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 - erockrph

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 402
1111
Ingredients / Re: Buying old hops online
« on: February 02, 2016, 10:17:17 PM »
I just had Saaz and Hallertau delivered from Yakima.  The invoice says "2015 CROP!"
Just ordered some 2015 EKG's (and Crystal... and Lemon Drop... and some new hop called 007... can't control myself  :-\ ) after reading this. Looks like most of the European hops are listed as 2015 at YVH now.

1112
All Grain Brewing / Re: no sparge
« on: February 02, 2016, 07:38:20 PM »
Isn't 2.5 l/kg about equivalent to 1.2 qts/lb?  How is that thinner than say 2 qts/lb. mentioned in previous posts above?  I'm confused.

Good question. If you look at the graph of Troester's results, he gets maximum efficiency at 5 l/kg, but 2.5 l/kg is nearly all the way there (hence "most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg").

The main point is that efficiency doesn't fall off as the mash gets thinner.

I'll post an image of the graph when I get to a computer...
5L/kg is still a lot thicker than many full-volume/no-sparge mashes (such as BIAB) would be. Mash thicknesses in the range of 3-4 qt/lb (or more) are pretty common for low-to-moderate gravity beers. I can't imagine that the trend of increasing efficiency as mash thickness decreases continues on forever. At some point the concentrations of malt and enzymes have to dip low enough where you convert less starch within a given mash length than thicker mashes.

Having said that, I feel pretty comfortable that this point is thinner than 3 qt/lb, and possibly well beyond that.

1113
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: hop stand exbeeriment
« on: February 02, 2016, 12:35:35 PM »
My thoughts:

A) Can we please stop referring to flash points when it comes to hop oils? That term refers to the flammability of the pure substance, and has little bearing on the evaporation rate when dissolved in a solution.

Your post was the only one that mentioned flash points in this thread as far as I can see  ;)
From the original article:

Quote
Theoretically, reducing wort temp prior to adding hops ought to lead to more hop character since many hop oils have flashpoints lower than boiling. This reasoning makes sense to me and is the primary reason my standard practice when brewing IPA is to chill the wort to 170°F/77°C before adding the hops for a 20-30 minute soak.

I hear flash points mentioned quite often in discussions about what temperature to perform hop stands at, why you need to chill rapidly, what temp to dry hop at, etc. While I don't doubt that many hop oils will volatilize extensively at temps below boiling and possibly even close to room temps, the use of the flash point as some magical point above which all of the oil in question will "flash off" out of the wort is just plain wrong.

By comparison, the flash point of ethanol is 63F. I ferment my ales warmer than that, but they still have plenty of ethanol in them when I get around to drinking them.

1114
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: hop stand exbeeriment
« on: February 01, 2016, 07:45:46 PM »
My thoughts:

A) Can we please stop referring to flash points when it comes to hop oils? That term refers to the flammability of the pure substance, and has little bearing on the evaporation rate when dissolved in a solution.

B) I don't think this is a great test when it comes to bitterness because 1) the scheduled boil hops were used as planned and 2) it is an IPA and therefore would already have a decent amount of IBU's by the time you get to your whirlpool additions. A better test would be something with low IBU's in the boil. Better yet, no boil hops and followed up with lab analyses of measured IBU to compare perceived bitterness vs measured IBU's.

C) This is a decent data point regarding whirlpool additions at various temperatures. But I think this is something that needs a lot of data points at various time/temp/hopping rates to see if we can fit a trend. Looking forward to the IGORs' results.

As always, thanks to the Brulosophy folks for the time and effort spent on this.

1115
All Grain Brewing / Re: no sparge
« on: February 01, 2016, 07:57:29 AM »
"The brewhouse efficiency of the tick mashes remained almost constant between 58 and 60% over the temperature range of the experiments, but the brewhouse efficiency for the thinner mash showed a strong dependency on the temperature and was always better than the efficiency of the tick mash. That leads to the conclusion that thinner mashes perform better and allow for better extraction of the grain. Briggs also reports that thinner mashes can convert more starch but that most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg [Briggs, 2004] "

Isn't 2.5 l/kg about equivalent to 1.2 qts/lb?  How is that thinner than say 2 qts/lb. mentioned in previous posts above?  I'm confused.
Good catch. Leave it to the metric folk to screw up a good thing  ;)

1116
All Grain Brewing / Re: no sparge
« on: February 01, 2016, 07:33:12 AM »
I'm a novice at this.  I've been doing all-grain BIAB on darker beers with OG from 1.040 to 1.060.  I run my grain through the mill twice for a finer crush to improve efficiency.

I'd often wondered about the water to grain ratios being thinner for BIAB.  I'm going to try Denny's idea of mashing at 1.75 to 2 qts/ lb and then topping up to boil volume.
I go up to the low 3's qt/lb using a hybrid BIAB/no-sparge method without an issue. I start to run into issues with decreases in efficiency as I get closer to 4qt/lb, so I've started using Denny's top-off method for session beers where the mash would be extra-thin.

I can't say that I check my pH's religiously, but I spot-checked several recipes when I started brewing AG using this technique and everything was always within range of what I was expecting based on Brun'water and Kai's calculator on Brewer's Friend.

You should get better efficiency from a thinner mash rather than lower efficiency:
http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Effects_of_mash_parameters_on_fermentability_and_efficiency_in_single_infusion_mashing#Mash_thickness

"The brewhouse efficiency of the tick mashes remained almost constant between 58 and 60% over the temperature range of the experiments, but the brewhouse efficiency for the thinner mash showed a strong dependency on the temperature and was always better than the efficiency of the tick mash. That leads to the conclusion that thinner mashes perform better and allow for better extraction of the grain. Briggs also reports that thinner mashes can convert more starch but that most of the conversion potential is reached at a water to grist ratio of 2.5 l/kg [Briggs, 2004] "
Interesting information there. In the past, I increased the duration of my mash on the thinner batches and that brought their efficiency in line with the thicker ones, so I'm pretty sure I didn't max out the absolute efficiency possible at 4 qt/lb.

I prefer the top-off method now for session beers because I pre-heat my topoff water in the kettle and runoff into it. That saves me some time on the way to boil, and kind of does some of the function of a mashout for batches where I want to lock in the dextrin profile instead of having some ongoing conversion as I start heating my wort to boil.

1117
All Grain Brewing / Re: no sparge
« on: February 01, 2016, 06:45:17 AM »
I'm a novice at this.  I've been doing all-grain BIAB on darker beers with OG from 1.040 to 1.060.  I run my grain through the mill twice for a finer crush to improve efficiency.

I'd often wondered about the water to grain ratios being thinner for BIAB.  I'm going to try Denny's idea of mashing at 1.75 to 2 qts/ lb and then topping up to boil volume.
I go up to the low 3's qt/lb using a hybrid BIAB/no-sparge method without an issue. I start to run into issues with decreases in efficiency as I get closer to 4qt/lb, so I've started using Denny's top-off method for session beers where the mash would be extra-thin.

I can't say that I check my pH's religiously, but I spot-checked several recipes when I started brewing AG using this technique and everything was always within range of what I was expecting based on Brun'water and Kai's calculator on Brewer's Friend.

1118
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Blueberry ale
« on: February 01, 2016, 01:47:37 AM »
There are many commercial blueberry ales out here in New England, and some of them are actually decent ;)

The base beer is almost always a clean blond ale that finishes dry, but not overly so. I'd keep it simple and not super malty. If you use MO as a base, then I wouldn't be looking to add any extra maltiness with additional specialty malts - the MO should be just enough. I think your original plan for MO/Oats/sugar with US-05 sounds solid. Either of your hop options will work. I'd keep the hopping relatively low, with just a 60-minute addition to get your IBU's.

I'm not sure when blueberries come into season out your way, but floating a few in the glass is definitely the best way to serve a blueberry ale. Bonus points is you can score some of the small wild-type blueberries.

1119
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Can a yeast starter be stored in the fridge?
« on: January 31, 2016, 12:02:11 PM »
You absolutely can. The sooner you use it the better, but you're probably good for 1-2 weeks without a problem.

1120
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Ferment Beer 9 Times Faster
« on: January 31, 2016, 11:18:25 AM »
I wonder if the microfluid part would give the same result as just stirring/pumping the fermenting wort around on a regular (non-micro) scale.
I was thinking this as well, but I'm also wondering what their pitching rate is as well. I'm thinking that the yeast must be in a stationary phase in the bioreactor and are just feeding on the wort at whatever rate it is being fed to them.

Extrapolating a bit, I wonder if you could replicate this by having some sort of setup where you have your yeast slurry in a small keg or water filter chamber and slowly circulate wort through it by jumping it from one keg to another.

Very cool tech from the sounds of it. I'd love to get into the nuts and bolts of it. I'm also wondering if it only works for certain gravity ranges, beer styles, etc., or if it is something that will work for any fermentation.

1121
The Pub / Re: Chocolate stash
« on: January 29, 2016, 05:58:31 PM »
Now that's some customer service for you!

1122
Ingredients / Re: Single-hopped beers 2015 edition
« on: January 29, 2016, 05:55:04 PM »
I just received 8 oz. of Vic Secret yesterday.  They are like 17.4% AA.
Mine are 16.5, so that sounds about right. I didn't have my AA%'s in front of me when I wrote these up.

Vic Secret - 16.5% AA
Enigma - 18.1% AA
X-17 - 9.6% AA
HBC438 - 16.6% AA
Exp. Armadillo - 5.5% AA

1123
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: 2016 Spring Swap
« on: January 29, 2016, 08:13:20 AM »
I prefer the Briess Pilsen DME myself, too. I just happened to see the amylase on the shelf at my LHBS (they sell lots of flaked corn and amylase by the pound for some reason, hmm...) and figured I'd give it a try. Plus the Munich LME isn't quite as fermentable as the Pilsen DME and I want to make sure this attenuates well.

I've been doing more extract brews lately, and if this let's me control attenuation better I might add it to my toolkit. I might run some FFTs on some small batches to see if it really makes a quantifiable difference with various extracts.

Please tell me I'm not the only one whose first thought is "Fast Fourier Transform" whenever I see FFT...
For me I always think of Final Fantasy Tactics...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


1124
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Lager starters
« on: January 28, 2016, 08:20:14 PM »
Can't argue with tangible experience.

I wonder if I should try it on a small batch lager....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do 2.5g batches and did a 1L starter, shaken not stirred, in a 5L flasks for 3 different lagers. All of them under attenuated from my normal experience and had more than perceptable esters. I pitched at high krausen, I think I even have a picture of it somewhere.

I tried to like it. I don't. No big deal though, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat.
Interesting. I've only done SNS once for a lager, but I was quite happy with the results. I did a 1.25 qt starter for a 3 gallon batch, so a similar rate to you, and otherwise followed my normal lager routine. The batch turned out great, and I'm committed to using SNS in the future.

I did miss high krausen by a few hours. Not sure if that made a difference, but the beer turned out crisp and clean. Yeast was WY2278, FWIW.

1125
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: AHA App Survey
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:19:28 PM »
The big thing for me would be a dedicated forum. You lose some of the ambiance with Tapatalk


As long as the forum app works well. Some past Tapatalk updates have made the forums virtually unusable. If the forum app isn't up to snuff, I'd end up sticking with Tapatalk.

Pages: 1 ... 73 74 [75] 76 77 ... 402