I got a call from my friend Ron, the owner and head brewer, at Kelsey Creek Brewing Company the week before last. He had some American ale yeast, would I like it? Hell yes, I would like it. Getting “some yeast” from Ron is the equivalent of maybe 10 starter batches; it’s probably a pint (~0.5L) of active yeast.
I recently found a recipe for a “small” IPA (India Pale Ale) that I wanted to try. The recipe falls pretty well into the hoppy pale ale category. The idea is to give the “mouthfeel” and hoppiness of an IPA without the alcohol kick. Or, what I call a session IPA. Here’s the recipe:
(Anticipated) Original gravity = 1.045
(Anticipated) Finished gravity = 1.012
(Anticipated) SRM (Color) = 18
(Anticipated) Alcohol By Volume = 4.3%
Grain Bill (Mash at 152F/67C for 60 minutes)
2.9 lb (1.3 kg) 2-row pale malt (2 SRM)
2.5 lb (1.13 kg) Munich malt (9 SRM)
2.0 lb (0.9 kg) Vienna malt (3.5 SRM)
Hop Schedule
0.78 Oz (22g) Simcoe hops (12% Alpha acids) at 90 minutes
1.0 (28g) U.S. Golding hops at flameout
2.0 Oz (56g) Amarillo hops “dry hopped” in secondary
Yeast
Wyeast 1968 (London ESB) yeast
The author appears to be going for an English/American fusion IPA taste by calling for a London Extra Special Bitters yeast and the aroma/dry hop additions of Golding and Amarillo hops. These aroma/dry hop additions should give the beer a floral and citrus aroma but the London ESB yeast should dampen some of the taste in ways a cleaner American ale yeast wouldn’t. The use of Munich and Vienna malts should give a fullness (I’m no expert here, I’m checking BeerSmith and BeerAlchemy for descriptions) that wouldn’t be there with straight 2-Row barley because they will yield less fermentable sugars than straight 2-Row barley would. (Experts, please leave a comment to let me know if I’m totally off base)
I wanted to make this. I really like the session beer idea where you get a lot of taste but don’t need to take a nap after two beers.
Of course, I had only two ingredients of the recipe: 2-row malted barley and Munich malt.
I needed to get creative. I had ten to twenty batch-worths of yeast that wouldn’t last indefinitely. So as somebody (Hunter S. Thompson?) once said, “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
This is a picture of my Laurel IPA, but the Session IPA looks similar.. Slightly cloudy with a SRM color around 6.
Here’s the recipe I came up with:
Estimated Original Gravity: 1.045
Estimated Final Gravity: 1.010
Estimated Alcohol by Vol: 4.5 %
Estimated Bitterness: 39.0 IBUs
Estimated Color: 6.1 SRM
5 gallon batch
Grain Bill (Mash at 152F/67C for 60 minutes)
5 lbs 12.7 oz Pale Malt (2 Row) US (2.0 SRM)
1 lbs 12.1 oz Munich Malt – 10L (10.0 SRM) Grain 2 20.5 %
12.8 oz Corn, Flaked (1.3 SRM) Grain 3 9.3 %
3.8 oz Caramel/Crystal Malt – 60L (60.0 SRM) Grain 4 2.8 %
Hop addition schedule
19.84 g Galaxy [14.00 % AAU] – First Wort Hop
1 Oz (28 g) Centennial [10.00 % AAU] – Boil 0.0 min
1 Oz (28 g) Falconer’s Flight [10.50 % AAU] – Dry Hop
Yeast
3 pkg Wyeast Labs #1272 American Ale II (a bit fruitier than my go to yeast Safale 05)
I brewed it on July 8 and hit the estimated numbers right on. The wort cooled and I added the yeast. Visible fermentation happened in 30-40 minutes. It started so quickly I worried that it had an infection. I covered the Better Bottle carboy with a wet t-shirt to keep it cool and closer to the optimum fermentation temperature. The coolest part of my house, the basement, was hovering around 80F during the day—too warm for something that is not supposed to be a Belgian-style beer.
The specific gravity after two days in the fermenter was 1.010. It was transferred to another carboy (i.e. the secondary) and left for several more days.
My beer wench (i.e. my wife) and I bottled the beer today using four ounces of corn sugar mixed with the beer to carbonate (bottle conditioning).
I’m pleased with how it turned out. I give the beer 4 out of 5 stars. It tastes delightful with a citrusy hoppiness that dances on your tongue. It has a pleasant aftertaste. The mouthfeel is on the light/watery side of the scale. I would like to have a bit more fullness and maybe a little biscuit. I’ll add Victory and Vienna malts to the next batch in lieu of the corn and Crystal 60.
Related articles
- Homebrew Recipe: Summer Simcoe IPA (therobotmusteat.com)
- Simple Beer #1 (instructables.com)
Batch-22 
I always thought Munich was considered a base malt and should theoretically have similar fermentables as the 2-row. Now that I am thinking about it, if there is a difference between pale 2-row and pale 6-row, there should be a difference between the Munich and 2-row, but I doubt it would be much different. A quick google search and looking at one forum, people seem to think that theoretically it should be either exactly the same or slightly different, but your googling may vary. I think this calls for an experiment.
Good points. The diastatic difference between 2-Row and 6-Row is 10 degrees Lintner. Generally, 2-row has 140 and 6-row has 150 L, which is why Budweiser uses the 6-row for its process (6-row has more protein so they filter the bejesus out of it to prevent the chill haze associated with protein) because rice has 0.0L and needs the power of the 6-row to convert the starches to sugars efficiently.
Munich malt’s diastatic power is 72L, much less than pale malt’s (2-row) 140L. The Marzen recipe on BeerSmith says, “Munich malts makes up as much as half of the grain bill, with either Pilser [sic Pilsner] or Pale Malt making the balance of the grain bill.” Pilsners are not diastatic powerhouses either (60 to 105L depending on country of origin). The Munich malt will impart that desired malty sweetness for the desired mouthfeel in a sessionable beer.
I’m thinking that mashing at around 155F (68.3C) ought to yield more non-fermentable sugars and give more body to the beer.
Interestingly, it is a completely different beer after a week of bottle conditioning. The maltiness and body have increased in the bottle conditioning.
I just was on the AHA forum and they all agree that Munich is a base malt.