Messages

496

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Which dry ale yeasts to keep as backup?

« on: October 22, 2012, 01:28:45 PM »

I've never heard of K-97 before this thread.

K-97 is a dry Altbier strain, similar to WY1007. I haven't tried them back-to-back, but they seem a bit different. They definitely are both strong top-croppers and are pretty sticky. Some people call it a "Koelsch" strain, but some people are wrong. It doesn't have the white fruit (pear/apple) and vinous esters you'd expect from a proper Koelsch yeast. K-97 is much closer to 1007 than to 2565. K-97 ferments cleanly and matures quickly. It's powdery, too, so it needs finings or extra time to drop bright.

497

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Which dry ale yeasts to keep as backup?

« on: October 22, 2012, 12:21:53 PM »

US-05, S-04, Wb-06, Nottingham and Windsor. I don't care for the Munich dry yeast. Will have to try the K-97.

K-97 is fruity, but different from the fruitiness in other yeast. K-97 with noble hops gives a subtle "orange marmalade" flavor. I'm pretty sure the orange/citrus part is coming from the yeast and the herbal part is from the hops. 

498

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Which dry ale yeasts to keep as backup?

« on: October 22, 2012, 10:10:16 AM »

I always keep some T-58 on hand, and something more neutral as well. I've been really into K-97 lately, but it's kind hard to find. US-05 is a good one if you brew a lot of American styles.

499

All Grain Brewing / Re: How fast do enzymes denature?

« on: October 22, 2012, 05:30:31 AM »

Don't they use 6-row for their mashes?  Lots of enzymes there, that could make a difference whether you are adding some back or not.

I don't think 6-row has that much more enzyme than NA 2-row. For instance, Briess 2-row has DP 140, 6-row is DP 180. It's more, but it's not tremendously more. 

Also, I think some of the big brewers are using some amount of 2-row because farmers out west grow descendants of Moravian barley for Coors, and probably for others as well.

500

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Over pitching/under pitching experiment

« on: October 22, 2012, 05:20:55 AM »

His point is still fair though - older cells don't perform as well.

How old is "older?" Would that happen in a single batch of beer, or are you talking about repitching?

501

All Grain Brewing / Re: How fast do enzymes denature?

« on: October 21, 2012, 01:20:18 PM »

I would think with modern malts, you could split the mash, hold one half at 160+ until it converts, then combine with the other half and hold at a low temp. It wouldn't matter that the beta is denatured at the higher temps because there'd be enough beta in the rest of the mash. I'm picturing a cereal mash doing something similar.

502

All Grain Brewing / Re: How fast do enzymes denature?

« on: October 21, 2012, 10:11:37 AM »

overshooting your mash temp should help with your conversion efficiency since that is largely determined by a-amylase activity and starch gelatinization.

I don't know if it's true, but I read somewhere that Budweiser uses a reverse step-mash, where they start high then lower the temp to get more fermentability. Would that work? On a homebrew scale would a mash that starts at 160 > 140 over two hours have more fermentability than a wort just mashed at 148 for two hours?

503

Ingredients / Re: 2012 Hop Crop?

« on: October 20, 2012, 05:32:37 PM »

Stan Hieronymus is definitely my favorite beer author. I love that he doesn't pretend to be an "expert" on anything, so he seeks out a lot of different experts to inform his views, then he synthesizes that to a clear, concise form.

504

All Grain Brewing / Re: Fauxpils results and discussion

« on: October 20, 2012, 03:08:23 PM »

Kai - They were from the 2011 crop, so not exactly young, but I didn't think they were that old. They had been in a ziplock for about 4 months when I used them, so they weren't vacuum sealed anymore. I had some Willamette from 2010 that grew kinda grassy/unpleasant, so I think I know what you're talking about. I've also had some cascade leaf hops that got super oxidized (the beer tasted like cardboard), so I know the flavor is distinct from oxidation.

505

All Grain Brewing / Re: Fauxpils results and discussion

« on: October 20, 2012, 09:23:55 AM »

I'm really interested in what caused the perceived astringency in these beers, especially the no-sparge. My pH and temps were all in the proper range, and I took a lot of care when I crushed the grain. I wonder if it was just that the relative dryness accentuated astringency that would've been covered up if the beers had been sweeter?

I cracked open a bottle of 5% last night to drink while looking over the notes, and I kinda see the "herbal" hop character, but I thought it was pretty restrained, in the grand scheme of beer. I'm coming to realize that I'm just incapable of brewing "to style" and I should quit entering comps.

506

All Things Food / Re: Best Mexican and Indian cookbooks?

« on: October 20, 2012, 07:57:19 AM »

My wife made tamales for my birthday recently. She tried a few tweaks from the usual recipe. One was getting freshly-ground masa from a tortilleria, and the other was rendering our own lard.

The lard we got was probably ground fatback, but was just labeled "lard." We got it at a Mennonite grocery for like $2. Apparently the unrendered, raw fat is commonly called "lard" too. As you render the lard, you get less and less pure lard, and more pork flavor. If you're using the lard for pastries that might be an issue, but for tamales the pork flavor is fine.

The bad thing about using fresh masa is you can't infuse the masa with flavorful broth. It's already about as wet as it needs to be.

Overall, I'd say using fresh lard and fresh masa is maybe 10% better, but if you have to render the lard yourself or grind the masa yourself, it's not worth it, to me. 

507

Ingredients / Re: 2012 Hop Crop?

« on: October 19, 2012, 05:38:09 PM »

I was listening to Stan Hieronymus' presentation and my wife overheard. She said Stan sounds like a cartoon character of what a beer nerd would sound like. She meant that in the nicest way possible.

508

Ingredients / Re: 2012 Hop Crop?

« on: October 19, 2012, 01:34:36 PM »

I had that figure wrong, it's $0.12/gallon on consumer wine sales, not excise. It funds the Wine and Grape Board, which underwrites the Institute for Continental Climate Viticulture and Enology, which is a branch of Mizzou college of agriculture.

Pre-prohibition Missouri was the biggest wine producer in the country, and they're trying really hard to get there again.

509

Ingredients / Re: 2012 Hop Crop?

« on: October 19, 2012, 10:00:31 AM »

Missouri has a research institute devoted to developing new viticulture techniques and breeding programs for midwest-friendly grape varieties. It's funded through a ~$0.35/barrel excise tax on all wine produced in the state. All wineries in MO are mandatory members of this group, and they all benefit from the fruits of the labor.

With ~200m barrels produced per year, even a $0.05 increase in the beer excise tax would raise $10m/year for beer research. I'm not sure why brewers don't lobby for something like this when they're all desperate to get the latest/greatest hop varieties, and paying through the nose to get them when they can. Just check out the probrewer forums and search for "Simcoe."

510

Ingredients / Re: 2012 Hop Crop?

« on: October 19, 2012, 07:23:33 AM »

The BMC type breweries funded that work. They wanted high alpha hops so they could use less for bittering. The Hallertau derivatives were developed as an alternative to imported hops. Both were many saving strategies.

It wasn't just BMC funding that research. OSU is a public institution. They receive government funding. We all paid for those hops to be developed. BMC paid more than most of us, but they benefited more than most of us. The hops farmers wanted more disease-resistant hops, too.

My problem with patented hops is the person who patents the hops didn't develop that variety all by themself. Just look at the Tomahawk/Zeus. Zimmerman quit the USDA and began private hop breeding, using unreleased germplasms he took from the USDA for his personal profit. We don't really have idea what the lineage of Simcoe or the other patented hops are, or if they're based on stolen publicly-funded germplasms or not.