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 - bboy9000

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 46
181
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Wort Aeration
« on: November 25, 2016, 09:33:31 AM »
If this was the case then big breweries would just pitch discarded yeast...

...Kunze outlines yeast and aeration in almost a full chapter.
I'm also betting that in addition to repitching slurry macro brewers are also filtering the heck out of wort transferring very little fatty acids and sterols to the FV.  Just a guess though as I haven't read Kunze.  Brewing is an obsession for me but I'm not going to spend $200 on a book.

182
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Wort Aeration
« on: November 25, 2016, 09:18:23 AM »
I did say "may" be unnecessary not definitively is unnecessary.  If there is an adequate amount of lipids and sterols already in the wort then the yeast don't need the oxygen as the cells will produce healthy membranes from those in the wort.  I don't leave all of the cold break behind in the kettle, I use yeast nutrient and pitch fresh starters.  Sometimes I'll throw part of an old pack of dry yeast into the kettle to provide the wort with more nutrients.  Combine that with a little rocking the carboy, my yeast likely has everything it needs without me using an O2 wand.  Unless the OP has slow or stalled fermentations oxygen is something he or she may not need to worry about.

While I sort of agree.. and it may be good for some ale fermentation's, I don't agree with lager fermentation's.  If this was the case then big breweries would just pitch discarded yeast and nutrients into the boil and call it a day. But they don't, and Kunze outlines yeast and aeration in almost a full chapter.

Practices at big breweries do not necessarily translate to the homebrew level. I always pitch a fresh SNS starter, which has been aerated.  Big breweries are likely re-pitching yeast from previous batches which would require oxygenation of wort. Some of this is also likely dependent on yeast strain, OG and style, which you mentioned.

I've never had a problem and I won a competition with a lager done this way (I did shake the crap out of the carboy for five minutes on that one LOL).   The one time I had a sluggish fermentation was when I repitched a month old slurry into a 1.090 wort but that isn't a normal practice for me.

My practices work well for my system and beer styles.  I wouldn't want the OP to go out and spend a lot of money on stuff that isn't necessary.  If he or she makes great beer with current practices then investing in an O2 wand and stir plate is just going to be money out of the bank.

183
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Wort Aeration
« on: November 25, 2016, 08:43:40 AM »
I did say "may" be unnecessary not definitively is unnecessary.  If there is an adequate amount of lipids and sterols already in the wort then the yeast don't need the oxygen as the cells will produce healthy membranes from those in the wort.  I don't leave all of the cold break behind in the kettle, I use yeast nutrient and pitch fresh starters.  Sometimes I'll throw part of an old pack of dry yeast into the kettle to provide the wort with more nutrients.  Combine that with a little rocking the carboy, my yeast likely has everything it needs without me using an O2 wand.  Unless the OP has slow or stalled fermentations oxygen is something he or she may not need to worry about.

184
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Wort Aeration
« on: November 25, 2016, 08:19:14 AM »
I always do starters now too! as for the o2 wand, I would love one of those but trying to save some cash here so if its something I can do reasonably well with what I have already, im gonna go with that till I have a bit more cash to put into the hobby!

I wouldn't worry about investing in more equipment.  Assuming your starters are healthy and of adequate size wort aeration may unnecessary.

185
All Grain Brewing / Re: starting all grain brewing
« on: November 22, 2016, 11:56:14 PM »
Check out Denny's system:

http://www.dennybrew.com

Or make your own MLT with a cylindrical cooler using the same idea.  I got my 10G igloo for $1 at a flea market and used a plastic valve until upgrading to the  SS valve kit and a bazooka screen.

186
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Wort Aeration
« on: November 22, 2016, 02:04:29 PM »
This paper says shaking is an effective aeration method.  Obviously there is a problem in the experiment but not sure it would matter.
http://www.brewangels.com/Beerformation/AerationMethods.pdf

187
All Grain Brewing / Re: Introduction to Low Oxygen Brewing
« on: November 21, 2016, 08:48:17 PM »
I thought measuring sulfite level was the intention. 

188
All Grain Brewing / Re: Introduction to Low Oxygen Brewing
« on: November 21, 2016, 07:37:29 PM »
Is there any validation of the use of sulfite strips in beer?
I understand that reducing substances can artificially lower the reading, and given that LODO main hypothesis is that flavor is enhanced by keeping the malt polyphenols and tannoids in a reduced stated, these can theoretically interfere with the reading, so it seems that there is a need to validate the use of strips in beer by measuring sulfites independently.
Another concern is the interference by sulfides (which are produced by some yeasts in non-negligible amounts). Sulfides can be chelated to nickel and then filtered out but I have not read this being advised in the thread (doing this will certainly add more work to the process).

Sorry, not following?

@Bryan
When one designs a chemical quantitative or semi-quantitative test, one validates the test under a set of experimental conditions and indicates what factors can confound the results of the test. In the case of the sulfite test strips, the instructions specifically warn that using them in a media with reducing agents can confound the results, and separately state that if sulfide can be present, it has to be chelated to nickel and precipitated (as sulfide can affect the reading).
There are other methods to measure sulfite and if a different method (eg, iodometric) gives you a similar result, it would indicate that that one can get accurate sulfite readings in beer or wort or mash with the strips; if not, then one may need to use a third method to reconcile the differences.
Does the question make sense now?

Why go through all that trouble? They are not meant to be that accurate or precise. Sulfite strips are a cheap way to estimate your consumption, not a precise way to determine exact sulfite amounts.

When you draw conclusions and make decisions on how to proceed using data, your data should be accurate.  Lots of people brew excellent beer without using sulfite strips, so I agree that if it is not important to them, they should not use the strips.
Data should also be valid.  Therefore all the "trouble" (controls).  Not trying to be a jerk but it's science.  Sorry I'm a science teacher.

189
All Grain Brewing / Re: Missing hop profile?
« on: November 18, 2016, 07:17:35 PM »
I brewed the same IPA recipe several times and never got the bitterness I wanted until switching to RO water and adding minerals to build the profile from scratch.  Same recipe but different water chemistry.  I used the pale ale profile on Bru'n Water.  Approximately 300ppm sulfite and 40ppm chloride IIRC.

190
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Card benefits
« on: November 16, 2016, 09:30:25 PM »
I've never had an issue using my card at all.  A few times a server or bartender asks a manager but the server or bartender seemed like it was no big deal. 

What I have a hard time with is renewing my AHA membership.  The web renewal hasn't worked in three years forcing me to call each year.  This year I've tried calling the AHA several times and nobody answered.  My membership has been expired for several months.  Hopefully I have the time to call (and get an answer) this week as I want to use the card on our honeymoon in Cali next week.

191
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Another newbie...
« on: November 15, 2016, 07:44:09 PM »
I thought that was the recommended way to start a wild fermentation...
Only for beard beer

192
All Grain Brewing / Re: Returning Noob mistakes
« on: November 08, 2016, 10:52:32 PM »
LOL.  We've all broken a few.  Hopefully you have a local shop so you can get one quickly and cheap

193
Ingredients / Brewtan B
« on: November 08, 2016, 10:39:12 PM »
I was just citing commercially available antioxidants. The only "proof" we have to not use potassium is Narziß saying potassium additions are detrimental to the mash. That being said, all initial trials were done with Kmeta, and seemed to work just as well.
Don't take this personally because I'm not doubting you,  but as a skeptic I'm doubting anything that doesn't have actual data to support it. I like Denny's suggestion of doing a test but with the addition of having a batch of the same recipe with none of those additions or LODO method as a control.  This of course followed by a blind triangle test with a statistician to run the data.  I want to know how it works on a home brew level.

EDIT:  BTW I'm still going to try the product if it becomes available in the US.

194
Beer Travel / Re: Where am I?
« on: November 07, 2016, 02:07:03 PM »
Steven Pauwels is the head brewer at Boulevard.  There are plenty of good Tank 7 clone recipes on the Internet. The problem is Steven brought over a proprietary strain from Belgium, they filter it, then carbonate tank 7 with champagne yeast.  I believe Boulevard even published a homebrew recipe for tank seven.

There's one in this thread supposedly from Pauwels himself:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?s=b81f24965f12a5addaec13a8d7b5ed3c&t=250256&page=2

Do some more searching and there's another from Jeremy Danner, another Boulevard brewer.   It may even be in the same thread.

If brewing this one could likely use T-58 as they use that to bottle condition some of their beer.

Okay train back on rails.

195
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: First competition results
« on: November 06, 2016, 09:31:05 PM »
Congratulations !

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 46