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 - dmtaylor

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 191
481
Ingredients / Re: Malt choice
« on: January 10, 2017, 10:34:35 PM »
Agree with C45.  Also chocolate rye is good stuff.  Use it in any dark beer (brown ale, schwarz, porter, stout) instead of the usual other dark roasted malts.

482
I've been told by a multitude that one smack pack into 1L of oxygenated starters, pitched 8-12 hrs later would absolutely not ever work. But it does. Highest scoring beer I've made yet. In fact today I started cold crashing two lagers brewed that way 13 days ago. Hit FFG and passed forced diacetyl test in less than two weeks.

Yeah but was that a lager, or an ale?  What style?  I do think many ales actually benefit from an underpitch.  Lagers, not so much.

EDIT: Oh, it looks like those were lagers.  Hmm.  Maybe just getting lucky.  Luck has a tendency of running out eventually.

483
That said, P values should be taken with a grain of salt. Consider that the taste perception of a single person can move the P-value needle from <0.05 ("x affects y") to >0.05 ("x does not affect y"). P value is really just a measure of sample size. Effect size is more important.

Significance tests aren't flawless. Because of the way the stats work, small sample sizes favour the null hypothesis. So I'm always suspicious of the exbeeriments with a small tasting panel that can't spot the odd one out - especially when the author can.

Still, a tasting panel of ten people is better than a panel of one, which is the basis of most anecdotal claims.

I use Brulosophy's data to develop my own conclusions assuming p<0.15 instead of 0.05.  Amazing what comes out as likely "significant" if you assume they only need to be in the right ballpark 85% of the time instead of 95%.  They're not fancy enough to use p=0.05.  Either that, or I'm a complete idiot.  I do, however, know how to calculate square roots by hand the "long division" way.  ;)

484
On my next brew day I am going to skip the starters. I went through the typical progression. Dry, dry hydrated, smack pack, stirplate starters, and finally landed on oxygenated 1L starters pitched in exponential phase. I am curious if a smacked and expanded smack pack into well oxygenated wort will show enough difference to justify continuing with starters. It would not surprise me if I notice no appreciable difference given that Wyeast claims they are a pitchable amount for ~5 gallons. 6 gallons in my case...

And they will be lagers, so a good true test.

This is risky, of course, for 6 gallons of lager.  I wouldn't worry with an ale, but a lager...... but oh well, knock yourself out, maybe you'll learn stuff.

485
Ingredients / Re: Calypso and Citra for a Pale Ale
« on: January 10, 2017, 03:39:09 PM »
Dave, 3 Calypso: 1 Citra would give you pretty decent balance IME.

Thanks.  Depending on my olfactory evaluation, I'm likely to go 3:1 or possibly 4:1.

486
Ingredients / Re: Calypso and Citra for a Pale Ale
« on: January 10, 2017, 03:22:17 PM »
Thanks for the feedback guys.  I'm pretty much going to just hopburst this IPA, add them all in the last few minutes of the boil, as well as whirlpool and dry hop, for maximum flavor and aroma, and for bitterness I'll either use just the late hops or use something more mild.  I've read that Calypso is high in cohumulone and can give a very harsh bitterness and I don't want that.  Citra is no better on that front.  So maybe some Magnum or Galena or something like that, or just the old homegrown Cascades.

Also I fully intend to sniff 'em before I use 'em anyway, and if they don't do much for the aroma, it's possible (though unlikely) I could just go with Citra all the way.  But of course if I buy them then I might as well just dump them into the IPA, too.  We'll see.  I'm still thinking and will smell them first and see if that inspires me on what I want to do.

skyler, I hear what you said about El Dorado.  I used El Dorado as the base in an IPA last year.  I'll be honest, to me they were just extremely mild.  I didn't get any of the crazy fruity character that everyone talks about, not at all.  They were just like a really bland Centennial or something like that.  Maybe I got a bad batch or crop, I dunno.  Whatever it is, I won't bother trying those anymore.

The idea of Polaris, the minty hop, intrigues me as well... but not for this batch.  Some other time.  I'll bet it would be great in a sweet stout.

487
My unpopular brewing opinion is that I like bmc's just as much as craft brew.  I think nothing of drinking a keyster while brewing an double IPA.  I'm not a beer snob, I enjoy the high points of all beers, and I don't dog folks who drink bmc's.

I can respect that.

I love Gordon Biersch... I love it so much that I'll even drive out of my way for some.  I cannot say I'd do the same kind of thing for any BMC, but I sure as heck love fresh lagers, more than just about anything.  Nothing too fancy.  I prefer the helles.

488
All Things Food / Re: why can't you people simply say...
« on: January 10, 2017, 07:25:27 AM »
As to mass and volume: on the old continent the famous revolutionary scientist Rob Espierre discovered in 1792 that 1 liter of water weighs exactly 1 kilogram. For some reason or other this discovery never made its way to the new world. Probably blocked by the antirevolutionary powers that be.

And a pint is a pound (approximately).

489
All Grain Brewing / Re: Glass Disaster
« on: January 09, 2017, 12:16:31 PM »
I know the answer to this, since someone would have done it already, but is there a reason a hydrometer couldn't be made out of plastic?

Sure you could.  However, glass is easier to clean and sanitize and will not harbor wild beasts -- ha!

true, but I'm not dipping my hydrometer into my fermenting beer, I'm pulling a sample and testing it in a beaker, then either drinking the sample or dumping it.

Me too -- I's just making a funny.  :)

490
All Grain Brewing / Re: Glass Disaster
« on: January 09, 2017, 12:09:17 PM »
I know the answer to this, since someone would have done it already, but is there a reason a hydrometer couldn't be made out of plastic?

Sure you could.  However, glass is easier to clean and sanitize and will not harbor wild beasts -- ha!

491
All Grain Brewing / Re: Glass Disaster
« on: January 09, 2017, 09:53:20 AM »
I have no desire to go back to glass carboys whatsoever. I'm just too much of a klutz :)

Perhaps it would be helpful to add that I've been using the same hydrometer for >100 batches since 1999.  ;)

I....what?!......that's impossible!  :D

If I remember, I'll take a picture later.  It reads 1.003 in plain water at 60 F, so I've had to subtract that for many many years.  I did drop the thing at least twice, but it didn't break.  :)

I'll still never be as awesome as Denny though.  ;D

492
Dunno why you'd have such problems, Dave.  After hundreds of batches in the same six buckets, I've nevr had that happen.  And how do you know it was due to a scratch rather than somethng else?

This was several years ago now.  I'm fairly certain I had contaminated buckets, based on the random but recurring contamination issues.  It might also have been hoses, which I also replaced.  Or both.  Probably all of the above.  One thing I can tell you is that when I got new equipment, the problem went away.  You can draw your own conclusions, call me a slob or sloppy sanitizer, I don't care.  The problems are gone now.

493
The guy that created the dual scale Brix/SG refractometer should be kicked in the nuts.

Since I use one of those, I'm wondering what's the problem with them?

I know your question wasn't directed at me, but I have tried two refractometers that were all over the place when compared to a hydrometer. Even with correction spreadsheets and what not, they just weren't reliably accurate for me.

I'm still mapping out the magical correction factor for my refractometer.  Terrill says his factor is 1.04.  Mine, so far I am calculating 0.94-0.98, but I still have a lot more data to gather to know for sure.  The fact of the matter is, only a hydrometer knows for sure.  The refractometer is quite swaggy and only gives ballpark figures.

And as far as a dual scale?!  Ha!  Virtually guaranteed to be pretty far off.

Of course, for those of us only interested in getting numbers within plus/minus 0.005 or so, a refractometer might be considered "good enough".  Many times, I am one of those people.  Other times, I'd prefer to be a little more accurate, so then I have to pull out the trusty hydrometer.

494
Equipment and Software / Re: Cheapo pH Meter Experience
« on: January 09, 2017, 09:00:20 AM »
I just got my first pH meter for Christmas -- it's almost an identical $13 model compared to the one posted above..... and I've got to say, I love it.  I didn't even have to calibrate it, it was reading correctly from right out of the box, and the convenience of just sticking it in a sample and getting an instant result instead of having to interpret different shades of puke from the color strips....... so much better.  If it breaks or goes too far out of cal, I'll just buy a new one!

495
All Grain Brewing / Re: Glass Disaster
« on: January 09, 2017, 07:53:11 AM »
I have no desire to go back to glass carboys whatsoever. I'm just too much of a klutz :)

Perhaps it would be helpful to add that I've been using the same hydrometer for >100 batches since 1999.  ;)

Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 191