparge water, because at times I would be adding boiling sparge water and wasn't getting up to 168F.

The reason for my experiment, is to pull off mash (grains and water via a pitcher and put it into my boil pot and boil it, as you described to try and get carmelization.  I want to do the experiment to learn how it affects the beer.  I'll make two batches of identical beer as far as ingredients (grain bill, hops, yeast, fermentation, etc). 

The only difference between the two batches is for one batch where I raise the mash temperature up to 168, via boiling only clean wort and another where I make the exact same beer, but being grain and water brought up to a boil.  I want to taste the difference between the two methods in a controlled experiment.  That way, when I'm designing a beer in the future, I'll have real experience at both techniques so that I can decide which one to use with a particular recipe.
Kegs:
 Red IPA
 ESB
 Saison Solera
 Dubel (Aged in Malbec Wine Barrel
Aging:
 80 Shilling (In bourbon barrel)
Bottled
 Peppermint Patty Stout
 Wee Heavy

Scott Ickes
https://creativebrewing.wordpress.com

Offline tom_hampton

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
    • Tom's Miata Racing Blog
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2013, 12:30:27 PM »
Ok.  I'll be interested to see what the results are.

Just checking...plus, I didn't want someone else to think this was the definition of decoction. 

R.I.P.:Belgian Blonde
On Tap: Apfelwein, Kolsch(v2), Pumpkin Ale, Belgian Specialty 
Aging/Storing: Coffee Porter, Chocolate Porter, Flanders Red, English Barlywine
Fermenting: Maggie's Altbier
Next Up: PtE(1.1), Belgian Dubbel?

Working thru all BCS recipes

Offline Scott Ickes

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Brewing creatively and sharing the results!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2013, 02:37:16 PM »
Ok.  I'll be interested to see what the results are.

Just checking...plus, I didn't want someone else to think this was the definition of decoction.

I'll be very interested too.  No matter what the result is, I know that it is going to have a large influence on my brewing process moving forward.
Kegs:
 Red IPA
 ESB
 Saison Solera
 Dubel (Aged in Malbec Wine Barrel
Aging:
 80 Shilling (In bourbon barrel)
Bottled
 Peppermint Patty Stout
 Wee Heavy

Scott Ickes
https://creativebrewing.wordpress.com

Offline philm63

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 372
  • Agis Quod Adis!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2014, 05:44:27 PM »
...sounds like you are drawing off the LIQUID of the mash to heat.  If so, that is not the correct way to conduct a decoction...

While it is true; pulling the thick part of the mash and raising it to a boil (with or without sacc rests)  is the right way to perform a true "decoction", I've seen many folks using this process at the end of their mash and calling it a decoction yet only pulling liquid and bringing it to a boil, and then adding it back to the mash to "mash-out". I mean heck; if you pulled grain at the end of your mash and decocted, you'd burst starch granules and potentially wind up with a grainy/starchy brew that would never drop clear (well, not for a very long time anyway).

"Decoction" implies concentrating something to increase a principle property, such as flavor (think about why you'd reduce stock when making a sauce - for you chefs out there). In brewing, we decoct to intensify flavor components and sometimes get color, and it also makes a handy temperature bump for stepping a mash. But for a mash-out, if you're not boiling the liquor to concentrate a flavor or get some color, then Tom's right; it's not a decoction.

Not being sure what this should be called; is the term "decoction" perhaps being used too liberally here? Isn't this method really just an elaborate mash-out?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 07:45:15 PM by philm63 »
On Tap: Air
Fermenting: Kolsch
On Deck: House IPA

Offline Scott Ickes

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Brewing creatively and sharing the results!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2014, 06:06:48 PM »
I started bringing just the liquid part of the mash up to a boil out of necessity (my mash tun was too full to get enough sparge water to bring my mash up to 170F for mash out).  This was on higher gravity beers that had my 48 quart cooler mash tun already quite full.  I realized that I could lauter and drain part of it out, bring it up to boil (I found that a little more than half the expected first runnings brought up to boil and returned back to the mash tun was about the right amount for my system) and return it to the mash tun and I'd be at about 170F.  I'd stir to get the mash tun temperature equalized at about 170F and stir in my small sparge addition, shut the lid for a 15 minute rest, lauter, drain and then stir in my large sparge addition, close the lid and rest for 15 minutes.  Lauter, drain and boil.

I did about 5 high gravity beers in a row when I first started doing this, so it became a habit.  I was doing it, even when my mash tun was large enough that I didn't need to do it.  My reasoning was that I had the process down, so why change back and forth between the two.  The extra time doesn't bother me, since I'm enjoying myself anyhow.

As I continued to learn, I realized, through a friend/brewer that this wasn't a true decoction and he explained the difference between the two.  I didn't want to change my process to boiling the porridge, until I understood how it would affect my product, which is the reason for my experiment.  After I've made the exact same recipe using both methods, I'll truly understand how boiling the mash and not just clear runnings will affect the flavor, color, etc.

I now call boiling some of the first runnings and returning them to the mash a quasi-coction.  We just had a homebrew meeting last night and I told him about my experiment.  He's looking forward to the results of my experiment.
Kegs:
 Red IPA
 ESB
 Saison Solera
 Dubel (Aged in Malbec Wine Barrel
Aging:
 80 Shilling (In bourbon barrel)
Bottled
 Peppermint Patty Stout
 Wee Heavy

Scott Ickes
https://creativebrewing.wordpress.com

Offline philm63

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 372
  • Agis Quod Adis!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2014, 07:10:43 PM »
I started bringing just the liquid part of the mash up to a boil out of necessity (my mash tun was too full to get enough sparge water to bring my mash up to 170F for mash out).

Great way to deal with a maxed-out tun!
On Tap: Air
Fermenting: Kolsch
On Deck: House IPA

Offline Scott Ickes

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Brewing creatively and sharing the results!
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2014, 08:24:33 PM »
I started bringing just the liquid part of the mash up to a boil out of necessity (my mash tun was too full to get enough sparge water to bring my mash up to 170F for mash out).

Great way to deal with a maxed-out tun!

Thanks.  What is interesting is that I've added a second 48 quart cooler mash tun to my system and don't even need to do that anymore.  But, since the process works and has increased my mash efficiency by about 6%, I do it anyhow.

My system is now a three tiered system with the top tier a 48 quart mash tun, which drains into a middle tier 48 quart mash tun, which drains into my boil pot.  This has allowed me to brew 5, 10, 15 or 20 gallons batches.
Kegs:
 Red IPA
 ESB
 Saison Solera
 Dubel (Aged in Malbec Wine Barrel
Aging:
 80 Shilling (In bourbon barrel)
Bottled
 Peppermint Patty Stout
 Wee Heavy

Scott Ickes
https://creativebrewing.wordpress.com

Offline tom_hampton

  • BeerSmith Grandmaster Brewer
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
  • BeerSmith 2 Rocks!
    • Tom's Miata Racing Blog
Re: SMaSH
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2014, 08:50:20 AM »
That second mash tun would be called a "grant".   They are often used in pumped systems to allow the mash tun to still be gravity drained.  The pump then draws from the grant and can't "stick" the lauter. 

R.I.P.:Belgian Blonde
On Tap: Apfelwein, Kolsch(v2), Pumpkin Ale, Belgian Specialty 
Aging/Storing: Coffee Porter, Chocolate Porter, Flanders Red, English Barlywine
Fermenting: Maggie's Altbier
Next Up: PtE(1.1), Belgian Dubbel?

Working thru all BCS recipes

 

modification