Carapils in the Hughes single hop recipes

Discussion in 'General Recipe Discussion' started by alsch890, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. Dec 6, 2017 #1

    alsch890

    alsch890

    alsch890

    Active Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2017
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    NULL
    Hi there,

    In his single hop recipes Greg Hughes generally has pale malt plus 250g or thereabouts of carapils. Would this be solely for head retention? Does the carapils add any other quality? If not I might just drop it, e.g. in the Amarillo recipe, and make a simple SMASH pale+Amarillo.

    Thoughts?

    Cheers,

    Allan
     
  2. Dec 6, 2017 #2

    foxbat

    foxbat

    foxbat

    Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    719
    Likes Received:
    269
    Location:
    Essex, UK
    I think you can miss it out and make up the weight with base malt. Brulosophy have shown that it doesn't do anything anyway and that fits with my own experience.
     
  3. Dec 6, 2017 #3

    Cwrw666

    Cwrw666

    Cwrw666

    Regular. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    677
    I did the EKG one a couple of times and used crystal instead of carapils.
    Have to say it was one of the least inspiring BIABs I've done so far. Twice...
     
  4. Dec 6, 2017 #4

    MagnusTS

    MagnusTS

    MagnusTS

    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    94
    Location:
    Leeds
    This is interesting. And great link to that Brulosphy article, thanks.

    I am only just starting to move away from single malt recipes, but must admit I don't know much about speciality malts and I just tend to follow recipes blindly.

    I have just done a Simcoe and Ekuanot pale ale, and based the malt (blindly) on the Greg Hughes recipes - so 4.2Kg MO and 250g Carapils.

    I had to drive all the way across town (in rush hour traffic) to a 'local' home-brew shop and paid a whopping £2.40 for 500g Carapils, just so I could get the brew started on my day off. I am so happy to read that it makes absolutely no difference to the brew. :doh:
     
    britton likes this.
  5. Dec 6, 2017 #5

    Sadfield

    Sadfield

    Sadfield

    Regular. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    652
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    Yet another Brulosophy, not showing anything other than for one set of circumstances and a small sample set, no conclusive data was observed. Omits the fact that Briess claim it enhances beer stability, yet doesn't do any tests on this over a period of time. From Briess -"Use up to 5% for increased body, foam retention, and beer stability in any beer style."

    In fairness they do add a disclaimer in the discussion.

    Here is an alternate view.
     
  6. Dec 6, 2017 #6

    Ajhutch

    Ajhutch

    Ajhutch

    Regular. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    571
    The biggest point for me in that quote is the reminder that good foam is perfectly achievable without adding an ingredient purely for that purpose.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    Sadfield likes this.
  7. Dec 6, 2017 #7

    Saisonator

    Saisonator

    Saisonator

    Regular. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    276
    Location:
    NULL
    Brulosophy tends to show that nothing makes any difference whatever it is :lol:
     
    Sadfield likes this.
  8. Dec 6, 2017 #8

    Sadfield

    Sadfield

    Sadfield

    Regular. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,284
    Likes Received:
    652
    Location:
    Macclesfield
    Ha ha, yes, apply all xbmts and it should be impossible to brew a bad beer.
     
    Saisonator and Ajhutch like this.
  9. Dec 6, 2017 #9

    Ajhutch

    Ajhutch

    Ajhutch

    Regular. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    1,424
    Likes Received:
    571
    I listened to the podcast about the mash temperature one recently. The beers were objectively different, FGs were 1.006 and 1.014 I think, and the tasting panels, including the hosts, didn’t tell them apart. Makes one remember that it’s not just about the product, but the drinker as well.
     
    Zephyr259 likes this.
  10. Dec 7, 2017 #10

    Zephyr259

    Zephyr259

    Zephyr259

    Regular.

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2016
    Messages:
    668
    Likes Received:
    134
    Location:
    Aberdeenshire
    I liked that article as it made me think of something, I'd not clicked to before. "Maltiness" is often linked to fg but what I took from that article was that I can brew 2 beers with the same abv using different mash temps, the higher temp necessitates a higher OG which then needs more malt. As such the higher temp and FG beer had more malt in it to start which leading to a maltier beer.
     

Share This Page