Got my first year of brewing under my belt last year and did a bunch of weird stuff that turned out not so good, and a few winners as well. Haven't brewed much this year but am starting to formulate some plans for a more educational brewing experience this summer and fall. The concept of SMASH (Single Malt And Single Hop) seems to be my best approach to doing this. Didn't see a thread on the front page of the brewing forums covering the subject so I thought I'd start one. Just want to see if I have the general techniques straight or if there are any pointers that could help me out. My plan is single malt mashed fairly warm for about an hour to retain some good malt flavor character and above average FG (10# Marris Otter @158F), single hop (1oz Tettnanger for each addition) @60 for bittering and @5 for aromatics, and a characterfull yeast to ferment a 5 gallon batch (Nottingham). Sounds like a tasty pale to me and should give a good base going forward when I change a single component at a time. Seems pretty straight forward, but any tips, advice, and personal experience is much appreciated. Thanks!
Wierd stuff turns out to be just wierd in the long run as far as I am concerned. Personally, I take pride in the fact that 80% of the beer we consume is homebrewed, so I make mostly simple tasty recipes. SMaSH is a great vehicle for a good beer allowing the hops and/or yeast to shine. I do a few single malt beers every year and typically will select a higher quality malt (TF&S Maris Otter, Golden Promise, Franco-Belges Pils). The single hop aspect is a great way to learn what each hop can bring to the table as well, and I will often (a little less) do these with new varieties which I want to try out. Your recipe looks good to me. Also, brewing simple good recipes is just a good practice if you want to enjoy your beer on a more regular basis. Simple recipes can be extremely complex, which is something new brewers have a hard time seeing sometimes.
With all that said, I get a little crazy once or twice a year to push my creativity. But, even these beers have improved greatly, and I think it stems from knowledge learned with simple brewing.
Sounds like a good plan. But if you're really trying to find out what flavor comes from the malt and hops, I'd start with a 'clean' yeast instead of something 'characterful.'
Your recipe looks good, but what do want to taste more of. Or, if you are going to change something in the recipe next time you brew it, what would you like to change first? The reason I ask is that if you plan to try different hops with this malt, then I would probably lower my mash temp a bit. That will pull back on the malt flavor a little and you should be able to taste more of the hops. On the other hand, if you really want to taste the malt, because you know you love these hops, I would use Windsor yeast instead of Nottingham.
May I ask why? I think a clean yeast like Notty would be best to let the malt and yeast shine. Windsor seems like it would get in the way to me.
I didn't address Nottingham specifically, because I have never used it. Either way, my advice would be to use a clean yeast, rather than 'characterful' as the OP put it.
The hops are probably the one component I know the best in this beer. I went with them because I really do enjoy them and rarely find them used in many local pales. Upright's Engleberg Pils uses them exclusively and it's one of my favorite hop profiles. That and they're always in stock at the LHBS unlike some of the more popular varieties. The malt and yeast are also components I think I know pretty well but I just wanted to get a firmer grasp on them before venturing into different malts and yeast I'm less familiar territory. Now for the reasons I tagged the two of you in my reply. The malt is indeed what I'm trying to accentuate clearbrew. Since I know the hops better I thought I'd highlight MO before switching up the malt next time to something like Munich or Golden Promise. Never used Windsor yeast personally but perhaps that would be something to try in the future. Any particular reason you suggest it? Vikeman: Some of what I've read on SMASH recommends against using a clean yeast because the beer could turn out a little boring. As I'm typing this though I realize that I don't find the Upright Pils boring and that's essentially a SMASH lager with minimal yeast character (you're right characterful isn't a word ). A split batch between Notty, Windsor, and US-05 might be the better route and I can kill multiple birds at once. Thanks!
Agreed, but I find it lends a little more to a beer than a US-05 or WY-1056 (same strain IIRC). For such a simple recipe I expect the difference to be more noticeable.
Boring is certainly possible. I think it boils down to the purpose of the exercise... to make great beer or to learn. Also a good idea. And it makes it more of a controlled comparison than if you did it sequentially and had to rely on memory/notes.
Never used Windsor yeast personally but perhaps that would be something to try in the future. Any particular reason you suggest it? The only two dry ale yeasts that I have any real experience with is Nottingham and Windsor. I find that Windsor leaves more of the malt sugars behind in the beer. I'm just suggesting it as a way to taste more of the malt.
A little higher than I would mash, but to each their own. I have a base session that I have tried with a free different hops, always tastes great and disappears in hurry.
I think the best choice for what you are looking for is Windsor yeast ,instead US-05 or Notty.I have used them all and noticed Windsor makes maltiness shine far more than the others.You could try to play with chlorine/sulfate ratio to perform your desired beer flavor.
I would say that Nottingham is on the "less character" end of the spectrum. I enjoy Wyeast 1968 and 1028, both of which add a little more character to your beer than Nottingham, US-05, or Windsor.
