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 - HoosierBrew

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 855
871
dude, you have a dog in the race, just look at your sig. I mean, they ended up with an eggy beer, and Bamforth stated that what they did while prescribing to LODO causes an eggy beer. I mean, its not hard to figure out.


I would also say that you have a Great Dane in the race as well - that of automatic, vehement lodo denier. Somebody speaks the word and you jump to attention. So be it, whatever. But let's all be honest here.

872
I wonder if this particular approach (LODO vs. "normal" brewing) is simply something that does not lend itself to testing "a variable."  What I mean is basically this...... instead of trying to keep so many things precisely the same, I would be curious as to using each method to produce the best possible helles, or pilsner that a person can make.  Trying to employ or maintain some of these variables from one beer to the next simply for the sake of having them the same is probably not great for either process.

It is one thing if you are truly testing "a variable"..... like yeast, or ferm. temp, or 2Row vs. Maris Otter.  However - comparing an entire process just does not work that way.

Ultimately, I think the thing a lot of people (or at least it is what I am curious about) want to know is - how can I make the best helles possible (for instance). 

I wonder about starting from a bit more general set of guidelines.  Brew two helles beers. Same % of grain, Same hops.  Shoot for same gravity, same color, same IBU's.......  However, from there - do not obsess over any other variable.    Don't try to incorporate a variable from one method that you would not normally use in another method. 

If you know efficiency is going to vary in your process - you would definitely alter your recipe to account for that.  You would never keep it the same for the sake of preserving a constant.  If you always ferment your Helles one way under "normal" brewing procedure - you would not incorporate a different fermentation process just to accommodate a variable from another process.  If you would never use a sulfur producing yeast in a normal helles.... then I don't know that it makes sense to suddenly use one to keep it the same as the LODO process.

In the end, attempting to test an entire process is very much different than most of the other experiments.  What I really want to know in the end is rather simple - if you put two pints of Helles in front of me, brewed two different ways, which one is better than the other one.  Does either, or both, or neither blow me away?  If one does blow me away - I want to pursue that process.

Thanks for all the work on these - and thanks for tackling this topic especially - I find it particularly interesting.

Great points.  I agree.



I agree, too.

873
Ingredients / Re: Cascade and Chinook Terroir
« on: April 12, 2017, 10:54:58 AM »
Yeah, pretty interesting. Like most of us know who buy hops in bulk, there can be pretty noticeable differences in hops year to year, vendor to vendor. But I wouldn't have expected that Cascade and Chinook would ever come off as tropical because of where they were grown. Cool stuff.
 

874
I think Denny and Dave are both right to some extent here. Yeast will continue to ferment slowly before they peter out, but they eventually will. I think the issue is that you can't instantly halt a fermentation at a particular SG just by cold crashing. If you wanted to prematurely arrest fermentation at 1.014, you would have to start taking measures before it gets to that point. The only way to completely arrest fermentation instantly would be to pasteurize (either chemically or by heat) or via sterile filtration.

In general, I just think it's a bad idea with beer. If you have a beer end up at 1.011 and really want it at 1.014, add some maltodextrin.




I agree. It's a bad idea, especially for bottlers obviously. Modifying recipe and/or mash temps until you're fermented out at your target FG is a lot more desireable IMO.

875
Just passing on some info. As to sulfury beers, I remember (as more info came out on low O2 brewing) there being several posts about keeping smb doses sub 50 ppm for ales. The good thing about the trifecta mixture, aside from being more effective IMO, is that at the .25g/gallon dose which I'm using for ales , the smb dose is in the 30ish ppm range. I get no sulfur there at all, or at the .37g/gallon dose I use for lagers. Having said that, there is possibly some strain dependent issue. As for me, the vast majority of my beers use 1056, 1450, 2206, 2124, 3711, and what is now Rustic/3726 - zero sulfur there. I occasionally use 1214, 3787 and 3522. I haven't done a Belgian low O2 style other than saison yet. So I want to check those out.

876
I wouldn't claim for a second to know a fraction of what Dr Bamforth has forgotten. Having said that, what do I do with his sweeping quote since I have zero 'eggy aromas' in my beers? Is it possible to get eggy aromas, maybe even easy at first with this process? Absolutely. Is it guaranteed? Unless my sense of smell (and that of brewer friends) has left me, gotta say no. I'd love to hear him expound a bit. Hopefully he will.   :)

Regardless, we need to YET AGAIN remember to be civil. We're brewing freaking beer, not putting people on the moon.

877
Ingredients / Re: Cascade and Chinook Terroir
« on: April 11, 2017, 09:18:26 AM »
I grow cascade here in Massachusetts and mine taste strongly of orange whereas when I buy cascade I get strong grapefruit.


Pretty cool, Pete. I assume orangey in a good way?

878
I would say we have officially drifted away ...

However, the last few posts proves the point I was trying to make ... there is no agreement ... it is choice.  That is what makes brewing a blast in the first place!


I agree.

879
Ingredients / Re: Cascade and Chinook Terroir
« on: April 10, 2017, 04:30:16 PM »
I's remarkable, isn't it?


Yeah it is. I figured there'd be differences, but not to change that drastically. Pretty cool.

880
Ingredients / Cascade and Chinook Terroir
« on: April 10, 2017, 03:31:16 PM »
From Stan H's blog, an interesting article about how different the character from hops like Cascade and Chinook can be when grown further and further east from the West Coast. I get the terroir thing, but didn't realize it could change so much.

http://appellationbeer.com/blog/a-hop-by-any-other-name-the-un-chinooking-of-chinook/

881
And obviously some are.  I think the whole process needs further study, but I'm not gonna be the one to do it.  And let's be clear....they don't "owe" it to anybody.  Their results, like ours, are what they are.  You (the royal you) can accept them, reject them, or try it for yourself.  And as to the OGs, Jake said that every LODO batch he's brewed has come out like that.  Just because it hasn't for other people doesn't mean you can discount his results unless you can explain them.


Denny, let me rephrase - nobody 'owes' me or anybody else another study, or anything else. As many others, it's just a data point. But I do feel to have real significance , it would help to have beers that are in the same ballpark OG-wise. Surely you wouldn't argue that, Denny. I'm out of ideas as to why that is and have no more to offer to offer since I wasn't there brewing with them. It doesn't make me royal (?) because I (and many others) didn't have a discrepancy. It just makes me puzzled. ;D

882
A few observations since work has slowed down enough to think:

1.  Low O2 beers are not inherently sulfury. Since the initial paper came out, most brewers switched to the trifecta mixture of smb, ascorbic, and brewtan which obviously reduces smb dose.

2. The discrepancy in OGs most likely came from not stirring enough after underletting. I brewed a double batch of the Dunkel (one lodo, the other not) and both were within a point of each other. That ,or weights and volumes were off.

3.  The discrepancy in OGs alone should have merited a do over, for credibility's sake.


Edit - Denny, I read your post. I think they owe it to everybody to try it again. A lot of guys are brewing this way and not having this kind of OG discrepancy, or the sulfur problem.

883
The Pub / Re: Congratulations...You're Old
« on: April 10, 2017, 10:55:33 AM »
I'm so old I don't even have a Facebook account. ;D


Same here, Chumley. I'm not antisocial by any means but I just can't find a reason to care about having one. Ehh, each his own.

884
It seems that most trials that refute LODO inevitably degrade into discussions as to how the trial was done incorrectly.

Not refuting anything - I'm sharing my experience with OGs.

Let me put out a pre-emptive "Everybody chill." Life and death isn't riding on either side of this.  :)

885

Most low O2 brewers are doing no sparge, Denny. I assume that has to account for part of it with some brewers.

He didn't sparge either batch, Jon.  No differences there.


I can't explain it, Denny. I just know I'm not taking a hit like they are.

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 855