|
Zakath posted:Maybe this is a stupid question, but how exactly do you vent the keg? Pull the little pin on the top of the keg lid
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Unless you are using pin-locks, in which case depress the gas-in poppet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Jo3sh posted:Unless you are using pin-locks, in which case depress the gas-in poppet. Pinlocks don't have a pressure release value? Isn't that kinda... dangerous?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
They do have one, it just doesn't have the convenient pull ring like ball-locks do - it's not intended to be manually activated. If there were overpressure, the valve would blow off the excess, but you can't manually trigger it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Jo3sh posted:Unless you are using pin-locks, in which case depress the gas-in poppet. OK, this is what I needed; my keg has a cage over the valve, so I will do this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
Anyone done a lambic, and/or compared a turbid mash vs. just adding some unmalted/flaked wheat for mash-out? I realize that the final product is probably much more dependent on every other aspect of the process and how the yeast/bugs are handled, but maybe not. I know they like unconverted starches so I figure if I do a single infusion with most of my grist at, say, 154*, then raise to 162* for a 10-minute mash-out and add a pound or two of flaked wheat in, that should probably give me all I need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
tesilential posted:When did you add it? I have a perfect London porter clone that I may try to chocolatify. From what I've read, 4 oz nibs is the bare minimum. I added it when I added my malt. 4oz of nibs would definitely add some character, as nibs are greater in flavor. Zakath posted:I see your cocoa porter and raise my cinammon vanilla porter (recipe here): Oh man. I want to make this so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
My wife got me a brewing kit for Christmas after I had been begging for a few years. I made my first batch which was an amber ale kit that came with the package from true brew. After following the kit instructions verbatim, I'm left with a beer that tastes like poo poo to me, but everybody else thinks it tastes great. To me it tastes like chemicals. After doing a lot of reading, I'm learning that you shouldn't necessarily follow kit instructions. So, now I'm doing the Big Honkin' Stout kit from Northern Brewer. I'm reading up on brewing and some stuff I read says I should have strained the wort before fermenting. I tried to, but since I used hop pellets I clogged my strainer up after every small pour into the bucket. I eventually gave up and poured it all in there, since the kit instructions didn't mention straining anywhere. The kit instructions also mention using a secondary after one week and letting it sit for 4 weeks. I'm reading a lot that secondary is unnecessary. If I rack off the yeast cake into secondary and let it sit for 4 weeks, will I still be able to bottle condition? Should I rack to secondary just to get the beer off of all the poo poo I didn't strain out? I just wish everything didn't contradict each other... EDIT: Just thought I would mention that it's been in primary since Saturday, and I've had a strong fermentation going on since. It's still bubbling away. If I should rack to secondary, I assume I would need to wait until it slows way down... U.S. Barryl fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Jan 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
The straining and the secondary aren't necessary. When you rack into the bottling bucket you may get a tiny bit of hop debris in there but probably not. If you do use a secondary there will still be plenty of yeast left in suspension for bottle conditioning. Just leave it where it is until activity stops and the gravity doesn't change for a few days. After that you can bottle it whenever you want. withak fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jan 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
I would leave it in primary until it stops fermenting, and probably several days more, then bottle it. Check the ferment progress by pulling hydrometer samples a few days apart. Don't return the samples to the fermenter - drink them instead. This will give you an idea of how things are progressing. Once the gravity stops dropping, the ferment is over and you can stop pulling samples if you want. A few extra days in the fermenter after this will allow the yeast and other stuff to settle out, and will also allow the yeast to clean up some byproducts of the ferment that will give you better-tasting beer in the long run. I don't think you need 5 weeks total in the fermenter. The large majority of my batches go two to three weeks in the fermenter (single-stage) and then get packaged. Part of the reason for secondary is to let flavors blend and combine, but this happens in the bottle as well. Once a batch is packaged, I usually have it on light rotation (one every few days, starting after a week or so) just to see how it's coming, and then once it really comes together, it goes into primary rotation (drink it as desired). As an example, I have an American brown that I brewed on 12/4, dry-hopped two weeks later, and packaged on 12/31*. It's been on light rotation for a few days, but has just really come together in the last few days and has gone on primary rotation this week. -------------- * Yes, this is more than two to three weeks in the fermenter. I deliberately stretched it because I wanted to use the yeast cakes for the batch I brewed on 12/31.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Speaking of reusing yeast cakes, how does pitching over top of an old yeast cake work? I'll be bottling my second attempt at a Belgian ale this weekend. I'm thinking that without buying yeast, the ingredients for the beer are dirt cheap. So, I'd like to bottle, then throw new wort (from the same recipe) over top of the old cake. Is it really as simple as bottle old wort, throw new wort into the fermenter, aerate like mad and wait two weeks? Is there any santizing of the fermenter bucket done beforehand? Or are there enough yeast cells in the cake that they'll overpower any bacteria that could cause infections?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Dolemite posted:Speaking of reusing yeast cakes, how does pitching over top of an old yeast cake work? I'll be bottling my second attempt at a Belgian ale this weekend. I'm thinking that without buying yeast, the ingredients for the beer are dirt cheap. If you're using exactly the same wort, this is probably a huge overpitch, especially for Belgian styles where a bunch of the character comes from yeast reproduction. I generally try to do this where I am stepping up significantly in gravity - e.g., brew an ordinary bitter and then use the cake for a barleywine or something. Apart from that quibble, yes, what I did was rack the beer out of the fermenters to kegs, then drop new, cooled wort in. I did not do any additional sanitation apart from making sure that when I pulled the airlock, I put it down on a sanitized surface and sprayed them again for good measure before reinstalling. You want to leave the fermenter buttoned up when you're not actually transferring beer out or wort in. Keep it in a cool dark place (the ferment area is perfect) between transfers. EDIT to add: if you want to reuse yeast like this (same recipe), you should probably look into yeast washing and making starters from the washed slurry. It can be done successfully for several generations by the home brewer, although I don't typically consider it to be worth the PITA factor. However, as my wife points out, my opinions are not universally accepted as gospel. Jo3sh fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jan 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
If anyone was wondering, the bayou classic SP10 I linked to previously ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B000291GBQ ) came with the 20psi regulator. Maybe there was an incorrectly packed batch where people got the 10psi reg. I fired it up this weekend to brew and it was very quick! For $45 it was worth the investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
U.S. Barryl posted:I'm reading up on brewing and some stuff I read says I should have strained the wort before fermenting. I tried to, but since I used hop pellets I clogged my strainer up after every small pour into the bucket. I eventually gave up and poured it all in there, since the kit instructions didn't mention straining anywhere. Get one or more hop bags if you're using pellets and don't want the sludge in your fermenter. You'll need one for each hop addition, so at least one for the bittering hops and then one for each additional flavoring/etc addition. I used hop pellets for my first batch without a hop bag and it turned out fine. Any number of things could've happened to cause off tastes. You have some experience now so go back and read the books again and you'll notice new things and others will make more sense. You may also want to let it age a little longer. My first batch had a slight green/soapy taste to it after two weeks in the bottle, but after 3 weeks it's gone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
I just realized I should probably confirm my thinking with this cider I'm doing... The whole avoid sunlight thing is for hops reasons, right? There isn't another reason to avoid light during fermenting? I have my cider in my living room by the heat vent so it stays warm enough, however, the carboy is in sunlight most of the day because of it's location. I usually do my beers in a bucket (and in the dark basement during warmer weather) so it's not really a concern with them. So since ciders don't have hops there isn't really a reason to avoid light, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
Why take the chance? Put a dark t-shirt or two over it or wrap it with a towel or blanket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Stupid newbie question Brewed my first batch and everything has been going well. I racked to secondary and there has been no activity in the airlock. I'm afraid all my yeast might be dead. Should I repitch a couple days before bottling to ensure there is enough yeast to carbonate the beer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
No, there's plenty of yeast in there. Racking might have just caused it to finish too early. Don't rack to secondary in the future unless you're going to actually be doing a secondary fermentation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
indigi posted:No, there's plenty of yeast in there. Racking might have just caused it to finish too early. Don't rack to secondary in the future unless you're going to actually be doing a secondary fermentation. Sorry for being an idiot but what exactly is secondary fermentation if it isn't what I've done?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
internet celebrity posted:Sorry for being an idiot but what exactly is secondary fermentation if it isn't what I've done? Introducing more sugar (often from fruit) so the yeast actually wake up and ferment again, vs. just racking into a second vessel for aging. It's kind of a pedantic distinction, people use them interchangeably even though they aren't the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
internet celebrity posted:Sorry for being an idiot but what exactly is secondary fermentation if it isn't what I've done? You are pretty much just conditioning the beer when you rack it to "secondary." "Secondary fermentation" would be if you pitched more yeast (ie brett), added honey/fruit/etc when you move it to secondary. Not having any movement at all after racking to secondary and not adding anything in is pretty normal. e: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
<super_pedant> Sometimes, what happens in a secondary fermenter is not a secondary fermentation. </super_pedant> Internet celebrity, what is probably happening is that your ferment is basically over. Although I (and lots of people here) generally forgo the transfer to a secondary fermenter, you probably have not broken anything. Pull hydrometer samples a few days apart to see what it's doing. If it's near the gravity you are expecting and is not changing, it is done. You can leave it to settle and clear for a few days and then package.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for clearing all that up. Now for a second newbie question: My porter has a bit of a banana smell to it, apparently this is yeast esters and it means I fermented too warm. Is there anything I can do at this point or am I going to be drinking a banana-y porter for a while?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Cpt.Wacky posted:Why take the chance? Put a dark t-shirt or two over it or wrap it with a towel or blanket. Mostly because I'm actually curious about what is happening and the different interactions that occur in fermentation. I'm getting to the point in brewing where I want to understand things better rather then just following standard rules. Everything I've seen about why you want to avoid light is that it breaks down the hop oils, which a cider doesn't have. So I was curious as to whether or not light causes other reactions or has an effect on yeast, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
I think the concern is *mainly* lightstrike of the iso-alpha acids, but I can't imagine that light is doing it any good even without hops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
There's going to be UV in sunlight which is probably the main factor. I do recall reading something in the Compleat Meadmaker about keeping mead in the dark because the light could affect the color, making it paler. UV is pretty nasty in general for breaking things down, but if you want to try it for  then go ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
I bottled my porter last night. It "finished" at 1.024 and after adding the priming sugar the SG was 1.030. Is my apartment going to be washed away by a flood of delicious beer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
internet celebrity posted:Awesome, thanks for clearing all that up. Now for a second newbie question: My porter has a bit of a banana smell to it, apparently this is yeast esters and it means I fermented too warm. Is there anything I can do at this point or am I going to be drinking a banana-y porter for a while? Well, in theory you would dry hop or oak or vanilla or something in secondary to try and mask the taste, one supposes, but it's really not advisable (Most people encourage using / writing recipes intending to oak/dry hop/ etc.). It's also worth noting that what you smell / taste now won't be what you get out of the bottle after three weeks with carbonation. I'm sure you'll love it. SoftNum fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Well, I'll probably cover the cider up. I was doing research for a while before I started looking to wine-related stuff (I am using champagne yeast after-all) and though it won't get skunked because there are no alpha-acids, I guess something being "Light struck" isn't dependent on presence of hops, it's also a term used in wine-making. Light strike brings out a wet cardboard or wet wool taste in wines. Anecdotal reports of the effect of a cider being light struck is a sort of sherry off-flavor. Additionally, UV light will "bleach" the coloring and make things paler then they should be. Of course, I ran into just as many people saying "No hops so it doesn't matter" or "left mine under a window for months, didn't matter" which has been explained that UV light has very little penetrating power in liquids, especially if the liquids are opaque. Long story short, I guess it will slowly become light struck but due to volume and color, it's negligible in the extreme short run. I'm gonna have this sitting for a few months probably, so I'll cover it, but it's still good info to know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
internet celebrity posted:Awesome, thanks for clearing all that up. Now for a second newbie question: My porter has a bit of a banana smell to it, apparently this is yeast esters and it means I fermented too warm. Is there anything I can do at this point or am I going to be drinking a banana-y porter for a while? As TenjouUtena indicated there really isn't a whole lot that can be done about off-flavors like esters and fusel alcohols. The flavors will blend and mellow with conditioning, but only to a certain extent. The smell is always way more noticeable when racking the beer than when drinking - I have worried about banana esters after racking some beers where it ended up being barely noticeable in the finished product - that said I've also had beers that had the banana flavor something fierce which can suck but is a learning lesson and basically teaches you the importance of temperature control. The banana beers were also far from undrinkable - just not what I had intended.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
Plastic Jesus posted:I bottled my porter last night. It "finished" at 1.024 and after adding the priming sugar the SG was 1.030. Is my apartment going to be washed away by a flood of delicious beer? My porter finished at 1.023 before priming and no bottles exploded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
I entered my first competition recently with a Belgian tripel. Just got scores back, 29/40  Don't have judges' comments yet but I bet some of the markdowns stem from my lovely "bottling wand jammed into picnic tap" bottling method (and also from the beer not being all that great, not fishing for excuses). I wouldn't be shocked to see oxidation, lack of carbonation or even infection on the score sheet. May need to add a Beer Gun to my brewing wish list if I ever care to take comps seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that method of filling as long as you take some trial runs to get it down and a few extra precautions. I soak the bottling wand in 160* water for about 10 minutes before I go to use it to make sure any bacteria hiding in the jagged edges I hacksawed off are dead then spray with Star San, give a quick rinse of my picnic tap then spray with Star San, sanitize my bottles as usual, and use those oxygen absorption caps in addition to making sure I cap on foam. Had to try it a few times to get it right and minimize possibilities of contamination/oxygen, but even with a bit of carelessness I'd imagine there'd still be way less exposure to O2 than bottling from a bottling bucket (assuming you purge your kegs before racking from primary). I've filled most of my competition entries that way and the only one that's been singled out for oxidation was definitely due to my process as it tasted like that fairly early on (and I'm still not 100% sure it's oxidation, I think it's some sort of odd infection because I've noticed it lurking around the background in some other brews). indigi fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Jan 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:I entered my first competition recently with a Belgian tripel. Just got scores back, 29/40 I bought a beergun before christmas, and subsequently used it to bottle my first beers in a year, worked pretty well. I can attest to the oxidation issues with the picnic faucet method, it kinda sucks. But so goes the never ending debate/battle between those with $15 to spend and those with $70. What I mean is that if you're serious about bottling beer you'll spend $70, if you aren't you'll spend $15
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 06:01
|
|
|
silver97232 posted:What I mean is that if you're serious about bottling beer you'll spend $70, if you aren't you'll spend $15 indigi fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Jan 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
I think that is very true. There a few breweries that I can use as an example. Finch's brewery in Chicago was started by a graphic artist who was looking to 'cash in' on the micro-brew craze - everything in there is shiny and new, I think everything save their bottling line is brand spanking new, down to the forklift. Lakefront brewery in Wisconsin will only bend over backwards to buy anything new, they're still using massive milk tanks from when they opened, the bottling line is out of one of the debunked breweries (iirc), hell - their brew house is all mechanical and in german still. Just because you buy shinny things doesn't exactly mean you aren't "as serious" as anyone else. I've got a 5gal pot, use a $5 bottle filler, do extract brewing still, but I still spend most of my waking hours reading about beer. Just because I don't have money to blow doesn't mean I'm not serious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Jacobey000 posted:Lakefront brewery in Wisconsin will only bend over backwards to buy anything new, they're still using massive milk tanks from when they opened, the bottling line is out of one of the debunked breweries (iirc), hell - their brew house is all mechanical and in german still. When I was there in 2007, Lakefront was still using the old-school kegs with the bung in the side. I think everything in that place is scavenged from somewhere. The story the guide told us was that the bottling line they still use today was the line Laverne & Shirley worked on. So yeah, expenditure does not equal seriousness. But careful implementation does. Stone has certainly spent a lot of money in the last five years on a new brewhouse, and it's beautiful and shiny and serious all at once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
I guess you could argue that those who get a beergun are "less serious" because they're not taking the time to figure out how to get the bottling wand method to work out. That said, I plan to become a less serious brewer soon, as I have yet to get a proper fill using the bottling wand method - a beergun will be my next purchase as I never really want to bottle more than a sixer of any given batch and this seems like the easiest way to do this while minimizing oxidation / infection risks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Jo3sh posted:If you're using exactly the same wort, this is probably a huge overpitch, especially for Belgian styles where a bunch of the character comes from yeast reproduction. I generally try to do this where I am stepping up significantly in gravity - e.g., brew an ordinary bitter and then use the cake for a barleywine or something. So when you mention that I'd be over pitching, would I be doing so to the point that I'll get off flavors from pitching too much yeast? The reason I'm not bothering to harvest and wash this yeast is that I actually washed & harvested the yeast from a previous batch. So, I don't have any extra jars to store yeast with. That and after harvesting, I actually have a poo poo ton of jars of yeast I could use to ferment with. I'm basically being lazy and not bothering to harvest this. But, you bring up a good idea: I'm wondering if I can't alter my recipe to make it a Double or Quad. I haven't tried to make a big beer yet. Just out of curiosity: So let's say after I brew my big beer and bottle it I'll have a yeast cake to harvest. At this point, the yeast will have been used brew a third batch of beer. At what point is the yeast not suitable for washing and harvesting? I'd imagine that after X amount of batches, the yeast will mutate enough from fermentations that it's too far mutated to produce good tasting beer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 04:18 |
|
|
Dolemite posted:So when you mention that I'd be over pitching, would I be doing so to the point that I'll get off flavors from pitching too much yeast? Sort of the opposite, actually - in Belgians, a lot of the character comes from the reproductive phase. This is actually true in a lot of strains, but it's especially true in Belgians. If you overpitch, the yeast will skip (or dramatically shorten) the reproductive phase and will get right to fermenting, and you miss out on the spicy, estery flavor you want. In short, overpitching can lead to bland beer - not so much off-flavors as lack of flavor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 18:32
|
|