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 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 173
Going Pro / Re: Starting homebrew supply company
« on: July 24, 2015, 06:00:22 PM »
You need to contact a wholesaler or two.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Re-using yeast
« on: July 21, 2015, 08:33:41 AM »
There was a shop in Texas--I think in San Antonio--that was ratted out to DPS and received a visit.

FWIW in Texas in addition to the permit requirement to purchase and own a flask one must also follow strict storage and accounting regulations that include keeping it under lock and key when not in use. I'm not making this up.

There is a HBS in the Fort Worth area (Foreman's) that has or had a sign up next to the iodophor instructing people that this is not the iodine you need to make meth and asked that people not steal it.

Events / Re: 2015 NHC Impressions
« on: July 21, 2015, 08:13:40 AM »
Portland would be great. So much to do in the city and you can drive a few hours and get to other great locations around Oregon (and Washington).

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Building body into a sour ale
« on: July 20, 2015, 02:37:24 PM »
If you find Flemmish reds with body it's because they have been backsweetened or blended with non-sour beer. It's just not traditionally appropriate for the style.

I believe blending sour beers with newer, non-sour beer is actually a traditional practice. On the other hand the sweeter sour beers that people like today are often back sweetened with artificial sweeteners like aspartame .  From what I've read it would be acceptable to add a little body by blending in some younger beer. I think a little bit of body in a Flanders red would be fine as it's not a Lambic or an American sour ale.

I did a poor job of stating my point. I did not mean to suggest blending or sweetening the sour beer is not traditional.

What I should have said is:

A Flemish red would not typically have much body unless it has been backsweetened or blended with non-sour beer. There is absolutely nothing wrong with blending. I'm not a fan of the reds I've tried that were backsweetened but there is some tradition behind sweetening sour beer as well.

Ingredients / Re: Jarrylo hops
« on: July 20, 2015, 02:31:23 PM »
A recipe just went up on the site for an azacca/jaryllo pale ale for anybody looking for an idea how to use these hops.

I got both azacca and jaryllo when I renewed my AHA membership a couple months ago. They are probably making their way into a saison or BPA...or both.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Building body into a sour ale
« on: July 20, 2015, 07:53:30 AM »
If you find Flemmish reds with body it's because they have been backsweetened or blended with non-sour beer. It's just not traditionally appropriate for the style.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Yeast question for a sour
« on: July 19, 2015, 03:09:07 PM »
Some evidence suggests saccharomyces is generally effective in the 3-4 ph range so strain selection may not be terribly important for acid tolerance. I can tell you personally that I have fermented beers in this range with both 05 and 3711.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Lacto. Frustrations
« on: July 19, 2015, 03:07:06 PM »
Well the Omega strain took my 6 gallons of wort to pH 3.1 in just about 16.5 hours.
I read a while back, I think on milk the funk, that brewers were using these probiotics to sour beers. I guess I'm just a bit freaked out by it. Makes me wonder how low they would eventually go. I understand the need for speed, but its not my need. Ive got time. I wonder sometimes if american sours are going to follow the IPA trend by going sourer and sourer.

Not all of those probiotics are the same. Right now I have some l. acidophilus from pills I bought at a local health food store that is sluggish. It took about three days to stop souring around 100F and it cut out at 3.6.

Beer can only get so sour before the bacteria will create enough acid to knock themselves out. The race to get quick souring isn't about getting the wort more sour but about production speed. That's helpful for kettle sours and other early lacto fermentations.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Lacto. Frustrations
« on: July 19, 2015, 02:57:10 PM »
Just an update...gave up on my poor starter last week but it's been sitting in my (hot) garage for a week. Noticed yesterday there is a big white furry thing on the surface. I'm dumping this anyways but curious what it is.

A pellicle if the wort soured or mold if it didn't.

Yeast and Fermentation / Re: maiden voyage white labs pure pitch
« on: July 19, 2015, 02:50:04 PM »

WL has a credibility problem. Growing yeast in a pouch doesn't help that.
Am I missing something?

Maybe the trois blend issue with the Saccharomyces?
Why is that a credibility problem? According to the explanation from WL on line they changed the name of the product when they became aware of the true nature of that yeast.

Some of the early answers they gave was that they were aware it wasn't brett but labeled it as brett anyway. They only changed it after getting called out. Then suddenly there was a study they just happened to be doing to fix it.

Same people who looked at Trois took a look at their lacto offerings and found yeast. That's a problem for people trying to sour wort or beer.

Both of these issues have appeared in a matter of months. Who knows what other problems are floating around in their products. I don't know that growing yeast in a pouch is the solution. I'm not even sure for what problem it is a solution.

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 173