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 [2] 3 4 ... 330
16
All Grain Brewing / Re: Lactic Acid measurements
« on: February 06, 2016, 10:49:20 PM »
I use a small syringe to measure acid.

Of course you do.

You grew up in the '60s

;-)
Nobody use the brown lactic....

I do have some 1cc syringes that can measure to the hundredth of an ml, but as others have said, if you need that small of an amount you probably can make do without any. I normally use a 5cc syringe with 0.2 ml graduations to measure my acid additions.

17
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: On tap for the Super Bowl
« on: February 05, 2016, 03:22:03 PM »
Unfortunately, I have a Helles and a Lite Lager in the pipeline that would be perfect for gameday, but nothing ready to tap yet. Even worse, the Pats aren't in it, so I won't be tapping into my celebratory Thomas Hardy supply after the game.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


18
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Experimental Brew - Episode 7 is now up!
« on: February 05, 2016, 11:27:17 AM »
Overall, another great podcast. But to be honest, the interview with a barely-coherent Rodger Davis was painful to listen to. I barely made it through the first half last week, and I just skipped the rest after a few minutes this week (right after you mentioned that he was driving a forklift around just prior to the interview. I had a hard time stomaching that.). It was worse than listening to Doc on the BN when he's hammered.

We all enjoy a few drinks, and I don't mind hearing interviews that get a little silly from time to time. But sloppy drunk just isn't good radio for me, though. (Full disclosure - alcoholism runs in my family, so my tolerance may be lower than average on this.)

Despite that one quibble, I think you guys are killing it so far. Your podcast is one of the few I have set to "auto-download" in my queue.

19
Commercial Beer Reviews / Re: Alaskan Hop Turn
« on: February 04, 2016, 09:51:28 PM »
Is Sterling not American? Maybe I am confused...
Sterling is indeed American, although it is a daughter of Saaz. It is very noble like at lower hopping rates, but I do like the lemonade note you get from it when you push the hopping rate with it.

20
All Grain Brewing / Re: Turbid Mashes
« on: February 04, 2016, 09:43:49 PM »
Hazy pro beers are likely from massive amounts of hops.

A turbid mash is something completely different, used for brewing lambics. The large amount of starch and large dextrin chains are food for Brett and Pedio over an extended period of time. Turbid mashed beers are rarely turbid any longer by the time they are ready to serve.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


21
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: water talk
« on: February 04, 2016, 09:39:23 PM »
It will be fun and cool, but how do u measure sub milligram worth of salts? Considering that you seldom go above 10-12 grams of any one salt for a full 5 gallon.
You can dissolve them in a small amount of water to a known, then dose it using a syringe.

22
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: What's Brewing this Weekend? 01/18/2014
« on: February 04, 2016, 01:08:10 PM »
Did my first closed transfer from fermentation keg to serving keg last night. I haven't had a chance to shorten my dip tube yet, but I was able to blow out all the yeast and trub from the bottom without an issue. We'll see how the finished product turns out once it finishes carbonating, but so far it is totally worth the investment for a fermentation keg.

Also kegged up my souped-up Mr Beer lite lager kit. Looking forward to that one as well.

23
Ingredients / Re: Buying old hops online
« on: February 03, 2016, 07:52:36 AM »
                                    and some new hop called 007


Gonna keg an IPA with 007/Idaho 7 tomorrow. The smell from the steep was amazing. Can't wait to see if it lives up to the SN beer.
Is 007 the same hop as Idaho 7?

24
Commercial Beer Reviews / Re: Sam follows Guinness and goes nitro
« on: February 02, 2016, 10:23:20 PM »
Isn't that kinda the point though?

I look at it this way: Nitro beer seeks to emulate cask ale pushed through a sparkler. Both deaden any "sharpness" the beer may have. Do that on an IPA, and the beer just kinda sucks. An American IPA needs that sharpness.
AIPA also needs some decent carbonation to get that nice hop aroma to pop.

I'd give an English IPA a try on some time, but I still wouldn't have high hopes that it would appeal to my tastes. I wonder if Left Hand has ever put 400lb Monkey on nitro...

25
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.

26
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.

27
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.

28
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.

29
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  ;)

30
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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 330