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 ... 180 181 [182] 183 184 ... 330
2716
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Unintended Trial
« on: February 27, 2014, 11:10:51 PM »
I've found that time may not work quite as fast as whirlfloc, but it works nearly as well. I'd be willing to hazard a guess that by the time you're done lagering you probably won't see much of a difference.

2717
Extract/Partial Mash Brewing / Re: an American SMaSH Series of Pale Ales
« on: February 27, 2014, 07:38:34 PM »
I do a big batch of these once or twice a year to try out different hop varieties. Here are some threads where I go through my process/results:

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=13485.msg171180#msg171180
https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=16663.msg209729#msg209729

I also posted a bit more detail on my procedure on my blog:
http://hopwhisperer.blogspot.com/2013/12/single-hop-beers-part-1.html
http://hopwhisperer.blogspot.com/2013/12/single-hop-beers-part-2.html

Basically, I use a mix of light DME and Munich LME. The Munich is to give at least a little bit more malt backbone, since there's not much in the Light DME. My process lets me crank out 6-8 one-gallon batches in the time it would take for a typical all-grain brew day. If you're looking specifically to taste test hops, then I highly recommend you give the single-hopped pale ale thing a try.

2718
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Wyeast 9097 Old Ale Strain
« on: February 27, 2014, 03:42:17 PM »
It was last released Fall 2012. I know one of the other Private Collection strains from Fall '12 (3864 - Canadian/Belgian) is out right now, so maybe the Old Ale may be up again soon. You could certainly email Wyeast to see if they have it scheduled for release any time soon. Even if its not scheduled, they definitely base their decisions about what strains to release based on requests. If there is enough of a demand you may see this released again in the near future.

2719
you should contact the organizer and offer apologies.  People are generally pretty nice.  (stuff) happens.  Someone is always entering their first competition and it happens more than you think.  I suspect the organizing crew will curse you out a bit and do whatever they can to remove the labels.

+1 - An apology up front will definitely be appreciated and certainly wouldn't hurt your cause.

2720
Ingredients / Re: Another Cacoa nibs post
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:04:32 PM »
I don't know about brewer's best, I ordered mine off Amazon. Pretty sure they were "raw" so I'll probably toast them. Think I'm leaning toward the vodka soak. Did this with vanilla beans and worked great. Thinking about adding 1/2 a vanilla bean too to bump up chocolate flavor.

So I'm thinking (for 10 gallons) 8-10 toasted nibs and 1/2 vanilla bean in vodka for 3-4 days.

assume you mean 8-10 oz of nibs?

All this talk about cocoa nibs makes me want to go buy some just for eating. mmmm chocolate walnuts.

Yeah, Trader Joes sells dark chocolate covered cacao nibs that are like crack. I can't buy them or I'll eat the whole tin in like 2 mouthfuls.

2721
Ingredients / Re: D2 candi syrup and head retention
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:02:46 PM »
Haven't been using foam positive malts because for the most part I haven't needed to. Since I only brew this recipe once or twice a year it hasn't been something I have been able to track carefully. Last year when the head faded quickly I thought "that's weird, wonder why?" This year when it does the same thing again I start putting some commonalities together.

the "release agent" thing is very interesting and makes sense. Thanks for that insight. I'll look into it.

If it is indeed from an additive used in the process of making the syrup, then maybe using another brand (i.e., D-180 instead of D2) may make a difference.

2722
Ingredients / Re: D2 candi syrup and head retention
« on: February 27, 2014, 02:00:45 PM »
Special B limits head retention?

Charlie didn't go so far as to say which specific crystal malts limit head retention, but according to his experiments it seems like most do. I was left with the impression that it varied both by color and maltster, but he didn't want to single out any specific products. I couldn't say for sure whether Special B specifically is one of them.

Wow, hadn't heard that. Definitely goes counter to the conventional wisdom. But some of the old accepted info has proven to be not so legit - secondary, using sugar, etc.

Apparently this is brand-spanking new information. Charlie made the exact opposite claim in his book on Foam that just came out in 2012, but he recently did a round of experiments that contradict this old wisdom.

I don't always listen to the Session, but every interview with Charlie Bamforth is gold as far as brewing information goes. There was a lot of good info in this recent interview.

2723
All Grain Brewing / Re: BIAB advice
« on: February 27, 2014, 01:49:24 PM »
Gueuze in an Attaché... crap, I suck at this game

2724
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: New Member, Old Brewer, Cheers!!
« on: February 27, 2014, 01:45:27 PM »
Welcome! Come on in and have a beer :)

2725
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Quick question about attenuation
« on: February 27, 2014, 06:37:46 AM »
I thought session beers were mashed at low temps. to make them drier, and therefore more drinkable?
I mash my low gravity saison, bitter, dry stout, and cream ale at 149f usually for 90 minutes.  They are dry and crisp, but I wouldn't say watery. So if mashed higher they would have better mouthfeel , but not taste too sweet?

Correct, the kind of body/mouthfeel left behind by a less fermentable wort is not sweet, just full and malty. Whereas, underattenuation says to be that the yeast didn't finish with all the (sweeter) fermentable sugars that are there and is less pleasant to me.

So is the goal to have the same % attenuation but a higher FG?
With a mash @ 150, and an OG of 1.039 and an FG of 1.011, thats 72% atten.
You're saying shoot for maybe an FG of 1.016. So I would have to shoot for an OG of 1.057 to wind up at 1.016 with 72% attenuation?
But 1.039 to 1.011 I end up with a 3.7% beer.
and going from 1.057 to 1.016 I end up with 5.4% beer.
Also I can't imagine the styles I listed in my other post would taste better finishing at 1.016.
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something here?

The idea is to have a higher FG at the same OG. For Example, my Dark Mild starts at 1.042 and ends at 1.024. Its actually less than 50% AA, and is only 2.6% ABV calculated. It has a full body, but not very much residual sweetness.

If I want a full malt flavor, I mash high for a less fermentable wort, which makes it taste like a bigger beer than it is.

I would mash a table saison low, because crisp/thin and drinkable are a hallmark of the style. Same with the hoppier/drier styles.

Does that make sense?

That makes sense.
I've just seen so many mentions about mashing low gravity beers @ high mash temps. But usually no one ever mentions the style of low gravity beer.
So the whole high mash temp for low gravity beers, isn't for every style.
It seems to me  just use higher mash temps. for a more malty beer whatever the gravity?

Style is a factor, but I wouldn't apply that rule across the board. I wouldn't mash a big dopplebock at 162 (for example), it would just end up too thick and heavy.

2726
Ingredients / Re: D2 candi syrup and head retention
« on: February 26, 2014, 10:09:19 PM »
Special B limits head retention?

Charlie didn't go so far as to say which specific crystal malts limit head retention, but according to his experiments it seems like most do. I was left with the impression that it varied both by color and maltster, but he didn't want to single out any specific products. I couldn't say for sure whether Special B specifically is one of them.

2727
Ingredients / Re: D2 candi syrup and head retention
« on: February 26, 2014, 09:17:56 PM »
Now that you mention it, I think most of my dark Belgians don't seem to get much of a head to them. But, is there anything else common to those beers that could also be a factor? Last week's Session on the Brewing Network had an interview with Charlie Bamforth. He stated that some recent experiments show that many types of crystal malt actually decrease head retention, as opposed to increase it (as had been previously reported in the literature). Apparently, there are oxidized fatty acids that are formed during the stewing process when the crystal malt is made and these have a negative impact on head retention. In the case of dark Belgians, are you using Special B or something of that nature in addition to the dark syrup?

And this can be overcome by increasing other foam-positive ingredients in the beer. I know I brewed a small, hoppy dubbel a while back that formed a giant rocky head that would last forever. It had a considerable amount of dark syrup, but also a crapload of hops to offset it. Obviously, hops may not be appropriate in most Belgian beers, but maybe a bit of flaked or torrified wheat could help.

2728
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Quick question about attenuation
« on: February 26, 2014, 06:23:00 PM »
I thought session beers were mashed at low temps. to make them drier, and therefore more drinkable?
I mash my low gravity saison, bitter, dry stout, and cream ale at 149f usually for 90 minutes.  They are dry and crisp, but I wouldn't say watery. So if mashed higher they would have better mouthfeel , but not taste too sweet?

Correct, the kind of body/mouthfeel left behind by a less fermentable wort is not sweet, just full and malty. Whereas, underattenuation says to be that the yeast didn't finish with all the (sweeter) fermentable sugars that are there and is less pleasant to me.

So is the goal to have the same % attenuation but a higher FG?
With a mash @ 150, and an OG of 1.039 and an FG of 1.011, thats 72% atten.
You're saying shoot for maybe an FG of 1.016. So I would have to shoot for an OG of 1.057 to wind up at 1.016 with 72% attenuation?
But 1.039 to 1.011 I end up with a 3.7% beer.
and going from 1.057 to 1.016 I end up with 5.4% beer.
Also I can't imagine the styles I listed in my other post would taste better finishing at 1.016.
I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something here?

No, in this case the goal is lower attenuation. When I brew a session beer, I generally want to shoot for the ballpark of what a normal gravity version of the same beer would finish at (or maybe a few points lower, but not by much). I've found that if I get the same attenuation % as a normal-gravity beer, then there isn't enough body and the beer seems thin and watery.

But not all FG's are the same. A beer that was mashed at a higher temp doesn't tend to finish as sweet as a beer that was brewed with more crystal malt but mashed at a lower temp, even though they may finish at the same gravity.

2729
The Pub / Re: Andoid phone question
« on: February 26, 2014, 05:02:51 PM »
I haven't tried any, but there are a bunch of tethering apps in the Play store. Hopefully one works for your phone.

2730
Beer Recipes / Re: Dry Stout
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:59:34 PM »
Let us know how it comes out. Looks like a roasty brown ale ( a Black Brown Ale?) to me.

Pages: 1 ... 180 181 [182] 183 184 ... 330