Coopers XPA Clone-ish...

[Journeyman]

I'm about to put down the XPA clone as soon as my hops and yeast arrive. The ingredients listed on https://www.diybeer.com/au/recipe/coopers-xpa.html# are:

1 x 1.7kg Coopers Australian Pale Ale
1 x 1.5kg Thomas Coopers Light Malt Extract
1 x 500g Coopers Light Dry Malt
1 x 400g Crystal Malt Grains
2 x 25g Simcoe Hop Pellets
1 x 25g Lemondrop Hop Pellets
1 x Coopers Commercial Yeast Culture (or use the brew can yeast)
1 x 250g Coopers Carbonation Drops

I've made a couple of changes and I'm wondering if they will make any major difference to the result.

I am using LDME instead of the combo of LME and LDME, using 1.5 kg total LDME.

I'm substituting Citra for the lemondrop - times are tight and there are a helluva lot more recipes using citra than LD.

I'll be using the can yeast + 5.5 gm Nottingham.

After a couple of comments about "that's a lot of crystal' (not just on here) I decided to reduce the amount to 300 gm.

So I am not expecting it to taste like what comes out the tap at the Club but is there anything there that might make it unrecognisable?

[Beerlust]

Hi Journeyman.

On 1/15/2020 at 8:59 AM, Journeyman said:

...So I am not expecting it to taste like what comes out the tap at the Club but is there anything there that might make it unrecognisable?

You've lowered the overall malt influence by approx. 250gm of dried malt extract, & lowered the crystal malt by 100gms that will affect taste & overall ABV%.

You've switched out one of the major hop influences for another variety that will change the beer flavours & aromas.

You've changed the yeast type to ferment the beer, that will alter final flavours.

It won't be the same beer, but should still be nice.

Best of luck with the brew,

Lusty.

[Journeyman]

3 minutes ago, Beerlust said:

You've lowered the overall malt influence by approx. 250gm of dried malt extract, & lowered the crystal malt by 100gms that will affect taste & overall ABV%.

It won't be the same beer, but should still be nice.

I couldn't recall if it was 1.5 kg LME = 1 kg LDME or not. I will raise the amount. The other choices were for avaiability and or cost choices - although the hops was because lemondrop was going to be single use but citra has a number of beers I'd like to try.

Hopefully not too different - I'll get a refresher on the tap version tonight (b'day) and my hops/yeasts arrived today so this arvo is BREW DAY!!!

[Journeyman]

In the fridge. Things went smoothly and apart from that mentioned above, the only other change was adding in the maltodextrine.

The spreadsheet has a different calc'd OG from what I got, by 10 points. It says 1.067 and I got 1.057 immediately after pitching. Bit puzlled by that as what is in the sheet is what I did. (LDME is 1.75 kg - it rounds to 1.8. 1.25 kg to replace the LME and 500g from the recipe.)

I'd have thought OG would be higher given I added in 300 gm of maltodextrine for improved head and feel.

[Journeyman]

Further to this OG puzzle, the brew is currently reading approx 1.012, well under the 1.020 it is supposed to be. I just checked it with both hydros, a glass one and the Coopers one, then checked them both in 22° weater - Coop was very slightly under 1.000 & the glass one smack on it.  Does that mean the glass is reading slightly high or is 2° not enough to notice?

I took a fresh sample & both say ~ 1.014.

[MitchellScott]

3 hours ago, Journeyman said:

Further to this OG puzzle, the brew is currently reading approx 1.012, well under the 1.020 it is supposed to be. I just checked it with both hydros, a glass one and the Coopers one, then checked them both in 22° weater - Coop was very slightly under 1.000 & the glass one smack on it.  Does that mean the glass is reading slightly high or is 2° not enough to notice?

I took a fresh sample & both say ~ 1.014.

Most likely the Coopers one is reading slightly low, not much to worry about really. If the glass one is bang on 1.000 just use that as its the more accurate one.

Was your brew volume definitely 20L?

If so, it looks like your yeast has attenuated much more than expected. It could indicate an infection. How does it taste?

Mitch.

[Journeyman]

1 hour ago, MitchellScott said:

Most likely the Coopers one is reading slightly low, not much to worry about really. If the glass one is bang on 1.000 just use that as its the more accurate one.
Was your brew volume definitely 20L?
If so, it looks like your yeast has attenuated much more than expected. It could indicate an infection. How does it taste?
Mitch.

Taste and smell are good. It is however quite cloudy, which I wasn't expecting. 

Definitely 20L though, 10L cold, ~6L of warm can and malt and 2L of the grain liquid not far off boil. Then topped to 20L. 

Yeast was 5.5g Nott + can yeast, then another 5.5 Nott sprinkled on top when things seemed sluggish. It was suggested on here I may nt have done enough yeast for a high OG brew so I did the sprinkle and then discovered if you ALSO sprinkle some raw sugar over the yeast it's instant Kraussen growth - got to maybe 15 cm thick for a little while before settling back down.

[MitchellScott]

31 minutes ago, Journeyman said:

Taste and smell are good. It is however quite cloudy, which I wasn't expecting. 

Definitely 20L though, 10L cold, ~6L of warm can and malt and 2L of the grain liquid not far off boil. Then topped to 20L. 

Yeast was 5.5g Nott + can yeast, then another 5.5 Nott sprinkled on top when things seemed sluggish. It was suggested on here I may nt have done enough yeast for a high OG brew so I did the sprinkle and then discovered if you ALSO sprinkle some raw sugar over the yeast it's instant Kraussen growth - got to maybe 15 cm thick for a little while before settling back down.

The instant Krausen growth could just be C02 being brought out of solution by the nucleation points of the sugar. This is common when people dry hop a wort that is actively fermenting, the air lock starts going crazy. I've never heard of adding sugar on top of yeast, you should be able to just add it to the wort and let it do its thing.
Or you can re-hydrate yeast/make a yeast starter in the future.

[Journeyman]

3 minutes ago, MitchellScott said:

The instant Krausen growth could just be C02 being brought out of solution by the nucleation points of the sugar. This is common when people dry hop a wort that is actively fermenting, the air lock starts going crazy. I've never heard of adding sugar on top of yeast, you should be able to just add it to the wort and let it do its thing.
Or you can re-hydrate yeast/make a yeast starter in the future.

I sprinkled the yeast on top of the Kraussen that was there, maybe 1 cm thick. Then I came back with the sugar and added that, sprinkled also over the Krassen and I could still see some of the yeast.

I normally put the yeast in some warm water with a spoonful of sugar prior to pitching and let it get active for a while as I am preparing the brew - this time I just did the recipe thing which was just some warm water and rehydrate. My reasoning for this time was I didn't activate the yeast first as all my other brews have been very active within a few hours and seem to complete to FG very quickly compared to other accounts I see on here. i.e. FG in maybe 4 days and cold crashed at 5th. (first read of FG level on day 4, 2nd on day 5 and CC it then)

So adding the sugar was my way of getting the sugar right next to the newly added yeast to give it a kick start - certainly did that.

Would it have been CO2 though? It wasn't just a mass of bubbles, it was a proper Kraussen head.

[Beerlust]

The DIY recipe is also aimed at 24 litres, so yet another change on your part to brew to 20 litres. I see maltodextrin added as well. The expected OG is likely going to be quite high making the beer a bit on the chewy side if it doesn't drop a few more points. I personally would have left the maltodextrin out.

This is now a very, very different beer to the DIY recipe.

Best of luck with it,

Lusty.

[Journeyman]

12 hours ago, Beerlust said:

The DIY recipe is also aimed at 24 litres, so yet another change on your part to brew to 20 litres. I see maltodextrin added as well. The expected OG is likely going to be quite high making the beer a bit on the chewy side if it doesn't drop a few more points. I personally would have left the maltodextrin out.

This is now a very, very different beer to the DIY recipe.

Different... yes, hence the -ish in the title.  I didn't think the reduction in volume would affect anything except ABV. What else might it do to the beer? Stronger flavour perhaps?

The maltodextrine was for head - while conditioning beers for longer improves the head I'm looking for that thick creamy style - not Guinness or Caffrey's but heading that way. 

Did you mean "expected FG" instead of OG?

The FG seems fine - it's under what the spreadsheet predicts. I was concerned the OG wasn't where the SS says it should have been, more for puzzle than concern - I figure it is what it is and it's the WTF? that has me puzzled. 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Journeyman

[Otto Von Blotto]

Probably didn't mix things in properly. That's usually what results in inaccurate OG readings with extract brewing. 

My calculation puts the OG at 1.065/66 for those ingredients in that volume, plus whatever the crystal malt adds, so I would use the spreadsheet figure for calculating your ABV because the 1.057 you measured is incorrect. 

Given the amount of malt in it I would have left out the maltodextrin as well. 

Altering the volume affects the ABV yes, but only because it affects the OG, and the FG somewhat as well. Lower volume increases OG/ABV, bitterness, and the flavours are a bit more concentrated. 

I have a feeling this brew won't end up bitter enough to balance it properly. But it may turn out well. 

As for yeast, there's no need to use malt when rehydrating it, but if you are pitching into beer that's already partially fermented it should be rehydrated in water because pitching dry yeast straight into an alcoholic environment pretty much kills it. 

[Journeyman]

My arm muscles told me it was very well mixed. Beaten to a froth prior to pitching. I am fairly sure I did that after the crystal liquid went in. It was boiled with hops for almost 20 mins - 15 mins on the boil then another ~5 on the hot stove while I tried to work out a way to squeeze the hop sock.

This morning the sample is down to 1.012 so still dropping - sample taken yesterday after I checked the hydros, cleaned them and re-did samples for both brews.. Interestingly the 2 different brews are pretty much in lockstep on the SG - the 'Soft Kicker' is a day younger but each read has been within a point of the XPA'ish one. And the kicker one DID have an expected OG of 1.058.  So that brew is behaving as expected although at .1012 it is already below the expected FG.

I did some looking yesterday and found several sources that suggest Nottingham can attenuate to 80% - the SS has it at 75% so that might be why the SG is beating the SS value?

And the XPA-ish 1.057 I checked maybe 4 times because I couldn't see how it could be so low. (prior to the yeast/sugar thing) And it was straight after I'd mixed and immediately after pitching - pitched the hydrated yeast and took the sample. And IIRC it was stirred both after adding the can/malt to the FV then again after adding the hopped crystal/malt mix. And I poured the crystal mix from a height to aerate even more.

[Otto Von Blotto]

300g crystal won't increase the SG by ten points though. 

There are a few reasons why the FG might be different to the predicted figure. The yeast might attenuate more, for one. I don't think with those ingredients that 1.020 is a realistic FG anyway, around 1.015 would be more likely. 

[Journeyman]

6 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

300g crystal won't increase the SG by ten points though. 

There are a few reasons why the FG might be different to the predicted figure. The yeast might attenuate more, for one. I don't think with those ingredients that 1.020 is a realistic FG anyway, around 1.015 would be more likely. 

It's more what DECREASED the OG by 10 points. Got me stumped given I was very careful about it all, trying to nail the process with no 'gotcha' moments because I forgot something etc.

Quantum Rabbit Hole of Brewing?  

[Beerlust]

9 hours ago, Otto Von Blotto said:

300g crystal won't increase the SG by ten points though. 

There are a few reasons why the FG might be different to the predicted figure. The yeast might attenuate more, for one. I don't think with those ingredients that 1.020 is a realistic FG anyway, around 1.015 would be more likely. 

I'll bet it will finish above 1.015 easily given the specs of the brew. Yeast cannot chew through the un-chewable.

If it breaks lower than 1.020 he's done well. Fingers crossed for the aggressive Nottingham to go hard.

Lusty.

[Beerlust]

13 hours ago, Journeyman said:

Different... yes, hence the -ish in the title.  I didn't think the reduction in volume would affect anything except ABV. What else might it do to the beer? Stronger flavour perhaps?

Yes it does. You're adding the same solids weight into a smaller liquid volume. As a poor example, add two tablespoons of Milo to a third of a glass of water, stir & drink it, then add the same amount of Milo to a full glass of water & drink that. You will notice the difference. 

13 hours ago, Journeyman said:

The maltodextrine was for head - while conditioning beers for longer improves the head I'm looking for that thick creamy style - not Guinness or Caffrey's but heading that way. 

Did you mean "expected FG" instead of OG?

Use something like maltodextrin when the FG of your beer recipe suggests a lower level that will lack head retention. When you reduced the overall ferment volume you increased the likely FG of the beer based on a similar principle to my simplistic example above of solid vs liquid ratio vs expected yeast fermentability percentage.

13 hours ago, Journeyman said:

...The FG seems fine - it's under what the spreadsheet predicts. I was concerned the OG wasn't where the SS says it should have been, more for puzzle than concern - I figure it is what it is and it's the WTF? that has me puzzled. 

A little lost on this one.

Lusty.

[Journeyman]

1 hour ago, Beerlust said:

"...The FG seems fine - it's under what the spreadsheet predicts. I was concerned the OG wasn't where the SS says it should have been, more for puzzle than concern - I figure it is what it is and it's the WTF? that has me puzzled. "

A little lost on this one.

Lusty.

The spreadsheet says the OG should be 1.067. I measured it at 1.057. From Otto and other comments I am unable to understand why the reality is different to the prediction. 

The FG is already lower than the predicted FG from the SS - I'd hazard that may be that Nottingham is attenuating better than the 75% in the SS.

I'm OK about the FG - several Nott specs state it can be up to 80% instead of the 75% in the SS. I'm confused about the OG difference - I am NOT confused about what I did, how I mixed it or what went into the mix but none of those steps offers an explanation for why the SS is so different to the measured OG - and I checked both hydros in pure water and both read the same in the samples, original and the one from 2 days back.

 

[Otto Von Blotto]

A given weight of sugars (3.4/3.5kg or so in this case leaving out the crystal) in a given volume of water will result in a certain SG every time. It's purely based on the amount of dissolved sugars in the volume. 

100g per litre gives about 1.038 SG. Your recipe works out at 173g/L. Multiplying 38 by 1.73 equals 65.7, or approx 1.066 SG. Any wort with 173g/L of sugars in it will have an SG of 1.066. Anything else measured is an error. Add whatever the crystal gives and it'll be a little bit higher. 1.057 is wrong, pure and simple, why, well other than stuffed hydrometers the only explanation is the temperature was about 60 degrees or the sample taken was thin, possibly from water sitting in the tap or it wasn't mixed as well as you thought. 

The spreadsheet prediction is based on a similar calculation to the one I detailed above. It will be accurate. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by Otto Von Blotto

[Journeyman]

Yep! I do understand that. Hence the mystery.

I can't see any of the possible explanations being so. Hydros (both) are fine, mixing was heavy duty, sample was quite cloudy in the tube but possibly not cloudy enough if it came with less mixed liquid from the tap? I don't see how that could be so however as 'heavy duty mixing, twice.

I'm down to misreading the hydro 3 or 4 times or maybe there was sediment in the tube sticking the hydro to the side - again not sure how as I always spin the hydro and tap it down a few times to remove possible bubbles etc. 

But that's all I've got. 

Glasses for the next brew...  

I'm just happy that it looks, smells and tastes fine. Not happy about the puzzle but unless it happens again, it's just a reason to nail down my techniques solid. Including maybe photo of the OG.

Edited January 21, 2020 by Journeyman

[Otto Von Blotto]

There will be an explanation for it. Those are just the most likely ones, of course it could be something else but if it's measuring 10 points lower then it suggests there isn't as much sugar in that sample for whatever reason. 

[ozlizard]

On 1/22/2020 at 6:12 AM, Journeyman said:

I'm just happy that it looks, smells and tastes fine

How did it turn out? Drinking this as I type and liking it so thinking about making this the next brew. I have some crystal medium malt left over from the last NEIPA, would that be ok to use?

[Journeyman]

12 hours ago, ozlizard said:

How did it turn out? Drinking this as I type and liking it so thinking about making this the next brew. I have some crystal medium malt left over from the last NEIPA, would that be ok to use?

Very nicely - it's all gone!  

All good though - there's another version in the cupboard, bottled on 1st.  While it wasn't quite on-recipe, it was clearly recognisable as an XPA - could be just brewmaster taste buds but I think it had more flavour than the on-tap... 

I'm planning a 3rd go, sticking to the recipe - beerbelly has lemondrop hops so will be getting some next visit - which may be tomorrow.

Current batch is my Exbeeriment brew.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Journeyman

[ozlizard]

That's very, um, red? One of the things that impressed me about the Coopers XPA was the cloudy appearance, however I don't see anything in the recipe that would account for this?

[Journeyman]

52 minutes ago, ozlizard said:

That's very, um, red? One of the things that impressed me about the Coopers XPA was the cloudy appearance, however I don't see anything in the recipe that would account for this?

That's not the XPA, it's the Exbeeriment one.