Defintions of Beers, Skimming yeast and foam and hot break.

[simple one]

The same questions keep cropping up when I brew. And the more I look in to them the more I get confused. It seems like there is many answers to the same questions.

Firstly: Beer styles.

What makes a Mild different to a brown ale or a porter? What makes a bitter different to an IPA? Are there really any strict cut offs and guidelines or is it all shades of grey? Does a lager have to use bottom fermenting yeast and some sort of larger malt?

Secondly: Skimming.

Should you skim foam off the boil. I used too. But some say you stir it back in to the brew. Should you skim the yeast from the brew? Or stir/rouse it during fermentation? I have heard if you do it can form a harder more level yeast pancake at the base of the barrel.

Thirdly: Hot break.

Does the hot break form without use of Irish moss, profloc or whirlfloc? Which is best? I have now done 10 or more AG brews, and I don't believe I have seen one hot break. I boil sometimes for 90 and sometimes for 60..... If it went in to the fermenting bin will it affect the beer?

Confused

Matt

[Garth]

Beer styles always create 'discussion' on here, as most beer styles stick within certain parameters but as always there are some which do not confirm to a certain style even though that's what they are classed as. An IPA differs from a Bitter due to the OG, a true IPA (not an Amercian IPA/APA) would usually start at 1050, would have probably been matured for a while and have a assertive bitterness/flavour. Generally a lager will be made with a bottom fermenting yeast, fermented colder than ale and made with Lager/Pilsner malt.

For the 2nd question, if the foamy head while fermenting is particulary dirty brown with lots of trub getting flung up by the yeast, I'll skim it off, if it's only got a few flecks here and there I'll leave it. Apparently it can cause off flavours in the finished beer. It's usually where more cold break has got into the fv from the boiler. If you do skim a well sanitized sieve does a good job.

[simple one]

Cheers Garth, thats one off my list! Now lets have a look in that fermenter.

[Invalid Stout]

Firstly: Beer styles.

What makes a Mild different to a brown ale or a porter? What makes a bitter different to an IPA? Are there really any strict cut offs and guidelines or is it all shades of grey? Does a lager have to use bottom fermenting yeast and some sort of larger malt?
Matt

Tastes change, styles change, brewing practices change, words change their meaning over time. It's a bit like music. Categories are useful, this is rock but that is blues, etc. But you'll always have exceptions.

Mild originally meant young beer. Back then the chief distinction made was between young beer and aged beer that had been matured for a long time. Nowadays it is generally understood to mean low in gravity, low in hops, or both. Seen in historical perspective, it's Mild Ale, the descendant of the unhopped ale that was brewed in England before hops were introduced.

Bitter is descended from the hopped beer that Dutch immigrants brought with them. Nowadays it can be almost anything but the hops should predominate.

There are at least three styles that can be described as IPA:
1. a low gravity bitter (Greene King IPA, Deuchars IPA)
2. a 19th century-style IPA (Worthington White Shield) -- upwards of 5%, intense hop bitterness emphasised by hard water
3. a modern US-style IPA (Sierra Nevada Pale Ale) -- also 6% or stronger, but the emphasis is on hop aroma.

Arguing which of these is correct is as futile as saying American English is wrong because the word biscuit doesn't mean the same thing as it does in British English.

You can always invent your own style, but like in cooking, it's a matter of taste whether you come up with something that tastes nicer than the classic dishes. If you start ignoring the categories altogether, It's like asking if you can make a pork pie with chicken.

[simple one]

Thanks Stout, that makes me feel better about calling my beer a name I think is right, rather than trying to second guess other peoples opinion. I think my strong hoppy mild then can remain just that, a mild.


I guess though, like crufts does with dogs, competion brewing must have stricter guidlines for the naming of beers?

[boingy]

I tend not to stress about beer styles. It's my beer and if I want to call it an IPA even though it is low OG and will never visit the subcontinent then I will!

However, there is a US organisation called the Beer Judge Certification Program, or BJCP. Quote:

"The purpose of the Beer Judge Certification Program is to promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills. We certify and rank beer judges through an examination and monitoring process."

They publish an extensive guide to beer styles here:

http://www.bjcp.org/2008styles/catdex.php

That's not to say I agree with all of them but at least it gives a common reference point. The most useful thing is that they give commercial examples of each style.

[simple one]

Interesting. Thanks Boingy.

Well the beer nazis would seem to suggest that my latest creation is a "robust porter". I can live with that. It probably was to strong in hops and sugar to be anywhere near a mild. Hopefully when its glassed it will appear reddy brown, as it looks quite dark brown in the FV.

So the americans have a beer police, so does CAMRA or the CBA?

Any advice on skimming during the boil? Would you skim if you didn't use whirlfloc? And i have read and understood about CRS, but what about a pH buffer/stabilizer. Do they do the same job? What are the pros and cons? (there always are!)

matt

[boingy]

Not sure I would describe them as nazis. I guess they are just trying to get some standard categories so that similar beers end up being judged in competitions. If you don't offer some sort of guidelines then some nutter would enter his unique "pale wheat india stout" into every category. I've no idea if there is a UK equivalent of that style guide. If there was then you can be sure it would contradict the US one! Some people would argue it should include historically accurate styles, others would argue that only the modern versions are relevant. Mild ale is a perfect example.

I've never even considered skimming during the boil but I do use protofloc or irish moss in most brews (whatever comes to hand). There have been occasions in the past where I have forgotton to add these and I have to say that although I got lots less trub in the boiler I did not notice any real difference in the final beer. The hot break does form without these additives but is perhaps not so obvious. At the end of the boil, leave the wort to settle for a minute or two then dip a shiny spoon into it. With the spoon a centimetre or two into the wort you should be seeing the spoon through really clear wort, almost as clear as a perfect finished pint.

CRS? Ph buffer? No idea. A campden table in the mash/sparge water and some gypsum and/or calcium flakes to adjust the water to match the target brew style and that's enough for me.

Sometimes it's possible to worry about too much of this stuff.
How did your AG beers end up?
Were you happy with them?
If you were, then don't worry about changing anything
If you were not, then look into the specific reason and address the causes of that.

[simple one]

Yes, yes, nazis is a harsh term to use! I meant it in jest really! (i have marked their site in my favourites)

My AG beers have all been extremely good. They taste better than any pub beers, bar the good real ale bars. I only had problems when I started out. Had some very odd tasting wheat beers, but my flat was very warm. Downstairs had there heating on all the time.
I now have no probs what so ever. But I am always interested in how i can improve.

I do sometimes think though that the reason behind AG is to produce a wholesome brew, not to mirror the chemical enhanced commercial ones. So whenever I brew I am always dubious about using anything. To the point that I have just started using campden tabs, and the gypsum and beer finings are still in the cupboard.

(off topic: is gypsum a great improver to a the darker beers... or all beers?)

[boingy]

I know what you are saying regarding not wanting to add stuff to the beer. I tend to avoid finings and stuff like "head improver" and "body bru" for the same reason. I've used these things in the past but I pretty much avoid them now. That's not to say these things are bad, just that I prefer to leave them out unless there is a compelling reason to need them.

However, the campden tables are pretty much there to undo the additives that the water companies use (can you believe that those guys prioritise the needs of the general public rather than us brewers?? sheesh!).

The gypsum, epsom salts, calcium chloride and similar are part of the process of trying to match our brewing water to that of beer style we are trying to emulate. If you wanted to be a purist you would only brew the type of beer that matches you local water supply. Actually, I guess a true purist would move house to get the correct water type! It is not a coincidence that Dublin is famous for stout and Burton-on-Trent is famous for classic English bitters. Those were the styles that worked best with the water available.

So I guess it depends how much you want to brew "authentic" beer. I'm not entirely sure I would be able to tell the difference between, say, a stout brewed with my native water and one brewed with adjusted water. I just think it gives the beer a slightly better chance of being great and, if I'm being honest, I like the concept that I am fiddling with the water to make it "better".

Water treatment is a huge subject but basically the most important parameters are ph, calcium and magnesium.

Gypsum boosts calcium and sulphate.
Epsom salts boost magnesium and sulphate.
Calcium chloride boosts calcium and chloride (kinda obvious that one...)
The ph is influenced by pretty much everything.
There are other things you can add too.

As a practical example, to get closer to Burton water I add 2.5g Gypsum and and 2g Epsom salts per gallon to my water. It's only an approximation but hopefully it may help rather that hinder

I have to say I think, in general, home brewers get too hung up on water treatments and I include myself in that.
Actually, we tend to get hung up on loads of stuff. Sometimes it's good to remember that given half a chance, yeast will make beer for us with minimal fuss.

[simple one]

Cheers boingy,

I might have to use the gypsum on the next brew.The instructions say to mix it in to the fermenter, i would have thought it would be more suited to the boiler.

Any ideas on the initial foam on the boiler? Skim it off or stir it in?

matt