Messages

2386

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Where are the fruity esters coming from?

« on: March 15, 2010, 10:37:45 pm »

Well, you pitched a tiny little starter, relative to the beer. That wouldn't even be enough for 5 gallons. So that might have resulted in excessive esters.

2387

All Grain Brewing / Re: Finally sent for water report

« on: March 15, 2010, 11:22:54 am »

I see lots of Chloride-Sulfate imbalances in these reports.

Except for hopfenundmalz, they all seem pretty tame to me. FWIW I don't think there's anything magical about a SO4:Cl ratio. 20:10 won't taste anything like 100:50. For that matter, mine is about 20:1 but hoppy beers don't taste quite right without more gypsum.

Anyway, here's mine. Lawrence, Indiana - we're surrounded by, but separate from, metro Indianapolis water.

Ca 96
Mg 26
Na 21
Cl 2
SO4 39
HCO3 358

2388

The Pub / Re: Dinosaurs -vs- Cattle

« on: March 12, 2010, 12:28:04 pm »

As silly as this discussion is, it actually has merit. I am a little puzzled by the pirate connection to GW, but I've heard crazier ideas.

Nothing could be more straightforward:

The connection between piracy and global temperatures is irrefutable.

2389

The Pub / Re: Dinosaurs -vs- Cattle

« on: March 12, 2010, 10:19:09 am »

Are you implying that global warming was caused by dinosaurs?

Everyone knows global warming is caused by pirates.

2390

All Grain Brewing / Re: Finally sent for water report

« on: March 11, 2010, 08:54:26 pm »

Does that mean I can brew low SRM beers as it is, and would have to adjust to brew something like an Imperial Stout?

Not quite; you'd probably want to add gypsum (for hoppy beers) or calcium chloride (for malty beers) - at least enough to get your calcium to 50 ppm. The only time you would have to dilute with distilled or RO water would be for something like a pilsner. For anything darker than maybe 10 SRM, you'll need to add carbonates with chalk and/or baking soda.

2391

Ingredients / Re: Hop pellets imparting color?

« on: March 11, 2010, 12:17:48 pm »

I've noticed that with Hallertauer too; they seem to have much more chlorophyll than other varieties. Or something like that.

2392

Extract/Partial Mash Brewing / Re: Partial Mash Extract Efficiency & Brewhouse Efficiency

« on: March 11, 2010, 11:05:40 am »

Am I batch sparging correctly, and am I moving in the right direction?

Your procedure sounds good. If anything, I'd say you could save some time and effort by skipping the 168°F mashout and going straight to the sparge. Do you know what kind of efficiencies you're getting?

2393

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Why don't more microbrews start canning?

« on: March 10, 2010, 10:38:18 pm »

Not if I'm drinking directly from the container. Aluminum, lined or not, still has a metallic taste.

Well, no offense, but if someone is drinking directly from the container, taste (or at least aroma) can't be a huge concern for them.

2394

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Why don't more microbrews start canning?

« on: March 10, 2010, 10:11:00 pm »

Superior???

Two of the same beers, at the same price, on the shelf, I'm going with bottles. I'm looking for the best taste. I'm not buying good beer to save the earth.

Cans reduce oxidation, reduce skunking, are less likely to break, cheaper to produce and package, less likely to break, and allow more beer to be shipped/stored in a given volume. I can't think of a way they *aren't* superior.

If taste is your main concern, you should prefer cans.

2395

Ingredients / Re: Westmalle water

« on: March 10, 2010, 04:07:17 pm »

Unless you were able to get a sample of the mash liquor from the brewery, it wouldn't necessarily tell you anything anyway. They could very well have their own RO units.

Besides, I'd hate to see you give up beer space in the luggage.

2396

Ingredients / Re: Is there a possibility of "Over malting" grain?

« on: March 10, 2010, 04:04:48 pm »

Good to know... I have an unopened sack of TF MO in the garage. I'll have to check it out.

2397

Extract/Partial Mash Brewing / Re: Partial Mash Extract Efficiency & Brewhouse Efficiency

« on: March 10, 2010, 04:03:34 pm »

Are you sparging? Theoretically, if you're at 50% for a no-sparge, doing a single batch sparge would get you to about 67%.

I guess there would be two ways to look at a mini-mash: mash as much grain as possible (save money), or as little as possible (minimize complexity and/or use up extract). For the former you'd want to mash all the specialty grains and much base malt as your setup could handle. For the latter you'd want to mash the specialty grains with the minimum amount of base malt needed for conversion - about one pound of base malt for every two pounds of other grains (for domestic 2-row) or maybe 1:1 for less-modified continental malts.

2398

Ingredients / Re: Is there a possibility of "Over malting" grain?

« on: March 10, 2010, 02:17:00 pm »

As for the maltster, when it comes to their efficiency they are actually interested in letting the barley germinate as little as possible since the growth of the embryo consumes starch. The skill of the maltster is being able to let it germinate just long enough to satisfy the modification demands of the customer.

Good point. I was thinking more about trying to maximize enzyme content, since their biggest customers are probably the adjunct brewing industry - macro lagers, and maybe liquor as well.

2399

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Favorite Scoresheet Comment

« on: March 10, 2010, 02:12:14 pm »

I don't enter comps, but if I gave up good beer and money to do so, I'd expect constructive criticism, rather than sharp wit.

In a perfect world you could get both.

2400

Extract/Partial Mash Brewing / Re: Partial Mash Extract Efficiency & Brewhouse Efficiency

« on: March 10, 2010, 01:25:35 pm »

When calculating your conversion efficiency, use only the grains, not the extract. Otherwise you'll get a different result every time the proportion of extract changes. I'm guessing that's why Beersmith is giving you different numbers.

Since you collected 3.5 gal at 1.073, that's 255.5 point-gal. Factoring out the extract:

(255.5 - (90 + 44))/(389.75 - (90 + 44)) = 0.475, about 48% efficiency. The discrepancy is probably due to slightly different potential extract figures.