Help with Impact Analysis - thin beer?

[Andy]

Hi, everyone. . . I've been brewing a long time but my latest batch went a little off the rails.

Lately, I've been brewing 8-gallon batches and I know the numbers in the recipes that I commonly use so if I'm a little a short on my post-boil volume, I will top off the carboys with water. My OG after the dilution is usually pretty much right where my software predicted it.

This particular batch was a porter with an estimated pre-boil gravity of 1.044 and post-boil of 1.061. Out of the mash tun, my gravity was 1.046 so I was happy, I thought I was on track.

However, for the first time, I was really diligent with meeting the "called for" pre-boil volume of 12 gallons. The problem is, at the end of 90 minutes (I used the standard 15-gallon converted keg kettle), I still had 10 gallons.

I went ahead and cooled it and put it in the primaries with an OG of 1.052.

I was hoping I could get some help on a few questions.

1. What did I do wrong? My brewery efficiency (73%) using this software (Beersmith) has always been spot-on accurate. Why didn't I lose the volume? I assume that would have pushed the OG up?

2. Any idea what impact this will have on the flavor? Will it taste watery or is this still in the range for a tasty beer? I've checked my software and can't find a way to have it "reverse" stylize the recipe based on my measured numbers. I'm sort of thinking it will have more of a brown ale quality?

3. What are the merits of going with the higher pre-boil volume rather than doing what I normally do, to make up the volume shortage by topping the carboys?

Thank you for your thoughts and suggestions!

- Andy

[baloonon]

Post by Andy
Hi, everyone. . . I've been brewing a long time but my latest batch
went a little off the rails.
Lately, I've been brewing 8-gallon batches and I know the numbers in
the recipes that I commonly use so if I'm a little a short on my
post-boil volume, I will top off the carboys with water. My OG after
the dilution is usually pretty much right where my software predicted
it.
This particular batch was a porter with an estimated pre-boil gravity
of 1.044 and post-boil of 1.061. Out of the mash tun, my gravity was
1.046 so I was happy, I thought I was on track.
However, for the first time, I was really diligent with meeting the
"called for" pre-boil volume of 12 gallons. The problem is, at the
end of 90 minutes (I used the standard 15-gallon converted keg
kettle), I still had 10 gallons.

It's hard to know for sure without the recipe, so that might clear things
up further. Boil offs vary a lot by setup, of course, but 12 gallons to 8
(ish) sounds like an unusually high amount of projected boil-off. The
actual amount - 2 gallons - seems more typical.

Post by Andy
I went ahead and cooled it and put it in the primaries with an OG of 1.052.
I was hoping I could get some help on a few questions.
1. What did I do wrong? My brewery efficiency (73%) using this
software (Beersmith) has always been spot-on accurate. Why didn't I
lose the volume? I assume that would have pushed the OG up?
2. Any idea what impact this will have on the flavor? Will it taste
watery or is this still in the range for a tasty beer? I've checked
my software and can't find a way to have it "reverse" stylize the
recipe based on my measured numbers. I'm sort of thinking it will
have more of a brown ale quality?

I'd say don't worry about it. Guiness Stout is under 4.5%, and
historically stouts and porters have often gone well down into the 3s. US
craft brewing tends to emphasize high alcohol stouts and porters (and high
alcohol beers in general), but you can find a million English stouts and
porters that were brewed with low ABVs and quite a few that still are. For
that matter, the English weren't nearly as uptight about the distinctions
between styles as US beer geeks tend to be, and the names stout and porter
were often stuck on beers almost arbitrarily. Sending someone who gets too
hung up on styles in a Tardis back in time to the same English pub in 1980,
then 1950, and then 1910 would pretty much guarantee their head would blow
up.

Post by Andy
3. What are the merits of going with the higher pre-boil volume
rather than doing what I normally do, to make up the volume shortage
by topping the carboys?

It can affect efficiency and IBUs and things like that, but the difference
can vary a lot from recipe to recipe and from batch to batch, or may not
make much of a difference at all. I think there's a tendency for home
brewers to extrapolate too much from small sample sizes, so I'm always
reluctant to try to isolate how much of a difference it would make to a
particular recipe without the same thing happening over and over again.

[Ecnerwal]

Don't worry about it, or as the acronym goes, RDWHAHB.

You don't even know if you have thin beer _yet_. You have (or measured -
there's always measurement error) low OG. Thin beer doesn't come until
you get low FG and lots of attenuation-obsessed homebrewers seem to WANT
that, though I don't personally see their point. I like a beer with
body, not a super-alcoholic watery drink. YTMV.

Plenty of nice beer gets make with an OG in the 1.050's. I have
personally brewed a nice mild with an OG of 1.034 and 1.8% ABV.

In general, a true full volume boil (rather than diluting) is preferable
in my opinion, but lots of people don't agree, so it's an opinion. It
supposedly improves hop efficiency, not that that's a big deal for me
either. It seems obvious that there's more sugars in 2 more gallons of
wort drawn off the tail end of your mash at the start than 2 gallons of
water added at the end. But if you only have a 15 gallon pot and are
shooting for 10 gallons, it might get interesting.

I don't worry overmuch about the long-term bittering hops, and gauge
when the later additions start by where the pot level is on my
calibrated spoon (40 quart pot, 5-6 gallon batches) rather than having a
fixation about "90 minute boil" irrespective of boil-off. That is, I
boil to a volume, though the time is generally consistent. If you have
software that allows you to play, you can see that the difference for a
90 or 120 minute boil is minor for the same initial hop addition.

[Andy]

On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 12:20:31 PM UTC-8, Ecnerwal wrote:
@Ecnerwal - cats are the best vices for dogs. Also:


I don't know what RDWHAHB is but I'm guessing it's basically Papa Zani's advice to "not worry" -- which I have CONSUMED! It is not bible but it's definitely my BEER bible! I love and live that advice but nevertheless, I have to question my outcomes.

I think your advice may have saved my outcome regarding ** FG **. You're so right! I didn't think of the backside - seems like I ought to definitely watch it and leave a little sweets in there. I'm also encouraged by your 1.8% ABV. Wow, I've never tried that. That ought to be an interesting foray.

And now, yes, I see the logic. It makes on the boil DOWN side so thank you for pointing that out.

[apj68]

@baloonon -- thank you, very interesting reading I really appreciate it.

I guess I didn't think about it too much but your comment about the boil-off -- in hindsight -- seems to me to be very accurate. In particular, looking at it seems pretty outrageous. I guess shame on me for not thinking that one through. Beersmith is great software and they have a specific section for boil off so I think I will cross-post over there and see how I can configure that

Loved your walk-back to 1910! LOL! That's awesome, thank you, makes me feel a bit better because psychologically I think I was honed in on that ABV and actually, the beer isn't even for me. But the implicit "ABV:value" ratio is playing in so your mini-history is definitely well received.

I'm 100% in agreement with extrapolation over batches. In fact, we're birds of a feather from different flocks in that respect because this is probably what got me into this situation in the first place. I don't have a lot of recipes - literally I have probably just < 50 logs over 15 years of brewing. But of these, probably only a dozen basic recipes - half of which are mine. Of those, I've become very familiar with a few of them and can do different things with them confidently but otherwise it's like you say, very hard to extrapolate. Things get tricky... and that's what makes it fun.. ;)

[Ecnerwal]

Post by apj68
But of these, probably only a dozen basic recipes - half of which are mine.
Of those, I've become very familiar with a few of them and can do different
things with them confidently but otherwise it's like you say, very hard to
extrapolate. Things get tricky... and that's what makes it fun.. ;)

Don't be afraid to 1: know your own tastes; and 2: follow them in
recipe-creation.

I got into HB to get super-dark appropriately hopped (low-hopped per
hopheads) beer. My first batch, after considerable thinking (and tossing
conventional yellow hoppy beer wiz-dumb on the scrap heap), was a
partial mash 5-gallon with 1 lb of chocolate malt and one lb of black
malt, and it worked for me. In later times I got out of the black malt
as I prefer using chocolate, and I also bought chocolate in bulk. I've
done 5 gallon batches with 3 lbs of chocolate malt and been happy with
them. Unless I happened to post any of those to usenet back in the day,
good luck finding ANY recipe that recommends that.

The only thing that has been "somewhat regrettable" in my various
experiments was Gambrinus Honey Malt - just does not do what I was
hoping for from the written description. I don't recall if I have any
stashed to see if it ages out, or if it's finally gone, but that beer
"tasted funny." And I still have some (which I suppose I ought to put in
the bird feeder or something, but it's a brewing supply and I feel an
obligation to find something it's good for...)

I did make a batch of mead that had issues from about year 2-4, but
before year 2 and particularly after year 5 it was wonderful. But mead
is mostly a long game...The last two bottles of that batch are 18 or so
now.

[Christopher Helms]

Post by Ecnerwal

Post by apj68
But of these, probably only a dozen basic recipes - half of which are mine.
Of those, I've become very familiar with a few of them and can do different
things with them confidently but otherwise it's like you say, very hard to
extrapolate. Things get tricky... and that's what makes it fun.. ;)

Don't be afraid to 1: know your own tastes; and 2: follow them in
recipe-creation.
I got into HB to get super-dark appropriately hopped (low-hopped per
hopheads) beer. My first batch, after considerable thinking (and tossing
conventional yellow hoppy beer wiz-dumb on the scrap heap), was a
partial mash 5-gallon with 1 lb of chocolate malt and one lb of black
malt, and it worked for me. In later times I got out of the black malt
as I prefer using chocolate, and I also bought chocolate in bulk. I've
done 5 gallon batches with 3 lbs of chocolate malt and been happy with
them. Unless I happened to post any of those to usenet back in the day,
good luck finding ANY recipe that recommends that.

They always say to go easy on the chocolate malt. One pound, tops. Now I'm starting to feel like maybe I shouldn't have split mine into two half pounds into two different batches. I do like that dark aspect... Maybe next time I'll feel a little more bold.

[Ecnerwal]

Post by Christopher Helms
They always say to go easy on the chocolate malt. One pound, tops. Now I'm
starting to feel like maybe I shouldn't have split mine into two half pounds
into two different batches. I do like that dark aspect... Maybe next time
I'll feel a little more bold.

They say lots of things. What do they know?

What seems to be handy in my clutter is a couple of dark milds (my own,
AKA Pook's Hill, recipes, if you don't immediately change them up to
suit you). No reason you can't add more fermentables (and perhaps some
hops) and go higher test if that floats your boat.

They suit me just fine, though I certainly make higher test stuff as
well. Milds really have a place if you enjoy drinking beer more than
getting drunk (they still make vodka for that goal, last I checked)
though you'll have a hard time finding much love for them in American
(utterly Imperial IPA centric, last I noticed) homebrewing, at least.

Ginger mild (from my only foray into malt syrup, which drove me right
back to DME is so much better since I still don't have the gumption for
all-grain most days:)

3.15 lbs (A quart? it came in a jug.) amber malt extract
3.00 lbs chocolate

half ounce of Tettnang, 60 minute boil, probably FWH (not noted but
that's my usual practice)

2 ounces of ginger root. Danstar Windsor dry yeast.

25 quarts pre-boil, a shade over 20 boiled, 1.034 OG 1.020 FG

New England Midnight Mild

4.25 lbs Light DME
2.25 lbs Chocolate
1/2 ounce EKG for 90 minutes
1/4 ounce Saaz for 30 minutes
Safeale S-33 dry yeast
26 quarts boiled, (pre-boil not noted but usually 7 gallons) OG 10.44 FG
1.024

These are "partial mashed" (but there's no real mashing since it's just
specialty grains) in a bag in the full pot volume, then pulled before it
gets too hot and would be extracting tannins. Extract added to full boil
volume as soon as grains are out of it.

[Christopher Helms]

Post by Ecnerwal

Post by Christopher Helms
They always say to go easy on the chocolate malt. One pound, tops. Now I'm
starting to feel like maybe I shouldn't have split mine into two half pounds
into two different batches. I do like that dark aspect... Maybe next time
I'll feel a little more bold.

They say lots of things. What do they know?

Okay. I'm going to do a porter next with the full pound of chocolate, a pound of Briess Aromatic Malt, a bit of honey, fuggle hops and anything else that comes to mind while the wort boils happily. I've always thought my porter was a maybe little thinner than it should be anyway. Time to fatten it up.

[Steve Bonine]

Post by Christopher Helms

Post by Ecnerwal

Post by Christopher Helms
They always say to go easy on the chocolate malt. One pound, tops. Now I'm
starting to feel like maybe I shouldn't have split mine into two half pounds
into two different batches. I do like that dark aspect... Maybe next time
I'll feel a little more bold.

They say lots of things. What do they know?

Okay. I'm going to do a porter next with the full pound of chocolate, a pound of Briess Aromatic Malt, a bit of honey, fuggle hops and anything else that comes to mind while the wort boils happily. I've always thought my porter was a maybe little thinner than it should be anyway. Time to fatten it up.

This is the essence of homebrewing. Experiment. Learn from the
results. If YOU like what you get, that's the important thing.

[Christopher Helms]

Post by Steve Bonine

Post by Christopher Helms

Post by Ecnerwal

Post by Christopher Helms
They always say to go easy on the chocolate malt. One pound, tops. Now I'm
starting to feel like maybe I shouldn't have split mine into two half pounds
into two different batches. I do like that dark aspect... Maybe next time
I'll feel a little more bold.

They say lots of things. What do they know?

Okay. I'm going to do a porter next with the full pound of chocolate, a pound of Briess Aromatic Malt, a bit of honey, fuggle hops and anything else that comes to mind while the wort boils happily. I've always thought my porter was a maybe little thinner than it should be anyway. Time to fatten it up.

This is the essence of homebrewing. Experiment. Learn from the
results. If YOU like what you get, that's the important thing.

Speaking of experimentation, one thing I've noticed was that my ale has always developed a bit of natural carbonation after about 3-4 weeks in the secondary. Not a lot, but just enough to be noticeable. Anyone else experienced this? I'm tempted to let a batch go for a year and see where it ends up, if anywhere.

[Steve Bonine]

Post by Christopher Helms
Speaking of experimentation, one thing I've noticed was that my ale has always developed a bit of natural carbonation after about 3-4 weeks in the secondary. Not a lot, but just enough to be noticeable. Anyone else experienced this? I'm tempted to let a batch go for a year and see where it ends up, if anywhere.

Yes, there will be some dissolved CO2 but, at least for me, not enough
to qualify as actual carbonation.

[Christopher Helms]

Post by Steve Bonine

Post by Christopher Helms
Speaking of experimentation, one thing I've noticed was that my ale has always developed a bit of natural carbonation after about 3-4 weeks in the secondary. Not a lot, but just enough to be noticeable. Anyone else experienced this? I'm tempted to let a batch go for a year and see where it ends up, if anywhere.

Yes, there will be some dissolved CO2 but, at least for me, not enough
to qualify as actual carbonation.

It's not a lot, certainly, but it's there. I mentioned it because I've been leafing through 'IPA' by Mitch Steele, and apparently the original IPA was cloudy and pretty awful tasting when made, but it would be clear, sparkling and pretty darn good after about a year in the barrel. Lactobacillus hiding too deep in the barrel wood to be completely killed off by the methods available at the time is mentioned as a suspect, but no one seems to know for sure. I thought I might give it a shot. The worst thing that could happen is I get a lousy batch of IPA. Something else I've gotten an interesting result from is adding a small bottle (Two might be better, as its a pretty subtle flavor addition) of Black Walnut extract to my porter just before bottling. It's normally for baking, but it does add an interesting note. Kroger sells it for something like $2.59 a bottle. I tried adding a bottle at the end of the boil but the heat seems to pretty much kill off the flavor.

[Bob F]

Post by Christopher Helms

Post by Steve Bonine

Post by Christopher Helms

Post by Ecnerwal

Post by Christopher Helms
They always say to go easy on the chocolate malt. One pound,
tops. Now I'm starting to feel like maybe I shouldn't have split
mine into two half pounds into two different batches. I do like
that dark aspect... Maybe next time I'll feel a little more bold.

They say lots of things. What do they know?

Okay. I'm going to do a porter next with the full pound of
chocolate, a pound of Briess Aromatic Malt, a bit of honey, fuggle
hops and anything else that comes to mind while the wort boils
happily. I've always thought my porter was a maybe little thinner
than it should be anyway. Time to fatten it up.

This is the essence of homebrewing. Experiment. Learn from the
results. If YOU like what you get, that's the important thing.

Speaking of experimentation, one thing I've noticed was that my ale
has always developed a bit of natural carbonation after about 3-4
weeks in the secondary. Not a lot, but just enough to be noticeable.
Anyone else experienced this? I'm tempted to let a batch go for a
year and see where it ends up, if anywhere.

I had a couple batches in a chest freezer with a heater for fermantation once
and bent over it to reach something. I felt a little "bite" when I inhaled. So I
tried lighting a match and lowering it into the freezer. As it crossed the plane
of the top, the match immediately went out. Fermentation makes a LOT of CO2.

[Ecnerwal]

Post by Bob F

Post by Christopher Helms
Speaking of experimentation, one thing I've noticed was that my ale
has always developed a bit of natural carbonation after about 3-4
weeks in the secondary. Not a lot, but just enough to be noticeable.
Anyone else experienced this? I'm tempted to let a batch go for a
year and see where it ends up, if anywhere.

I had a couple batches in a chest freezer with a heater for fermantation once
and bent over it to reach something. I felt a little "bite" when I inhaled. So I
tried lighting a match and lowering it into the freezer. As it crossed the plane
of the top, the match immediately went out. Fermentation makes a LOT of CO2.

Any fermenter (and contents) are saturated with CO2 from very early in
the process. This is one reason I personally got fed up with siphoning
beer, even though I have always loved playing with & using siphons for
water - once it's gone past wort, the gas coming out of solution in the
high part of the siphon tends to break the siphon when you still have
quite a bit of beer left to transfer.

I moved to a peristaltic pump and haven't looked back (not having to
lift full fermenters is a side benefit I don't mind getting; if I could
just make the time to sort out communicating with my old fashioned
"smart, but not _that_ smart" pump it would also fill bottles
automagically.)

[baloonon]

Post by Ecnerwal
I moved to a peristaltic pump and haven't looked back (not having to
lift full fermenters is a side benefit I don't mind getting; if I
could just make the time to sort out communicating with my old
fashioned "smart, but not _that_ smart" pump it would also fill
bottles automagically.)

Could you explain more about the pump? Did you buy it or was it DIY?

This article shows a pretty easy-looking DIY pump:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Inexpensive-easy-to-build-peristaltic-pump/

I can't say it would be the first thing on my to-do list, but it might make
a nice rainy day project.

[Ecnerwal]

Post by baloonon
Could you explain more about the pump? Did you buy it or was it DIY?

Looked at DIY - found one on *B*y cheap enough not to bother. Bought NEW
food grade tubing (Norprene) from a non *B*y source. Norprene is not
transluscent (.vs. silicone) but is much longer life in peristaltic use
and can be boiled, pressure cooked and/or idophored to keep it decent.

The thing you linked looks likely (IMHO) to cut the tubing where it
enters the pump housing.

If DIY-ing, I'd probably go with a hand crank and a large diameter.