Red X Malt

BrewSwag 728
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.
I'm no color spectrum expert and I'm not trying to deceive anyone. To me this beer in the picture looks pretty much same in person.
 
I did post spectra for beers containing RedX and no RedX in No. 143 but I don't claim to be an expert and I know you aren't trying to deceive anyone but the many of the colors of the beer in that photo are not beer colors nor even close to beer colors. As you took a picture of a beer you will naturally want to know why the colors which I see on my monitor are so distorted relative to the actual colors of the beer. The answer lies in the nature of the light passing through the beer and the processing done by the camera. It records the relative amounts of light in three fairly wide bands and then processes them to give a pleasing image. First we have to recognize that the light sources used to take the pictures we take can vary greatly from very heavy on the long wavelengths relative to the short (tungsten illuminants, daylight at the end of the day...) to the opposite (daylight with a lot of sky, north sky in shadow etc.). Unless you tell the camera the color temperature of the light it will try to figure it out by assuming the whole picture is gray. This can really distort the colors the camera records. We see evidence of this in the picture in that the foam of the beer and the strips holding the ceiling tiles in place are bluish whereas the lampshade is yellowish red. Some of the ceiling tiles are yellow and some are green. I don't know what colors they actually are but I'll bet they are all the same.

Thus unless you have light of uniform spectral color distribution and tell the camera what the CCT (color temperature) is it will bobble the colors and do so differently depending on what part of the picture you are looking at as there are clearly mixed light sources here. For example, you can see the boundary between the ceiling and wall in the photo. The colors of the beer backed by those are clearly different from each other and even more different from how the camera would interpret them if those regions were backed by even illumination corresponding to D65 (or some other reasonable illuminant). Both wall and ceiling are (as recorded by the camera) reddish and this is probably in large measure why the image of the beer looks redder than it can possibly be. As if this isn't enough we like our pictures to represent "Kodak Moments". The manufacturers give us what we want by goosing the saturation of every JPEG image appreciably. The only way to get around this is to shoot RAW and if you do that you will find the pictures flat (but that's the way nature is) and wind up goosing the saturation yourself but at least it is under your control. increasing saturation magnifies color errors pushing the recorded color of the beer even farther away from possible real beer colors.

So far it's physics at play but now we must ask why you think the photo looks the same color as the beer. An obvious answer is that if you are like 8% of males you are color blind. If you are not in that group then it is possible that you have simply never looked at the beer and the photo together. Related to this is the all powerful 'confirmation bias' which says that you want the beer to be this red and so you remember it as being this red. Confirmation bias might even allow you to judge the beer and picture to be pretty close to one another in color when observed at the same time even though &#8710;E is going to be 30 or more ( &#8710;E < 10 is considered a 'fair' match) based on a* alone. That would be a bit of a stretch, however. I am one of the 8% and it is blatantly plain to me that the colors in that glass are not the colors of any all malt beer.
 
Not possinble. You are another victim of confirmation bias but then we all are; even those of us who are well aware of how it works and really strive not to let it get us. Look at it at the same time as the picture.

I've also brewed beer with RedX and it isn't that red. I've shown it to lots of other people who didn't notice anything unusual about it. I've also measured its spectrum and compared it to regular pilsner (No. 143). Unless your friend is having us all on and slipped some red food coloring in there his beer doesn't look like the photo and we can see why by looking at other things in the photo. That's what the last post explained..
 
Your post also said you were color blind and then try to argue that it isn't that color.

I'm not going to argue any further with you. Two people in the flesh have seen the actual beer and what's in it. It is what wobdee posted.
 
Wow.

Personally I'm way more interested in the flavors that this malt might give. Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of a 100% Red X beer against a recipe trying to simulate using a blend of say Munich, Melanoidin, and CaraMunich in reasonable proportions (like say 92/4/4)? I'd like to see tasting notes from something like that.
 
dmtaylor said:
Wow.

Personally I'm way more interested in the flavors that this malt might give. Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of a 100% Red X beer against a recipe trying to simulate using a blend of say Munich, Melanoidin, and CaraMunich in reasonable proportions (like say 92/4/4)? I'd like to see tasting notes from something like that.
Click to expand...

I haven't done a side by side but I think that malt bill would be pretty close to what I'm tasting. Kind a dark Munich like with a bit of Caramel. Maybe a hint of dark cherry?
 
MetallHed said:
Your post also said you were color blind and then try to argue that it isn't that color.
Click to expand...

This is why I rely on instruments when exploring color. It is why my conclusions are based on solid measurements and analysis using the established principles of color science.

Perceived color has four aspects to it:
1)The distribution of energy as a function if wavelength in the illuminant
2)The way in which the object being viewed absorbs (or reflects but clearly here we are concerned with transmitted light) at each wavelength
3)The response of the cone receptors (3 types) to the transmitted light
4)The way your brain processes the cone signals

The science is solid up through 3. You give me your beer and I'll put it in the spec and tell you what color it is (and if you want me to do that let me know and I'll tell you where to send a sample). I've done this with a lot of beers, including one made with RedX, and I can assure you, therefore, without even looking at the beer that RedX is no different in color properties than other beers. My observations are not 'colored' by the fact that I am color blind, by confirmation bias (but I still must be careful when looking at the data), by fatigue, by normal variations in color vision, by illuminant white point or any other human factor. It is because of these factors that breweries do not use visual comparison methods in determining beer color. They use the same instruments I do.

Now we get to No. 4: what you see. Some of what you see takes place in your retina but a lot of it takes place between your ears. The brain adapts so that a red rose on a white sheet of paper looks like a red rose on a white sheet of paper when illuminated by tungsten light (very yellow) or daylight in a shadow (very blue). When a camera records an image it must try to do that adaptation and when, as in the photo, there is a mixture of sources of different color and we are seeing red walls and ceiling tiles through the beer there is little surprise in that the beer in the picture looks red.


MetallHed said:
I'm not going to argue any further with you.
Click to expand...
As they say, it is useless to try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig. I have again made the mistake of leaving the Brewing Science forum, forgetting that I am not there and expecting the readers to understand some science. My error.

MetallHed said:
Two people in the flesh have seen the actual beer and what's in it. It is what wobdee posted.
Click to expand...
Based on the colors measured from the photograph and the properties of the malt it cannot, based on the science alone, be what the photo shows. But if it looks red (or green) to you then it is red to you.
 
ajdelange said:
This is why I rely on instruments when exploring color. It is why my conclusions are based on solid measurements and analysis using the established principles of color science.

Perceived color has four aspects to it:
1)The distribution of energy as a function if wavelength in the illuminant
2)The way in which the object being viewed absorbs (or reflects but clearly here we are concerned with transmitted light) at each wavelength
3)The response of the cone receptors (3 types) to the transmitted light
4)The way your brain processes the cone signals

The science is solid up through 3. You give me your beer and I'll put it in the spec and tell you what color it is (and if you want me to do that let me know and I'll tell you where to send a sample). I've done this with a lot of beers, including one made with RedX, and I can assure you, therefore, without even looking at the beer that RedX is no different in color properties than other beers. My observations are not 'colored' by the fact that I am color blind, by confirmation bias (but I still must be careful when looking at the data), by fatigue, by normal variations in color vision, by illuminant white point or any other human factor. It is because of these factors that breweries do not use visual comparison methods in determining beer color. They use the same instruments I do.

Now we get to No. 4: what you see. Some of what you see takes place in your retina but a lot of it takes place between your ears. The brain adapts so that a red rose on a white sheet of paper looks like a red rose on a white sheet of paper when illuminated by tungsten light (very yellow) or daylight in a shadow (very blue). When a camera records an image it must try to do that adaptation and when, as in the photo, there is a mixture of sources of different color and we are seeing red walls and ceiling tiles through the beer there is little surprise in that the beer in the picture looks red.


As they say, it is useless to try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig. I have again made the mistake of leaving the Brewing Science forum, forgetting that I am not there and expecting the readers to understand some science. My error.

Based on the colors measured from the photograph and the properties of the malt it cannot, based on the science alone, be what the photo shows. But if it looks red (or green) to you then it is red to you.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying my beer shouldn't be blue. I knew I must have screwed up somewhere... :p

Trolling aside, I like the red tones I got from my 100% Red X. I replicate these colors with C120 and chocolate malts with 2 row, but doesn't have the flavor of munich and melanoiden. I shoot for SRM of 11 to 13 in the calculator.

Flavor wise, I'm interested in hearing any results of blend tests. I really enjoyed my 100% Red X ale. I'd like to see how it compares to a Munich/Melanoiden/caramunich test at different percentages. This next year I will be playing with more munich malts, where last year I was brewing to play with color and taste profiles with small dark crystal malt additions vs. Lighter crystal malts (i.e. using only 1 or 2 oz of C120 vs. 6 -12 oz C20).
 
wobdee said:
Here's a couple more shots of the same beer. Moving it around different light does mess with the color
Click to expand...
It is important that you understand that.

wobdee said:
...but it's still pretty red with my eyes.
Click to expand...
Look at the photograph and at the beer at the same time. Does the photograph really look like the beer? I'm not there to see the beer but I can look at the photograph's histogram and see that the red channel is overloaded. To properly photograph this beer you should go to a uniform light source (such as the sky but get sky light behind the whole beer). Pay attention to the histogram. In this case the red is all smashed against the top rail. It is over exposed and thus, probably, clipped. Shoot in raw mode. Then turn around and shoot a gray card illuminated by the same patch of sky. Process the second shot to get neutral on the gray card and then apply the same gains to the shot of the beer. This would give a reasonably true rendering of the beer color. As I say I cannot look at the beer but it is clear that there are problems with the photo.

It is red. All beer is red. The question is as to whether it is more red than another beer made with malts that don't have "Red" in their trademarks. The photographs you have taken definitely show something red. The top one in No. 210 is almost pure red. It is clipped (at 255) in sRGB space. The green channel is at 16 and blue at 0. Unless you can do the photography as described above, or even if you can, the best way to settle the question for certain is to have you send me a few ml of the beer and let me measure its absorption spectrum and I would be pleased to do that if you like (but I won't be back in the States until first of November).

Now it is entirely possible to get very pure red color if a beer is dark enough. To see a very pure red shine a bright light through the bottom of a glass into which you have poured an inch of stout.

I'm afraid I am going to have to remain skeptical until I see an absorption spectrum for this beer. I've done a fair amount of research on beer color and found (as did the guys that invented the SRM measure back in 1949) that all beer absorption spectra are pretty much the same shape. That they are only slightly different from one another makes it possible to specify a beer color with only the SRM number and a couple of deviation coefficients. That's why I got all excited when I heard about RedX. Had Best found a way to process malt that changes that shape? Would the deviation coefficients for a RedX beer be much larger than those for other malts? When I measured my RedX beer it was pretty clear the answer was "No" to both questions. The first deviation coefficient for red beers (such as Lambics and Krieks) is from +1 to + 1.5. For lighter malt beers it ranges from -. 5 to -.3. For darker malt beers it is around 0. For my RedX beer it was -0.05. This is typical of beers with some colored malt mixed in and the grapevine has it that this is what RedX is: a blend of some of Best's colored malts. As it is, apparently, not atypical of other malts and the constancy of malt normalized spectra have strong implications with regard to the limitations of possible beer colors it is hard for me to accept that you would get hue and saturation typical of stouts in what is apparently an appreciably lighter beer.
 
wobdee said:
Received a reply from Best Malz. I asked if Red X was a blend or not.

thank you for your friendly Email with the pleasing feedback to our BEST Red X®.

*

I would like to ask for your kind understanding that I am not allowed to reveal all the detailed secrets of this innovative craft malt. But you can be absolutely sure, that it is far more than a simple blend of 2-3 conventional malt types. We have developed this type during several months with our experts and by conducting also very intensive trials in partnership with several chummy brewers (using very different brewhouses, batch-sizes and technologies of brewing) to verify the results (of getting out excellent reddish beers with the utmost probability). ***

*

So the mentioned rumors are what they are: only rumors, maybe released by competitive maltsters in the market, who are not able to offer such products (and who may be a bit jealous about it?). **

*

So thank you for your understanding and for using our products, don´t hesitate to ask for any further information.

*

All the BEST for your further brews and

*

Best regards

BESTMALZ AG
Click to expand...
AJ, I don't think it's a blend. I'd give you a sample from my keg but I brew small 2.5 gal batches and it will probably be gone by the time you get back. I'm brewing it again this weekend, maybe I'll hook you up in Dec.

When you tested your red x beer was it 100% red x at 1.050 OG? That's what Best recommends to obtain the best result.
 
This is such an interesting read and I really appreciate the feedback from others! :mug:

I ordered 15lbs of the Red X Malt that I need to use some of it to make a brew with for my home brew club (any beer style). So I figured I would do a Belgian Dubbel (for the first time) using the following recipe (see below), but I will use Beersmith to scale it down to 3 gallons. Should I take out any of the grains from the recipe and replace it with the Red X Malt? Or should I just add a pound or two of Red X Malt to the recipe? Any thoughts would be appreciated for I have never brewed any Belgian style beers and I am not familar with this new malt. I am happy to have extra on hand for future brews!

Cheers and thanks in advance!

Dubbel Your Pleasure
For 6 gallons (22.75 L)
5.0 lb (2.3 kg) | Belgian Pilsner (two-row)
2.5 lb (1.1 kg) | Maris Otter pale malt
1.5 lb (680 kg) | CaraMunich malt
1.5 lb (680 kg) | CaraVienne malt
0.5 lb (227 g) | Aromatic malt
0.5 lb (227 g) | Belgian Wheat malt
0.25 lb (113 g) | Special B malt
1.0 oz (28 g) | East Kent Goldings, 5% a.a. (60 min)
1.0 oz (28 g) | Hallertauer Hersbrucker, 4% a.a. (30 min)
1.0 oz (28 g) | Styrian Goldings, 5.4% a.a. (15 min)
2.0 lb (907 g) | Turbinado sugar (90 min)
1.0 lb (454 g) | D2 syrup (15 min)
1 Starter | Wyeast 3787 Trappist High Gravity Yeast
 
Well I ended up changing the recipe to the following:

Ingredients:
------------
Amt Name Type # %/IBU
2 lbs 5.9 oz Pilsner (2 Row) Bel (2.0 SRM) Grain 1 27.9 %
2 lbs RedX (BestMälz) (15.2 SRM) Grain 2 23.5 %
1 lbs 3.0 oz Maris Otter Malt (Muntons) (3.0 SRM) Grain 3 13.9 %
1 lbs Caramunich Malt (56.0 SRM) Grain 4 11.5 %
5.2 oz Aromatic Malt (26.0 SRM) Grain 5 3.8 %
2.6 oz Special B Malt (180.0 SRM) Grain 6 1.9 %
1 lbs Turbinado [Boil for 90 min](10.0 SRM) Sugar 7 11.5 %
0.60 oz East Kent Goldings (EKG) [4.50 %] - Boil Hop 8 8.8 IBUs
0.60 oz Hallertauer Hersbrucker [2.00 %] - Boil Hop 9 3.0 IBUs
0.60 oz Golding, U.S. [5.60 %] - Boil 15.0 min Hop 10 5.5 IBUs
8.0 oz Sugar, Table (Sucrose) [Boil for 15 min] Sugar 11 5.9 %
1.0 pkg Trappist High Gravity (Wyeast Labs #3787 Yeast 12 -

Turned out ok but too sweet for my liking. Not the best picture but thought I would share.


Dubbel.jpg
 
Question for those of you that have used this in conjunction with pilsner or 2 row, do you feel like this has any type of caramel flavor, similar to crystal malt at all?
 
In the past I was getting a little caramel but I think it may have been oxidation from filtering. Lately I get a nice malty flavor similar to Munich but I also get a hint of dark cherry in the finish.
 
Hmmm....I'm going to add this with some pilsner and a tad bit of rye and put it on a kolsch yeast and "lager" for about 6 weeks....If I get that flavor profile, I will be one happy drinker!
 
I'm playing with a recipe for an Imperial Red IPA. I don't want to do all RedX because I'm reading it's kind of malty. So I'm thinking of cutting it with 2 row and then adding a few other things for flavor/color.

What do you think?

Original Gravity: 1.080 Final Gravity: 1.014 ABV (standard): 8.62% IBU (tinseth): 89.46 SRM (morey): 13.37

Fermentables

11 lb 2 Row 62%
4 lb Red X 22.6%
1.5 lb Flaked Oats 8.5%
1 lb Munich 5.7%
3 oz Chocolate 1.1% (just to get the SRM and color where I want it)
17.69 lb Total

Hops
Amount Variety Type AA Use Time IBU
2 oz Warrior Pellet 16 Boil 60 min 89.46
2 oz Cascade Pellet 7 Boil 0 min
2 oz Mosaic Pellet 12.5 Boil 0 min
1.5 oz Cascade Pellet 7 Dry Hop 5 days
1.5 oz Mosaic Pellet 12.5 Dry Hop 5 days
 
When you guys used this, was the wort showing any color going into the bk? I have a 50/50 mix boiling rn, and it appears as though there is 0 red x....it's just normal pilsner color...
 
I let the Red X/Wheat beer condition in the keg since the 6th and tried it again for the first time last night at our brew club meeting. The beer tasted much better after aging for two weeks. It was still very sweet and the caramel character still showed, I think too much for my liking. Another brewer brought his SMaSH using just Red X and that one was way too sweet. We all agreed the 60/40 with Red X and Wheat was the best brew we have tried with Red X malt. I would definitely use less in my next brew and I'm not sure how the manufacturer can say it can be a single malt, its just too sweet.

I will say the beer seems to darken with age. These two Red X brews were starting to look more amber than red as they age. Anyways, I wanted to provide more feedback about using Red X. Cheers!
 
Lining up to brew a SMASH of Red X Malt and Cashmere Hops, fermenting with Vermont Yeast. Will be targeting 1.050 OG and will probably use a pound of hops (~13 gallon batch), with IBUs in estimated 50 range and a healthy whirlpool and dry hop addition.

From what I have read by those who have brewed with it as the lone malt, the two things to pay attention to are pH (tends to run lower than expected) and creating a wort with good attenuation properties for the yeast. Brewing on my buddy's Brewha system, so we may do some step mashing over 90 minutes to 2 hours. Likely will use 15L as the input for Bru'n Water.

Anything I am missing from those who have brewed with it?
 
If you do a step mash i'd do a short protien rest at 126 then a long rest at 149 to get good attenuation, this is what Best recommends.
 
Just kegged my 100% Red x beer. OG 1.060. Gravity sample was an amazing and complex maltiness. FG was 1.013 (78% attenuation)
Deep red color. Can't wait to try it carbed and cold
 
Slightly off-topic here, but has anyone used this malt in a kettle sour?

I do a lot of kettle souring these days, and am pretty much limited to lighter beers (crystal and roasted malts seem to throw a strange nutty off-flavour when kettle soured). This might be a way to make a nice sour red without the off-flavours of kettle souring, using candi sugar, or waiting 12+ months for a traditional Flanders-style Red (I have one of those on the go already).

Folks seem to report this malt has a subtle cherry note to it. Along those lines, I was thinking something like a 6 gallon batch, 100% Red X grist, OG 1.050, kettle soured, no more than 10 IBU of noble hops added at the beginning of the boil.

Split the batch into two 3 gallon carboys. Ferment one US-05 and dry-hop with something fruity; ferment the other with Wyeast 5526 B. Lambicus.

Thoughts?
 
My red-x kolsch using 48/48/4 with pilsner and rye did not quite turn out how I intended it to. It was quite tasty, but way too sweet.
 
Redtab78 said:
My red-x kolsch using 48/48/4 with pilsner and rye did not quite turn out how I intended it to. It was quite tasty, but way too sweet.
Click to expand...

What was your mash temperature and how long did you mash? Curious, as I am 12 days into a Cashmere Hopped 100% Red X Pale Ale that was rested at 126F for 25 minutes and then held at 149F for 80 minutes to bump up fermentability based on what I had read. Will be pulling off a sample to check gravity this weekend.
 
If I remember correctly, I did 120 for 15 min, then brought it to 150 until iodine test was clean, and a 90 min boil time. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that red x has its place, but not in a kolsch fermented beer, just didn't work out.
 
bhchrist said:
What was your mash temperature and how long did you mash? Curious, as I am 12 days into a Cashmere Hopped 100% Red X Pale Ale that was rested at 126F for 25 minutes and then held at 149F for 80 minutes to bump up fermentability based on what I had read. Will be pulling off a sample to check gravity this weekend.
Click to expand...

Let us know how far it attenuates. I've tried different mash schedules and haven't been able to get a 100% Red X 1050 beer down below 1014. They all tasted great but I'd like to dry it out a bit more.
 
Will do, wobdee. We pitched it with a large, 3.5L starter of Conan/Vermont Yeast (12-13 gallon batch). I have spoken with brewers who have attenuation problems with this yeast, which I never have. The key, IMO, is a large cell count on the level of a Pro Brewer 1.0 or 1.25 (million cells/ml/degree Plato) pitch rate. I am hopeful that I can dry out this malt in a similar fashion.

Not sure what I am looking forward to more, measuring the sample or the aroma from the big Cashmere dry hop.
 
bhchrist said:
Will do, wobdee. We pitched it with a large, 3.5L starter of Conan/Vermont Yeast (12-13 gallon batch). I have spoken with brewers who have attenuation problems with this yeast, which I never have. The key, IMO, is a large cell count on the level of a Pro Brewer 1.0 or 1.25 (million cells/ml/degree Plato) pitch rate. I am hopeful that I can dry out this malt in a similar fashion.

Not sure what I am looking forward to more, measuring the sample or the aroma from the big Cashmere dry hop.
Click to expand...

wow, really? I have a pale ale I brewed last Saturday, and pitched a 1.5L starter of the Yeast Bay strain "Vermont Ale" which I thought was the Conan yeast strain, and its Thursday and it has already dropped from 1.052 down to 1.012 and still going and its only been 5 days at 68° steady. I made that Pale ale really just to get the culture up enough for a DIPA im planning in another week. I will give this batch 2 solid weeks, and I think it will fall down to the 1.008-1.009 range before I cold crash.
 
Redtab78 said:
wow, really? I have a pale ale I brewed last Saturday, and pitched a 1.5L starter of the Yeast Bay strain "Vermont Ale" which I thought was the Conan yeast strain, and its Thursday and it has already dropped from 1.052 down to 1.012 and still going and its only been 5 days at 68° steady. I made that Pale ale really just to get the culture up enough for a DIPA im planning in another week. I will give this batch 2 solid weeks, and I think it will fall down to the 1.008-1.009 range before I cold crash.
Click to expand...

Vermont Ale is the Conan strain, as is Omega Yeast's DIPA Ale strain (OYL-052). I have used both and have found no difference.

What was your batch size? I just punched in your numbers here (assuming a 6 gallon batch) and even without a stir plate (shake method) and a month old yeast vial, your estimated cell count is 1.4M cells/mL/degree P.

I have had the same results with this strain as you are seeing. Those that have had issues that I have spoken with have been using lower pitch rates.
 
bhchrist said:
Vermont Ale is the Conan strain, as is Omega Yeast's DIPA Ale strain (OYL-052). I have used both and have found no difference.

What was your batch size? I just punched in your numbers here (assuming a 6 gallon batch) and even without a stir plate (shake method) and a month old yeast vial, your estimated cell count is 1.4M cells/mL/degree P.

I have had the same results with this strain as you are seeing. Those that have had issues that I have spoken with have been using lower pitch rates.
Click to expand...


6 gallon batch. I started with 1.5L of some 1.035 DME/water starter wort, and 1 vial of the yeast bay strain that was shipped to me. I had it on a stir plate from last Monday until Thursday, then cold crashed until Saturday when I pulled it back out of the fridge, decanted most of the (very clear) liquid on top, warmed it back up then pitched the slurry into my wort that was chilled using the CFC. The wort temp was 60° and the yeast slurry temp was just a tad over 65° I placed it into my ferm chamber that was set at 68 at about 3pm, and by midnight Saturday night I already had fermentation started.
 
Redtab78 said:
6 gallon batch. I started with 1.5L of some 1.035 DME/water starter wort, and 1 vial of the yeast bay strain that was shipped to me. I had it on a stir plate from last Monday until Thursday, then cold crashed until Saturday when I pulled it back out of the fridge, decanted most of the (very clear) liquid on top, warmed it back up then pitched the slurry into my wort that was chilled using the CFC. The wort temp was 60° and the yeast slurry temp was just a tad over 65° I placed it into my ferm chamber that was set at 68 at about 3pm, and by midnight Saturday night I already had fermentation started.
Click to expand...

Spot on with what I have seen. Big healthy pitch = great fermentation. I still got the peach notes that the yeast is famous for. This stuff is like sludge on the bottom of the flask as well. I hope it does some work on the Red X.
 
Update: Took a gravity sample with a newly purchased and calibrated FG Hydrometer (0.998 - 1.020 range). Reading is 1.010, so I am pretty happy with the attenuation. need to cold crash and may do a gelatin fining. Really like the Cashmere hops as well.
 

Similar threads

J
Liquid Amber Malt -Recipe Suggestions
Replies
9
Views
789
BrewnWKopperKat
BrewnWKopperKat
J
Whiskey Malt?
Replies
21
Views
2K
Joewalla88
J
alutis05
Brewing ALL-GRAIN dark beer (lager).
Replies
9
Views
596
AlexKay
A
Clint Yeastwood
Prose from the Pros
Replies
6
Views
466
DBhomebrew
DBhomebrew
orgenomescii
Brewing like a Barbarian: Ancient Irish Descriptions of Malting & Brewing
Replies
2
Views
1K
McMullan
McMullan

Latest posts

Back
Top