Why no head in my brown ale?

[psehorne]

You absolutely, positively have to calibrate that tool. It cannot be trusted unless it's calibrated.

The only time I'll skip calibration is if I brewed the prior day. Also, as someone that wasted a fair bit of money on cheap and/or excellent but difficult to calibrate pH meters, get a reliable, easy to use meter. It's worth the extra money because you can actually trust the data produced by a quality, trustworthy pH meter.

I think the world of the Apera pH60. It has more than doubled in price since I bought mine, but it's still a bargain for its reliability, accuracy, ease of use, and reasonable probe replacement costs.

Also, rather than buying large and expensive bottles of calibration fluid that will go off before you're able to use even a quarter of the contents, consider buying your calibration fluid in boxes of liquid sachets. They're shelf stable, economical, and they set you up for success. Best of all, they're cheap enough that you can swap out your fluid on a monthly basis. In turn, that means you can really trust your meter.

Great advice. Thank you.
Is this meter the one you recommend?

 

[Bramling Cross]

Yes, sir.

And these are the pH solution sachets that I use. Cripes, have they gotten expensive! They used to be nine bucks. Nevertheless, that'll get you a year's worth of accurate calibration for less than the cost of the bottled stuff.

 

[psehorne]

I agree. Also, he has over 10% C-malt in that grist, plus the roasted malts. He has plenty of known head-builders in that grist.

How long has it been carbonated? Did you over-carb it at some point?

I brewed it on March 2nd.
Fermented it in a carboy at room temperature with US-05
I kegged it last Sunday,March 16, after two weeks in the carboy.
The CO2 has not been higher than 15 PSI.
Today was the first pour.

 

[psehorne]

Yes, sir.

And these are the pH solution sachets that I use. Cripes, have they gotten expensive! They used to be nine bucks. Nevertheless, that'll get you a year's worth of accurate calibration for less than the cost of the bottled stuff.

Okay, thanks. Both in my Amazon cart....

 

[Bramling Cross]

Okay, thanks. Both in my Amazon cart....

I've had several brewers buy both based upon my recommendation. No one has complained yet--which is always a huge relief to me! In fact, everyone has been impressed with the meter. While it may seem like a hassle at first, if you stick with it it'll quickly become a transparent part of your brew day.

Going forward, stick three coffee mugs (I noticed you use Celsius, so you might call them beakers?) in your freezer the night prior to brewing. When you take a sample, run it into one of your frozen mugs, then place it in the freezer. Next, set a timer for 8min and you should wind up with sample that is roughly 68F if you pulled the sample from your mash tun. A sample from the kettle might take a few extra minutes.

I wish you the best of luck with your new probe. Feel free to PM if you have any questions once you get your hands on it.

 

[AlexKay]

Foam-positives include malt protein, roast malt, iso-alpha-acids, CO2, N2, and zinc.
Negatives include ethanol, crystal malts, and lipids.

The positives and negatives are both always there, and it's a balancing act -- possibly one with more than one dimension -- that determines the quality of the foam.

If your question is "how do I get better foam on my next beer," then your answer is to add some wheat malt, post-fermentation zinc if you're up to that, as well as (as mentioned multiple times) getting rid of those low-temperature rests. (I do not think the answer is CaraPils or the like.)

If your question is "why is this beer different than my other beers," it's a bit of a mystery. Is it more alcoholic or less bitter than your usual beer? Do you usually brew with less crystal? Any possibility of lipid or detergent exposure (either of fermentation hardware or drinkware) due to little changes in cleaning regimen? When's the last time you cleaned your lines?

 

[Bramling Cross]

I brewed it on March 2nd.
Fermented it in a carboy at room temperature with US-05
I kegged it last Sunday,March 16, after two weeks in the carboy.
The CO2 has not been higher than 15 PSI.
Today was the first pour.

That could be a culprit right there. You're not quite burst carbonating, nor have you waited long enough for the slower, longer method. You might not be fully saturated at this point. There's a term for that and it escapes me right now. Give it a few more days, you might find that's it's just fine.

 

[Bramling Cross]

Negatives include ethanol, crystal malts, and lipids.

Alex, I'm not trying to call you out or blusteringly demand to see your sources. You're a fantastic brewer and I pay attention to what you write, so I'm curious about your remark regarding C-malts as foam negative. Is that just for the darker varieties, or is this related to the "carapils doesn't work" thing? I generally avoid C-malts like the plague, but I've started using them a bit in my UK ales whereas I previously didn't. If you have the time, I'd like to learn more about this.

 

[psehorne]

Foam-positives include malt protein, roast malt, iso-alpha-acids, CO2, N2, and zinc.
Negatives include ethanol, crystal malts, and lipids.

The positives and negatives are both always there, and it's a balancing act -- possibly one with more than one dimension -- that determines the quality of the foam.

If your question is "how do I get better foam on my next beer," then your answer is to add some wheat malt, post-fermentation zinc if you're up to that, as well as (as mentioned multiple times) getting rid of those low-temperature rests. (I do not think the answer is CaraPils or the like.)

Thanks for your input.

If your question is "why is this beer different than my other beers," it's a bit of a mystery. Is it more alcoholic or less bitter than your usual beer?

No.

Do you usually brew with less crystal?

For a Brown Ale, 'yes'. I'll add to my experiment list to use less.

Any possibility of lipid or detergent exposure (either of fermentation hardware or drinkware) due to little changes in cleaning regimen?

Well, I could have not rinsed well enough.

When's the last time you cleaned your lines?

About 6 weeks ago. Three batches between cleaning the lines and this Brown Ale brew.
I have some new EVABarrier lines arriving tomorrow. So will be changing out the lines this weekend.

 

[mac_1103]

There's a term for that and it escapes me right now.

Equilibrium.

kegged it last Sunday,March 16

Do you usually start pouring a keg after just five days on CO2?

 

[psehorne]

That could be a culprit right there. You're not quite burst carbonating, nor have you waited long enough for the slower, longer method. You might not be fully saturated at this point. There's a term for that and it escapes me right now. Give it a few more days, you might find that's it's just fine.

I will test again in few days.

 

[psehorne]

Equilibrium.

Do you usually start pouring a keg after just five days on CO2?

I sample the beer after (usually) at week. (but not usually after just five days). Most of the time at one week in the keg there is noticeable foam. I keep pretty good notes, but have not noted when/if I increase the pressure above my usual 12 PSI.

The Irish Stout I brewed in Feb 1st was kegged on Feb 10 (S-04 finished pretty quickly, OG 1.042, FG 1.011, ABV 4.1%). First pour on the 15th after only five days had plenty of head.

Just the last few brews I have started fermenting under 12 PSI pressure; so brews will have some carbonation already when I move them to the kegerator. I just took a FG reading today of my Blonde and right out of the pressure fermenter ( corny ket @ 12 PSI) it had noticeable foam.

You may be on to something. Maybe I should not be alarmed at this point. Another week in the kegerator will shed some light.

 

[dmtaylor]

Thanks for your input...

But, it doesn't explain why ALL my other brews using these same rests have turned out fine... with the expected head. Is this speculation or anecdotal?

I once did a 50 C protein rest on a witbier that had 50% torrified wheat and 4% flaked oats as part of the grist. Probably the clearest beer I ever made in my life, with no head. Prior to that, I brewed a very tasty Vienna lager with the same protein rest that was wonderful but again, no head, and seemed sort of watery.

From that point forward, and after much discussion online, I determined that I would never ever do a protein rest with 21st century malts ever again. Protein rest is in fact detrimental unless using a terribly undermodified malt or an even more significant amount of adjuncts than my witbier had, apparently. Or I guess you could say, anecdotally. But I listen to my experience. And if you have experienced the same thing, then hey, our experiences seems to match so my advice to skip the rest might be worth a shot.

 

[AlexKay]

Alex, I'm not trying to call you out or blusteringly demand to see your sources. You're a fantastic brewer and I pay attention to what you write, so I'm curious about your remark regarding C-malts as foam negative. Is that just for the darker varieties, or is this related to the "carapils doesn't work" thing? I generally avoid C-malts like the plague, but I've started using them a bit in my UK ales whereas I previously didn't. If you have the time, I'd like to learn more about this.

There’s another foam thread going now (under Recipes?) with most of the details, but basically I’m relying on Charlie Bamforth. He’s got that one paper where he makes wort with 100% X where he shows that if you only use Carapils or various crystals and don’t ferment, foam is very bad. I regard this as extremely indirect at best, but I just read through one of his student’s thesis and this guy actually made beer, with more crystal giving progressively worse foam. I believe he blames it on lipids, and there’s quite a bit of analytical work-up, leading to a “more investigation is needed” conclusion.

Written documents aside, I’m decently sure Charlie is of the opinion that both Carapils and crystal hurt foam. When he talks about that paper, that’s the conclusion he puts forward. I didn’t think to push him on how strong he thought the evidence was.

 

[Bramling Cross]

There’s another foam thread going now (under Recipes?) with most of the details, but basically I’m relying on Charlie Bamforth. He’s got that one paper where he makes wort with 100% X where he shows that if you only use Carapils or various crystals and don’t ferment, foam is very bad. I regard this as extremely indirect at best, but I just read through one of his student’s thesis and this guy actually made beer, with more crystal giving progressively worse foam. I believe he blames it on lipids, and there’s quite a bit of analytical work-up, leading to a “more investigation is needed” conclusion.

Written documents aside, I’m decently sure Charlie is of the opinion that both Carapils and crystal hurt foam. When he talks about that paper, that’s the conclusion he puts forward. I didn’t think to push him on how strong he thought the evidence was.

That's a great response and much appreciated.

I know the thread you're talking about. I kinda glossed over it, sure in the knowledge that for thirty years I've been told C-malts aided head retention. I'll have to return and give it a much closer reading.

Thank you for taking the time, I appreciate it.

 

[dmtaylor]

I've said dozens of times, and I'll say it again:

Carapils is worthless.

The other Cara malts, I think, probably do help with head retention a bit. But I'm not very confident in this guess.

But if you really want to cheat to improve head, I recommend rye. Either flaked or malted work great. And only a small amount needed, as little as 5-10% of the grist. And it's not "spicy" either.

The other cheater thing I've learned that improves head is... wait for it... a little DME.

 

[dmtaylor]

edit: 20 mL of 85% phosphoric acid is an absolutely insane amount. Is this correct???

I just noticed this as well. This is an insane amount of acid, especially with >20% roasted grains and Caramalts, which will bring the pH down to mid-5's all on their own with zero acid added. I believe acidity can kill the head too, but again I'm not totally sure.

 

[Bramling Cross]

I just noticed this as well. This is an insane amount of acid, especially with >20% roasted grains and Caramalts, which will bring the pH down to mid-5's all on their own with zero acid added. I believe acidity can kill the head too, but again I'm not totally sure.

I don't think you're wrong about low pH, when dealing with the really acidic UK strains I find my foam is a lot more bubbly and less congruous. My current workaround is cranking the pressure and half-cocking the tap. Obviously, a beer engine will fix that, but it'll cause more problems than it'll solve--I can't drink 6gal of ordinary bitter that quickly.

 

[Bramling Cross]

I've said dozens of times, and I'll say it again:

Carapils is worthless.

The other Cara malts, I think, probably do help with head retention a bit. But I'm not very confident in this guess.

But if you really want to cheat to improve head, I recommend rye. Either flaked or malted work great. And only a small amount needed, as little as 5-10% of the grist. And it's not "spicy" either.

The other cheater thing I've learned that improves head is... wait for it... a little DME.

As someone that avoids C-malts like the plague, I would suggest, at minimum, that C-40 adds head retention.

I think this is the case because I sometimes brew the well-established Anchor Steam clone recipe with its gobs of C-40. My beer doesn't have problems with head, despite my extremely low serving pressures, but that recipe produces a lotta head. That being said, I haven't brewed it in several years and a lot has changed in my brewery since then.

As an older brewer that lived through The Revolution on the West Coast, I like my WCIPAs to have at least some C-40 (not historic levels of C-40, but maybe 5%, just enough to taste it) and those ales are always noteworthy for their frothy head. I never jumped on board the Vinny Cilurzo/Pliny hype train for carapils, I was too established as a brewer at that point and had seen too many trends come and go, so I can't really add to the carapils discussion.

I will (cautiously) argue that C-40 makes a differece, though. I just don't use it enough to be certain.

 

[Bobby_M]

I brewed it on March 2nd.
Fermented it in a carboy at room temperature with US-05
I kegged it last Sunday,March 16, after two weeks in the carboy.
The CO2 has not been higher than 15 PSI.
Today was the first pour.

Honestly, 5 days is not going to get to full carbonation at chart pressure. Try again in 4-5 days.

 

[AlexKay]

I’m going to throw out a wildly speculative idea that I have no empirical evidence for, and that I’m essentially just making up out of whole cloth. But it sounds good to me, especially at one in the morning.

So there are foam positives and foam negatives. A hypothetical all-malt barley wine has positives (tons of malt protein, lots of bitterness) and negatives (a great deal of ethanol) — potentially the positives can outweigh the negatives and you can get a decent head on the beer. (Potentially not.)

When I say that the positive-negative balance is not one-dimensional, I’m speculating that there isn’t a single number for foam positivity/negativity: it’s not like that barleywine has +5 for malt, +3 for bitterness, and -6 for ethanol, and you can calculate +2 and decent foam.

Thought experiment: take that hypothetical barleywine and a hypothetical cold IPA (less malt protein, more bitterness) that for the sake of argument have similar quality foam (insofar as you can measure such a thing quantitatively.) Add straight ethanol to both, and the effect is always negative (I’m sure that dose-response is nonlinear, but I’m guessing it’s monotonic.) But I’m proposing that the magnitude of the effect can be different — possibly substantially different — for the different beers. Lower the carbonation for both, and the effect is again negative, and again different for both beers. For the barleywine, potentially spiking 1% ABV might be offset by an extra 0.3 volumes of CO2, whereas the same changes to the IPA might destroy the foam.

Hare-brained analogy: there are some foods that are predominantly positive in your diet (buckwheat, tomatoes) and others predominantly negative (beef tallow, Doritos) and then many more with a mix of benefits and harms (liver, tuna.) Under my framework, a dish of buckwheat fried in beef tallow and salted (gosh, sounds delicious) might have either a positive or negative impact on your health when added to your diet, but both the magnitude and direction of that effect will depend on what else you’re eating.

I’m suggesting that a given intervention could have vastly different impacts on foam, depending on what’s going on in the rest of the recipe and process.

I’m storytelling here, but it makes sense to me at the moment. Though again, it’s 1 AM. Pile on!

 

[psehorne]

This morning I woke up to zero CO2 pressure. (Yesterday there was several hundred PSI)
Is it because of a leak in the keg containing the Brown Ale? OR...
Did I put some stress on a CO2 connector on one (or both) of the two kegs in the kegerator yesterday when I replaced the liquid lines with EVABarrier and DuoTight connectors?

Troubleshooting will likely take at least several hours. I replaced the CO2 tank, turned off the manifold line going to the Brown Ale keg, turned on only the line going to the other keg containing my IPA. The IPA still has good head. So I will be watching the pressure over the next several hours. Maybe I will mix up a batch of soapy water and check the pressure holding of the keg with the Brown Ale. At this point I have no reason to suspect the keg containing the IPA.

Off to the task of checking.... connectors, hose clamps, lid, post....

 

[Bramling Cross]

I’m going to throw out a wildly speculative idea that I have no empirical evidence for, and that I’m essentially just making up out of whole cloth. But it sounds good to me, especially at one in the morning.

So there are foam positives and foam negatives. A hypothetical all-malt barley wine has positives (tons of malt protein, lots of bitterness) and negatives (a great deal of ethanol) — potentially the positives can outweigh the negatives and you can get a decent head on the beer. (Potentially not.)

When I say that the positive-negative balance is not one-dimensional, I’m speculating that there isn’t a single number for foam positivity/negativity: it’s not like that barleywine has +5 for malt, +3 for bitterness, and -6 for ethanol, and you can calculate +2 and decent foam.

Thought experiment: take that hypothetical barleywine and a hypothetical cold IPA (less malt protein, more bitterness) that for the sake of argument have similar quality foam (insofar as you can measure such a thing quantitatively.) Add straight ethanol to both, and the effect is always negative (I’m sure that dose-response is nonlinear, but I’m guessing it’s monotonic.) But I’m proposing that the magnitude of the effect can be different — possibly substantially different — for the different beers. Lower the carbonation for both, and the effect is again negative, and again different for both beers. For the barleywine, potentially spiking 1% ABV might be offset by an extra 0.3 volumes of CO2, whereas the same changes to the IPA might destroy the foam.

Hare-brained analogy: there are some foods that are predominantly positive in your diet (buckwheat, tomatoes) and others predominantly negative (beef tallow, Doritos) and then many more with a mix of benefits and harms (liver, tuna.) Under my framework, a dish of buckwheat fried in beef tallow and salted (gosh, sounds delicious) might have either a positive or negative impact on your health when added to your diet, but both the magnitude and direction of that effect will depend on what else you’re eating.

I’m suggesting that a given intervention could have vastly different impacts on foam, depending on what’s going on in the rest of the recipe and process.

I’m storytelling here, but it makes sense to me at the moment. Though again, it’s 1 AM. Pile on!

I like your analytical framework and I think it's much more useful than our tendency to speak in absolutes. As anyone that has brewed for more than a few years can attest, there aren't a lot of absolutes in brewing. To the contrary, it's a very complex and interdependent system--and it all needs to go right, otherwise the end product is compromised to some degree. That's what makes it so frustrating at times and so rewarding at others.

I wish the homebrewing literature thought more along your lines rather than its infuriating tendency to hype up silver bullet solutions. It'd sure make things a lot easier on newer brewers.