Messages

646

Equipment and Software / Re: Better Bottle question

« on: December 02, 2009, 05:33:09 pm »

...I wish they would make a 6.5 gallon version though.  I just did a 1.098 beer and came up short on volume ( 4.5 gallon ).  Good thing I did because it went nuts, even with the blowoff  tube.  Can't image what my basement would have looked like if I had the actual 5 - 5.5 I was shooting for.

Actually, I wish they'd come up with a 7 gallon one. 
I'd be all over that and would probably get a few of them.  Right now my main primary is a 7 gal acid carboy and it's perfect...never had a blowout issue (I don't  even bother with a blowoff tube...it isn't even necessary with the 7 gal bottle.)  But is sure would be nice to have a lighter weight BetterBottle with that volume...

647

The Pub / Re: Been scarce, wife has cancer

« on: November 30, 2009, 09:57:35 pm »

wow...sorry to hear this news.  Hang in there and know that everyone here will be sending lots of positive energy your way.

648

Beer Recipes / Re: Oaked and bourbon soaked IPA

« on: November 30, 2009, 11:27:53 am »

So, I love IPAs. I was curious and wanted to tweak some IPA recipes. After reading Vinnie's article in Zymurgy about the Pliny, I was curious about Vinnie's "cube of oak" he used to add to some IPAs with the dry hops. I think I want to try this, dry hops along with with oak cubes/chips. Has anyone done this, what did you think? I also thought about bourbon infused IPAs with the cubes of oak. A smooth bourbon though, like Maker's Mark. Am I nuts, tell me someone has tried it and liked the results. I was also thinking of the base recipe being more like Jamil's West Coast Blaster.

Sounds good to me, but what my tastebuds (or anyone else's) percieve is irrelevant to what you might like.
Why not just try it?

Seriously...It's the only way you'll really know for sure.

649

Beer Recipes / Re: Scotland!!!!!!!!!

« on: November 30, 2009, 11:22:44 am »

AFAIAC, you're way off the money.  The absolute best wee heavy I've made has been from Skotrat's Traquair House clone recipe.  It's nothing but pale malt and about 1% roasted barley for color.

I'm with Denny on this...a simpler grain bill is  going to give you a much better Wee Heavy (as well as a more authentic one, if that's what you're going for). 

You can use a couple of pounds of Munich for some malty richness, but  definitely leave out the peated malt, the crystal malts...everything but the pale and (if you like it) the Munich.

I've done this simpler version  in 5gal batches with around 3 AAUs in the last 60 minutes of the long boil,  then giving the finished beer 6 months aging in the cold, and the result is nothing short of luscious. 
Bottom line is you just don't need all the other stuff n there.

650

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: The Blurred Lines Between Styles

« on: November 25, 2009, 08:01:13 pm »

It does get confusing.
To say the least, I'm not a big fan of the "style" guidelines as they are.  And the list keeps getting bigger and more confusing.

Harmless enough though, I guess, since they really apply only to homebrew competiion.

On a side note with reference to skylar's post...and not intending to hijack:
Strong, hoppy American IPA's are nothing new by any means. 

The other old farts in attendance here besides me will 1) chuckle that I am bringing it up (again) ...
...but 2) remember fondly  the great IPA from 40+ years ago (see my avatar)...well over 7% ABV (a former brewmaster from the company  told me it was possibly around 7.5%)  and between 65-70 IBUs at least,  and aged 1 year in wood prior to bottling to boot (and no...the hop profile was not diminished by the aging...intensely bitter and unbelievably aromatic).   

I only bring it up repeatedly because I think it's very important to remember and note that there were some big brewery beers in the 'dark ages' that would stand up today's micro product (and in some cases, surpass it).
 

651

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Rousing Yeast

« on: November 21, 2009, 12:30:15 pm »

I rouse the yeast at least once a day throughout the primary ferment...the biggest benefit of doing so is probably not realized until near the end of the primary period, but doing do from the start certainly doesn't hurt. 

652

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Dark stout slurry for pale ale?

« on: November 21, 2009, 12:24:49 pm »

The "rule" says that that is too high to reuse.  It will work and you will make beer. 

Right.  Besides the fact that "rules" like that one are meant to be broken, 38 years of brewing and 20 years of repitiching from and to various gravities as well as darker to lighter (and back again, repeatedly)  says that the "rule" is probably wrong anyway.  At least, it has never presented a problem for me. 

Go for it.  You'll make beer. 
If you've kept it all clean and in balance, you'll make very good beer.

653

Ingredients / Re: Is Maris Otter worth it?

« on: November 17, 2009, 09:39:25 pm »

My standard english malt is Crisp and I have been using it for years with great results. Recently
I compaired it to MO to see what all the fuss was about and personally I can't justify the increased cost
for a small increase in quality.

Was the Maris you tried also made by Crisp?  I've used Crisp regular 2-Row and Crisp Maris 2-row, and I found the latter to be noticeably richer, and hence, always my favorite one to use. 
Unfortunately my good, reasonably priced source for it went out of business so I haven't used it in a while. 
It would still be my first choice for all of my beers..

654

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: $8000 for a Lowenbrau???

« on: November 17, 2009, 08:46:58 pm »

Any idea of the yeast viablility on the 1946 brewings?

At the moment, no.
However  the next bottle I open for evaluation will be one from was was (as far as I know) the last bottling (brewed '46 with the yearly top-ups, until bottling in '66) and I am going to be careful with handling, so I can try and see if it's possible to get some yeast going from the dregs. 
The yeast they used for the ferment was, of course, BRY96 (aka 1056, 001) though it would be interesting to see what characteristics are to be had from something cultured up from 43 year old bottle dregs !  Given the nature of these remnants, I will  enlist the help of a biologist friend who has offered to help out...she has indicated that using various media for multiple cultures may increase the chances of retrieving something. 

As they used to say on TV, "film at eleven"     

655

Beer Travel / Re: Lay-over in Munich

« on: November 17, 2009, 07:55:50 pm »

Great report, Kai...
I'm so jealous!

Enjoy the rest of your trip!

656

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Beer Review Generator.

« on: November 17, 2009, 05:22:29 pm »

Denny's beer name generator reminded me of this little gem. I would love to memorize one
of these and spring it on an unsuspecting brewer.

Beer Review Generator

HA! Awsome!
here's mine:

Pours a murky wheat-straw color with a cumulonimbus head. Heavy lacing. Absolutely disgusting herbal aroma, with old newsprint and pine. Disturbing hoppy palate, with just a hint of bubblegum and marzipan. Chalky mouthfeel and disappointing finish. Score: 2.04/5.
 

Actually, a bit like the last $12.00 "extreme" brew I bought.

657

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: $8000 for a Lowenbrau???

« on: November 17, 2009, 05:15:47 pm »

No kidding!  I had a Ballantine Burton ale from 1931 a few years back, but that doesn't hold a candle to those!

Did you get to enjoy it's contents ?

Well, we got to sample the contents...enjoy may be a bit strong.  There were about 8 of us tasting.  We decanted it into a pitcher and spent about an hour sniffing the evolving aroma and taking notes.  It was pretty spectacular. When we finally tasted it, it tasted a lot like watered down scotch.  Interesting, but no one shouted "wotta great beer!"  One of the tasters was a microbiologist and he tried valiantly to culture the yeast, but no luck.

Interesting, and that jibes with others' experience with the 1930's brewing of Ballantine Burton.  If you see one of these and can get it cheap, grab it as a mantle-piece  decoration or paperweight, but not for a taste revelation.

On the other hand, well handled samples of the 1946 brewing (bottled beginning in 1954 and from what I have been able to research, ending in 1966) believe it or not still can yield a remarkable sensory and tasting experience...loads of hop character and aroma, a hefty hint of the oak it was aged in, along with the expected sherry notes.   Having acquired  six  of these for my research, I can say that the first indicator of whether the contents are remotely drinkable lie in the amount of apparent evaporation of the volume in the bottle, and whether the beer drops bright in the bottle after a few months undisturbed (all were quite turbid when I received them).
 
Being a very strong, very highly hopped beer, the Burton still has something to offer for sensory analysis;  it's brewing history, it's still alive to a degree,  and definitely worth experiencing if you are lucky enough to obtain a well handled one.
That pricey Hindenburg Lowenbrau, on the other hand,  goes into a museum case or on the aforementioned mantle.  It is more relevant to aviation history.

658

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Stout or Porter

« on: November 17, 2009, 04:51:23 pm »

...guidelines are generally accepted by all of us in the brewing industry ( homebrewers alike ), for without them where would we be ? what could we compare them to ?

I guess we're straying into a separate topic (I didn't mean to hijack the thread) , but in any case...

You make a good point, and I should clarify that  I believe  very broad  guidelines (perhaps a better term would be "style descriptions") are ok and yes, needed,  to foster a common language.  Something more along the lines of the AHA's original and by far more sensible 'styles' list  published 20+ years ago.
But as you also suggest, brewing is an art.  As such, the only guidelines a brewer needs (outside of specific parameters for amateur competition) are a sense of history, his/her own artistic sense, and his/her own palate. 

So to bring it back 'round closer to original topic... since research indicates that Guinness originally likely did not even use roasted unmalted  barley until well into the 20th century, would the original brew lose points in  a stout competition?  Or, to use a term that many beer lovers have come to loathe, would it be "not to style"?  (even typing the dreaded phrase makes me cringe)

659

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Stout or Porter

« on: November 17, 2009, 11:48:23 am »

When I'm judging what the brewer calls a stout, I'd better be getting some roast notes in aroma and flavor.
I only expect roast in Robust Porters. But the line is blurred as previously stated.
Pro brewers cross it all the time.

Horses mouth dept:
http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style12.php
http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/style13.php

Pro brewers SHOULD cross it, because in commercial brewing (big or small) there  is no line..
The "guidelines" are fine for competition judging... in that context they work well enough (even if they are unnecessarily confusing).   Fortunately,  the "guidelines" are still pretty well relegated to the world of homebrew competition for which they were invented.  But I do fear the day that these concepts escape into the real world and attempt to bring sometimes skewed and allegedly definitive "style" definitions to consumers...it would only cause more confusion, not clarity. 

The "guidelines" are in no way relevant to commercial brewers. 
In fact, getting  too  hung up on "style" definitions would be a bad thing for beer in general.

660

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Stout or Porter

« on: November 16, 2009, 08:50:02 pm »

... Every time I see "Stouts must have roasted barley", I think of Sierra Nevada stout, which is all black malt and no roasted.

Ironically that may make the Sierra more like the original Guinness Stout (which itself was just a stronger version of their Porter).
As far as the roasted barley factor that keeps popping up in the Porter/Stout discussions, there is an interesting thing to consider:  some accounts suggest that Guinness may not have even used roasted barley in any of their brews until probably the 1930's.