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 - mabrungard

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73
1
All Grain Brewing / Re: Batch vs Fly Sparge - water treatment
« on: April 15, 2014, 07:09:30 AM »
The need to treat sparging water has more to do with its initial alkalinity than its mode of sparging. I don't acidify my sparging water because it is RO water with very low alkalinity. However back in Tallahassee, it was pretty important that I acidified my sparging water due to the somewhat high alkalinity of the tap water.

Be careful with assuming that titrating sparging water down to a certain pH will be sufficient for reducing tannin extraction. In Matt's case, I recall that he uses RO and that 5.8 pH target is safe. For someone with really high alkalinity tap water, that 5.8 pH may still leave a LOT of alkalinity in the sparging water and there could be tannin extraction. That is why a pH target is not ideal. A better target is to reduce the sparging water alkalinity to somewhere around 25 ppm (as CaCO3) or less. Depending upon the starting water alkalinity, the ending pH might be much lower than 5.8. However, since we don't need to take the sparging water pH any lower than the mash pH target, a lower pH target of around 5.2 might be the lowest any brewer would need to take their sparging water...regardless of the resulting alkalinity.

2
Using the mineral additions to reduce pH is not a good way to approach water adjustments. You are correct that limiting the total mineral content of the brewing water is often desirable for beer flavor. That helps avoid creating a minerally water that hides other malt flavors that you want to exhibit.

This is not to say that you would not add a lot of minerals for brewing some styles. Its just that for most brewing, less mineral content can produce a nicer beer flavor.

In the case above, reducing the mineral additions to produce only the mineralization you want in your beer and then adding an acid to produce the pH and alkalinity conditions you need for brewing is more likely to produce better beer. Don't be afraid of using acid in brewing. It is a standard component of most great brewer's tool kit.

3
Equipment and Software / Re: Looking for electronics help
« on: April 13, 2014, 07:13:02 PM »
It is a neon bulb. Those neon bulbs run on 120v. I don't think that all LEDs do. I'm not sure the conversion will be painless.

4
(Neva) Parker (of White Labs) says putting a fresh vial of yeast into 500 ml of wort and letting such a small starter go to completion can actually leave the yeast less ready to ferment a batch of beer. The yeast do not rebuild their reserves and have very little increase in cell mass.

I can believe this if the vial already had high viability and yeast count. However, its questionable if that slurry has either condition. I wouldn't consider adding that slurry unless it was proofed with a starter. In addition, that starter should be continuously aerated to enable the yeast to improve their sterol reserves.

A 1 liter starter makes sense for a fresh vial, but a smaller starter could be OK for a less viable slurry.

5
Yes, the late addition does avoid the effect on the mash. But the effect on the wort pH in the kettle remains. This same thing is a concern when the brewer delays adding hardness minerals like gypsum or calcium chloride from the mash and adds them all into the kettle. The wort pH in the kettle WILL be reduced. In some cases, too low a kettle wort pH will effect hop utilization and can depress the beer pH a bit more than the brewer may want.

Getting the mash pH correct, helps produce proper pH conditions in the later brewing and fermentation stages.

6
Depending on the quantity and type of steeped grains, the pH reduction may be notable or not. In an Irish dry stout, the pH reduction is an important flavor component. In other beers, it may not be appealing to drop the kettle pH by a few tenths. Whether the grain is added in the main mash, at the end of mash, or the kettle, the pH will be reduced. You will have to decide if that drop makes the beer more appealing or not.

7
Ingredients / Re: Using Lactose in RIS
« on: April 06, 2014, 02:54:36 PM »
I'm with Tom on this issue. If the RIS was properly done, it shouldnt need an accessory like lactose. If anything, it should be needing some more attenuation. If it needs more sweetness, add malt!

8
Equipment and Software / Re: Conical lessons
« on: April 03, 2014, 12:20:20 PM »
I have one of the original 12 gal Blichmann's and I typically make 6 gal batches. I never dump the yeast since the yeast and trub generally fill the cone below the limits of the rotating racking arm. If I was doing larger batches, I might have enough of the cone filled to need to draw some stuff off. But no need so far and if I did empty the cone of the trub and yeast, then I wouldn't be able to draw off all the beer. So I think that leaving the cone filled as much as possible is a good idea.

It does look like the raking port on that fermenter is lower in the cone than my system. Maybe its too low and you do have to draw yeast off in your system.

9
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Sulfate Iso-Alpha Acid Extraction
« on: March 31, 2014, 05:08:10 AM »
That is a new one on me. I had not heard of sulfate improving the extraction of iso-alpha acids, but I'm not going to dismiss that it may or may not exist. I do know that sulfate helps dry the palate and that has the effect of improving the perception of bittering to the drinker.

10
Kegging and Bottling / Re: Temperature controllers
« on: March 30, 2014, 01:33:20 PM »
I have several of the Johnson A-419 controllers and they have been rock solid. I do like the electronic readout and controls.  I've seen several postings about the questionable reliability of the Ranco controllers and that swayed me from them.

11
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Consensus while judging?
« on: March 30, 2014, 05:02:36 AM »
I had a similar situation at a recent contest. I scored the beer at 41 and my judging partner scored it at 29...didn't like the hop character. I'm not one to say I'm infallible, so I did drop my score and they compromised a bit too. That beer was eventually pushed to mini BOS and won the category.

An important thing is to make sure that beers that might be good enough to push, get their chance to shine in another forum. When you have large contests with multiple flights, there is a greater chance that other palates will have the opportunity to judge it. The beers in question, just need the opportunity!

12
Ingredients / Re: Efficiency of raw wheat
« on: March 27, 2014, 01:18:30 PM »
Since we are talking about raw wheat, is there a flavor difference between white wheat and red wheat? I've never used those raw grains.

13
Ingredients / Re: Efficiency of raw wheat
« on: March 27, 2014, 07:41:09 AM »
I've made a number of Wits that use wheat malt as a major portion. To get the cloudiness, I use Renner's recommendation to add a roux of flour and water to the boil kettle. I was only using a teeny handful of flour. That was effective in contributing the proteins desired for cloudiness.

By the way, I've long noticed that efficiency with wheat malt mashes are also lower than expected. I'm thinking that the ppg that ProMash cites in their database is just too high. It shows 38 to 40 ppg for wheat malts and only 34 ppg for flaked wheat. I'm thinking I need to edit that database.

14
All Grain Brewing / Re: troubleshoot my too-bitter North German Pils
« on: March 27, 2014, 07:34:16 AM »
Using the Yellow Bitter profile might have been too much. At over 100 ppm sulfate, that is a lot for a lager. The Jever water supply only has about 75 ppm sulfate and low chloride. The Yellow Bitter profile is intended for bigger and more hop focused beer. Comparatively, the Yellow Balanced profile has more similarity to Jever's profile. So the extra sulfate could be emphasizing the bitterness in that beer. I see that you ultimately did moderate the sulfate, so it's probably not way out of line.

But more likely, the bittering level is emphasizing the bitterness in the beer. 45+ IBUs in a 1.050 beer is a lot and could be a source for an imbalance. In addition, I see that you were emulating a Hockkurz mash schedule, but it seems that it was not very kurz (short). I'm afraid that the mash might have been made too fermentable and there may not be enough residual sweetness. Ultimately, there was a over an hour of mashing.

Only 2.8 IBUs of FWH contribution? I assume that was a teeny hop addition.

Yes, the use of RO water negates any need to acidify the sparging water. The very low alkalinity makes it unnecessary. Even if you did acidify, it would only take a few drops to send the pH plummeting. Astringency from the water is unlikely. However, oversparging is still in play. I stop my runoff at 3 Brix now, after infusing several beers with light tannins by stopping at 2 Brix.

15
Beer Recipes / Re: How low can you mash?
« on: March 24, 2014, 12:42:48 PM »
Yes, as Jimmy points out, the enzymatic activity is affected by temperature and a longer mash time would be appropriate for a lower temperature mash. 

I do have to wonder about the effect of mashing at such a low temperature though. That would be taking a lot of body and head potential out of the wort. While I am a proponent of mashing to get fairly high fermentability, I'm concerned that this approach might be too much. Conversely, too many brewers mash at too high a temperature and the fermentability suffers and body is excessive.

I'm curious why she prefers to mash this low? I prefer the low end of the alpha amylase activity.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 73