All things Trappist

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Looks like my (first) Tripel has just finished fermenting:

upload_2019-6-17_14-16-16.jpeg


Fermented with WY3522. Let it free rise after close to 24 hours at 65F, seemed to stall around 1.022, so kicked it up to 79F until it dropped below 1.010 at which point I turned off the heat.

13 lb Pilsner and 2 lb table sugar in 5 gal. Hallertau Mittlefeuh and Saaz hops.

Very interested to see how it tastes, hopefully it’s nice and spicy!
 
Westmalle strain, simple grainbills, appropriate sugar syrups, ferment warm (ramping 68° to 76° F), mashing low (147-149°), and pitching significant yeast starters. I over-build 2.5L starters, crash, pour the decanted liquid into the fermentor, and split the remaining 1L or so into a 1q mason jar for later and the rest of the slurry goes into the fermentor. I started out cloning Westvleteren XII using Candi Syrup's clone recipe with D180, read Brew Like a Monk by Stan Hieronymus, and fell down a rabbithole. Drank the real thing in Bruge and my second thought was "mine is pretty close"; came about a slight bit richer and darker, but that I attribute to using a full 3# of D180 instead of 2.5#.

I just kegged a VI clone, and did a tripel about a year ago that came out very nice. All are similar - Chateau Beligan pilsner as a base, plus a candi syrup. For the tripel and the single/enkel/VI, I invert table sugar because it's easier and cheaper. I was actually part of the Brulopshy exbeeriment on table sugar v. corn sugar, and that stuck with me as the table sugar version had a noticeable, well, "harshness" isn't the word but it's close, to it, to the point where I (incorrectly) guessed the variable was the yeast strain.

Don’t yeast enzymatically invert table sugar as they consume it?
 
Don’t yeast enzymatically invert table sugar as they consume it?
I'm trying to find the article, but it seems to be evading me today. Basically it looks like certain yeast strains, primarily wine yeasts and associated derivatives, tend to produce more glycerol as sucrose concentration increases. I haven't seen any studies that have looked trappist yeasts but given that most of them are very closely related to wine yeasts it seems plausible. That and high levels of glycerol can lead to unpleasant flavors.
 
I'm trying to find the article, but it seems to be evading me today. Basically it looks like certain yeast strains, primarily wine yeasts and associated derivatives, tend to produce more glycerol as sucrose concentration increases. I haven't seen any studies that have looked trappist yeasts but given that most of them are very closely related to wine yeasts it seems plausible. That and high levels of glycerol can lead to unpleasant flavors.

Yeah, that would be interesting to see! Please share if you find it.
 
I was actually part of the Brulopshy exbeeriment on table sugar v. corn sugar, and that stuck with me as the table sugar version had a noticeable, well, "harshness" isn't the word but it's close, to it, to the point where I (incorrectly) guessed the variable was the yeast strain.

The discussion section of this so-called experiment is a real hoot... The beer brewed with table sugar tastes cidery because table sugar has fructose in it and fructose is found mainly in fruit?? :confused: Do these clowns even have the slightest idea that both types of sugar are fermented 100% by yeast so any flavor you can detect in finished beer must come from the fermentation by-products and cannot have anything to do with the sugar itself?
 
Yeah, I had also noticed the part about acidic wort inverting sucrose . . . but the invertase comment is still relevant if you were you feed sugar in the fermenter for some reason.
 

Interesting. I like the idea of making "candi" sugar. I could not figure out if the article was claiming that sugar will invert in the boil (due to the heat and acidity). If inverting sugar per the instructions to make a darker sugar, could phosphoric acid be used? If so, how much? I have a bottle of 10% that I use to adjust mash pH.

Also interesting as I used to purchase supplies from "Jay" when he sold them out of his townhome basement. Also, growing up in Michigan and seeing all the trucks filled with beets in the fall, I know that not all the sugar in the US is made from sugar cane.
 
Interesting. I like the idea of making "candi" sugar. I could not figure out if the article was claiming that sugar will invert in the boil (due to the heat and acidity). If inverting sugar per the instructions to make a darker sugar, could phosphoric acid be used? If so, how much? I have a bottle of 10% that I use to adjust mash pH.

I am personally against making my own. WAY too much work for inconsistent product. I'd rather pay CSI and keep them in business making such a quality product.

Don't believe the hype: There is zero flavor impact from using normal amounts of raw or refined hard sugars.
 
To make this simple for an old guy who learned decades ago that common white table sugar will lead to highly undesirable off flavors, is this no longer considered the case?
 
You can use standard cane table sugar in the boil, but the color contribution and flavors will not mimic sugar that has been inverted beforehand.
 
To make this simple for an old guy who learned decades ago that common white table sugar will lead to highly undesirable off flavors, is this no longer considered the case?

It was never the case with reasonable amounts of sugar. The old myth comes from the "kit and kilo" days, where overuse (i.e. NOT reasonable amounts) of sucrose was common.

I've used up to 18% plain table sugar in Tripels with no ill effects. There will be ZERO difference between equivalent weights of plain table sugar and more expensive invert syrups of similar color. I'm talking CSI types like Simplicity, Golden, etc.

Now when we start getting into darker syrups then sometimes there are no replacements. I personally like Demerera (Turbinado) as my main hard sugar. I only use 3 sugars in general: Florida Crystals Demerera, D90 and D180, although I also love Florida Crystal's Raw Cane Sugar as well.

Nothing wrong with plain table sugar though.
 
To make this simple for an old guy who learned decades ago that common white table sugar will lead to highly undesirable off flavors, is this no longer considered the case?

That may be the case in some beers but since this is a thread specifically about Trappist beers, I argue that there will be no difference in a pale beer like a tripel when using plain sucrose or something like Simplicity from CSI. Besides some extra marketing hype.
 
Using table sugar is fine as a substitute for clear candy sugars. I've used both in beers like tripels and I'd be hard pressed to find the difference.
 

The caveat here is that the history of the Trappists before 1931 is entirely irrelevant to the modern beers. All of the beers we drink today were developed post-WWII.

So as far as the beer is concerned the history is irrelevant. The Trappist ethos and culture is highly dependent on the history, however, and should be noted.
 
The caveat here is that the history of the Trappists before 1931 is entirely irrelevant to the modern beers. All of the beers we drink today were developed post-WWII.

One thing that I took away from a trip to Belgium a few years ago...just how devastating WWI and WWII were to some areas of Europe. As an American, the impact was much less indirect over here...vs having the land where you brewery is located be occupied or shelled into dust.
 
One thing that I took away from a trip to Belgium a few years ago...just how devastating WWI and WWII were to some areas of Europe. As an American, the impact was much less indirect over here...vs having the land where you brewery is located be occupied or shelled into dust.

A WWII era bomb just spontaneously exploded recently in Germany. 30' diameter by 13' deep crater.

There is still a dedicated group of munitions experts who patrol areas heavily shelled in France during WWI even to this day.
 

Because Lallemand Abbaye is closer to an actual Trappist yeast. It is supposedly a dry version of WLP500/WY1214 but that is not conclusive enough for me to guarantee that.

BE-256 is what used to be known as Fermentis Abbaye, which is much closer to a Saison yeast.
 
Because Lallemand Abbaye is closer to an actual Trappist yeast. It is supposedly a dry version of WLP500/WY1214 but that is not conclusive enough for me to guarantee that.

BE-256 is what used to be known as Fermentis Abbaye, which is much closer to a Saison yeast.
Oh, sorry. I completely misread that. I thought you said to steer clear of Lallemand Abbaye.
Got it.
 
So here's something I thought of after reading the post about dry yeast above: if going higher than the 1 mil cells/ml/P pitch rate that is common for homebrewing, is it possible to over pitch Trappist yeasts? For instance, in my fridge I have Mangrove Jack Belgian Tripel, a strain that sounds like the Westmalle strain (though I haven't used it yet and have no experience with it). Suppose I had a moderate gravity blonde, say 1.060, and pitched 2 packs into that. Without looking at a calculator, I'd guess that is over the 1.25 pitch rate recommended earlier, and maybe above 1.5, would that produce a less than desirable product?
 
So here's something I thought of after reading the post about dry yeast above: if going higher than the 1 mil cells/ml/P pitch rate that is common for homebrewing, is it possible to over pitch Trappist yeasts? For instance, in my fridge I have Mangrove Jack Belgian Tripel, a strain that sounds like the Westmalle strain (though I haven't used it yet and have no experience with it). Suppose I had a moderate gravity blonde, say 1.060, and pitched 2 packs into that. Without looking at a calculator, I'd guess that is over the 1.25 pitch rate recommended earlier, and maybe above 1.5, would that produce a less than desirable product?

I have no experience with dry “Belgian” strains other than Lallemand Abbaye but 1.25 M/ml/°P seems like a sweet spot for me.
 
One thing that I took away from a trip to Belgium a few years ago...just how devastating WWI and WWII were to some areas of Europe. As an American, the impact was much less indirect over here...vs having the land where you brewery is located be occupied or shelled into dust.

You can be driving in a back road in the middle of nowhere and suddenly a bunch of white crosses pop up where a battle was
 
I have no experience with dry “Belgian” strains other than Lallemand Abbaye but 1.25 M/ml/°P seems like a sweet spot for me.

Bearing in mind that all Mangrove Jack beer yeasts seem to be repacked versions of someone else's, and they are known to use at least some Lallemand strains, one might speculate what MJ Belgian is....

As an aside, I don't think North Americans really get how devastating Europe's experience of war has been, particularly WWI, and how it shapes European thinking even today. For instance, France and Germany both saw ~4% of their population killed; Serbia was over 20% killed, the UK 2%, Canada 0.9%, the US only 0.13%. And most of them were not children, women or old people, so even 4% might mean 1 in 4 of young men being killed. Another difference is that unlike the US, European countries tended to fight in "geographical" units, so instead of 1 in 4 young men being killed in each of four towns, one in four towns might see 100% of their young men wiped out in a single artillery barrage. Psychologically that had a far bigger impact.

Then there's the sheer scale of what happened on single days. Adjusted for population, British deaths on the first day of the Somme were equivalent to 9/11 happening in every state of the Union. France's worst day, in the initial German assault, was the equivalent of a hundred 9/11's, imagine a 9/11 happening in every US city bigger than Boise or Des Moines. And that's just one day - it's mindboggling to think how one could cope with that.

But apply that 4% to the modern US, and you have 13 million young men being killed - imagine everyone you know who watches Game of Thrones being blown up or choked by poison gas (don't say it!), these were not "nice" deaths either.

The only thing vaguely comparable in US history is the Civil War, in which "only" 2% of US population died, and still represents nearly half of all US combat casualties ever. Whereas Europe did it all again a generation later, although the western Allies got off relatively lightly in WWII - US 0.3%, France 1.5% whereas Germany and the USSR both saw combat casualties of 5-6% (plus what happened to their civilian populations...). So the German military has seen nearly 5x American Civil Wars within living memory, plus the other stuff.

So apologies for the OT-ness, but I do believe that the US and Europe would "get" where each other was coming from if these kinds of numbers were more widely known. But a photo says more than a thousand words - imagine if your home had gone from this to this, within the lifetime of your grandparents :


(it's the nature of these statistics that historians don't agree on exact values in many cases, but they're broadly right)
 
Bearing in mind that all Mangrove Jack beer yeasts seem to be repacked versions of someone else's, and they are known to use at least some Lallemand strains, one might speculate what MJ Belgian is....

As an aside, I don't think North Americans really get how devastating Europe's experience of war has been, particularly WWI, and how it shapes European thinking even today. For instance, France and Germany both saw ~4% of their population killed; Serbia was over 20% killed, the UK 2%, Canada 0.9%, the US only 0.13%. And most of them were not children, women or old people, so even 4% might mean 1 in 4 of young men being killed. Another difference is that unlike the US, European countries tended to fight in "geographical" units, so instead of 1 in 4 young men being killed in each of four towns, one in four towns might see 100% of their young men wiped out in a single artillery barrage. Psychologically that had a far bigger impact.

Then there's the sheer scale of what happened on single days. Adjusted for population, British deaths on the first day of the Somme were equivalent to 9/11 happening in every state of the Union. France's worst day, in the initial German assault, was the equivalent of a hundred 9/11's, imagine a 9/11 happening in every US city bigger than Boise or Des Moines. And that's just one day - it's mindboggling to think how one could cope with that.

But apply that 4% to the modern US, and you have 13 million young men being killed - imagine everyone you know who watches Game of Thrones being blown up or choked by poison gas (don't say it!), these were not "nice" deaths either.

The only thing vaguely comparable in US history is the Civil War, in which "only" 2% of US population died, and still represents nearly half of all US combat casualties ever. Whereas Europe did it all again a generation later, although the western Allies got off relatively lightly in WWII - US 0.3%, France 1.5% whereas Germany and the USSR both saw combat casualties of 5-6% (plus what happened to their civilian populations...). So the German military has seen nearly 5x American Civil Wars within living memory, plus the other stuff.

So apologies for the OT-ness, but I do believe that the US and Europe would "get" where each other was coming from if these kinds of numbers were more widely known. But a photo says more than a thousand words - imagine if your home had gone from this to this, within the lifetime of your grandparents :


(it's the nature of these statistics that historians don't agree on exact values in many cases, but they're broadly right)

I'm fascinated by the First and Second World Wars, not because I am a sick person, but rather because of what you describe above. The sheer scope of the conflicts, the immense casualties and the emergence, and absolutely staggering capabilities, of modern warfare.

For anyone who hasn't already listened to it, I suggest Dan Carlin's Hardcore History Series "Blueprint for Armageddon".

Talk about an incredibly sobering piece of world history.
 
Not to stay off topic but WWII is the whole reason the United Nations was created. In attempt to ensure that never happens again. Humanity seems pre-programmed to love war but not too much death and destruction. IMHO, creation of the UN was the 1st step in humanity coming out of it's own infancy. Unfortunately, our modern civilization is running out of time, yet we're still focused on pissing on eachother or working/sceaming ways of taking others' assets for "my own".

Anyway....Quad is bubbling away. Will seconday with tart cheeries in a few weeks.
 
Alright a little help here please.. I recently bottled a Tripel. I have always sanitized in the dishwasher. I recently got a new dishwasher. I decided to oven sterilize most of my bottles and rum theee through the dishwasher.

I drank one from the oven bottles and it tasted great. I drank one from the dishwasher bottle and it tasted astringent, bitter, and chalky

Anyone have an idea of what caused that?
 
Did you have powder/detergent in the dishwasher?
No. I always use the dishwasher no soap no rinse aid. But now that you mention it, it could be like dishwasher soap. I’ve never used an oven before. I’m glad I did

Now to why my new dishwasher sucks for sanitizing bottles lol
 
Did you ensure there was no solidified 'gunk' at the bottom of your bottles? I look at every bottle anymore after being bitten by random failures. Also, I Starsan the **** out of them.
 
Back
Top