Imperial Stout Recipe Feedback

I did an Imp Stout 5 weeks ago @ 1.088 with 1# MFB Chocolate, 1# Roast Barley, 1# Crystal (50/50 blend 75/85 British and 135/165L), 1/2# GNO, 1/2# Kiln coffee. Base was NA Pale Ale Malt. Down to 1.027 in 2 weeks. 1968. Roast and Coffee is there but not super aggressive, very balanced beer. Some sweetness, hint of berry (GNO), dark chocolate, burnt coffee.

I also used it in a mystery wort brew off in my club, it was low, 4% grist with White Wheat, C15, CaraPils, and CaraAmber in the mix as well, hint of coffee, astringent.

Hope that helps.

 

Luv your hops choices. Willamette = good, especially late additions in beers that need a subtle, earthy hops flavor.

To me it seems pretty good, but perhaps a pound each of the dark malts. But don't take my word, I am not an experienced imperial stout brewer*.

* n=0

 

I do not have any experience with Kiln Coffee Malt, so I can't answer there.

Have you considered mashing at a bit higher temp? My concern would be this could end up a bit thin/dry at 150, though if you're actively trying to avoid a sweet stout, then go for it. Were it me, I might shoot for something like 155. Some flaked oats or barley might also help in this regard.

 

I don't have experience using coffee malt in an Imperial Stout, but I seriously doubt that 1# of chocolate + 1# of roast barley in an 1.088 Imperial Stout added much of a burnt coffee note. I've done a RIS with 2# of each in an 11g batch that is mild on the coffee / roast flavor and another one with 3# of each in an 12g batch that was slightly astringent. That being said, perhaps the 1/2 # of kiln coffee is responsible for the coffee note in your brew?

 

My two cents... I'm not a big fan of it. I've used in four or five beers, and while yes, it can give you a coffee flavor, it adds a fair amount of astringency. I've actually brewed the same beers (Milk stout and mild) with or without the coffee malt (in both cases, the missing coffee malt was replaced with extra pale chocolate malt already present in the recipe), and both times greatly preferred the beers lacking the coffee malt (no astringency).

I also brewed a coffee-less amercian coffee stout that used something like 15% coffee malt, that after a couple months of aging, was fairly solid and did exhibit a fairly strong coffee esque flavor. Granted it was an american stout, so expected to be roasty, bitter and hoppy.

 

Don't really know about coffee malt, but I've made one beer with cold-brewed coffee, and it worked like a champ (at least if it's coffee flavor you want).

[slight derail, but loosely associated]

As for "astringent" flavors, I am drinking a Great Divide Yeti (regular*) right now, and I would say this beer has a fair amount of astringency, within the limits of whatever astringency levels make for a good beer. I don't know how you would measure that, other than personal taste thresholds, and my descriptors are not always endorsed by the BJCP. Someone else may have a better way to describe these flavors.

I know my mother is always curious about my really dark beers, and always wants to smell and taste them, then complains of too much bitterness and astringency. For me, with beers with lots of roasted barley/black patent/chocolate malt/other very dark malts (often imperial stouts), I actually like a certain amount of astringent and burnt flavors (at least those are my descriptors). I even detect a slight bit of what I can only describe as "ash" flavor in this Yeti, but it's not a bad flavor, more of a dark, dry, burnt note that accents the overall flavor.

[/slight derail]

*all varieties of Yeti kick ass, but the four-packs of regular ol' Yeti are my fav, because you get four 12's for close to the price of one of the other varieties (all 22's), and because I prefer imperial stouts in particular, but all "imperial" beers in general, in 12oz containers. Sometimes I'm just not in the mood for an entire bomber of imperial [insert beer here]**.

**Ooo, how about eight packs of seven ouncers? Oh wait, little kings already did that.

 

Not in anyway related to the thread, but those pony bottles of High Life are the best for chuckin' at roadsigns, buoys, raccoons, whatever, when you are 17 and growing up in the country.

 

What efficiency are your calculations based on? My experience is that you will lose about 15% efficiency when you scale up to this large of a grainbill. (There just isn't enough sparge water to provide a good rinse of all that grain.) So check these calculations or you may be 10 or more points off on your gravity.

I always find it is very handy to have some light DME on hand for these big beers. It's very hard to predict your efficiency for them & makes correcting your gravity easy.

 

Or collect extra wort by sparging more, and boil longer. I did a 2.5 hour boil on mine to make up for efficiency drop.

 

What ever you do, make a starter!

 

Don't know if the smile face is just being funny, but you don't make starters with dry yeast. You rehydrate them if you so choose.

 

OP:

I'd up the roasted barley myself.. 1.5# or so, add more chocolate malt, and I personally like the idea ( and use it in my RIS ) of adding pale chocolate to the grist.

I also like a little BP and oats in mine, but to each his own. RIS to me drinks thick, chewy, slick and bitter, and slightly astringent early.

 

Yeah, kinda joking. I was just thinking that a beer that big (1.100) he might want to reconsider his yeast. I would think a nice healthy starter of a good liquid strain might perform a little better than just tossing in 2 packs of dry yeast.

 

There's really no reason that it should (though I'd recommend rehydrating rather than just tossing them in). Two packets of US-05 has more than enough cells for 5 gallons of 1.100 wort.