Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - gogreen437

Pages: [1] 2 3
Going Pro / Re: So you want to be a brewer
« on: July 22, 2013, 02:30:40 PM »
The element that I see most often neglected is that most small start ups that actually turn profitable don't just do beer, they do food too.  And they do it well.

Going Pro / Re: So you want to be a brewer
« on: July 22, 2013, 02:17:03 PM »
People always say,"good beer! You should open a brewery!"

Yeah, I've gotten that a few times. My response is something like "thanks, but I don't want to borrow 50-100k from anyone to open a brewery."

Tryy 500-1000k and you will be way closer to the mark. You need at least 250k to really even consider making enough beer to kinda even think about paying anyone even min. wage.

It depends on what you are doing and where you are doing it and what kind of incentives local governments might give you for doing it, but after looking into it extensively you can definitely do it for less than a million. 250k is a good mark, but again, it depends on what you are doing.  A place opened by me recently for about 80 grand and is doing well.

The Pub / Re: NTSB Recommends 0.05% BAC Limit
« on: May 15, 2013, 02:18:39 PM »
I'm really tired of random numbers the government pulls out of its you-know-what.  I trust myself on the road with a 0.15% BAC a lot more than some of the drivers I just encountered today.

did you read the article? it's hardly a random number. it's been well tested and studied in real world situations it sounds like.

I know that I do not trust myself at .08 in fact I don't think I would trust myself at .05. for me, at... let's just go with 200 lb. it's close enough ::) I can have a drink and then drive or two or three drinks over an evening with food and drive. that's where I feel safe and I think I likely am, although not as safe as I would be on no booze at all.

very nearly everyone that get's behind the wheel when they shouldn't thinks that THEY can be trusted more that those other guys. I am not saying that you are an unsafe driver but if I was hanging out without and you had enough booze to be at .15 I would not get in a car with you and I would STRONGLY suggest that you at least wait a while before driving.

If everyone would be responsible, rational, and honest with themselves and others about their current level of safe driving ability all the time then we wouldn't need BAC limits but they aren't and we do. and it does in fact reduce fatalities. Driving in public is a privilege not a right.

I don't disagree that someone at .15 should not be behind the wheel.  But, the article also pointed out that lowering the legal limit from 0.1 to 0.08 hasn't done much to reduce drunk driving related fatalities, and the move from 0.08 to 0.05 likely would not either.  I agree with the statement made in the article by the alcoholic-beverage and restaurant industries that focusing on repeat offenders and those who are clearly above the legal limit would be more effective than targeting someone who had a pint at dinner.

All Grain Brewing / Iron in Water
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:44:46 PM »
I'm reading Dave Miller's Brew Like a Pro and one of the items he states that would make water unbrewable (basically saying if you have this go with RO water) are iron levels anywhere near the threshold level of 0.3 ppm.  He states the acceptable limit of iron (not sure if it was a typo or the figure he actually meant as opposed to the threshold level) at 0.03 ppm for brewing water.  According to my city's water report, the iron is at 0.3 ppm, well above what Miller said is the limit.   He doesn't explain why iron makes the water unbrewable, though.  Is it just that it will impart a strong iron taste?  I don't believe I have detected this in my beer, but maybe my palate just sucks.  My full water report is below if it makes a difference.

Water Report   Parts Per Million (PPM)
Calcium           48
Magnesium           38
Total Hardness   90
Carbonate           20
Bicarbonate           15
Total Alkalinity   35
Sodium           48
Iron                   0.3
Sulfate           90
Chloride           44
Silica                   11
Fluoride             1
Phosphate, Tot   0.3
Phosphate, Ortho   0.2
Chlorine           1.2
pH                   9.4

Yeast and Fermentation / British Yeast Recommendation
« on: May 09, 2013, 02:01:25 AM »
I am looking for a good British ale yeast that is fruity, is known to leave some diacetyl in the beer, but isn't over too over the top. 

All Grain Brewing / Re: Recreating the Past
« on: May 08, 2013, 12:42:45 AM »
I haven't had the beer, so take this with a grain of salt, but I can't imagine that recipe would taste anything like a hefeweizen, or even an American wheat a la Widmer. I'd try a weizen strain for the primary yeast first and go from there. Maybe start with a hybrid like Wyeast 1010 if you think the weizen strain is going to be too much.

Logically, I just can't imagine a brewer keeping a highly specialized strain like that and using it just for bottling. Was the beer bottle-conditioned, or force-carbonated?

Edit: I misread "Bavarian yeast strain" as "Bavarian wheat strain". It could be a lager yeast. That would help to explain a little diacetyl too.

To quote from "The Ale Master":  "The cloudiness comes from a second, Bavarian yeast strain that we add after primary fermentation."  So I recalled incorrectly that it was added at packaging, but he states later that the secondary yeast "remains in the bottle or keg." I don't believe it was bottle conditioned, but the hefeweizen was unfiltered, unlike his other ales. Again, he does not state what the primary yeast used was, but it is clear that a Bavarian strain was used after primary fermentation.  I assume they used their house yeast, which was an English strain for the primary. 

I don't remember much (none really) of banana, clove, or bubblegum flavor.  And since it was added after primary, and seemingly just to enhance the cloudiness, that is likely why.   But I don't remember it being quite as clean as other American Wheats.  Either way I think I sort of answered one of my questions as when to add it.  I believe I'll rack to a secondary and add it then once primary is largely complete.

All Grain Brewing / Recreating the Past
« on: May 07, 2013, 02:10:33 PM »
The first beer I ever drank that wasn't a BMC offering was Bert Grant's Hefeweizen.  In retrospect it was pretty middle of the road, and certainly more a Hefeweizen in the mold of Widmer than anything from Germany.  Still, I loved that beer.  Since it was my first and I can no longer buy it, it has achieved Holy Grail status for me in my beer world.  So why not brew it?

I did some research starting with Bert Grant's "The Ale Master" and poking around on line.  From what he wrote about the beer, they used 30% wheat malt and packaged with a Bavarian yeast strain.  I know that they used North American 2 Row as the base malt for most of their beers and I doubt as though that would have been different in the case of the Hefeweizen, so my basic starting point is 70% North American 2 Row and 30% malted wheat.  Their house yeast was an English strain, I know that.  When Grant wrote of his Scottish ale he described it as having a distinct "butterscotch flavor" in a positive manner.  The commercial description of the Hefeweizen also states that there are "hints of butter" in the flavor.  So from my understanding, diacetyl was not an automatic fault for Grant.  Another known fact is that he loved Cascade and again in the commercial description of the Hefeweizen cascade is mentioned.  Finally, according to Ratebeer, the ABV was 4.2%.  Given these items, this is my rough recipe so far with my ensuing questions below:

7.3 lb North American 2 Row
3 lb Malted Wheat

1 oz. Cascade (~6 AA) 60 mins
0.5 oz. Cascade (~6 AA) flame out

Potential Primary Yeast Candidates:
Wyeast 1187 Ringwood Ale
WLP 005 British Ale
WLP 004 Irish Ale

Bottling (??) Yeast:
WLP 300 Hefeweizen Yeast

For anyone who remembers this beer, has some knowledge of it, or maybe just some good insights, here are my questions:

1) Does the grain bill look about right, or do you think some Munich or light crystal or something of that nature was used?

2) I know Ringwood is known for diacetyl, but would I be getting more than I bargained for?  The Irish Ale yeast from white labs is described as creating a "hint of diacetyl" and fruitiness, but it is most often used for stouts....I'm a little lost here.

3) Is it smart to just dump a vial of the Hefeweizen yeast in my bottling bucket?  Especially with the high flocculation rate of a yeast like Ringwood and maybe some under attenuation going on?  Would it be better to pitch this 3 or so days into fermentation?  Or rack to a secondary when it is near it's final gravity and add the yeast then?

Any and all insight/comments/suggestions are appreciated.   

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Starter Boil Duration
« on: May 01, 2013, 06:22:28 PM »
I agree with zimaclone, and would add anything over 145* will make it safe. So if you think about the amount of time it takes to get it from that to boiling and then back down below you should be good to go.

From what I understand, the fermentation process would make it safe in this scenario.  Harmful bacteria, such as salmonella, wouldn't survive it.  But it would survive 145 degrees in a pot/flask and so I would guess some organisms that can spoil your beer that can survive the fermentation process might also.  I believe this is why boiling wort/starters is recommended, basically no bacteria/virus/fungus is going to survive an hour of a vigirous boil.   

Extract/Partial Mash Brewing / Re: DMS in extract kit
« on: April 21, 2013, 08:56:01 PM »
Extract is pre-boiled, so the DMS should already be driven off.  Hop utilization would be the reason to boil longer. 

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: The Mad Fermentationist's Top 10 Myths
« on: February 06, 2013, 05:23:40 PM »

Also don't agree with the kegging vs. bottling thing. I think kegs are pretty crucial to professional-tasting homebrew.

Just curious why you say that?

General Homebrew Discussion / Re: The Mad Fermentationist's Top 10 Myths
« on: February 06, 2013, 05:20:31 PM »
Haven't read the post yet but if anyone thinks you don't save time kegging over bottling they're definitely "mad". Takes 10-15 minutes to strip apart a corny and another 10-15 minutes to rack. And I would argue it isn't necessary to strip apart a corny every time. I also think homebrewed draft beer often tastes better than homebrew bottled beer due to oxidation in bottled beer.

Rinse bottles after use, cover in tin foil and bake.  I realize the baking takes an hour, but I don't actually have to do anything during that time so I don't count it.  I do both and I think the time savings of kegging is often overstated.

General Homebrew Discussion / Pouring First Runnings Back into Mash Tun
« on: February 05, 2013, 10:40:33 PM »
So I'm reading Amber, Gold & Black right now and in the barleywine section Martyn Cornell talks about an old practice where British brewers would pour the first runnings back into a mash tun to make a double beer.  Has anyone tried this before?  It seems sensible that you would extract more sugars from the same volume and create a stronger beer, I had just never read of this practice before and was intrigued. 

 This all seems rather silly.  Not the "Craft versus Crafty" but the reaction to it.  I read the whole article and they never once accused major brewers of breaking into our homes, messing the place up and generally being evil, no good human beings.  They simply pointed out that there are consumers out there who like to buy products from small independent producers (I am one of them) and the way certain products are marketed (Shock Top and Blue Moon) are deceptive and do not make it clear to the consumer who is producing them.  It is a call for transparency so the consumer can make an informed decision.  I don't believe they ever once said Blue Moon or Shock Top were awful beers (though Shock Top is not very good).

As for August Schell's response, it was in poor taste to include them on the domestic non craft list.  But, they do acknowledge on the list that they are small and independent.  It is an attempt at transparency for those who wish to know.  I get that good beer can be made that isn't small or independent.  I don't care.  I prefer to spend my dollars on beer that is, because beer is more to me than a product.  It has a story and it is about the people who make it.  As such, I would like to know who is making my beer.

The Pub / Re: An Interesting Article in Today's Seattle Times
« on: July 09, 2012, 03:43:40 PM »
Seems like a natural extension of the organization's objectives to me.  The only big bright line I see is the federal legality and that's the one the AHA doesn't want to cross in their lobbying efforts.  Our hobby is making booze.  Why is distilling that booze verboten? 

You could argue the similarities, but it seems just as logical (if not more so) that an organization named the American Homebrewers Association would largely concern themselves with brewing.  It is easy for me to say this because I have no interest in distilling, but choosing not to dilute the mission makes sense to me. 

The Pub / Re: Read any good book lately?
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:33:40 PM »

The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss - Newish epic fantasy novel. Stumbled across it because he interviewed my favorite "Urban Fantasy" author Jim Butcher at Comic con. (And of course I just tore through "Ghost Story", Book 13 of Butcher's Dresden Files series)

Just finished this and it was so good.  It was everything I want from a fantasy and more. 

Pages: [1] 2 3