Tasting Aged Mixed Culture Beers - Summer 2016

It's been a while since I talked about my own beers on here, so I thought I'd give a bit of an update on the beers I have aging. For context, and as an excuse on why my brewing hasn't made more of an appearance, I spent Sept 2015-May 2016 living in Europe (my second ~8 month stretch working in Europe in the last 3 years). I wanted a bunch of beers for long term aging and blending, and these trips gave me a good excuse to stash some beers to come back to at a later date. For both of these trips, I stored these beers (along with a bunch of bottled beer) in the basement of my very kind friend Mark.

As I've noted on the facebook page, I recently grabbed these beers back from storage and have been able to take inventory of the bottles (including blends from my blending session following my first move to Europe) and taste the beers in carboys. The tastings at this point were just to get a preliminary idea of where things are before doing more detailed/thorough tastings of the beers that might be ready to blend. Expanding on the FB post linked above, I'll summarize the beers, these quick tastings, my plans with the current beers, plans to brew for use with the current beers and the future in general, and some preliminary blending plans. This is a long post, but there are a lot of beers...

A mostly up to date map of most of the beers,
when they got oak, and quick tasting notes.

The Beers: To start this off I should note the beers that I have. Most of the beers are lambic-inspired (turbid mashed, brewed with ~30-40% unmalted wheat and ~60-70% malted barley, using aged hops, open cooled). Some of these are fermented only with local ambient microbes (from either starters of local ambient microbes or only from what the wort got during open cooling) but most have dregs and/or commercial cultures on top of the inoculation from open cooling and ambient starters.

There are a couple other beers that aren't lambic-inspired so I'll start with those:

-Barrel Aged Old Ale: This beer (brewed 5-Oct-2014) is discussed in detail in this blog post. I still have ~5.5 gallons remaining in carboys from my 10 gallon share of a 30 gallon oak barrel. It seems this beer was put on a very small amount of raspberries, though unfortunately I don't have any details on how much/when/anything else (at the time this would have happened, I was scrambling to get ready to move and my notes were's up to my standard). The raspberry level is very low and not necessarily identifiable if you weren't looking for them.

Brief tasting notes (Tasting): This is tasting pretty good (nice dark malt, good mellow barrel, light alcohol, mild acidity, good Brett C, some fruityness) but possibly not as good as the portions that I bottled in summer 2015 shortly after it came out of a barrel instead of bulk aging further in a carboy.

Barrel old ale (L) and Raspberry Dark Session (R).

Blending Plans: I expect most of this beer will be blended with the low strength dark beer below. I'm not sure what I'll do with the rest. Probably either bottle plain or brew a lower strength younger beer to blend toward an oud bruin-oriented end (though of course this aged component is fairly strong). I will also have a Flanders red-inspired beer coming out of a barrel soon so some of this could find its way into that beer.

-Dark Session on Raspberries: This was extra wort from a dark mild (brewed 8-Feb-2015) and was a subsequent batch of a recipe similar to this beer. I had about 3 gallons that I added a mixed culture to and then, after a few months, racked onto the leftover raspberries and blend from Blend 4.

Quick trial blends of Raspberry Session and Old

(L to R: 33/67, 47/53, 67/33 Session/Old).

Tasting: The acidity is forward (makes sense with the lower hopping) and there is a mellow touch of acetic but not to an obtrusive degree. It is a bit too thin overall - not surprising given the OG of 1.038 - but I think it could make a good blending component. The raspberry level is good and there is a cool chocolate raspberry thing going on.

Blending plans: I figure almost all of this beer will be blended with the barrel aged old ale to come out with an end beer of a more reasonable gravity between the two components while preserving the dark malt and fruit combination. Some extra, if any is left over, may make it's way into other beers to increase the fruityness. But only if those beers also could benefit from an increased acidity. I did some quick blending trials with this beer and the old ale. The winning ratio was about 45/55 to 40/60 session/old.

-Dark Strong Mixed Culture: This beer (brewed 5-Aug-2013) was inspired by Oerbier Reserva. The goal was something red wine-like with a mild-medium acidity and that I could have around for a while. The OG was around 1.080, with a sugar feeding during fermentation of dark candi syrup.

Tasting: The beer is pleasant and the acidity is there (maybe even slightly on the high side for my target of a more mild acidity, but ok) but it isn't quite there. I think much of the problem is that, unlike Oerbier Reserva, this was not aged in a red wine barrel. So I am not getting the wine-like character that I was looking for and I am not getting the oak. I added a bit of oak after tasting (not first use oak, and after soaking in boiling water).

Blending Plans: I think it could be likely that I'll end up blending at least some of this with a red wine to approach the character I am looking for. If so I'll probably choose something a bit lower in tannins and ABV and higher n fruityness. This beer is ready for those test blends with wine whenever I get around to it.

Having Rodenbach's Vin de Céréale in 2011.

-Strong Flemish-Inspired mixed culture: This beer (brewed 26-Oct-14) was inspired by Rodenbach's Vin de Céréale. I've had the pleasure of having this beer a couple times and it is amazing to me. Flanders red-like in character but strong and pale for the strength, age, and the general Rodenbach lineup.

Tasting: I didn't expect to actually hit my target on the first try, but I am a bit bummed about how far off I was. The beer is not bad, but it was not the goal. I think what the beer is lacking is a combination of fruity flavor and oak, and possibly a bit of oxidation. It is more malty and dry/toasty instead of fruity. Part of this may have been my choice of malt (100% Vienna, rather than pils and some darker malts for the same color).

Blending plans: This is another beers that may see some blending with wine. It may also see some blending with the 1/3 share of a Flanders red-inspired beer I have had in a 30 gallon oak barrel for about 13 months now. I could also try to encourage more fruityness by the actual addition of fruit, but if so that will only be a small portion as I want this beer to be around for a while and I don't want to heavily fruit something only to let the fruit fall away before I have even half of the beer.

Turbid mashed beers:

The Dec 2014 Spontaneous Starters carboy.

-December 2014 brew: This beer was brewed with 30% unmalted wheat and 570 g/HL (0.76 oz/gal) aged hops. The batch was split into 3* 6 gal / 23 L carboys. One was pitched with ambient microbe starters, one with various bottle dregs of multiple spontaneous beers, and another with ECY-20.

Tasting: The spontaneous starters carboy is quite bitter and phenolic. This needs some time to mellow out. I think it has a good chance of doing that as younger lambic/spontaneous beer can have similar characteristics. The ECY-20 carboy is sweeter with more fruit but also quite bitter. It is possible that some of this is coming from the hopping rate, which might be a bit high. But I think a fair amount of it is also brett-derived. I added some more cultures (from the yeast cakes from previous good turbid mashed homebrews) to this batch. The dregs carboy more acidic, has more citric fruit, and less bitterness/phenol. This is closer to being ready for blending but I still find it a bit more bitter than ideal.

-May 2015 brew: This was brewed with 41% unmalted wheat and hopped at about 600 g/HL (0.80 oz/gal). The batch (60 L) was split into 4 carboys which were pitched with either lambic dregs, spontaneous starters, ECY-20 or left to ferment with only what it got from open cooling.

The May 2015 Fully Spontaneous carboy.

Tasting and Blending Plans: The ECY-20 batch us nicely fruity (citric mostly) and has a more balanced level of phenols. This I think could be ready to blend soon, or I may wait on it if I am not coming up with a blend that I'm happy with.

The dregs carboy is more fruit balanced and with lower phenols than the ECY-20 batch. It has a bit more acidity (possibly slightly on the high side of what I want, or at least I don't want much more) but the acidity is clean/not acetic. This is another carboy that could be incorporated into a blend soon if I come up with something I like.

The spontaneous starters batch has more bitterness than others of this brew, but lower than the Dec 2014 and Sept 2015 brews. Overall this is pretty mellow yet, with a low level of sulfur and some lower fruityness and acidity. Perhaps not surprisingly, my ambient microbes may need a bit more time to develop the same sort of character intensity as lambic dregs or lab blends.

The fully spontaneous batch had more astringency/phenolic bitterness and a pleasant soft tropical fruit. I'm not too worried about the phenols at this point as spontaneous beer producers have anecdotally noted that their younger beers can be pretty rough in this regard and it mellows with time. So I'll wait this out for a bit.

-June 2015 brew: (this is even more true for the following brew) I know brewing in warmer months breaks from tradition for lambic. The reasoning given here being that unwanted microbes are more populous in warmer weather and the beer will head in a non-ideal direction. Another factor, which isn't discussed as much but which I think is quite important, is that warmer temperatures are insufficient to properly cool a commercial sized batch in a coolship to pitching temp (in the ballpark of the high teens C / mid 60s F).

So I wanted to try warmer month open cooling out for a couple reasons. First, the weather wasn't too warm (nights near 10 C / low 50s F). This was sufficient to cool my volume of wort to the same sort of temperatures that a commercial batch of lambic is cooled to in winter. Second, most of these beers were pitched with something, which means I am less reliant and inoculation from cooling. And finally, a batch are two aren't much to dump if it turns out that the warm weather microbes are a problem. So I will see if the summer microbes and microbe balance are problematic, at least in this small sample set (spoiler alert - so far this isn't the case).

The 30 gal barrel with a red beer (L) and
60 gal headed in a lambic-inspired direction (R). 

This batch was brewed with 39% unmalted wheat and hopped at a rate of about 225 g/HL (0.30 oz/gal). It was split into 4 carboys, with 2 of them going into a 60 gallon barrel that I share with some other great homebrewing friends. This barrel started with a saison with brett and lacto and we taking a solera-type approach and encouraging it to move in a lambic-inspired direction. The barrel is tasting quite nice so far and I am excited to incorporate the next pull (planned for early October) into blending as it will provide some of what I am generally short on so far - oak and fruit. The 2 carboys I kept were pitched with some combination of ECY 20, the yeast cake from previous beers, and bottle dregs.

Tasting: At this point there is nothing drastically unpleasant about these but at the same time they are not my favorites from the aged beers. They are pretty mellow and overall understated, which makes them currently better than the highly phenolic beers, but there is a bit of a character I am not too keen on. It is something I have noted in certain commercial lambics before, and that a friend describes as a bit 'pool water-y', which I think is quite apt (though it makes it sound worse than it actually is). This could be related to chloramines/chlorines (I carbon filter my water and did the same process with the same filter cartridge for other aged and non-aged beers that aren't showing that character) or it could be something picked up in cooling, or something else. Anyway, my beers are not anywhere near this intensity, but they have hints of something that remind me of this.

Otherwise they are pretty mellow and muted compared to both older and younger batches. I don't really know why this is. The bitterness and phenolic levels are lower and there is a mellow and pleasant sweet fruityness. Overall I think these beers are on a good track, especially as most of my other beers are higher in the phenolics and lower in the fruit, but they need more time to develop a more full character of their own.

The Sept 2015 Spontaneous Starters carboy.

September 2015 brew: If warm weather was going to be a problem, this would definitely show it. This beer (~50 L) was brewed with 27 % unmalted wheat and hopped at a rate of about 370 g/HL (0.49 oz/gal). The temperature of the wort in the morning was 19 C / 66 F so the cooling was certainly sufficient. I didn't note nighttime lows, but I suspect it was in the 10-15 C range given that final temperature of the wort the morning after cooling. The beer was split into three carboys with one receiving spontaneous starters, microbes from a bit of the trub of my favorite batches from my previous blending, and the third one receiving dregs from various mixed-culture saisons.

Tasting and Blending Plans: The spontaneous starters batch is fairly high on the bitterness so this will get at least another winter before it is used. The batch with previous blend microbes has a good fruityness and is on a really nice track but is a bit more bitter than I'd like so this will probably get more time. Though it is possible that I'd pull it as a phenolic component in a blend with a more fruit forward base. Overall though I am happy to let these beers sit a bit more as they are fairly young yet (just under 12 months).

The saison dregs carboy has a high lactic acidity and not much phenolic character. This beer may head toward blending with cleaner saisons to create something in line with blending an acidic old beer with fresh young beer.

Older Turbid Mashed beers: These are left over from previous blending of aged mixed-culture beers (the same blending post was linked earlier in this article too).

Muse #1: I have three gallons of this beer left over from my previous blending (there are some more details on it in that post, linked above). The beer was brewed in January 2013 and at the time of the previous blending it wasn't one of the best. It was a bit more acetic but had a pleasant fruityness. I prefer very low to no acetic acid, so this wasn't my ideal. But it certainly wasn't out of line with what you would find in many well regarded commercial beers so we're definitely not talking extreme levels. Just more than I wanted. This is generally still the case. In the new company of beers that are generally more bitter and less fruity than I want in a final blend (and with a clean acidity), this beer could be very useful for blending.

Most of the carboys safely transported back and in their new home

Wild Rye: I also have 3 gallons of this beer left from the previous blending session. This was brewed in July 2013. During the previous blending it also wasn't one of my favorites as I thought it was too phenolic. Since then my taste preferences have shifted a bit (toward more phenolic) and the beer has developed/mellowed more. At this point I find the phenolic level is low-moderate and pleasant. As a bit of an aside, I need to do a side by side tasting of my previous blending, but my feeling from individual tastings over the past few months is that Blend 2 (the only non-fruited blend with this beer as a component) is my favorite. And I think part of that is due to this beer. With the more balanced and developed character I think this beer will also be a good candidate for blending.

Sour Saison: the term sour saison is not one I am super fond of but for internal consistency I'll continue using this name for this beer while it is around. It is not saison-like and I wouldn't present it as one, but this was brewed mostly as a saison (not turbid mashed, not aged hops, pitched with saison yeast) while knowing it was going to head in another direction (it was open cooled and also pitched with lambic dregs). I liked this beer in the previous blending but it worked out that I had a gallon left over so I saved that.

I was probably going to blend it with something younger and clean, but now that I have the 'saison dregs' carboy this may go into the other mixed culture beers. And that's fine with me as that is more closely what it tastes like. The beer has a higher acidity with a citric and light apricot-like stonefruit character. There is a bit of acetic which has developed since transferring and in storage so it is good that this will only be a small component of a blend, where that acetic will be at an appropriately low level.

Common themes with my beers: One of the common themes in my beers is that I am missing the contribution of oak (at least the beers that didn't come from wine barrels). Some beers have been on a very small amount of oak cubes - usually soaked in boiling water to soften the more aggressive tannin character - but not high enough levels. I should note that while I am only saying oak, I don't necessarily mean an obvious oak flavor. And I certainly don't mean a bright tannic/more 'raw' oakyness (obviously they are toasted so not actual raw oak). But an older/more used oak can add softness and a bit of a smooth/mellowing/almost sweet contribution. And also some structure to aid the body of the beers. So that is more what I am looking for - the influence of a well used oak in mellowing flavor and structure. Low levels of oak (soaked multiple times in boiling water, and sometimes not first use) have now been added to all the carboys.

The other main common theme is a bitterness across most of the beers brewed between 2014 and 2015 (where I had been living in the same place, and which was a different place from the beers brewed in 2013). This shows up regardless of hopping rate, which microbes were (or weren't) pitched, and across different seasons. The one common thread is that they were all opened cooled at the same place.


After tasting the first couple beers I associated it with hopping rate but I am inclined to think that this isn't the case as I finished tasting through all the beers and noted that the bitterness can vary significantly in different carboys from the same batch. So I think this is microbe derived, and may have to do with microbe balance (note that brett pitching rate may not have much influence on brett flavor development) and/or other microbes promoting or reducing the phenolic bitterness produced by one/some. As I mentioned above, commercial brewers of spontaneous beers note that they can have rather phenolc younger beers and they can be almost undrinkable before aging into the end product that they are looking for. So for now I'm not too worried about this and I'll let them age for a bit to see if it ages out.

Edit: Thanks to Dan at MTF for reminding me about a great old MTF thread regarding the same sort of (presumed) phenolic brett-derived bitterness that I am noticing in my beers.

Some quick plans to brew for future blending:

Carboys in storage while I was away.

Fruit forward - Many of my beers weren't as fruit-forward as I'd like. I find that North American sours can be too fruit-forward for my taste and lacking some of the complexity that I love in lambic so I'm glad they weren't all super fruity, but I would like a fruit forward component or two to blend in with my beers that are, at least at this point, more phenolic. So I may try to come up with a blend of dregs/cultures for a future brew that I think will promote more fruityness in one or two carboys for use in blending.

New ambient microbes - I'm now living in a new location with different conditions so I'm interested to see what the microbes around here are like. My new place is a bit drier and more exposed rather than the more wooded valley conditions of my previous place. There are also fruit trees in the back yard compared to old oaks where I was living before. Given how variable different lambic microbes are in the relatively small region of traditional lambic production, I expect to see some fair differences in my current location compared to my previous. So I'll probably put out some more spontaneous starters to see what is around here and I am also looking forward to trying some fully spontaneous beers as the weather cools.

Fruit - I have some fruit from this year's fruit season frozen and waiting for aging on some beers. So when I do a more detailed tasting of the beers that I think may be ready for blending and try some blends I will pay attention to how the fruits I have may compliment them. I've got sour cherries, apricots and rhubarb (I know it's not a fruit but it is fruit-like in flavor contribution). I am already thinking that the apricots could be a nice addition to a blend with the sour saison in it given the light apricot/stonefruit character of that beer.

Finally I plan to re-try at the Rodenbach Vin de Céréale-inspired brew. I'll probably change the malt bill to a paler base with some higher color malt and may try to get it on used oak earlier in the process.

Otherwise I expect I'll carry on as normal with these mixed-culture beers. For hopping I think I'll stick with around 500 g/HL (~0.67 oz/gal) for now. The lower hopped beers were ones that I didn't like as much and I didn't notice any clear problems from higher hopping. I'll probably re-brew the rye base that I still have a bit of around and maybe something darker like a duivelsbier but otherwise keep it pretty close to the classic lambic tradition. Though I'm not calling my brews lambics (and mostly so far they are not spontaneous), that is the sort of final end product I am looking for in terms of balance, complexity, and general flavor/aroma characteristics.

This write up and tasting has somewhat critical but that is because I want to keep a high standard for my target end result and I don't want to settle for something that is only good. The beers are all in the direction I am looking for, so with more time, some minor tweaking, and a greater diversity of components I think I am on track to create what I want.

Ok, that's plenty for one post. If you want more details on recipes of certain components and/or how some are tasting feel free to ask! There was already so much in this post that I didn't want to expand it further but I'm happy to share it.

Seaside Saison Tasting

I always find writing tasting notes on my beers tricky as I often don't have the time/energy to sit down and write out formal notes and when I'm having a beer I am generally giving most of my focus to something else. I'll get a good impression drinking multiple bottles from a batch over time (and to some extent observing the progression can be equally valuable). I'll generally write a line or two to record my overall thoughts, but having a more detailed and critical assessment can be really helpful in building subsequent batches and other recipes. And it is something I'd like to do for every batch. Having this blog helps a bit as it forces me to go through the full review process for recipes that make it up here.

So here is my review for a saison with locally grown and malted barley and a small amount of sea salt added that I am calling Seaside Saison:

Aroma: Great floral/fruit aroma. It is a bit minerally (though this is something that I am looking for in this beer, so that might influence it). There is a Dupont-esque edge in there but this is more earthy. The beer as a nice graininess with some tangy fruit (lime). Overall it is a touch on the sweet side with some toasty grain. It smells tarter than it tastes. Some alcohol seems noticeable in the aroma which surprised me a bit given that the ABV isn't very high.

Appearance: Beautiful fine white head, excellent retention, leaves a chunky lace. The color is a pretty clear gold. I am really happy with the appearance of this beer.

Taste: Over-ripe fruit is forward in the taste (peach, cherry and other stone fruit) along with floral and some citrus (lime comes forward). I like the fruityness here. The beer is mildly tangy, which might be influenced by both acidity and salt. There is some mild but present alcohol. It is subtly but identifiably minerally. I think the salt is at the right level for what I am looking for. The hop presence is pretty low - a bit lower than I'd like and lower than what I expected given the recipe. Perhaps this is influenced by this beer having a much different SO4:Cl balance than my saisons normally do. I'll probably bring the hops up a bit next time. There is some roughness in the finish that I think the salts accentuate a bit. There are some clove-like phenols, which aren't really the type of phenols I am going for.

Mouthfeel: High fine carbonation. This beer has a great mouthfeel - light and fluffy with some creaminess (which I presume is from the flaked grains but it might be helped by the salt as it is more creamy than other recent brews with a similar amount of flaked grain). Dry finish with a fruit skin like character and a light tangyness (probably a combination of salt and acidity).

Overall: This is pretty nice overall and it hit the mark on the general goal very well. The salt amount seems right on (maybe it could be a touch lower but not higher). Now the beer needs some fine tuning. I'll need to take a new run at the fermentation with a different yeast blend (probably back to just using 3724 and 3711). I'm getting a bit more phenolic character here than I want and/or they aren't the right phenols. So dropping the 3726 should help this. And I'll also try to get a bit more crispness and take out some of the roughness. I think the beer needs a bit more hop presence. That should add some crispness. Driving the FG down a bit would also help here and possibly remove some of the perceived sweetness in the balance. I like the graininess and will keep the grist as it is.

I like the OG being in the mid 1.040's, so I'll leave that there. I don't know where the perception of alcohol is coming from. It might be leaving the fermentation warm with these yeasts, or yeast health going in, or pitch rate or something like that. But that is something I'll have to work on. It isn't strong but it is in there and I'd rather it not be. I see a similar sort of alcohol presence in the Dupont beers, but for some reason there it doesn't bother me as much.

So overall success with some room for improvement.

Dark English Mild tasting

Here are my tasting notes for a dark mild I brewed back in mid October (and took notes on in mid December, I know I'm behind). I didn't taste these side by side so the comparisons are based on having them repeatedly over a month or so and my memory of the beers while I was reviewing the others. As I outlined in the recipe post, I've found an unpleasant acrid/roast/tang in my previous milds and many of the commercial milds I've had. My guess going in was that this is due to a combination of the dark malts and low gravity, possibly with oversparging involved. To try to avoid that this time I decided to cold steep my darkest malts. The other new thing for this batch was using East Coast Yeast's British Mild strain (ECY-18). One carboy got ECY-18 and the other two got White Labs Dry English (WLP-007), as I had it on hand from an old ale. One of the two WLP-007 carboys also got a chunk of medium toast oak rod in the primary.

To give away the two big things that came out of this beer right from the beginning: I am very happy with the dark malt character I got out of the cold steeping and I am really happy with ECY-18. The yeast gave a great mild earthy/woodyness and let the malt shine nicely. The ECY-18 version definitely stood out from the others.


ECY-18

Aroma: Nutty, mildly woody, sweet dark caramel (almost burnt caramel), brown malt, wheat toast, chocolate

Appearance: This looks quite pretty. clear reddish amber, low off white/light tan fine head

Taste: For its strength, this has a pleasant rich maltyness. There is a reasonably amount of malt sweetness (not too much to be an issue but maybe a bit more than I'd like). There is a nice mildly toasty brown malt and some chocolate that almost approaches roast as well to help balance the sweetness. I like the yeast character. There is some earthy/woodyness and it does a good job of promoting the maltyness and making this beer seem like more than 3% ABV without being too heavy/sweet. A bit more dark malt might be good.

Mouthfeel: Appropriately low carbonation, medium/light body with a hint of wateryness. It is sweet overall in the balance with low/no hop bitterness (which is okay for what I was going for).

Overall: My favorite of the three. A touch sweeter than I'd like and i think pushing the malt slightly in a dryer/toastier/roastier direction would help to balance that.


WLP-007

Aroma: This batch seems much roastier than ECY-18 (possibly due to being dryer, possibly not). Brown malt and toast crust are on the front end of this beer, along with maple syrup and a nice woody/earthyness (but restrained compared to ECY-18).

Appearance: Medium/thick light tan head, creamy, good retention. Clear mahoganny.

Taste: Again, drier than ecy-18 with bread crust and brown malt. Dark caramel and maple with some woodyness but less than ECY-18. The roast is a bit rougher here, almost having a bit of char. Mild dried fruit and chocolate. Good malt depth but thin in the finish.

Mouthfeel: Medium carbonation (a bit higher than what I was going for), thinner than ECY-18.

Overall: This doesn't seem like the right yeast for the job. OK but the other two treatments are better. Thin in the finish and a bit rough due to thinness and carbonation. there is a bit of the tang that I've gotten in other my previous milds and commercial milds (I don't think it is contamination-related as it tastes otherwise clean and I think this is the yeast choice and the malts working together).


WLP-007 + Oak

Aroma: Strong chocolate and hazelnut, sweet maple syrup. The strong nutty/maple character is surprising

Appearance: Low tan head, fine bubbles, good retention. Clear pretty brown.

Taste: The oak is not easily identifiable but it definitely changes the beer. Richly malty and nutty. Hints at roast but not quite there. Sweet malt forward. Seems more similar to ECY-18 than WLP-007. Similar woody character to the other two.

Mouthfeel: Appropriately low carbonation, slightly watery (it is a pretty low strength beer with low carb, so that's understandable), softer and fuller than the normal 007 version. Low/no hop bitterness but appropriate.

Overall: Nice! The wood adds quite a bit to this without adding any actual 'wood' flavor. Good malt complexity and drinkability. This isn't far behind the ECY-18. I think if noticeable oak flavor came through I wouldn't be happy with it, but getting some of the other benefits of the wood without oak flavor worked out very well.

Overall I'll drop the WLP-007 and switch to a maltier English yeast. I'd like to keep using the ECY-18 when I can get it. And for when I can't, I'll keep working on the sanitized and somewhat neutralized oak for softening and adding complexity. Usually when I have non-sour beers with oak (and no spirits) the tannins tend to sharpen the beer but this did a nice job of smoothing and filling the WLP-007 beer out. I'll continue with the cold steeping and maybe push the malt bill a bit more toward the roast side (keeping in mind the poor extraction efficiency I got from this first try at cold steeping) to counteract some of the sweetness.

Petite saison rebrew tasting notes

Setting up for the tasting.

With this batch of petite saison I wanted to work out yeast blend ratios. There were 4 treatments total:
A) 70% Wyeast 3724, 30% Wyeast 3711
B) 90% Wyeast 3724, 10% Wyeast 3711
C) % Wyeast 3724, % Yeast Bay Wallonian Farmhouse, % Wyeast 3711
D) 90% Wyeast 3724, 10% Wyeast 3711 (though at a lower pitching rate than the above treatment) with additions of Yeast Bay Lochristi Brett blend and Wyeast 5223 Lactobacillus brevis

To mildly confuse things, I had labeled the bottles of treatment A 60/40 blend and the bottles of treatment B 80/20 blend based on what I though I did during blending, but as I found out from calculating my blends it turned out to be about 70/30 and 90/10 respectively. Through tasting these beers on their own I had formed some general opinions of how I felt about them and how they compared but in order to really figure out what the blend ratio did I needed them side by side. So I set up a somewhat blind tasting. I knew the beers - the three 'clean' (no brett/lacto) treatments form above plus my previous batch of petite saison, leaving out the brett and lacto petite rebrew treatment (D from above). And I poured them myself so I knew a bit about appearance. But then they were re-arranged and arbitrarily numbered for me given to me a minute or two later.

From tasting these beers individually while knowing what they were (and maybe pouring them, though with the exception of the previous batch with a different grist and therefore color, the differentiating characters were mostly taste and aroma based) I was able to correctly identify the different blends but it ended up being hard to determine which was the 90/10 blend and which had Wallonian Farmhouse. They were identifiably different but not necessarily in a way that I could pin to the yeast blends. I am not very familiar with Wallonian Farmhouse at this point and that probably contributed.

The poured glasses. As you can see there are some visual differences

Glass #5 (later revealed to be treatment A from above, the 70/30 blend)

Aroma: Peachy and floral with mild lime stand out. This one has more green fruit (in a slightly under-ripe way). There is a nice minerally character that is pleasant. This has a mild peppery spice and mild apple and it is more herbal than the other glasses

Appearance: Large white head, great retention, nice lacing, clear brilliant copper

Taste: Tangy lime, thinner flavor than the others with sour and green fruit. It has a dry finish and comes across medium-bitter. Overall the flavor is green and under-ripe fruit forward with low pepper.

Mouthfeel: fluffy light body with high fine carbonation, the carbonation feels a bit higher than the other blends and the body may be a bit thinner, but that might be influenced by carbonation.

Overall Impression: 3711 beers have an identifiable character to me that I would describe as green slightly under-ripe fruit with yeast. I know that's sort of a poor description but I don't really know how to convey the flavor. Either way that is what I identify with 3711, and this beer has more of that than the others. From that I was able to identify it as the 70/30 blend. It was the most 'green' and had less peach and orange citrus. There was a nice tang and spice but I want more 3724 flavor in the balance overall.

Glass #12 (later revealed to be treatment C from above, the blend with Wallonian Farmhouse)

Aroma: There is more 3724 character overall and the beer is more doughy/bready with mildly tangy citrus and tropical fruit (like mango). The aroma has a bit of a character I associated with stressed 3724. It has a sweeter aroma and is more tart than the others.

Appearance: Medium head, lower than #5, the head is a bit chunkier, brilliantly clear pale copper

Taste: Tangy citrus fruit, unique, peach, doughy/bready, unique tropical fruit in this treatment. 3724 character is in there but it is less identifiable than in other treatments, it comes across crisper than #9 (which might be influenced by the tangyness). Nice but it could use a bit more hop character.

Mouthfeel: Fluffy body, nice high fine carbonation

Overall Impression: Great citrus and tangy fruit. The character is a bit like what I got out of a saison brewed with Logsdon Seizoen dregs a while back (sidenote, this Logsdon dregs beer was what I sent to the first round of the 2013 NHC which came out a fair bit different from what I sent to the final round). This version is a bit more reigned in than that Logsdon version. The fruit is unique and different from what I usually get. I think this is the Wallonian Farmhouse version and #9 is the 90/10 but it is hard to tell.

Glass #3 (later revealed to be the previous batch of petite saison)

Aroma: Floral, fruity candy, pear stands out. The classic Dupont aroma is there. There is nice malt and a stronger noble hop character but also some slight oxidation.

Appearance: Slightly paler and more of a golden color than the other three glasses. Large white head with great retention and nice lacing.

Taste: This has more of the classic Dupont floral character with a touch of pleasant sulfur. It has a dry finish with nice hop charatcer and a light tangyness. The hop flavor in this one is good and is more in line with what I am looking for out of this recipe.

Mouthfeel: Fluffy/creamy body with high fine carbonation. Less tangy than #12. The hops contribute nicely to the body.

Overall Impression: The other glasses are missing this hop flavor and I like the Dupont-esque mild sulfur. The fruit is slightly more restrained in this and I really like that. It is still pronouncedly fruity but is a bit more refined. Maybe over-expressed fruit is what I mean when I talk about stressed 3724 character. At it's prime this version was the best. I may still prefer this malt bill to the malt bill I used in the re-brew.

Glass #9 (later revealed to be treatment B from above, the 90/10 blend)

Aroma: This version is the funkiest and is seems complex than the others. Strong peach and 3724 character. There is a nice doughy character in the aroma. There is a bit of stressed 3724 with strong floral. A bit of sharpness almost like what cheddar has and if I didn't know what went in here I could believe that there was some mild Brettanomyces.

Appearance: Very similar to #12 with a low white head and good retention.

Taste: Strong fruityness dominated by the classic peach character I associate with 3724 and a mild green fruit that I associate with 3711. There is a touch of brett-like funk and doughyness and a touch of sulfur in the finish (though it is less smooth and pleasant than what I find in Dupont saisons). Nice citrus fruit (tangerine) and floral. Nice malt character but I want more hop flavor and bitterness.

Mouthfeel: Great creamy/fluffy body. High fine carbonation. I want more hop character.

Overall Impression: The darker color in glasses #5, #12 and #9 compared to #3 is nice but I'm not sure the darker malt bill benefits the flavor. Maybe I'll go back to the original malt bill. And if I decide I want the darker color maybe I'll add a bit of Carafa-type malt for color adjustment. The perception of funk is nice here and I'm not sure where it is coming from. It could be that something else got in, and if so it's pleasant, but I'm not convinced about that. It could also be a combination of the tangyness, malt and slight sulfur. In the 4 tasting this is my preference, but only slightly.

The revealed identities of the saisons.

Closing thoughts: Overall these were very similar. that may not be reflected in my notes because I was looking for differences. Especially the 90/10 and Wallonian Farmhouse bottles. With what remained in those bottles I compared them head to head and may slightly prefer the Wallonian Farmhouse in a 2-way tasting. I should redo a 2-way tasting to test that. The WF batch is slightly more assertive than the 90/10 due to the tangy citrus and tropical fruit. One theory I have for this at the moment is that in a 4-way tasting I might be tasting more for what I think is the best saison for my palate but in a 2-way tasting I might choose the beer that stands out pleasantly. Looks like I have to do a new 2-way for these two.

Sour-worted Soma tasting

I've been experimenting a bit with ways to add mild acidity to certain beer styles before beginning primary fermentation. For this recipe I fermented a portion of a previous beer with a similar grist with Lactobacillus until I was happy with its acidity and then blended that portion back into the boil for this brew day.


Aroma: Peachy and citrus, the tartness is there, tangerine, strong Wyeast 3724 floral aroma. There is more Wyeast 3724 character in the balance than I feel I usually get from the yeast blending. There is a pleasant mild minerally character and a mild funkyness/rustic aroma (enough that one might wonder if there is brett in here).

Appearance: Thick fine very large white head (I gave a bit of an aggressive pour) with excellent head retention. The beer is a finely hazy straw color. It is pretty and hits what I am looking for appearance-wise in a saison.

Taste: There is a nice dry citrus fruityness (tangerine and mild lemon) and floral yeast character. The yeast character is strong and pleasant with some peach in there with the citrus. The hops come through a bit muddled, which is influenced by a rough planty hop character in the finish. I'm not sure if that is due to hop material making it into the fermenter and sitting warm with the beer for an extended period of time or related to the lower boil pH with the hops (or both, and more on this below). But it is definitely something I'll need to work on for future batches. The yeast fruityness becomes more prominent in the balance with warmth and the hop flavor becomes lower in the balance with warmth. The acidity is a bit higher than I'd like it to be for this beer. There is a nice hop bitterness before the roughness comes in.

Mouthfeel: The beer has a pleasantly prickly high fine carbonation. The body is light with a nice smoothness and the lightly tart finish is great. There is a bit of warming in the finish (probably due to both the acidity and the alcohol). That planty character in the finish is noticeable in the mouthfeel as well as the flavor.

Overall Impression: This beer is good but not where I wanted it to be. For a first order try with this method I think I got some good information out of it and I like the way the acidity is working with the yeast character. There is a hint of flavor I've gotten from stressed 3724 before, so the low pH might have stressed out the yeast a bit (or maybe it was something else). Either way it is really low level and I don't mind it. I would probably bring the acidity down a bit on future batches anyway. I don't think the low fermentation pH had many effects on the yeast and I think if I lower the acidity a bit, as I wanted to do independent of it's influence on yeast character, I think the pH wouldn't be a problem for the yeast character. And that seems to be going away with more conditioning time. Overall the beer is also improving with more conditioning time.

The aroma is great and overall the flavor is good. The acidity brightens the beer and lightens the body. The flavor is great when I get past the roughness of the hops in the finish. That is something that I am especially sensitive to in my beers and I think many people would miss it if I didn't mention it. I sent this off to a competition, where it scored better than I expected, and one of the judges said something briefly about some astringency, but didn't talk about rough hop flavor or anything like that.

I think the big thing to work on with this batch for me is the rough hoppyness. I've gotten that recently with another beer without any pre-primary souring and with a comparable hopping regiment, which leads me to believe it is primarily driven by what is happening with the hops and not the pH of the boil. I've had similar hop amounts at similar timings to this batch without any problem, and have also noticed with previous batches that if I get too much hop material carryover into the fermenter than I am prone to getting this flavor, so I think that may e the big issue.

The roughness is in the lingering aftertaste after the finish and if I'm not thinking about it I can not notice it. And then I think the beer is great. After this batch I switched to hop bags to try to limit hop material getting into the fermenter (partially driven by switching boil kettles) and I haven't run across the hop roughness anymore. Some batches have worked great, like the re-brews of my Belgian single and petite saison, but I also have had batches coming out less hoppy than I'd like, leaving something missing. I'm not totally happy with the hop bags and am still looking for a better solution to keep hops out of the fermenter while getting the hop character I want.

So overall the beer is good but not up to my standards. But I don't think much (or possibly any) of that has to do with the method of getting acidity. The 1st attempt at sour-worting was a reasonable success even if the overall beer didn't hit the target.

Rye Spiced Saison tasting

It's been almost 2 months since the brewday for my rye spiced saison and about time I got tasting notes up. Overall I am reasonably happy with this but my memory of my first batch is that it is better than this one. The big thing I think I'll change for next time is lowering the amount of rye and lightening the malt overall. But all things considered this is a good base to work off of for next time.

Aroma:
Spicy rye comes through strongly. There is a strong woody spice with some pepper, and the fruity yeast character is of golden raisins and grapes with some stone fruit (like plums and a bit of peach). The ester character/fruityness is good with more grape and less stone fruit in the aroma than in the taste. The aroma overall is more balanced toward spicy/phenol character. The rye probably helps that out a lot and the rye is very forward in the aroma. Although a lot of these descriptors (like the grape and plum) might sound dubbel-like, the beer has definite differences from what you might find in a dubbel. The fruityness is a bit lighter and the spicy characteristics are different. There is a mild bubblegum aroma, but I didn't notice it until I specifically looked for it.

Appearance:

Pretty chestnut color, hazy. Has a thick tan head with good retention and nice lacing. Overall it is quite pretty.

Taste:
Again the rye is rather forward. There is a cool combination of spices and yeast-derived esters which I think it at least partially driven by the juniper. It is mildly resinous and has a surprising bitterness in the finish. The pepper is a bit forward and adds a bit of roughness to the bitterness in the finish. The fruity character is stone fruits and grape/raisin like the aroma, but with the balance more toward stone fruit. There is a rich malt character with a strong munich character and dark rye.

Mouthfeel:
Medium/light body (I think the rye adds a a bit of viscosity which increases the perception of body). There are hints of warming alcohol. The carbonation is high and pleasant. There is a light tartness in the finish, probably from the levels of acidulated malt.

Overall:
I think for my tastes I should drop the rye levels a bit and also drop the pepper a bit. It is a touch rough in the finish (I think lowering the pepper may help this, and maybe also lowering the acidulated malt) and it comes across as more that the 20 or so IBUs it calculates out to be. I think I'll move forward with this recipe in two different directions:

1) I'll go for a lighter beer (in color, body and strength) using a base of pils plus a good amount of munich and a bit less rye. I'll keep the spices the same and drop the pepper a bit.
2) Keep the base and maybe make it a touch darker and brew it as a winter oriented rather than fall oriented saison. I'll probably go with more carafa or something like that. And I'll change up at least some of the spices.

Petite Saison Tasting Notes

The goal for my petite saison, as I talked about in the recipe and brewday post, was something like the excellent low gravity saisons I had in Belgian and northern France (Dupont's Biolegere and Thiriez/Jester King La Petite Princesse). I wanted something very light and refreshing around for the heat of summer and this beer matched that very well. Here are my tasting notes and any changes I might try to implement in future batches. There will definitely be future brew of this and I even have a re-brew of this beer currently fermenting.

Aroma:
There is a great fruity and floral yeast character (citrus and peach/apricot are most prominent, with some tropical fruit) typical of saisons. There is a very mild chalky/minerally character that I find in quite a few commercial saisons which I find pleasant in low levels such as it is here. There is some nice noble-type hop spicyness, possibly mixing with yeast phenols, which counters the floral/fruity character quite well. The yeast character really dominates the aroma and I don't get a whole lot of hop and malt coming through here.

Appearance:

A good white head, not as giant as in many other examples but certainly there and with good retention. Medium bubble size, but settles to a fine and pretty ~1cm mousse-like head. The color is hazy gold though I've had other pours that were pretty clear, so I probably didn't let this bottle settle enough.

Taste:
The fruityness is forward, with a bit more pear than the aroma suggests but still with citrus and peach as the most prominent fruits. There is a mild pleasant grainy character. The malt comes through surprisingly well for a beer with an OG this low, with a nice Vienna/pale Munich character in the finish. The hop bitterness balances the beer really well in the finish. Some milder spicy hop character supports the yeast well but the fruity yeast character dominates, with the malt coming through a bit stronger than the hops. As the beer warms the hops come up in the balance and the malt goes back. The aftertaste is refreshingly dry hop spicy and grainy malt, leaving a crisp finish and inviting another sip. And another, and another...

Mouthfeel:
Creamy light body with high carbonation and a pleasant crisp finish. This is exactly what I was going for in this beer. It is super refreshing and very dry. It seems fuller than the final gravity (1.001) would suggest, which I suspect is due to glycerol (which I discuss here and mention here). This is a compound that adds to the body of a beer which yeasts produce during fermentation, and saison yeasts like the ones I used in this batch produce more than typical.

Overall and Thoughts:
I am really happy with how this came out. It matches almost all of what I wanted, and exceeded my expectations a bit in the malt character. It's dry, light, and super drinkable but with surprising body, which is appropriately light without being too thin, and has surprising malt character. It is comparatively easy to make a low OG beer hoppy (as hops are independent of beer strength), but getting sufficient yeast character when the yeast aren't fermenting much sugar, and especially getting enough malt character when the malt levels are by necessity lower, can be tricky. Even more so for the malt when the final gravity is so low as it is in this beer. So I am really happy with how this malt came across. As I detailed in the recipe post, I used mostly malt produced by a local maltster including a light pils (1.5 L) and a light Munich (6.5 L). If you don't have comparable malts available I would use the palest Munich you can find and maybe substitute 25-50% with Vienna malt to replace the 6.5 L light Munich I used in this recipe. Another pils of the more standard ~1.7 L should be ok for the pils substitution, but I do think some nice grainy character might be coming from using a slightly lighter malt. But that's probably what I'll do in the future when I don't have any more of these specific malts around.

Other than that I don't really think I'd change much. My target was for a beer that was a fair bit lower in strength but through a combination of about 3-4 extra points in the OG and a couple points lower in the FG my ABV is 4.0% instead of the 3.0-3.5% (preferably closer to 3.0 %) of my target. I may try to drop the strength of this recipe down in the future but I am a bit torn about it because I am quite happy with this batch. Either I'll go back to the drawing board on a saison around 4-4.5% and drop this recipe down a bit, or I'll create a whole new recipe for a lower gravity saison and keep this about where it is (or maybe a touch stronger). I suppose I'm leaning toward the first option here to differentiate this recipe more from my average strength, pale, relatively hop forward saison recipe of around 6.5% that I am happy with. But we'll see.

Belgian Single Tasting Notes

I often find that I have a lot of individual bottles of beer (homebrew and commercial beer) sitting around waiting for some occasion where I can give them the focus I want. Consequently, I always turn to my recent batches of homebrew for a beer I can enjoy without as much focus. This has the downside of putting off a review, but I like that it gives me some opportunities to think more passively about the beer and come up with some ideas before sitting down to the full review. And often times I find that although the beer may be carbonated after a week or two, it benefits from a bit more conditioning/mellowing time and some previously rough characteristics may have softened more. I find that especially true with many of my saisons, and many of the leading commercial Belgian/French saison brewers have a bit more extended aging time, either in bulk or in bottles, after the fermentation is complete. Anyway, I've finally gotten around to taking some tasting notes on the Belgian single I bottled about a month ago.

Aroma: Very strong noble-type and other European hop presence, the hops smell a bit like hop drops candy (or a really fresh bag of European hops) in the intensity as well as the profile. The Styrian Goldings seem to come through stronger than the Saaz. Yeast character is relatively restrained but there is a nice fruity character with pear and mellower citrus like blood orange. There is a bit of clean crisp malt in the background but overall hops dominate the aroma and yeast lends a nice milder support.

Appearance: Dark gold, fine haze (the haze in the image is mostly condensation), large rocky white head with fine bubbles. The head retention is pretty impressive and a thick lace is left. The appearance was pretty much my ideal for this type of beer.

Taste: Strong hop character, which dominates the overall flavor profile. Great forward noble and spicy/earthy hop flavor, moderate/high bitterness (but appropriate for the balance). There is a bit of vegetal/leafy matter in the finish, the sort of thing one might get from too many hops/too much contact with hops. A nice mild fermentation fruity and floral character (mostly pear with some citrus as well) and no bubblegum or banana (which I was happy about). As the beer warms the fermentation character becomes more apparent. Overall this is assertive for it's strength and well on track to what I was going for.

Mouthfeel: High fine carbonation and a light crisp body. Perhaps the final gravity could come up a couple of points or I could try in some other way to increase the body a small amount (my FG was 1.005, which was a bit lower than my target). But as it is, it is pretty refreshing and I like that. There is a small amount of astringency/plantyness in the finish.

Overall Impression/Future changes:This is pretty nice overall. my main complaint would be the plantyness of it. That plantyness isn't too strong, but as it is something I don't want there at all, I'dd like to try to not get it in the next batch. For the next batch I think I'll try to drop the hop load a bit and maybe also drop the total IBUs. I may also shift a small amount of hops to earlier in the boil to serve as more of a classic bitterness addition. I approached this with more of a North American 'hop bursting' type brewing process and I am reasonably sure that this is not what is being done at the breweries making this sort of beer in Belgium. I'll also try to do a better job of keeping hops out of the carboy while transferring out of my boil kettle. I think in beers where I may be pushing limits when it comes to having a vegetative taste come through (especially when the rest of the beer is relatively delicate and fermentation temps might be elevated) keeping carry-over hops out of the primary becomes especially important.

The malt characteristics are good for this in that the malt is light and crisp and lets the hops really shine. I think maybe I'd like a bit more fermentation character, but not much. It is really easy with Belgian styles of beer to overdo it on the fermentation. Especially when bubblegum and banana esters start to develop (which I generally try to avoid/limit in Belgian beers). I'm happy with the fermentation character I got (and happy to miss many of the characters I didn't get) so I won't manipulate fermentation temperature too much. Also, as the beer ages more in the bottles I am noticing the fermentation profile come more forward in the balance.

A couple days after writing these notes I got the chance to have a nice commercial example of this style from the US - Russian River's Redemption. My quick comparative notes from that are that at first Redemption seems much lighter on the hops. And while that is true, Redemption is still appropriately hoppy (maybe not as hoppy as the Westmalle Extra or the Westvleteren Blonde), the refined nature of Redemption's hop profile makes it seem less hop forward. The other main difference is that Redemption has a stronger fermentation/yeast profile. I'd like my next batch to fall a bit in the middle of the two in regard to yeast profile intensity.

Old Ale w/ Brett - Tasting notes

Again, sorry for the delay in getting this post up. I spent some time visiting breweries in Belgium and didn't get a chance to get the post up before the trip. Also, sorry for such a long post with no images. But the visits in Belgium have given me a good amount of photos for future posts. Anyway, on to the post.

This is the tasting and blending notes for my Old ale with Brett c recipe. As a recap, I bottled three different treatments: the non-brett base alone, a blend of 67% non-brett base with 33% brett aged, and the brett aged portion alone. I added White Labs Brett. c. to a portion in the secondary and all three treatments had the same 'clean' (no brett) primary fermentation. The clean and blended bottling was done at the beginning May 2013 (original brewday was 19 October 2012) and the 100% brett aged was bottled at the end of August 2013. As a reminder, the 3 gallons of clean portion were primed to a low level (1.8 volumes) appropriate for the style and after bottling about a gallon and blending in the gallon of brett aged old ale, no additional sugar was added. The 100% brett aged portion was primed to 1.8 volumes.

This was the first time I had tried to blend two batches just before bottling (aside from a couple of random bottles here and there) and as I eluded to in the first post it proved to be a bit trickier than I had anticipated. I had a great plan. This was to bottle 1 gallon of the clean old ale (3 gallons total in a rather full 3 gallon carboy) and then siphon in one of the gallon jugs of brett old ale, mix gently, and bottle the blend. My plan for siphoning and starting the siphon is where I had a bit of trouble. I wanted to use my racking/bottling cane, full of wort, to start the siphon of the brett portion. I though this was a great idea to minimize mid-bottling sanitaiton steps and air exposure. The issue came with the bottling wand tip. I didn't want to put it all the way to the bottom of the 1 gallon jug as that would stir up some sediment, and the angle and wand length were not enough for me to push it on the side of either the carboy or the 1 gallon jug to depress the tip and get flow.

The deliberation for a new plan mid-process and removal of bungs while trying things out allowed for more air exposure and also resulted in the less than ideal solution of quickly pinching off the tubing, removing the bottling wand, resanitizing the end of the tubing and starting the siphon. Also with my 3 gallon carboy on the counter for bottling I was without a good place to put the 1 gallon jug to get and keep a siphon going. So I had to end up holding it up on my shoulder for the duration of the siphoning which was not especially pleasant and also almost certainly resulted in more jostling and more sediment resuspension and transfer. Lesson learned for next time.

I've tried to detail what I thought were my mistakes pretty well to help others avoid them in the future. While it didn't go as smoothly as I had hoped, it still worked out pretty well. So here were my 4 take away messages from this experience to make it go better next time.

1) Have multiple racking canes sanitized and ready to go from the start. Maybe you won't use them all but it's better to have them there than need to adjust one or resanitize mid-process. With only one racking cane on hand I had a tricky time here.

2) Have the gravity feed setup in place for all steps before starting. You'll potentially find yourself with rather full hands with the racking canes and other miscellaneous stuff so moving carboys mid-process can be tricky.

3) As mentioned in the step 2, your hands will often be full. Have everything you need (sanitizer spray bottle, caps/bungs, racking canes, CO2 bottle for purging, etc.) close by. And maybe have some options for holding racking canes that don't result in either a lost siphon or non-sanitized equipment that you will need to use again. I had no place to put down my racking cane without losing the siphon and that made moving things around tricky.

4) Have some help. Bottling alone can be fine but with a new process involving multiple vessels, possibly multiple sets of tubing and more scattered equipment, it is really good to have another set of hands around. That definitely saved me.

On to the tasting notes. Both the clean portion and the blend were tasted at the end of August 2013 (3.5 months in the bottle). The 100% brett aged portion was tasted in the middle of September 2013 (only 3 weeks in the bottle). Perhaps what stuck out most to me was an acidity in the brett treatments. Where did the acidity come from? It is definitely possible that it came from bacteria, but I don't think that is the case because the brett portions weren't sour before bottling and both went sour in the same way after bottling (meaning they would have needed to pick up the same sort of bacterial contamination at their different bottling times). Plus the sourness did not seem to increase with added time in the bottle, there were no bottle pellicles, and there certainly wasn't an excess of CO2 production. I think it came from brett acetic acid production due to oxygen pickup. While brett on its own doesn't really produce much sourness in fermentation, if you give it extra oxygen after the growth period it can produce a lot of acetic acid. So with the bit of O2 I introduced with bottling I got a bit of acetic acid, which was not enough to be especially unpleasant and production stopped when the O2 ran out.

Clean Old Ale:

Aroma - Rich candy sweetness and caramel dominate, the more earthy English base malt comes through nicely, virtually no hop presence as would be expected for the style and the recipe, mild alcohol.

Appearance - very low tan head, fair retention, peach-amber color with a fine haze

Taste - Rich and earthy maltyness, fig, grape, and a bit of oxidized apple character, caramel, the Marris Otter base comes through nicely, light alcohol presence but overall smooth for it's strength. The rich English malt character dominates with a some pleasant supporting fruit in the background.

Mouthfeel - Low fine carbonation (at a good level for the beer/style), medium/full body but no heavy sweetness, light alcohol warmth in the finish

Overall - Mellow and smooth, on the more subtle side with no aggressive character dominating. The alcohol gets more noticeable with warmth. In comparison this batch was more malty and much more subtle. Potentially my favorite of the three but the blend is a close second. We'll see how they develop.

Blended Brett Old Ale (67% clean, 33% brett aged):

Aroma - Tart and vinous, the brett is fruity oriented and its influence comes through strongly, the aroma of the blend is much more complex and less malt forward than the clean version, there is a light leather character that adds a nice complexity

Appearance - Pretty much the same as the clean version, peach/pink amber with a fine hazyness, very low head (lower than the clean version)

Taste - Much like in the aroma, fruity vinous and tart brett character come through strongly. The fruityness is grape and berry oriented. The malty and caramel character in the clean portion come through in the finish, and it is good to see that some of that is still there. The earthy malt character works well with the subtle leathery edges in the blend. There is defintiely a tartness here, and while it is interesting it is a bit more than I was shooting for and throws off the balance bit. The acidity is acetic oriented but is low enough to be ok to me. Generally I am not a fan of acetic sourness in beer but here it is sufficiently low to not be problematic or rough here.

Mouthfeel - Very low carbonation. The blend had no extra priming sugar added, so it had 2/3 the rate of the initial clean batch priming sugar. I expected the brett to slowly work through what is there in the clean majority of the blend but that doesn't seem to be the case as of this tasting. The body is a bit lighter than the clean portion, which is possibly helped out by the acidity. There is a mild acidic warmth in the finish with the alcohol.

Overall - The tartness is not drastically too much but it is a bit more assertive than I wanted. The blend is drier than the clean portion, which makes sense from the added attenuation of the Brettanomyces, and has a bit more bitterness and roughness in the finish. Overall the beer is smooth for it's strength which I'm happy with. I like the added complexity that the brett adds to the blend (like the fruityness and the mild leathery character) but I think next time I will decrease the brett portion a bit. A smoother blending process may also lower the rougher brett blend qualities as the brett aged portion on it's own was not really acidic (or acetic) before blending. If I can isolate the brett complexities without the acidity (or with only a hint) I think it will add quite a bit to the old ale.

100% Brett Aged (still the same 'clean' primary fermentation):

Aroma - The brett comes through strongly with earthy and musty/funky (not in a barnyard Brett. b. way) character along with a mild fruityness and mild acidity. The aroma of this treatment is not as acetic as the blend, likely reflecting oxygen exposure that the blend got during blending. A light alcohol similar to the clean portion comes through but it is mild and unobtrusive. The rich English malt and caramel from the clean portion come through well along with more of a toasty character.

Appearance - Very low coarse white head (though this is derived more from the pour than from carbonation). There is more haze than either of the other two portions but that may be due to the shorter time in the bottle. The color is amber without the pinker highlights of the other two treatments, but that may be influenced by the haze.

Taste - The taste is surprisingly tart, much more so than the aroma suggested. More earthy English malt character (like the clean portion rather than the blend) with dried dark fruit (prune and date) and some malty sweetness. The tart brett character dominates and the tartness enhances the perception of sweetness. The tartness fades away to a nice dry earthy/woody finish.

Mouthfeel - Medium body with very low practically non-existent carbonation. There is a moderate tartness with an acetic edge that is a bit rough but not terribly so.

Overall - The aroma is really nice but the acidity is too much. The flavor is nice other than the acidity and I think what I learned from brewing, blending and tasting these three treatments will help out next time. There are definitely ways that the brett added to the beer. Now to isolate those positive contributions while avoiding the not so good ones...

The only change I think I'll make for the next iteration of the base recipe is adding a bit of darker British crystal malt (135-165L) and increasing the level of chocolate a bit to darken the beer. Other than that I am happy with the base recipe. As mentioned above I would probably drop from 1/3 brett aged in the blend to something like 1/4 and I'll take care to avoid oxygen pickup while blending with what I learned from this first blending experience.