ASOR
Always Sure, Occasionally Right
(A monthly advice column for the bewildered brewer)
Dear Asor,
I occasionally need a pound or two of dark malt (brown malt, chocolate malt, black malt, etc.) for a recipe, but a 50 pound sack of one of these malts would last me for years. I always have a sack or two of pale malt around and would like to know how to roast this at home. I've got an electric stove (and a smoke alarm) in the kitchen and a propane powered grill in the back yard.
Dressed To Kiln,
Apex, NC
Dear Dressed,
The kitchen route is your best bet for control and repeatability. Obtain approval from your spouse if necessary. All stoves are different and temperatures are arbitrary, but I prefer 350 degrees F as a starting point. Spread out your pale malt on a cookie sheet not more than half an inch deep. Put the cookie sheet on the middle rack in the oven and look at it after half an hour. Put it back in if it is not as dark as you want. Your malt will probably be brown after about an hour. Check it every fifteen minutes when you get close.
What you wind up with depends upon time, temperature and your stove. You may want to experiment in the range of 300 to 400 F. If you have a 50 pack sack of malt sitting around, the experiments will not be too costly. If you feel obliged to characterize your malt, find some pictures of toasted malts of various Lovibond ratings and match your home roasted output. Some roasters recommend doing all of this a few days before brew day and storing your malt in an open container to allow some of the byproducts to devolatilize. If you have the time, it won't hurt to do this, but don't hold up production.
If you prefer a sweeter, more crystal/caramel-like malt, soak your pale malt in water overnight before roasting. Then, as the water evaporates during heat up, a few minutes of starch conversion (before the enzymes are completely shot) will give you a product with more sugar, less starch and just as much color.
One final word of advice is not to use this home-roasted product beyond about 10% of your grain bill, or if doing a side- steep for an extract brew, keep it under half a pound per 5 gallons.
From the dark side,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
As brewers on a budget, we've been forced to makeadjustments. We co-op our sugar purchases with the local bootlegger but the price has increased MUCH more rapidly than our social security checks. Recently, the price of a sack of hops at the flea market has almost doubled. Short of cutting back on consumption what can we do to maintain our lifestyle.
Bung and Tap, Rock Ridge, NC
Dear BaT,
The price of conventional brewing hops has gone up due to supply constraints. I hope that this is temporary (like the bump in the price of fuel following hurricane Katrina). In the meantime, discerning brewers may want to consider hop alternatives. Many of the excellent sorghum beers from Nigeria and other West African countries use alternate bittering agents. Bitter leaf (Vernonia amygdalina) is abundant, flavorful, and is reputed to have beneficial medicinal properties. It is also commonly used in stews and as a cooked green vegetable. As far as I know, there are no African grocery stores in your area, but you could look into mail order or internet sales. You could also look into the availability of either utazi or bitter kola. These are, however likely to be as expensive as hops in Eastern North
Carolina.
Fortunately though, there are at least a dozen species of Vernonia that grow wild in your area. Further, these have attractive flowers and may make pleasant drought tolerant additions to your garden. Vernonia noveboracensis or Vernonia glauca are good candidates. Collect some of the leaves. You can use them fresh, or dry them and store them in plastic bags (in the freezer, if possible) for future brews. Use them in the same quantity as hop flowers in your first batch and adjust the rate as necessary to your taste in subsequent brews.
Economically,
Asor
Dear Asor,
Are whole hops or pellet hops better? My objective is to make good beer without any particular interest in authenticity, and with no pretensions towards professionalism.
Alphadog, Cary, NC
Dear Alph,
It doesn't make much difference, but if you have to go one way or the other (and there is no reason why you should have to make a lifetime commitment) use pellets. Pellets are a more highly processed product, but in most cases they come closer to the fruit of the vine than hop flowers. There is one harvest per year in each hemisphere and by the time late summer/early fall comes along, the hops are close to a year away from their connection to the earth. Pellet hops keep better, and since they are easier to store, pellet hops are more likely to have been stored properly and less likely to have oxidized or deteriorated in some other way. The retail distribution chain is fraught with opportunity for mishandling, and hops are rarely labeled with regard to their year of production.
Pellets provide slightly more bitterness, that is, a better utilization rate under similar brewing conditions, because of better hop/wort contact due to the finely divided powder into which they disintegrate. Whole hops are likely to provide more aroma because, while they are more subject to oxidation in storage, they have not undergone the milling and pelletizing process during which volatile components may be lost.
Pellets are easier to use and can be left in contact with the wort through the end of primary fermentation. Pellets also eliminate the wort loss associated with the moisture laden discards from bagged (or loosely filtered) whole hops. Under certain circumstances and equipment configurations, a bed of whole hops can be used as a filter medium to strain out trub (hot break, and if wort is chilled in the boil pot, cold break as well) as the wort flows from the kettle. The downside is, that if your equipment is not configured for this, plugging of valves, hoses, etc. is much more likely to occur with whole hops. If you are using a hop back (which you are not, or else you would not have asked the question), use whole hops.
So Alphadog, unless you want to make life difficult, use pellets.
Resinously,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
My beer tastes better than what I can buy, but it is cloudy. Or at least all of the styles that are not opaque are cloudy; I'm not sure about the stouts. What can I do to improve my clarity?
Cumulus in Cary, NC
Dear Cumulus,
Your clarity is commendable in comparison to most of the letters that I receive, but I assume you want to make your beer more transparent (so that you can put away those ceramic mugs you've been using and break out the pint glasses). Since your beer tastes good, we can eliminate bacterial infection as a cause of cloudiness and assume that your sanitation is adequate. I
should also mention that if you are brewing a wheat beer, it is supposed to be cloudy.
There are a few possibilities to consider. The first is your yeast. If you are using a poorly flocculating strain of yeast it will settle slowly and resuspend easily. You may want to select a different strain for future batches. If this makes a difference, you can decide whether it is worthwhile to make the change on a permanent basis. Depending on what you are brewing (or hope to wind up with) your yeast supplier may be able to recommend a fast and relatively permanently settling yeast. You should also consider your carbonation levels. If you have a very fizzy beer, upon opening a bottle, the rush of bubbles may disturb the carefully settled sediment and resuspend it in the beer. Cut back a little on your priming sugar and see what happens.
You may also want to try to coagulate some of your protein by rapid cooling after your boil. Use of an immersion chiller may result in improved clarity, particularly for all-grain brews. Essentially, the little protein particles clump together when the wort is cooled rapidly, drop like stones and stay behind in your primary fermenter. What makes it into the bottle or keg will also stay on the bottom more reliably. This is much less valuable for extract brews, but still worth a try.
If you are brewing an all-grain (or mostly grain) beer there is a possibility that you have low conversion and are producing a wort with too much unconverted starch. If you have a low efficiency it may be because you are not mashing long enough; give it a little more time and see if this improves your clarity.
If you are not particular about traditional purity, a Irish moss (carrageenan) might help. Add about a half teaspoon to your boiling wort about 5 minutes before you take it off the heat. This will cause you to leave more solids behind in the primary fermenter and will make whatever solids remain stay on the bottom of your keg (or your bottle if you decant carefully). There are a number of other fining agents that you can buy at your local home brew supply store, but be sure to follow the instructions which regard to when (and how much) to add. As a final note, relax, don't worry and have a homebrew. Stouts and black lagers will get you over the hump.
Cirrusly,
Asor
Dear Asor,
I recently entered an Oktoberfest type beer in a homebrew competition in a neighboring town. I received a 34 (no ribbon) and when I deciphered the barely legible score sheets (Perhaps, the judges knocked off a long flight of barley wines before getting around to my category), I found that both judges had noted astringency as a flaw, and one judge recommended that I pay attention to my spurge. Is there a connection between my spurge and astringency, and what should I do to produce higher scoring
entries?
Puzzled Pete, Kilgore, Texas
Dear Pete,
Astringency is generally caused by tannins from the grain (and in fact has a taste like tea when the bag has been left in the water too long). I'm not sure what type of spurge you have in East Texas, but it is unlikely that any of the Euphorbia species in your yard had anything to do with your problem. None the less, it is always a good idea to keep windblown vegetation out of your kettle and tun. Indoors, E. pulcherima is common in Texas around the winter solstice, but it is likely that if you added this to your wort you would know about it.
My speculation Pete, is that the judges were referring to your sparge. Assuming that this was an all grain or mini-mash brew, you may have sparged excessively. When sparging, a point of diminishing returns is reached. While it is natural to want to rinse every last molecule of fermentable sugar from your grain bed, at some point a lot of tannins are extracted. You probably have a thermometer if you are mashing; use this to make sure that the sparge water is less that 170 degrees F. If you are seriously into chemistry, you can monitor the pH of your sparge water (for example, using pH paper available at high quality home brew supply shops) and stop sparging when you get to pH 6. [Your sparge pH should start somewhere below this, and slowly creep up.]
Or, 1) just sparge a little less than usual, and boil for a shorter time. Or, 2) sparge a little less than usual, boil for the same time as usual, and then add boiled water to adjust your original gravity to your expectations. Or, 3) use a little more grain, and be a little less efficient. If none of these improve your brew, it may be time for some yard work.
Keeping it legible,
Asor
Dear Asor,
I recently had the opportunity to buy a 25 kg sack of pale malt at a price that was unbelievably low. When I got home, and looked at the bag closely, I noticed that it was marked "Packed 4-2001--Use by 4-2002. Will using this 6 year old malt present any problems, and, if so, how should I compensate for this. At the rate I use pale malt, this sack will last me about nine months.
Careless shopper, Longview, Texas
Dear Careless,
There is no denying that your situation is suboptimal. But, it is not hopeless. Malt starts to lose enzyme activity from the time it is kilned. Most large commercial breweries move in fresh malt continuously and use it expeditiously. Within the homebrew channel, it takes a fair amount of time for malt to travel from the maltster to the wholesaler, and then to the retailer and ultimately to the end user. This could add up to a few months or even more for specialty products imported from Belgium and transported by ship and rail. Most maltsters would be comfortable if their product got mashed within a year of kilning. Your malt is beyond all this--but not beyond hope. While the enzyme activity is definitely lower than in fresh malt, your malt still retains some of what is needed for successful mashing. More importantly, fresh malt has far more enzymes than necessary for mashing. This is what makes it possible to use enzyme deficient adjuncts (such as corn) as significant contributors to your grain bill.
So careless, the next time you have a need for pale malt, use equal quantities of this aged material you have and the freshest new pale malt you can find. If all goes well, the excess of enzymes in the new malt will be sufficient to mash the old malt as well. Then, assuming that this works (which can be determined either by original gravity measurements, or simply by waiting and sampling the finished beer), push things a little farther. Try 2/3 old and 1/3 new. You should be able to zip right through this bargain sack in a year or so. And, who knows, maybe there is nothing wrong with this stuff and you can use it at full strength.
One other thing to consider, if you are adventurous (or bored), is to make some dark, non-fermentable, malt out of some of your old pale ale malt. Try toasting some of this on a cookie sheet until it gets to the color you want. Then toss a pound or so into a dark beer as a flavoring adjunct. You might expect me to close with a warning about being skeptical about the offers you get in truck stop parking lots-- but, all things considered, sometimes it pays to take a chance.
Anciently,
Asor
Dear Asor,
I recently brewed an ale that turned out to be excessively foamy. One 12 ounce bottle will fill two 14-ounce mugs to the top (actually slightly over the top). Most of this is a very stiff large-bubble foam. After all this settles, the beer is drinkable, but on the thin side. And, even though there is abundant head, the liquid portion is on the flat side. This has happened to me twice before in the last 20 or 25 batches, but I did nothing different (that I know of) in these batches. I always use dry yeast and never bottle until the airlock has been silent for at least 3 days. What is going on, and what should I do?
Buster Bubbles in Burlington
Dear BB,
First, what you should do RIGHT NOW is move all of your remaining bottles to the refrigerator. Second, you should drink them as quickly as practical. You can expect these to continue to carbonate. This can be dangerous, in the sense that the bottles could shatter due to excessive pressure. Or, it could simply be wasteful and possibly messy. By refrigerating the remainder of your batch, you will decrease the pressure (by increasing the solubility of carbon dioxide in beer) and greatly decrease the rate of additional fermentation.
It is likely that you have an infection due most likely to a wild yeast (or possibly to certain types of airborne bacteria). While the good yeast, such as (presumably) the ones you pitched, convert the fermentable sugars to alcohol and carbon dioxide and then stop, the bad yeast keep on going. These yeast convert the ordinarily unfermentable components of your beer to carbon dioxide and some other compounds. But it is these "unfermentables" (including dextrins) that provide the taste and "body" in your finished product. To decrease the possibility that this will recur in your next batch you should increase your efforts with regard to cleanliness and sanitation. Thoroughly clean everything (fermenter, priming tank, siphon hose, bottles) that comes in contact with your cool wort. Then sanitize them a little more extensively than usual. Use a little more bleach, or other sanitizer, for a little longer. [Don't forget to rinse.] It might be a good time to replace the PVC components of your racking cane.
Life is uncertain, and even the most thorough brewers (including the pros) occasionally wind up with something that they would prefer not to put their names on. So drink this one promptly and try again as soon as you can.
Cautiously,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
One of the more popular brews around here claims to be "beechwood aged". Should I incorporate a beechwood aging step in my homebrew routine? If so, how does this work and what will it do for me?
Beachboy Billy
Dear Bill,
In general, trying to be popular (or even trying to be poplar) is rarely productive. There is not much in it for you; the beechwood, by design, adds no discernable taste. What it does, or is intended to do, is add more surface area for yeast/beer contact during the lagering phase of a commercial brewing process. So if you don't brew lagers, or if you don't lager the lagers that you do brew, this is not for you. If you do lager your lagers, the theory behind this is that the yeast present during lagering will absorb some components from the youthful beer and "smooth it out". This might be desirable.
The contact area is limited to the top of your yeast cake, unless you have a mini-wood pile in the bottom of your lagering tank (possibly a keg or carboy for the home brewer). If you had a pile of sterile beach chips on the bottom of your vessel, you might wind up with a lot of little yeast collections which would have a greater total area than the bottom surface of your lagering tank. If this were the case, you might achieve a greater extent of "smoothing" in a shorter time. This might be desirable, and it is generally accepted that time is money.
But it would be unwise to use beechwood for this purpose unless you were trying to achieve an artificial distinction for marketing purposes. It would be a lot simpler to use something dense, easy to sterilize and reusable (say for instance stainless steel scrap or quartz driveway gravel). All things considered, beechwood aging is likely to be a waste of time and effort.
My recommendation is to distance yourself from the in-crowd and distinguish your beer in a different way. I think a bold designation like "Crawlspace Conditioned" on your label might get you the recognition that you desire.
Substantially,
Asor
Dear Asor,
What is a real ale? Are real ales better than unreal ales? How can I make one, and should I try?
Spin Caster
Dear Spin,
A common misconception is that real ales are those served in taverns located on El Camino Real (the King's Highway). In fact, much of the brew consumed on this road is fizzy lager, and most real ale is produced in the English sectors of the United Kingdom.
First off, a real ale has to be an ale. That is, it has to have a credible claim to having been fermented with an ale yeast at ale temperatures. Secondly, it has to be made with "traditional" ingredients. Clearly (as in Germany) water, yeast, malt and hops would be okay, but algae or isinglass is probably okay too. And if your personal tradition included licorice or molasses, you might have a shot at it (but lose the boysenberries and organic mung beans).
Then, strictly speaking, it has to be naturally carbonated, unfiltered, and dispensed from the container that it was fermented in, without using any extra gas to push it with. So suppose you let this run out of the keg by gravity, or by hand pump, but instead of replacing the beer with air, you replaced it with carbon dioxide. Under these circumstances, you might be able to fake it among friends--particularly if your friends disliked flat oxidized beer.
So, Spin, as a homebrewer, let's say you do a primary fermentation and then prime and do your secondary in the bottle. There will no doubt be a healthy load of yeast in the bottom of your bottle, and a week or so later, when you pop off the cap, and invert the bottle over your mug you will be dispensing unfiltered real ale, by gravity, from the container where fermentation took place (partially). I think you've done it. Or you could go to an authentic pub where the publican would pound a spigot into the bung of the firkin and pull you a pint.
Either way, you can't miss. And reality is overrated anyway.
Ride west,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
Should I use dry malt extract or liquid malt extract? I distinguish my ales with various types of pellet hops and small amounts of steeped specialty malts.
Mutt N. Faison
Dear Mutt,
I assume that you are talking about unhopped extracts, as opposed to hopped extracts or single step ingredient kits. This being the case, and even if it isn't, you should use the type of extract that produces the most pleasing beer. Making the further assumption that all your beer is good, there are several reasons why the powder is slightly preferable to the goo.
Both types of extracts are produced by removing water from commercially produced wort under reduced pressure. The difference is in how much water is removed. The powder has virtually all of the water removed, while the goo contains 10 to 20% water. Interestingly, much of the goo is sold in 3.3 pound tins or pouches, while the powder is generally sold in 3 pound bags. If the goo had 10% water you could compare the prices of these products directly, but the goo usually contains 15% or more water. You will find, on a price basis, that the powder is a cheaper way to get the same extract. If you don't have a home brew supply store in your town, you will find that you have to pay freight on the water content which you could just as well supply yourself. And with canned extract, you also have to pay freight on the can. Even if you live down the street from your supplier, freight costs throughout the supply chain have been worked into the price of your extract.
In terms of shelf life, dry malt is reported to last "almost indefinitely". I estimate this means 5 years or more if stored under any conditions that a reasonable person would not characterize as extreme. Malt syrup tends to deteriorate somewhat within a year or two. Bulging cans are quite common. (This is still good for brewing, but not quite as good.) Additionally, malt syrup tends to darken over time, which makes it impossible to make very light colored beers. None of this should be of any importance if you deal with a supplier that turns over the inventory briskly, and if you buy extract with an eye towards using it within a few months.
As far as convenience goes, if you have a recipe that calls for less than a full package, it is easier to reseal and store a partial sack of dry malt that a half full package of goo. Some brewers like canned goo because the empty can provides a spoon rest.
In summary, try them all and use the stuff you like best. If you find that it does not matter, then use dry malt extract.
Flow smoothly,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
As a youthful home brewer in Manitoba, everyone I knew used 6-row barley malt. After moving to the States, I started brewing again and find that everyone uses 2-row malt, and that 6-row is hard to find. How should I adapt my infusion mash procedure, eh?
Red Riverton
Dear Red,
Generally speaking, farmers like the 2-row strains because they get more grain (which is to say more money) from the same acreage. Maltsters like 2-row barley because it can be converted to malt in a shorter time than 6-row. Large scale commercial brewers go with 2-row because they get more product from the same weight of grain. Overly technical homebrewers know that 2-row malt has less soluble protein, and since protein leads to haze, the use of 2-row malt decreases their anxiety.
My speculation is that when you were growing up it was common to use a large fraction of non-barley adjuncts (e.g. corn, rye, spuds, sweet tators, table scraps, etc) in your recipes. And if this is still the case, it will be worth your while to have your malt man order you a sack of 6-row. The reason for this is that 6-row provides an abundance of excess enzymes which will convert the starch in these enzyme deficient ingredients. But, if like most homebrewers (and commercial brewers also), you keep the corn (or rice, or whatever) bill below about 25%, 2- row will be fine. So the bottom line here is relax, don't worry, have a home brew and mash the grain you've got on hand.
Plump kernels forever,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
I have been brewing acceptable beers for several years, and have been pitching whatever brand of dry yeast is farthest from its "Best Before" date among those in stock at my local home brew supply house. Am I right to be suspicious of "liquid" yeasts, or should I do what the in-crowd does and special order the White Labs and/or Wyeast strains?
Uneasy Brewer in Leesvile
Dear UBIL,
These are desperate times, and it is always appropriate to be suspicious. Sometimes though, one needs to take a calculated risk. If you look through the recipes for award winning beers, the brewers almost invariably claim to use a strain of liquid yeast culture. So if you aspire to the heights of popular acceptance you need to give it a try. Also, certain styles of beer demand the use of particular yeast strains to provide the correct fermentation byproduct character, the desired extent of attenuation, and in some cases the proper flocculation. Furthermore, most of the available dry yeasts are ale yeasts, and if you want to brew a lager, you may not be able to find an acceptable dry yeast. What this means is, without regard to the quality of your current output, if you are uneasy, dissatisfied or unhappy you must take steps to improve your contentment. Essentially, you have to turn over the rock to see what is there.
The first rule is to always have a backup plan. You need to have a trusty pack of dry yeast in your refrigerator. Then, if nothing happens for 48 hours after you pitch your liquid yeast, rehydrate and pitch your dry yeast. You will still wind up with what you have termed an acceptable beer, nothing will be wasted, and you can try again next time. With this in mind, select an appropriate yeast for the style of beer you have in mind based on the literature available from the yeast supplier, or based on a trusted recipe supplied from a trusted source. Pay attention to the temperature range in which the selected yeast operates. If you are unable to achieve and maintain your fermenter at this temperature, you may not be any better off than you were when you were using dry yeast. So, pick a beer style that matches up with a yeast that matches up with your temperature capabilities. Certain types of yeast are sold in "pitchable" quantities. What this means --theoretically-- is that you just have to produce your wort and get it to the right temperature and then dump in your pitchable yeast in the same manner as if it were rehydrated dry yeast. This is surely worth a try, as it can certainly decrease the additional complications to your life that result from making the move to liquid yeast. Good luck. Some liquid yeasts are sold in "smack packs" with a small segregated volume of sterile wort. A day or two before the target pitching time, the brewer smacks the pack and breaks the barrier between the yeast and the sterile wort. The swelling of the package is an indication of yeast viability. Good luck. If the pack does not swell, and you want to maintain your brewing schedule, use your backup dry yeast instead, brew an "acceptable" beer, and try again later.
You can however make a "starter" from a pitchable yeast, a smack pack yeast, the sediment from a bottle of bottle conditioned beer that you like, or a cleanly collected scoop of trub from your friend's primary. This adds quite a bit of work, because you have to make a separate small (0.5 to 1.0 gallon) batch of wort, and pitch your yeast into it a day or two before you want to brew your target beer. But if get this starter to the vigorous bubbling stage and then pitch the whole thing into your freshly prepared 4 to 9 gallon wort, you will get a rapid takeoff and wind up with 4.5 to 10 gallons of beer. Cleanliness is important at both stages of this process, or, in a negative sense, your chances for contamination are doubled.
So ULIB, you have got to do it, because uneasiness will eventually decrease your happiness and well being. Accept the increased complications and take the challenge. Should you find that liquid yeast does not improve your life, just the fact that you took charge of your destiny should provide some consolation.
Culturally,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
For primary fermentation, which is better, plastic or glass? I aspire to be a brewer of distinction and a few bucks one way or another is irrelevant.
Materialist in Morrisville
Dear Mim,
Excellent brews can be made in either glass carboys or plastic tubs (wood is quite a bit riskier). First, and very important, comes the question of freeboard. Historically, homebrewers in the US have made batches of about 5 US gallons in volume. This, of course, is arbitrary, however many published recipes are scaled to this volume and many commercial brewing kits are based on this volume. A 5 gallon batch requires a 7 gallon, or greater, primary fermenter. So, proceeding on the assumption that you will leave yourself at least 2 gallons of airspace at the top of your primary (or perhaps 1.5 gallons of airspace for a 3 gallon batch, etc.) you can make an excellent beer with either glass of plastic. [At this point, those who court danger may mutter something about blowoff tubes. Ignore anything you hear from these people as they will lead you to wasteful practices.]
Aside from the fact that glass is fragile, subject to thermal shock, slightly more expensive than plastic, heavy (thus more expensive to ship) and is unreliable if you expect to encounter sub-freezing temperatures in your brewhouse, the selection hinges on sanitation. Each material has its advantages. Glass rarely gets scratched in ordinary use, whereas plastic scratches easily. This is important because scratches can harbor undesirable microorganisms which can adversely affect quality. On the other hand, a food grade high density polyethylene tub is much easier to clean (e.g with a sponge and elbow grease) than a carboy (which involves insertion of a brush through the neck and the limited solids dislodging friction that can be produced).
Life will be simpler if you go with a plastic tub, treat it gently, and replace it every few years. But, if you like to watch the delicate dance of the rising bubble and the falling yeast floc, go with glass, but keep an opaque bag over it (or keep it in the dark) between observations.
Polymerically,
ASOR
Dear ASOR,
Most of my brews take forever or longer to carbonate after bottling. I brew 5 gallon batches of ales and my beer usually spends 2-3 weeks in secondary. I've been using the recommended quantity of priming sugar or prime tabs. Same results with either. Are the yeast just too tired? Please help.
Fizzed Out in Derm
Dear FOID,
Your yeast may be tired, dead, asleep, and/or absent. There are a number of things that you can do to improve the situation. First, let's assume that after you have waited "forever (or longer)" the beer is to your liking and you just want to shorten your pitch-to-mug time. Otherwise, you have more important problems than this one.
You may be pitching good yeast at a satisfactory rate, have a satisfactory primary fermentation and make a produce a large quantity of new yeast. A very efficient racking procedure, perhaps aided by a highly flocculent yeast leaves nearly all of this yeast behind when you go to the secondary. Then, in the secondary, you make only a very small quantity of additional yeast (because there is not much food left for them) and settle out most of these plus most of the ones you started with. In some cases, you may "crash" the yeast (i.e. cause them to drop out of suspension) by lowering the temperature. Another very efficient racking procedure leaves even less yeast available for your tertiary fermentation in bottle or keg. And those that do remain are comatose due to starvation. Then weeks go by before the few survivors can polish off your priming sugar and carbonate your beer.
Fortunately, there are numerous steps you can take to improve the situation.
1) You can keg your beer and force carbonate it. This is almost foolproof and can produce adequate carbonation in 24 hours. The drawbacks are the investment of cash and storage space associated with a keg, a carbon dioxide tank and hardware, and keg-size refrigeration capacity. But, even more reliably than Country Club Malt Liquor, it works every time.
2) You could store your primed beer at a higher temperature for a week or so before cellaring it. After a cold secondary, a warmer carbonation can wake up sluggish yeast.
3) You can skip the secondary entirely and go straight from the primary to bottles or kegs. Secondary fermentation is over- rated (and provides an additional opportunity for contamination). In reality, your secondary fermentation takes place in the bottle. You are much more likely to carry over an adequate quantity of yeast for carbonation if you skip the secondary fermenter (you could use it for a terrarium in this case). And you can eliminate 2 to 3 weeks of inventory.
4) Use a less flocculent yeast. You don't mention what strain of yeast you are using. Some yeasts are prized for their ability to drop like a bowling ball off the end of a pier. These are helpful in producing a crystal clear beer without filtration, but they can not help you carbonate your beer if they don't make it into the priming tank.
5) Add a priming yeast. This can be a simple as adding a few grains of dry yeast to each bottle, or as complicated as adding a small previously prepared starter of your favorite yeast. If you chose the starter route, add about a tenth as much as you would for a primary innoculant. And even if you made a lager, you may want to use an ale yeast at priming time and carbonate at 70 degrees F. For high alcohol beers, a champaign yeast may work best.
6) As a variant to adding a priming yeast, if you happen to have another actively fermenting brew, you can draw off a quart of this and add it to your priming tank along with your priming sugar.
7) Blend your inadequately carbonated homebrew with a fizzy commercial lager. Pick up a few 24 ounce mugs. For a homebrewed "lite" beer, use unflavored seltzer in place of the fizzy lager.
You are probably looking for advice, as opposed to a lengthy list of options. The first thing that I would try is approach #2, i.e. eliminate the secondary fermenter. It is possible that you will find your product improved, or at least as good as what you are used to. And, if you do go this route, you can wait a week or two after bottling or kegging and still be ahead of the game.
All in all, FOID, your problem is not a serious one. These are not the only approaches, but one or more of them should put some fizz in your glass. And remember, flat beer is better than no beer.
Ebulliently,
ASOR
ASOR,
I'm reading a lot about yeast slurries and pitching onto yeast cakes. Can you enlighten us on these practices? When is it unwise to reuse yeast?
Wondering in Wake Forest
Dear Wondering,
The path to enlightenment is often strewn with limited availability and imperfect delivery. I'll try to light a candle. Let me invert the query and discuss the issue of optimal circumstances for yeast reuse. The best time to pitch on to a yeast cake is 1) when you have a batch of cool wort available immediately after you have racked a batch of beer from your primary, 2) when the style you are hoping to achieve in the new batch is consistent with the yeast you pitched in the recently racked batch, 3) when a rare yeast--or at least a pure strain liquid yeast--was used in the old batch, 4) when a sample of the old batch taken at racking time smells and tastes uncontaminated, and 5) when you have not pulled this stunt with the same culture more than five times previously.
The upside to this practice is an explosive takeoff (which shortens the pitch-to-mug time and reduces capital tied up in inventory) for the new batch because of the high pitching rate. In addition, you save $5 on a new pack of liquid yeast as well as (in some cases) the labor and scheduling complexities of making a starter and "stepping up".
Getting back to the question that you asked, it is unwise to do this when you are using a dry yeast, because you can get a high pitching rate, a relatively contaminant free culture, and no starter hassles for $0.50 to $1.50. It is also unwise to do this if you have doubts about the quality of the old batch--after all, you are risking 5 or more gallons of beer just for the prospect of a fast takeoff and a $5.00 saving. And it goes without saying (although since I'm in advice-giving mode I'll say it anyway) that if you are making an ordinary bitter, you don't want to pitch on to a yeast cake from a batch inoculated with a saison yeast. Mutations and contaminants increase from generation to generation. While some commercial operations with good quality control repitch 20 or 30 times, you should not push your luck past about 5 batches.
Assuming that your mention of slurries implies that you want to wait a while between racking your old batch and starting your new batch, the upside goes down and the downside goes up--and the odds get worse with the passage of time. Assuming that you can sterilize a Mason jar, and assuming that you can conduct a transfer between the bottom of your primary and the jar without introducing contamination (pause for frank self-evaluation here) you can then cover the mouth of the jar with plastic wrap and store the slurry in your refrigerator for a week or less before pitching into a new batch of wort. The takeoff won't be quite as explosive because the yeast goes into suspended animation and does not spring immediately into action. Some of the yeast won't survive, and there is the chance of contamination in your transfer. But you can give it a try. Be sure to let the slurry warm up to room temperature before pitching. And be sure to have a pack of dry yeast in reserve, in case nothing happens within 36 hours.
A final note is appropriate at this point. Beware of yeast washing. I won't elaborate on this practice, but nothing good will come of it.
It's all cakes and ale,
ASOR
Oh Great & Powerful One, how long does a MEAD primary fermentation last (4 pounds of honey added to enough water to make 5 total gallons that was made in the most unsanitary conditions I've ever seen during "Mead Day" at T***'s house)? Or, to put the question another way, when do I transfer the honey/water/alcohol mix to the secondary? I would like to add some fruit to the mix sometime. Oh, I don't care about complete anonymity.
>Mitch Hayes
Dear Mitch,
You raise several issues here, and since you seem like a man with a pressing problem, I'll move your questions up to the top of the list. First though, does T*** live at a concentrated animal feeding operation, a wastewater treatment plant, a municipal waste transfer station, or a daycare center--or--have you just led a sheltered life? Regardless of the answer to this question, if you are fermenting at ambient summer temperatures in the southeastern U.S., your mead is no doubt ready to transfer to the secondary by now. As a general rule, you should transfer 2 or 3 days after your air lock stops bubbling, and that is probably going to be about a week after pitching for most meads. Your's, however, is a little on the thin side--it wouldn't have hurt to have tossed in an extra pound or two of honey--and it may have been ready to transfer even sooner
.
If you have access to hydrometer, and can withdraw enough green mead to check the specific gravity, it will be time to transfer when the SG gets to 1.000, or, if you check it on two consecutive days and it doesn't change, transfer it then. I would recommend that you not return the fluid used for the hydrometer determination to your fermenter because of the squalid nature of your surroundings. Taste it though, for educational purposes. Were it not for the fruit addition issue, I would suggest a"quick drinking" mead, in which you could go straight to bottles (and skip the opportunities for contamination and sanitizer carry over during the additional transfer).
The fruit addition complicates matters at this point. Your safest course of action is to add some pasteurized, preservative- free fruit juice that might be available where fine organic supplies are sold. You might also consider the addition of a concentrated fruit extract that is available through homebrew supply channels. In the first case, add it when you transfer to the secondary. In the second case, add it at bottling time. If you need to use actual fruit there is more risk. I can't get enthusiastic about a quick sulfite bath to kill surface organisms followed by a thorough rinse, but it would probably work. Or, if it is something like peaches, immerse them in boiling water for 1 minute, let cool, smash them (remove pits if you like) and add them to the secondary about a week before bottling. Bearing in mind that you have a low alcohol mead in your primary, you could take a pint of smashed berries (blackberries or raspberries would be good) mix them with a pint of vodka a few days before you bottle, and strain the mixture into the mead at bottling time.
This would give you a boost and lower the risk of infection.
You don't care about anonymity, and this means that you may get to drink all of this yourself. But since I don't have the okay to use T***'s name, I've concealed it. I expect you'll do fine, Mitch. Relax, Don't worry, have a home made mead.
Live from the hive,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
What is the best way to remove the labels from beer bottles?
Pasted in Pittsboro
Dear Pasted,
You did not mention why you wanted to remove the labels. For most applications the optimum solution is to leave them on. Often new brewers get hung up on appearances and redirect energy that would be profitably employed in the brewing process into time sinks such as label removal. Vestigial labels (whether they be classic PBR or an obscure Belgian farmhouse product) can sometimes add a funky charm to a homebrew presentation. However, assuming you have a legitimate need--for instance you need a few unmarked bottles for a home brew competition entry--there is a low energy, low chemical usage method that is simple and effective.
It is always easiest to remove the label from a full bottle. After you fill and cap a batch of home brew, select a few bottles and immerse them in a bucket or tub of tap water. Since they are capped, there will be no danger of contaminating the inside (or "business side" as people in the quality assurance business say) of the bottle with a foul stew of water soluble adhesives, paper and pigment shreds and chemical, biological and radiological residues that cling to the outside of the bottle. And since the bottles are full (up to the neck) they won't float around and they will stay submerged.
Then wait a week. You probably are not going to need to drink a newly bottled beer for a week anyway. (If you do, drink one of the ones that is not undergoing label removal in the current cycle.) At this point the labels will rub off easily when you run your hands over them. Take a clean rag and gently wipe off any remaining residue, then congratulate yourself on a job well done and store them in your inventory area. Save these for competitions and drink the ones that did not fit it the bucket.
Go for the gusto.
ASOR
ASOR,
I'm a new homebrewer and have been plagued by foul fermentations. Iodophor, Star San, PBW, Bleach, OxyClean, Straight-A, B-Brite! How can I make the right choice in an agent (agents) for cleaning, sterilizing, and sanitizing? The New Brewer Grief Counselor has resigned his post and I felt so alone and helpless. I've been telling my friends that all of my beers are lambics, but don't know how long I can keep up the charade.
I feel so dirty, please help me be clean again.
Roiled in Raleigh
Dear Roiled,
Without more details abut your procedure I cannot provide an optimal answer, but a pretty good answer might be adequate to make your life bearable. First we have to consider the mind- brewpot problem which has puzzled many noted philosophers, including Mr. Natural (best known for his advocacy of getting the right tool for the job). Does anyone but you recognize the problem? Perhaps, your beers are fair to excellent and it is only your standards that need adjustment. Note that this is not a problem that can be solved with another trip to your chemical supplier. Confirm that your beers actually are bad by asking the advice of a knowledgeable drinker, or entering them in a homebrew competition. If in fact the beer is bad, it is a reasonable assumption that microbial contamination (of the beer, that is) is your problem.
We can eliminate anything that is upstream of your boil. Sloppy mash tuns, lauter tuns, brewpots, and the like are not your problem. If you use an immersion chiller and put it into your brewpot while the wort is boiling, that is not your problem either. At the downstream end, if you bottle, and if each and every bottle is bad, then your bottles are not the problem either. Working from the middle, taste and smell your beer before each transfer. Depending on your procedure, you may have to drink a little of what is in the primary, before transfer to the secondary, and the secondary before transfer to priming tank or keg. This may or not help.
Your question mentioned cleaning, sterilizing, and sanitizing. First, discard the idea of sterilizing. You can't do it. Then recall that you can only effectively sterilize a surface after it has been cleaned. If you have a counterflow (or I.T.I.) chiller, put it away for a few years. If you have PVC, or Tygon, tubing for siphoning and filling, replace it (it is an inexpensive way to eliminate a variable). Clean your primary and secondary fermenters, and your bottling bucket and/or priming tank with Straight A and elbow grease, immediately AFTER use. Follow the directions if you can find them, or use about a level tablespoon per gallon. Rinse well. After cleaning, fill these vessels up to the top with hot tap water containing « cup of original recipe unscented Clorox bleach and let them sit for an hour. Soak your siphon tubing and airlock components in one of these vessels. Drain, rinse, air dry and store (with a "clean newspaper over any plastic buckets or tanks) until you need them for your next batch. Rinse with tap water and you should be good to go.
This should do it for you, Roiled. If it doesn't solve your problem, put your liquid yeast and starter procedure on hold and pitch at least 10 g of dry yeast (rehydrated of course) per 5 gallon batch. If you still have problems, send in a description of your procedure, and mention precisely at what stage the problem becomes evident and I'll take it up in a future column.
And it never hurts to maintain a lean inventory and flexible standards.
Purely,
Asor
Dear Asor,
How do you know so much about brewing?
Critical Brewer Online
Dear Bro,
First I need to clear up some misconceptions and then I need to revise your question to make it more relevant to the needs of the community. I do not know "so much" about brewing, and only claim to be right occasionally. Bearing this in mind, better questions are 1) How did you reach your present level of competence, and 2) What approach should I take to increasing my brewing knowledge (and thereby improving my popularity and self esteem).
Well Bro', I started out by talking to experienced self-identified homebrewers. This led me to the public library and the library at the local university where I read all of the material available. [This did not take long, as the available resources were extremely limited.] I bought a package deal kit which included the necessary equipment (except for the brew pot) for extract brewing. I bought an aluminum dishpan for wort boiling. I was fortunate to have a homebrew supply store in my hometown and bought my ingredients one batch at a time to maximum contact with other customers in the store. I read the gospel according to Papazian accepted the prevailing prejudices concerning the evils of cane sugar, and the dubiousness of corn sugar. Eventually, I connected with a local homebrew club and was exposed to novel and occasionally heretical views on the subjects of mashing barley and other grains, culturing yeast from bottles, bizarre additives including honey, spices, licorice and fruit. I subscribed to Zymurgy, thus supporting Charlie Papazian's drinking program. During this time, I drank as many different beers as I could. I went to club meetings early, so that I could talk to more (or differently) experienced brewers during a window of coherency. I stayed after the meetings and discussed the background of particular interesting (not necessary particularly appealing) beers that were brought to the meetings. As brewpubs started, I came by for the tour, tried all of the products, and came back occasionally to drink a pint and listen to what the brewmaster had to say--and to what he did not say. I dropped by most of the brew-ins that gregarious homebrewers held and provoked controversy when appropriate. I participated in National Homebrew Day celebrations and tried to get as much hands-on experience as I could. I attended the annual homebrew competitions held by the local club, reviewed the style guidelines and critically evaluated the entries for compliance (not quality). The quality of my product was largely unaffected by any of this, having risen to the level of adequacy almost immediately and thereafter maintaining consistency.
So moving on to the other shoe: You should (subject to the overiding consideration to be revealed shortly) drink critically, listen critically, and read the books that come your way (Papazian, Palmer, Fix, any or all of the style specific guides). Subscribe to Zymurgy and/or All About Beer. When you go to your local outlet, don't automatically call for a Sierra Nevada or a Pilsner Urquell, but drink something new. Attend a festival or two if they fit your schedule. Join a homebrew club if there is one in your town, otherwise start your own. Latch on to a good (not necessarily experienced) brewer and offer to stir the pot for him or her. Trot on down to your local brewpub/microbrewery and listen to the production staff. Most importantly, do any or all of the above consistent with having fun. My advice, Bro', is to get a life first and then pursue this as a hobby.
Occasionally,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
What is the history of micro and home brewed beers in North Carolina?
Unnamed reader in networld
Dear Urin,
A complete, or even an adequate answer to your question would take a book length treatise. Bandwidth being at a premium, and being mindful of the importance of the balance between education (i.e. dissemination of this column) and research (i.e. drinking and brewing in no particular order), I'm going to duck this one (or incorporate by reference as we say in the regulatory sphere). As for the history of microbrewed beers in North Carolina, a comprehensive time line is provided at http://www.beerinator.com/contentid-7.html. This compilation, including both micro and macro brewing, was developed by Jon Suratt, a former North Carolinian and current monitor of tar heel brewing and drinking trends. For further study, links to webpages of all currently operating microbreweries are just a click away on the links page of www.trubclub.com, where you may be reading this.
As for homebrewed beers in North Carolina, the trub webpage also provides an early history of homebrewing in the research triangle (see the previously answered question to learn more about where this is located) area. Green and Oglesby have developed a comprehensive history of TRUB and its antecedent. You can find this in the archive section. What remains to be documented is the history of homebrewed beers outside of the Triangle. This is not exactly shrouded in mystery, but has been obscured by the sad fact that brewing was illegal between the onset of prohibition in the 1920's and the legalization of homebrewing on the Federal level in 1979. Many barrel sized batches of beer for consumption in the home and farmstead were crafted with sacks of sugar and cakes of bread yeast. Corn has always beer the fermentable of choice in the Old North State, however much of corn based "beer" made its way into distilled spirits (none achieving the prominence of the Tennessee and Kentucky products), which offered substantial advantages in storage, transportation and concealment. Wilkes County (named for John Wilkes, an interesting character in his own right) and Johnston County, have a well-documented history in the distillation industry, but records of consumption of the process input are lacking. Blue Ribbon malt extract was available in most parts of the State from the early days of the 20th century until quite recently. If the numerous retail locations of the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company and the Piggly Wiggly found it profitable to keep in stock, we may reasonably assume that this viscous feedstock was fed to yeast throughout the state.
Well Urin, that's not a complete answer but my goal is to solve (or minimize) brewer's problems as opposed to completing their term papers for them (cost effective solutions to this problem can also be found on the internet).
Historically,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
Were you present at the Triangle's first brew-in?
Unidentified Web Page Consumer
Dear UWPC,
This was one of several personal, as opposed to technical, questions that came in this month. I'll get to all of them eventually, but yours is the easiest so I'll tackle it first.
The short answer is no. Being a creature of, primarily, the twentieth century, I missed the early days. Having established my chronological deficiencies, it is worth speculating on the early brewing history of what is now called "the Triangle". This term is a diminutive form of the term "Research Triangle", which was coined in the last half of the twentieth century. Initially, it drew on an analogy to the "Bermuda Triangle", as a zone of disappearance. Specifically, the Research Triangle was a place where Federal grant funds disappeared (or, ran to ground, as the digital hardware purveyors who settled the area referred to it). Nonetheless, Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill existed as unique entities before the onset of the Triangle. The Triangle Homebrewer's League, which later became TRUB, centered itself in this region of Piedmont North Carolina. The area was, at the time of the European migration, settled by native Americans (thought to be of Siberian descent) primarily associated with the Catawba tribal group. These people were not brewers. A group of Moravians settled in Salem, and by 1754, they had planted barley (a crop not particularly well suited to the climate, but superbly matched to their needs) and were brewing beer. While Salem was several days ride on horseback from the area that became the Triangle, it is likely that the occasional sack of barley fell off the wagon on the way through Durham. And we can assume, though photographic evidence is lacking, that this barley would have been put to its highest and best use. A few decades later, the State capital was located at the eastern vertex of the Triangle and named Raleigh (why, is another story). It was sited at its present location precisely because of its proximity to a good bar, operated by one Isaac Hunter. Hunter was known to produce a credible "Cherry Bounce" (which we may assume was made with organic free range cherries, as artificial flavorings were unavailable in the colonies at this time). Cider was more popular and available than malt beverages, and conditions being hard, cold, dark, and boring this was used to provide vitamins as well as escape. It is likely that persimmon beers and other beverages of this type were brewed by publicans as well as individuals on their farmsteads. And malted barley beer, we can be reasonably certain, even though the precise is shrouded in mystery.
So, UWPC, we can assume that I missed the Triangle's first brew-in.
Historically,
ASOR
Dear ASOR,
I believe that my brewing knowledge and skills have improved since joining TRUB. However, I'm wondering if I'm not rushing things a little. How long will beer mature in kegs/bottles before they go skunky? With the help of friends, my ales last about one month after conception and lagers about two months. Should I fight off my friends for a month and thus serve them beer that is one month older? How will the beer improve with age?
Sincerely,
Mellow yellow.
Dear Mellow,
The short answers are no, and they won't. Many of the competing factors assume greater or lessor importance in the overall scheme of things depending upon:
1. Bottle or keg?
2. Ale or lager?
3. Naturally conditioned or force carbonated?
4. Filtered?
5. High alcohol (say greater than 8 percent by volume)?
6. Storage temperature profile?
There are a number of other questions that could be asked to further extend this explanation, but attention spans being what they are in this age of wine coolers and microwavable burritos, a one month old beer, while still fine is probably past its peak. The quality curve is a complex combination of severalcontributing curves which are neither linear nor monotonic.
First, there is the priming/carbonation reaction. This is a function of time (our favorite independent variable) and temperature. If the beer is stored anywhere above 70 degrees F
(21 degrees C) it will be adequately carbonated after about three days and by this time will have 90 percent of the fizz that would develop in the next 100 years (in the absence of an infection).
If the beer is stored around 60 degrees F (16 degrees C) it may take a week. A force carbonated beer will be at this level within a few hours. A high alcohol naturally conditioned beer might take forever, you just have to open a bottle each week until it seems right, or until you run out. But, let's say a month is a long time.
Secondly, you have your sedimentation reaction. If your beer is filtered, skip this paragraph (it will be at its peak the day you bottle or keg it). The yeast produced during priming must flocculate and drop to the bottom of your bottle or keg, along with any trub (hot break, cold break, hop particles, insects, etc.). Allow a few more days and your beer will be at 99 percent of its peak clarity. But, let me repeat, a month is a long time.
Thirdly, you have your yeast decomposition reaction. This is a process in which the happy productive yeast that have carbonated your beer turn into the surly "yeast of the living dead". This process will probably start about a week after you bottle or keg and start to become noticeable after a month if you are particularly sensitive or three months if you have been pounding a lot of Tequiza. A month is not that long a time, but it is long enough.
Forth, you have your photo-mediated hop transformation. In the presence of ultraviolet light, such as that supplied by our friend the sun, your beer can turn nasty in a matter of hours. Keep it in the dark, or in an opaque container, such as a keg, or a cardboard box and this will not be a problem.
Fifth, you have your poorly understood hop flavor dropout reaction. You have surely noticed that the hop flavor in your beers peaks after the last hop addition and declines slowly but surely as time goes on. (A dry hopped cask conditioned ale may actually improve for a few days after tapping/hopping.) This is thought to occur as dissolved and suspended bittering material
attaches to solids and trub, and drops out of the picture. Alternately these materials may change into other things with time (it happens to brewers also). If you allow for this in your recipe, this is not enough reason to drink your beer before it has been in the bottle for a week, however a month is a long time.
Sixth, and often most importantly, you have your oxidation (stale beer) reaction. You may leave a small amount of air in the neck of your bottles before you cap them, or there may be some air in the headspace of your keg. You can minimize this by filling your bottle or keg with carbon dioxide prior to bottling or kegging. There may also be a small amount of oxygen dissolved in the beer as it is transferred to the container. Your brew will start to deteriorate as soon as it is bottled; one of the important advantages of making your own beer is you know the born-on date (and the astrological sign). This reaction is accelerated with increasing temperature. It should not be a
problem (or at least not the worst of your problems unless you are a lucky fellow) for a month or so of storage. If you need to keep it for more that a month, try to keep it in a refrigerator.
There are a lot or other things going on also, more than we know, I am sure. But considering all the factors it is unlikely that your brew is going to improve after a month from conception (presumably, about three weeks in the bottle). What this means is, if you are kicking around the crawl space and bump into a six-pack of month old scrumpy, drink it promptly or bring it to
your next brew club meeting.
As time goes by,
Asor
Dear Asor,
Why do I need to do a secondary fermentation? Inquiring brewers want to know.
Primo from the Bull City
Dear Primo,
Well, to be technical about it, your secondary fermentation starts when you rack from your fermenter into your bottle or keg. But of course this is not what you meant. The main advantage is that you get an additional chance to play with your beer, and by adding an additional time consuming step, change and possibly improve your relationship with it. It is analogous to going fishing with your hamster.
Another, often overlooked advantage, is the additional opportunity to introduce contamination by using one more container. This is helpful in brewing some Belgian styles. And there is one more chance to flavor the brew with misplaced or incompletely removed sanitizing solutions. This leads to a specialty beer (subcategory "halogen flavored") that was briefly popular in the eighties.
Finally, the possibility of promoting oxidation, and thus developing the "stale ale" character should not be overlooked. On the other hand (or a different hand in any case), time is money, and brisk efficient brewing leads to a clean, fresh beer. And in this day and age, most relationships end after about two cases. At least most human-beer relationships. This could be a week or a month depending on your emotional requirements. Your best bet is to hit your primary with a potent starter and stand back. A few days after the bubbles stop (typically 5 to 7 days after the pitch) syphon into your choice of keg or priming tank. Bulk prime, and if you choose to bottle, do it without delay.
Aim for quality,
Asor
Dear Asor,
Are all-grain beers really better than extract brews?
Anonymous Reader In Cyberspace
Dear ARIC,
Getting the useless part of the answer out of the way first, ALL beers are extract beers. In some cases the extraction is done while mashing and sparging in the kitchen, driveway or "brew shack". In other cases, it may be done off-site, frequently on an entirely different continent than that in which fermentation takes place. For ease of shipping, off-site extraction is often, but not always, followed by a reduced pressure water removal step leading to the popular canned and pouched goo referred to as liquid malt extract (LME), or, when the water removal is essentially complete, to dried malt extract (DME). Add the water back in at the point of fermentation and, voila, you've got wort.
Restating the question, I think you meant to ask, "Does a homebrewer wind up with a better beer if he or she does the extraction at home as opposed to leaving this to the professionals?" As you may have expected, the answer is, "maybe". Several social historians in the southern U. S. have
links the beginning of the decline in western civilization to the introduction of refrigerated tubular biscuit dough modules. Similarly, British musicians have explored the instant cake/frozen steak/mother's little helper mechanism. While these hypotheses have a certain resonance with the masses, these same historians and musicians have long abandoned the manual gearshift in favor of the hydromatic transmission. Further, a large proportion of self-mashers happily leave the malting of their barley (and the kilning of their malt) to professional maltsters.
Some types of beer cannot be made from extract, because the proper extract is simply unavailable at this time. Except for flavoring adjuncts (such as crystal, caramel, chocolate, black patent, etc.) malts require mashing and sparging to convert starches to sugars and to dissolve the sugars in wort. So if you want to make a beer that requires a specialized type of malt, such as Optic, Biscuit, Special B, Halcyon, Pearl, Golden Promise etc., and no one is offering goo or DME produced from that raw material, you have no choice but to self-mash. Very little information is provided as to the origins of the available extracts. Occasionally, the specifications may include the number of rows on the barley head, but almost never will winter barley be distinguished from spring barley. None the less, ARIC, be sure to check the links under the "manufacturers of brewing ingredients" heading on the Trubclub webpage. Nearly all of the manufacturers of readily available extracts are covered.
As far as the beers that can be made from extract, including the all important, "just good beer" category, extract brews (including, off course, brews to which a side steep of flavoring grains have been added) can be as good, better, or worse than all grain beers. All grain brewing offers great flexibility but, as most comic superheros learn, along with great flexibility, comes great responsibility. The issues involved include extraction risk. With extract essentially 100% of the dry weight winds up in the wort. All grain brewing provides the opportunity for underextraction (correctable in the boil) and over extraction leading to husky or astringent flavors in the final product.
Improper grain milling can affect the quality of the mash and also limit reproducibility of recipes. While some all grain brewers outsource their milling, grist deteriorates much more rapidly after it is cracked. Mash chemistry makes a big difference in all grain brewing: variations in mash pH, alkalinity and mineral content affect the extraction and the flavor profile. Using professionally extracted ingredients, someone is paid to take care of this and he or she typically does an adequate job. Many of the perils of mashing hinge on timing and temperature control. The all grain brewer can experience the pleasure of temperature programming, step mashing and protein rests but can get into trouble if the game goes into overtime or the phone rings inopportunely. And there is that pesky confusion over Celsius, Fahrenheit, Rankine, Centigrade, Kelvin and all those other scales. Using store bought extract, the brewer need only be able to distinguish between vapor and liquid.
So, it is certainly possible that an all grain brewer will produce a better beer than a brewer using professionally mashed extract, but careful attention to detail is necessary to make this happen. None the less, I encourage any of the curious adventurous homebrewers to give this a try because quality beer is not the only objective to the home brewing experience.
To add a veneer of objectivity to this subject, I consulted the September/October 2005 issue of Zymurgy, which features recipes for 21 gold medal winning entries at the U. S. National Homebrew Competition. Of these recipes, all but one were brewed (or were purported to have been brewed) with mashed grains. So, there is some support for the idea that the brewers of the best beers prefer to mash and sparge their own grain. Remember though, a lot of people die in hospitals.
Relax, Don't Worry,
Have a Home Brew.
As ever,
ASOR
Dear Asor,
About three weeks ago, I racked some very tasty (based on siphon hose evaluation) bright looking, FG=1.014, pilsner from my secondary fermenter, bulk primed with a solution of DME, and bottled. I have opened 4 bottles so far and they are all flat.
What did I do wrong?
Fizzless in Fuquay
Dear Fizzless,
These things happen and it is better not to dwell on them.
First, some brief speculations on "what you did wrong"?, then the more important speculations, i. e. What do you do now?
In a two stage fermentation, the careful brewer, particularly one who employs carrageenan, fish entrails or space age plastics, leaves most of the active yeast behind in the primary fermenter. Then, a long (often stretching into several weeks) cool secondary lets some of the remaining yeast lose interest (and to some extent sink like a bowling ball in a vat of clam sauce). By the time you bottle, there are just not enough yeast willing to order dessert. As the alcohol content increases, the yeast are even more likely to slide under the table. Cross this yeast strain
off your list and shorten up (or eliminate) your secondary fermentation. It wouldn't hurt to store your bottles at a warmer temperature for a few days either.
On the positive side all is not lost. Brew yourself a batch of fizzy porter, and drink "black and tans" for a few cases. [They will be on the malty side because your priming solution hasn't gone anywhere, but above the swill level by a comfortable margin.] Or, get a few cases of original unflavored vintage seltzer and mix this 1 part seltzer to 2 parts flat pilsner to produce a reduced calorie, less filling brew for tailgate parties. Or, take remedial action! Buy a package of dry ale yeast from a reputable supply house. Working one bottle at a time, remove the cap, add three grains of dry yeast and recap (with a new cap). Twirl each bottle with style and store them at room temperature (as it is understood in cultures where central heating is common) for a week. Enjoy your carbonated beer.
Finally, you could accept fate and drink (and enjoy) the flat beer that fate has brought into your life. It is still better that many of the carbonated beers available at your local
market.
Ebulliently,
Asor
Dear ASOR,
I brew with hopped and unhopped extracts in batches of approximately five gallons. I boil my wort for two reasons:
1) because I add hop pellets to my brew and
2) because I add a non-enzymatic side steep of flavoring grains which needs to have the hot break knocked out.
My question is, Do I need to boil the entire five gallons, or can I boil a concentrated wort and adjust the volume to five gallons in my fermenter?
Dazed and Diluted in Durham
Dear Dazed,
A thorough answer to your question requires an examination of seven quality related factors in a qualitative sense, after which I'll give my preconceived answer to the wort boil volume problem which has puzzled extract brewers throughout the twentieth century.
1. Time -- heat up
It seems obvious that it takes longer to boil 5 gallons than 2.5 gallons for any given heat source. Skeptical brewers can verify this for themselves. So, if you are brewing on a tight schedule, go for a concentrated wort. If you can profitably use the time during heat-up (by watching televised football, for example), this becomes a non-issue.
2. Time, deterioration and sanitation--cool down
It also takes longer to cool down (to pitching temperature) 5 gallons than 2.5 gallons. This longer time translates into a greater opportunity for hot wort oxidation, and a greater opportunity for post-boil accumulation of unfavorable bacteria and wild yeast. Dumping a 2.5 gallon concentrate into your fermenter which contains 2.5 gallons of cool (or ambient temperature) water, provides a instantaneous cool down and decreases this window of vulnerability.
3. Sanitation -- tap water quality
If your water is microbially contaminated, or suspicious, you have no choice but to boil the whole wort. But unless you brush your teeth with beer, you should think about a long term solution to the problem (such as deepening your well, or using an ultraviolet disinfection system).
4. Wort darkening
If you want to brew a pale beer such as a pilsner or an American diet light, you must boil the entire wort. The more concentrated the wort, the darker it gets. (An alternative, not recommended is not to boil the wort at all.)
5. Hop extraction efficiency
The more concentrated the wort, the lower the hop extraction efficiency. If you are using rare, limited availability hop strains, boil the entire wort. Otherwise, just adjust your hop addition to compensate for the gravity in your boil.
6. Capital cost and storage requirements
A six gallon pot costs more than a 3 gallon pot. Remember however that a high quality brew kettle will last for 5000 to 10000 bottles, or more. This is not a major consideration for the middle class brewer. Storage space requirements are a more serious concern. If you brew in a small apartment or furnished room, a high gravity wort will leave more room for your beer can
collection.
7. Back injuries
Five gallons of a 1.060 wort weighs 44 pounds (plus the weight of your kettle. Know your limitations.
So dazed, if you have bad water, rare hops or a passion for pilsners, boil the whole volume. Otherwise, start with 5 or 6 quarts of water, add your extracts, boil, and adjust the volume to five gallons in your primary.
Keep it simple,
Asor
Dear Asor,
Do I have to rehydrate my yeast?
Desiccated in Durham
Dear Desi,
Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: Why not? (I recognize that this is not an answer at all.) The instructions accompanying most dry yeast suggest just sprinkling it on top of your wort once it has reached a hospitable temperature. And in fact it will rehydrate in the wort under these circumstances (and go on to greater accomplishments) as you can confirm by following the instructions. But what kind of an attitude is that. If you begin your rehydration when you begin to brew, i.e. when you start to heat the water, you will add only a minuscule amount of labor and very possibly improve your product. And, you will be treating your yeast more humanely.
First, what do you do? After you put your brewing water in the pot and turn on the heat, there is a dead period in your schedule before you add your extracts (or before you run off your mash). You may want to crack some flavoring adjuncts, or take care of paperwork, weigh out your hops, etc.
And, rehydrate your yeast. Put about a cup of tepid water in a measuring cup, tumbler or other vessel. Tepid water is 100 to 110 degrees F (38 to 43 degrees C) if you have a thermometer, or slightly warm when you stick your finger in if you don't. This corresponds to the "raging fever, brain damage ahead" zone, if your thermometer came from the drug store. Add the contents of your yeast packet (or sachet, if it came from a British kit) and swirl it gently. Put it out of the way somewhere and cover it (the literature is replete with references to a clean cloth, modern brewers lay a paper towel over the top of the vessel). Charge the last step to the illusion of quality control. Write down the lot number of the yeast in your brewing notes. Go back to your brewing.
After about 30 minutes the neat spheroids will be transformed into a dangerous looking pasty mass. At this point your yeast will be rehydrated. Add a teaspoon of wort or some can drippings at this point to get the yeast in the right frame of mind for the job ahead and to provide an intermediate acclimation step in preparation for the changes in osmotic pressure and acidity to come. Replace the paper towel. When brewing is complete, and the wort in the fermenter is cooled to less than 110 degrees F, dump the rehydrated yeast into the wort (swish out the container with a little wort to make sure you get it all). The entire process adds less than one minute to your total brewing time.
Second, why does this improve your beer? Discriminating brewers know that a quick takeoff is the first step to a quality product. By giving your yeast a 30 to 60 minute head start, the old airlock will start bubbling 30 to 60 minutes sooner, and any damaging airborne bacteria or wild yeast will have 30 to 60 minutes less time to work their mischief. In his groundbreaking monograph on yeast (see the TRUB newsletter, February and May, 1990) Pete Soper, an Apex Brewer of Yore before the term came into common use, pointed out that 1) yeast can be damaged if dropped into a relatively acid wort prior to rehydration; 2) the hops in wort will inhibit the yeast if they are not rehydrated prior to contact; 3) the dense sugar solution will damage the yeast if they are not rehydrated prior to contact; and 4) hitting dry yeast with a thick acidic wort may cause them to excrete flavor impairing compounds, or worse.
Finally, why is rehydration the humane way to treat the yeast that labor on your behalf? Consider the difference between tossing an unsuspecting person into the deep end of an icy pool and gently offering a hand as he eases a toe into the shallow end. Who do you think is more likely to industriously convert your sugars?
Yo' pal,
Asor