| |
Main
Date: 17 Sep 2007 21:59:52
From: Faux_Pseudo
Subject: Punpkin ale and filtering
|
We made a pumpkin ale last night and it took forever to filter. We
started with a corse strainer and had to filter it a number of times
with that before we moved onto the fine filter which we had do do a
few more times. Both filters kept getting clogged up and we had to
clean out the filters after only a few cups worth. In all this took
hours.
We eventually gave up and pitched. We will rerack in two weeks and
again two weeks after that.
Before we start thinking of doing this again next year I was wondering
if there was a better way to do all of that filtering. Is there some
mechanized way to pull it off? Would chilling it to near freezing
help? Please tell me there is a better way because I may never do
another one if it means hours of filtering and all the risk of
contamination that goes along with it.
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- Get your ASCII Art T-Shirt:
http://www.keystroketshirts.com/ascii/dream-in-ascii-fullView.php
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 16:58:44
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Punpkin ale and filtering
|
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:59:52 GMT, <Faux.Pseudo@gmail.com > wrote:
> We made a pumpkin ale last night and it took forever to filter. We
> started with a corse strainer and had to filter it a number of times
> with that before we moved onto the fine filter which we had do do a
> few more times. Both filters kept getting clogged up and we had to
> clean out the filters after only a few cups worth. In all this took
> hours.
I have the same problem when I make an all-grain pumpkin ale. Sparging
takes several hours.
> Before we start thinking of doing this again next year I was wondering
> if there was a better way to do all of that filtering. Is there some
> mechanized way to pull it off? Would chilling it to near freezing
> help? Please tell me there is a better way because I may never do
> another one if it means hours of filtering and all the risk of
> contamination that goes along with it.
IMO, the best way to avoid the problem is to not use any pumpkin. The
beer that most people are trying to make when they think of "pumpkin ale" is
something with the flavor profile of pumpkin pie. In that case, just about
all of the flavor really comes from the pumpkin pie spices, not really the
pumpkin itself. You can make an excellent pumpkin beer without any real
pumpkin, just the spices. It'll still probably taste exactly like you
want it to.
If you're really going for the subtle squash-like flavor of pumpkin, then
you're pretty much stuck with serious sparging problems. This is not what
most people really want to make though.
I've got more details here if you're interested:
http://www.shagg.net/brewing/?p=19
John.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 22:11:14
From: Faux_Pseudo
Subject: Re: Punpkin ale and filtering
|
_.-In rec.crafts.brewing, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote the following -._
> If you're really going for the subtle squash-like flavor of pumpkin, then
> you're pretty much stuck with serious sparging problems. This is not what
> most people really want to make though.
Yah, we want the squash flavor and a thicker mouth feel. But we
didn't do an all grain brew. We went with extract and some cans of
pumpkin pie filling. At the local brew club meeting last week we
spent over an hour talking about whats been tried and worked with
pumpkin beer. The overall opinion was that all grain was mostly a
waste of time since malt extract would work just fine. If one insists
on an all grain then they should buy pleanty of extra rice hulls to
avoid sparging issues.
> I've got more details here if you're interested:
> http://www.shagg.net/brewing/?p=19
You mention cloudiness issues on that page. Some people recomended
moss or gelatin to solve that problem. We figure that if this batch
works then cloudiness will be a non-issue.
--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- Get your ASCII Art T-Shirt:
http://www.keystroketshirts.com/ascii/dream-in-ascii-fullView.php
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Sep 2007 22:49:57
From: John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
Subject: Re: Punpkin ale and filtering
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:11:14 GMT, <Faux.Pseudo@gmail.com > wrote:
> _.-In rec.crafts.brewing, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote the following -._
>> If you're really going for the subtle squash-like flavor of pumpkin, then
>> you're pretty much stuck with serious sparging problems. This is not what
>> most people really want to make though.
>
> Yah, we want the squash flavor and a thicker mouth feel. But we
> didn't do an all grain brew. We went with extract and some cans of
> pumpkin pie filling. At the local brew club meeting last week we
> spent over an hour talking about whats been tried and worked with
> pumpkin beer. The overall opinion was that all grain was mostly a
> waste of time since malt extract would work just fine. If one insists
> on an all grain then they should buy pleanty of extra rice hulls to
> avoid sparging issues.
I assume you're boiling the pumpkin in your extract batch? IMO, that's
a mistake. However, it's your beer. What counts is that you like
the results.
>> I've got more details here if you're interested:
>> http://www.shagg.net/brewing/?p=19
>
> You mention cloudiness issues on that page. Some people recomended
> moss or gelatin to solve that problem. We figure that if this batch
> works then cloudiness will be a non-issue.
I think cloudiness is the least of the concerns. IMO, the higher risk
of infections from having significant amounts of starch in the final beer
is the main thing you want to avoid.
John.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 16:15:25
From: Scott Alfter
Subject: Re: Punpkin ale and filtering
|
In article <slrnff3alf.lca.spam@weizen.shagg.net >,
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar <spam@shagg.net > wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:11:14 GMT, <Faux.Pseudo@gmail.com> wrote:
>> _.-In rec.crafts.brewing, John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote the following -._
>>> If you're really going for the subtle squash-like flavor of pumpkin, then
>>> you're pretty much stuck with serious sparging problems. This is not what
>>> most people really want to make though.
>>
>> Yah, we want the squash flavor and a thicker mouth feel. But we
>> didn't do an all grain brew. We went with extract and some cans of
>> pumpkin pie filling. At the local brew club meeting last week we
>> spent over an hour talking about whats been tried and worked with
>> pumpkin beer. The overall opinion was that all grain was mostly a
>> waste of time since malt extract would work just fine. If one insists
>> on an all grain then they should buy pleanty of extra rice hulls to
>> avoid sparging issues.
>
>I assume you're boiling the pumpkin in your extract batch? IMO, that's
>a mistake. However, it's your beer. What counts is that you like
>the results.
Another mistake I noticed was the use of pie filling. Everything I've read
on the subject says you should use canned pumpkin (which is just pumpkin),
not pie filling (which does include the spices, but which also includes
milk, egg, and who knows what else).
FWIW, I plan on doing my first pumpkin ale this weekend. It'll be an
all-grain batch made with fresh pumpkin (since it's now available). If I
end up with something similar to DFH Punkin Ale (which I can't get locally),
that'll be a Good Thing.
_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
|
| |
Date: 17 Sep 2007 18:44:15
From: Matt
Subject: Re: Punpkin ale and filtering
|
> We made a pumpkin ale last night and it took forever to filter.
This is why I don't make pumpkin ales with pumpkin in it. I like to
just use the spices and I get a good effect with out the extra hassle
of baking, mashing, and straining any pumpkin.
|
|
