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 - reverseapachemaster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 129
1
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Lacto suggestions?
« on: Today at 07:55:06 AM »
If you're going with a WY or WL lacto strain then 5335 is probably your best option. If you can get access to the Omega lacto blend then that is the most aggressive option on the market. Some of the smaller labs in the market are producing some decent products. I've seen several people have very good success with probiotic pills made by Swanson and marketed as L. Plantarum pills.

2
All Grain Brewing / Re: Wheat malt and lower efficiency
« on: July 30, 2015, 07:34:31 AM »
Thanks for the replies. I've wondered if it had to do with the wheat itself. It's Best Malz weizen malz.

What does a cereal mash involve for this process?

Sounds like I could just plan to do a decoction with wheat beers or just plan for 5% lower efficiency. But Reverse's description is a good one, kind of what I was looking for as to the reasons why wheat malt is a pain in the a$$ for hitting specific gravities...
I'm sure I could also crush finer too as .035" gap might not be small enough of a gap to crush it fine enough. It's a pain to mess with that though with a Barley Crusher...

I can not understand what a cereal mash would have to do with wehat malt, he must be thinking raw wheat. I do agree that wheat does seem to be harder than barley so gelatinization could be part of the issue, a decoction will definitely increase your efficiency regardless of wheat or barley IME. You also might just try a little longer mash or add 5% more ingredients.

I don't remember any of the commercial breweries in Brewing With Wheat doing a cereal mash. But they probably don't have a cooker.

For most breweries it's not an efficient use of time or resources to boil wheat to try to make up for a 5% efficiency drop. It's just easier to accept lower efficiency or mill as tightly as possible to create more surface area and hope for the best.

3
All Grain Brewing / Re: Wheat malt and lower efficiency
« on: July 30, 2015, 07:32:28 AM »
Thanks for the replies. I've wondered if it had to do with the wheat itself. It's Best Malz weizen malz.

What does a cereal mash involve for this process?

Sounds like I could just plan to do a decoction with wheat beers or just plan for 5% lower efficiency. But Reverse's description is a good one, kind of what I was looking for as to the reasons why wheat malt is a pain in the a$$ for hitting specific gravities...
I'm sure I could also crush finer too as .035" gap might not be small enough of a gap to crush it fine enough. It's a pain to mess with that though with a Barley Crusher...

I can not understand what a cereal mash would have to do with wehat malt, he must be thinking raw wheat. I do agree that wheat does seem to be harder than barley so gelatinization could be part of the issue, a decoction will definitely increase your efficiency regardless of wheat or barley IME. You also might just try a little longer mash or add 5% more ingredients.

Malt or no malt, doesn't matter. The gelatinization range doesn't change with malting.

You don't need to do a cereal mash; all you really need is to boil the wheat so it gels. However, it might make sense to go ahead and try to get whatever conversion you can out of the wheat before boiling and denaturing all those enzymes. It isn't necessary to add barley, since the wheat malt has enzymes, so perhaps cereal mash is the wrong term but the correct process.

4
All Grain Brewing / Re: Wheat malt and lower efficiency
« on: July 29, 2015, 07:52:10 AM »
It's an issue with gelatinization of wheat. You always see that wheat gelatinizes at mash temperatures but that's really for wheat starch. Whole grain wheat gelatinizes at temperatures closer to boiling (185-212). Crushed grain is going to fall in between and the more finely crushed your wheat the closer to starch temperatures you will get. However, without hitting a full flour composition you'll never get the same type of gelatinization in wheat that you get from crushed barley. At mash temperatures for typical mash duration you are lucky to get 50% gelatinization, which means you're only getting conversion on whatever is gelatinized plus the surface of non-gelatinized starches.

There is also research that suggests protein, for which red wheat is high, interferes with amylase and is likely further diminishing the efficiency of your mash. I suspect this is not a problem when using wheat malt, which is high in amylase, but is likely a problem in unmalted wheat.

Best way to get good efficiency out of wheat is to perform a cereal mash.

5
I think you're jumping the gun with a diagnosis of a problem in the midst of fermentation. Let the beer finish fermenting before you declare it a disaster.

6
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Lager Starters
« on: July 28, 2015, 07:59:30 AM »
Whatever mrmalty.com says is what I do.

7

Yeah, Denny nailed it. I've been meaning to play with short mash rests, especially on small beers. Maybe when I finally get some small kegs.
It just feels wrong to fill a 5G keg with less than 5G.
It really does, but I do it anyway.

I didn't realize Stone was retiring their Pale Ale. Thought it was just the Levitation and the Sublimely they were discontinuing. So basically, they're going to be nothing but an IPA brewery now.

There is a new Stone pale ale.

8
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Nitro
« on: July 25, 2015, 09:10:07 AM »
You are correct about losing some of the flavor on beer gas.

Isn't that the point?

I thought nitro beer through a stout faucet was supposed to mimic cask ale served through a sparkler. Kinda rounds off some of the flavor "edges".

Yeah but in the same way liquid smoke is supposed to mimic actual smoke.

I disagree that cask ale rounds off flavors. You don't get the same amount of bitterness or acidity and that allows you to enjoy different attributes in the beer. There's not less flavor but some of the flavors you normally expect are more subtle in favor of other character.

IMO nitro deadens a lot of those flavors and adds an unwelcome metallic taste.

If you've ever had the same beer served on cask and nitro then you can see how nitro is a terrible emulation of service by beer engine. I understand not wanting to deal with casks but from a flavor perspective I'd rather take an undercarbed beer served on CO2 over nitro. It may not be as creamy but the flavor is far better.

9
Beer Recipes / Re: Wood Aged Beer without aging in oak
« on: July 25, 2015, 08:57:59 AM »
I am concerned you will end up with an oak tea that tastes like lumber rather than the smooth vanilla/caramel/spice flavor you want from oak. I can't tell you the reason why it happens but having boiled oak chips and tasted the water it has a lumber flavor and a very dry tannin feel. It's not something I would want in a beer. I don't know whether it is the temperature, the lack of alcohol extracting other flavor compounds, or just the short contact time that pulls the worst out of the oak and leaves behind all the good stuff.

I'm not a big fan of oak chips but if oak has to go in the beer I'd rather add oak chips to the keg for three days.

10
Going Pro / Re: Starting homebrew supply company
« on: July 24, 2015, 06:00:22 PM »
You need to contact a wholesaler or two.

11
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Free hops
« on: July 24, 2015, 06:37:08 AM »
I think it started mid-May.

12
Homebrew Competitions / Re: Final Round Scores
« on: July 23, 2015, 07:33:12 AM »
I can't put my finger on it... but there's just something wrong about lowering scores for a lack of intangibles.
Not sure I understand?  I can see it easily being a difference maker when you get to that point.  If it knocks the Overall Impression down to an 8, Flavor to a 15 or 16, and Aroma to a 9 or 10, you're already 10 points in the hole.

If something's intangible, you shouldn't notice it anyway. 

So you lost points because someone noticed that they failed to notice what wasn't there.

Maybe they chose their words poorly.


I don't understand how somebody even thought that made sense to put on a score sheet. When judging against a detailed criteria, like the BJCP guide, the score should reflect how well the beer compared to the criteria set out and nothing else. A judge should not be making up new criteria.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about intangibility and beer. Beer is judged on sensory perception alone. If a character about the beer is intangible--cannot be grasped--then it is either not present or impossible to judge. This is somebody who has spent too much time watching ESPN talking heads blabber on about intangibles with sports players.

I suspect the judge thought this was a keen way to explain that the beer was flat flavor-wise or lacked complexity that would have given a better impression. Saying it lacked intangibility is worthless to the brewer. The judge should have mentioned with specificity what was lacking.

It's judging like that which makes me feel comfortable not entering competitions.

13
All Grain Brewing / Re: Saison attempt
« on: July 23, 2015, 06:51:09 AM »
Precisely my thought. At 7% its not easy to rip through a couple 750s on a hot afternoon

That could be a good or bad thing.


14
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: BJCP catagory for pilsner ale
« on: July 21, 2015, 02:41:34 PM »
My thought is why wouldn't it just fall into a blonde ale category?

15
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Building body into a sour ale
« on: July 21, 2015, 08:39:48 AM »
What I meant was there is a difference between blending and back-sweetening.  From what I've read about sour styles and heard in interviews with Jean Van Roy, is that blending is traditional, done to achieve balance.  The sugars in the younger beer come from using raw grains that provide unfermentable (or slowly ferment able) sugars to the beer.  Back-sweetening with sugars (aspartame and saccharine) and syrups is a newer practice meant to attract a younger demographic to Belgian beer (think Bud Light Lime or wine coolers) Yes, both methods add sugar to the finished product but from different sources and for different purposes if my understanding is correct.

http://sourbeerblog.com/designing-and-brewing-a-flanders-red-ale/

https://byo.com/stout/item/2989-flanders-red-style-profile

http://thebrewingnetwork.com/shows/751

http://www.saveur.com/article/Wine-and-Drink/A-Beer-Called-Lambic

I understood your point and only meant to clarify my own.

Backsweetening with aspartame and other unfermentable sweeteners is definitely a newer practice and those beers are often targeted towards younger non-beer drinking crowds although I probably wouldn't say that is true of Monk's Cafe, Duchess and some of the other backsweetened reds that aren't quite as sweet or fruity as the Lindemans or Timmermans sweetened fruit lambics.

However, backsweetening is not itself a new practice with sour beer. There is a good history of adding syrups and rock sugar to casks to sweeten them. Faro, for example, is a good example of this although it is a disappearing presentation of lambic. The difference with the historical practice is that, like unpasteurized blends, the sugar will be fermented and eventually the beer will lose its sweetness. That is different from the practice of backsweetening with unfermentable sugars or adding sugar and pasteurizing that is more often seen in the sweetened sour beers on the market.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 129