Brew Dudes Homebrewing Blog

Czech Style Amber Lager Tasting and Recipe

On August 19, 2026

We brewed a Czech Style Amber Lager as a seasonal transition beer for the cooler days ahead. Mike revisited an older recipe and made several changes while keeping the beer focused on malt character. The result was a light, refreshing lager with amber color, layered malt flavor, and balanced bitterness.

Czech Style Amber Lager Recipe

Mike adjusted his Jar of Destiny Czech Amber Lager recipe to create this 2026 version:

Grain Bill:

77% Pilsner malt
11% Munich I malt, approximately 7° Lovibond
Almost 8% CaraMunich II, approximately 60° Lovibond
Just under 2% Carafa Special II, approximately 400° Lovibond
Just under 2% Melanoidin malt

Hops:

1 ounce of Tettnang hops added at 60 minutes to go in the boil

Yeast:

W-34/70 lager yeast
Wyeast 2278 Czech Pilsner was originally planned, but the package did not perform

Water Profile:

Balanced sulfate and chloride levels

Mash Schedule:

145°F for 30 minutes
154°F for 20 minutes
168°F mash out for 10 minutes

Outcomes:

Original Gravity: 1.045
Final Gravity: 1.013
% ABV: About 4.5% ABV

Process and Tasting Notes

Although he intended to use Wyeast 2278 Czech Pilsner yeast, the package failed before fermentation. He substituted W-34/70, a strain he trusts, even though it moved the beer away from his original plan. Likewise, his intended Czech hops were unavailable, so Tettnang provided the spicy character Mike wanted from the profile. The beer poured with a persistent off-white head, amber color, red highlights, and a slight haze.

On the nose, we found malt-forward cracker and graham cracker notes with a noticeable spicy impression. Mike also noticed a cinnamon-like note, although he connected that impression more broadly to the beer’s maltiness. The step mash helped preserve complex malt character while keeping the finished lager light and highly drinkable. In the flavor, the malt and hops blended well, with Tettnang adding a pleasant finish. It felt especially well suited to late summer evenings when cooler weather starts returning to New England.

What We Learned

This batch showed us that a Czech Style Amber Lager can deliver rich malt flavor without becoming heavy. Even with substitutions, the beer remained balanced, crisp, refreshing, and complex enough to keep each sip interesting. The Tettnang hops worked especially well, while W-34/70 produced the clean fermentation character Mike expected. Most importantly, the recipe created an approachable summer to fall season transition beer for drinkers who enjoy malt-forward lagers.

BREW ON!

HBC 1134 Hops SMaSH Beer Review & Tasting

By John Krochune

On August 12, 2026

In Hops, Videos

We brewed another one-gallon SMaSH beer to learn what HBC 1134 hops bring to a beer. HBC 1134 remains an experimental variety, making this tasting (hopefully) a helpful understanding of its character.

Learn more about what we thought about how this hop variety presented itself in this video.

The SMaSH Beer Process

For this experiment, I used our familiar one-gallon SMaSH format with two pounds of malt and two gallons of water.

The hop schedule used twenty-eight grams total, divided evenly across four additions during brewing and fermentation.

US-05 handled fermentation because its neutral profile lets the hop character remain the main focus.

Batch Size:
1 gallon

Water:
2 gallons

Malt:
2 pounds of Rahr 2-row malt

Hops:
1 ounce (28 grams) of HBC 1134 hops added following this schedule.

7 grams at 60 minutes left in the boil
7 grams at 15 minutes left in the boil
7 grams at the end of the boil
7 grams as a dry hop

Yeast:
3 grams of US-05 dry ale yeast.

Our Tasting Notes

On aroma, Mike found green fruit first, followed by subtle citrus, lime zest, and a cucumber-like quality. That vegetal impression was mild and fresh rather than unpleasant, adding something unusual behind the brighter citrus notes. The flavor followed the aroma, with lime, green mango, cucumber, and a subtle resinous or pine-like edge.

After tasting, we compared our notes with descriptors including rose, pine, herbal, lemon, and grapefruit characteristics. The citrus connection made sense, although our impressions leaned more toward lime and underripe green fruit. Mike also connected some herbal character with a geranium-like quality and the hop’s zippy finish. The hop’s alpha acid range is nine to twelve percent, giving it enough strength for bittering additions.

We thought HBC 1134 could work especially well in light lagers where some citrus aroma is welcome. Mike also mentioned West Coast Pilsner, cold IPA, and Italian Pilsner as possible directions for experimentation. It could also support an IPA hop blend, especially when paired with varieties providing complementary flavors.

This variety is another experimental hop worth following. Hey, it may even get a new name (maybe) someday!

BREW ON!

Bottle Conditioned English Strong Ale

By John Krochune

On August 5, 2026

In Style Profiles, Videos

Mike recently brewed a bottle-conditioned English-style strong ale inspired by traditional British pub beer and real ale service. Instead of force carbonating the beer in a keg, he conditioned each bottle naturally with measured carbonation drops. The result was a fresh, lively beer combining rich malt character, earthy hops, expressive yeast, and firm carbonation.

British Pub Ale #1 Recipe

Batch Size: 3.5 gallons

Water:
Combination of tap water and spring water
Gypsum
Magnesium sulfate
No additional chloride

Grain Bill:
85% Rahr Pale Malt
12% Baird’s Crystal 50/60
3% Biscuit Malt

Hops:
1.5 ounces, or 42 grams, Fuggles hops at 60 minutes to go in the boil

Yeast:
1 packet each of SafAle S-04 and Mangrove Jack’s Empire Ale Yeast
Both yeast packets were rehydrated together before pitching

Outcomes:
Original Gravity: 1.061
Final Gravity: Approximately 1.015
ABV%: Slightly above 6%

Mash Schedule:
Mash at 150 degrees Fahrenheit for 60 minutes
Slowly ramp toward mash-out during the following 15 minutes

Bottle Conditioning:
Fill bottles directly from the fermenter
Add one Cooper’s carbonation drop to each bottle
Cap each bottle and allow natural refermentation

First Thoughts

For bottling, Mike filled directly from his SS Brewtech fermenter while his son capped each finished bottle. Each bottle received one Cooper’s carbonation drop, simplifying sugar measurement and supporting consistent natural carbonation. After six days, the beer opened with a clear pop and already showed surprisingly active carbonation.

The aroma presented noticeable yeast character, light esters, mineral qualities, and an earthy contribution from the Fuggles hops. Those flavors continued into the tasting, alongside blended malt sweetness, hop bitterness, and persistent carbonation across the palate. Mike noted that S-04 can emphasize mineral and herbal qualities, especially when paired with earthy English hops. However, I thought those qualities worked together and supported the traditional personality of a bottle-conditioned English ale.

What We Learned

This first British Pub Ale showed that bottle conditioning can produce lively carbonation within a surprisingly short period. The beer delivered malt depth, earthy hops, yeast expression, and the rustic character Mike wanted from real ale. Next time, he plans to reduce the strength and brew something closer to a standard English bitter. He may also replace the remaining Fuggles with East Kent Goldings, one of his preferred English hop varieties.

Overall, the experiment created a strong starting point for Mike’s evolving series of British pub ale recipes.

BREW ON!

Crystal 40 vs. CaraMunich I in American Pale Ale

By John Krochune

On July 29, 2026

In Malts, Recipes, Videos

Mike brewed two American Pale Ales to compare Crystal 40 malt directly against CaraMunich I malt. Both beers shared the same base malt, hopping schedule, yeast, water profile, fermentation, and finished gravity.

The only recipe difference was the specialty malt providing eight percent of each beer’s total grain bill. This approach kept the colors nearly identical while giving us a focused comparison between the two malts.

Watch this video to see all of the details of this APA experiment.

A Specialty Malt Experiment

Mike designed the beers around Valley Malting American pale malt, which made up ninety-two percent of both recipes.

He kept the hopping restrained because the purpose was comparing malt flavor rather than creating an aggressively hopped pale ale.

American Pale Ale Malt Comparison Recipe

Batch Format: Two nearly identical American Pale Ales

Base Malt:
92% Valley Malting American pale malt

Beer A Specialty Malt:
8% Briess Crystal 40

Beer B Specialty Malt:
8% CaraMunich I

Original Gravity:
1.048

Final Gravity:
1.012

Estimated Alcohol:
Approximately 4.7% ABV

Mash Schedule:
Mash at 152°F for 60 minutes. Mash out at 168°F for approximately 20 minutes.

Hops:
12 grams Nugget for bittering
20 grams Centennial with five minutes remaining

Yeast:
Rehydrated Cellar Science Cali Ale yeast

Water:
Equal parts spring water and tap water, with gypsum favored and no additional chloride.

Fermentation:
Fermented for approximately ten days, transferred into kegs, then rapidly carbonated before tasting.

Our Thoughts On The Experiment

During the blind tasting, Beer A seemed drier and carried a noticeable biscuity character through the finish. Beer B tasted maltier and fuller, with slightly more body from the CaraMunich I addition. However, the differences remained subtle because the Centennial hops gradually coated our palates during repeated tasting.

Mike then revealed that Beer A contained Crystal 40, while Beer B contained CaraMunich I. I preferred Beer A because its flavor matched my memories of classic American Pale Ales more closely. The Crystal 40 also allowed the Valley Malting base malt to remain clearer throughout the tasting. Meanwhile, CaraMunich I added more malt weight, although it never made the second beer unpleasant or unbalanced. Crystal 40 was our preferred specialty malt for this straightforward American Pale Ale recipe. Its drier, biscuit-like character supported the hops while preserving the flavor of the American pale base malt. CaraMunich I produced a slightly fuller beer with more malt presence and a rounder overall impression.

Still, the differences were small enough that either malt could produce a very good American Pale Ale. Mike would continue using CaraMunich I in German and Czech styles where its malt character fits naturally. However, Crystal 40 remains his likely choice when building a more traditional American Pale Ale. This experiment also showed how ingredient comparisons can improve future recipe design without adding unnecessary specialty malts. Understanding Crystal 40’s biscuit-like contribution could reduce the need for separate biscuit malt in some recipes.

For this style, Beer A delivered the balance and familiar malt profile we wanted most.

BREW ON!

Kentucky Common Beer – 4th Attempt

By John Krochune

On July 22, 2026

In Recipes, Style Profiles, Videos

Kentucky Common is one of those historical American beer styles that Mike has been exploring for some time now. He has brewed one over the last several years, but in this version, he changed the recipe and fermentation approach considerably.

For this batch, he wanted to respect the traditional concept while brewing something more enjoyable for his preferences. The result was a darker, malt-forward beer featuring plenty of corn without an overwhelming cooked corn character. We tasted the beer together and discussed the recipe, fermentation problems, and improvements over Mike’s previous Kentucky Common. Here is everything you need to know about his 4th attempt.

We Learn and Do

This is the 2026 version of Mike’s Kentucky Common Beer Recipe

The Fourth Kentucky Common Recipe

Grain Bill

50% Pale Malt
23% Pilsner Malt
23% Corn
2% Crystal 40
2% Blackprinz Malt

Hops

2 ounces Willamette hops at 60 minutes

Yeast

1 packet Fermentis SafLager S-23

Mash

Mash at 152°F for 75 minutes

Fermentation

Fermented initially between 62°F and 65°F
Later warmed to approximately 72°F after fermentation slowed
Lagered for an extended period before tasting

Original Gravity: 1.052
Final Gravity: 1.018

First Takes

Mike hoped the longer mash would encourage better fermentability, although the final gravity remained higher than expected. The fermentation stopped around 1.021 initially, so Mike gently roused the yeast and increased the fermentation temperature. Those changes only brought the beer down several additional points before fermentation appeared completely finished at 1.018. Despite the fermentation issue, the extended lagering period made a noticeable difference when we finally tasted the finished beer.

The beer poured very clear with an off-white head that remained persistent throughout much of our tasting. On the aroma, malt was clearly the dominant characteristic without much noticeable yeast character coming through. The flavor was considerably smoother than Mike’s earlier attempt at brewing a Kentucky Common beer. More importantly, I did not get the cooked corn character that stood out in some previous adjunct beers. Using 23 percent corn seemed like a good compromise between representing the style and keeping the beer enjoyable. Meanwhile, the pale malt provided additional malt character instead of relying entirely on Pilsner malt for the base. Even with only two percent Crystal 40, the finished beer had a surprisingly noticeable malt character.

Mike thought the S-23 yeast also helped support that malt character after spending considerable time lagering. One of our bigger discussions concerned why fermentation stopped considerably higher than Mike originally expected. His working theory involved pitching dry yeast directly onto the sanitizer foam remaining inside his fermentation vessel. Mike wondered whether some yeast remained trapped within that foam instead of immediately reaching the wort underneath. Recently, he has started rehydrating dry yeast before pitching, allowing the liquid yeast mixture to penetrate that foam. We do not know whether that explains the attenuation problem, but it gives us something worth testing. Even with the higher final gravity, this Kentucky Common remained balanced, smooth, and easy to drink.

Final Thoughts

This version was an improvement over our previous Kentucky Common experiments, particularly regarding the corn character. For my tastes, keeping corn around one quarter of the grain bill produced a much more enjoyable result. The combination of pale malt and Pilsner malt also provided enough character without making the beer overly heavy. Additionally, extended lagering appeared to smooth out fermentation characteristics that were unpleasant when the beer was younger.

The biggest unanswered question involves the stalled fermentation and whether yeast handling contributed to the higher final gravity. Mike has already changed his dry yeast process, so future batches should give us more information. Ultimately, this Kentucky Common respected the historical idea while still reflecting Mike’s preferences as a homebrewer. That is usually the right approach for us: understand the style, then adjust the beer to your tastes.

BREW ON!