Discussion in 'Beer Kit Brewing Discussion.' started by oo7tk, Feb 25, 2017.
Brilliant work! It will be really interesting to hear your results.
Back in the old days Whitbread at Portsmouth used to brew a strong ale called Pompey Royal. The reason we used to love it was because it tasted like my dad's homebrew, complete with twang.
I have tasted excellent kit beer and dreadful, including those I brewed while I was learning the ropes. As I kept everything else constant (yeast, hops, temperatures, sanitation, etc) I conclude that the difference is the quality of the kit. And a large part of "quality" is freshness of the liquid malt extract - for how long and in what conditions was it stored?
It'll be at least a week until I get the brew on. I'll brew at 19c. I was going to do a partial mash to make up the kit but remembered that when I did the 10 litre B&M IPA kit a while back it was a lot more like an IPA with the dextrose that came with it than the split I did with spraymalt. Even though I've eliminated sucrose as the twangster when used with all grain but I'll just stick with dextrose to make for less variables.
I'll then update week by week as they age to see not just the sugar effects but if the sulphite does change how the hops taste over time. Some of you might already be thinking for the ones bottled conditioned then that yeast will scrub oxygen anyway but it's always good to have a fanny about in the name of science (cough).
I can see there being no twang in any of them just to annoy me.
EDIT: I might overly aerate a few bottles, too.
For me it's an after taste that just shouldn't be there. As I said previously I had my first kit beer in a long time of a friend. The beer looked perfect. Poured well but just had a Smell and an after taste that should not be there.
I've used Sucrose to prime three of my four brews to date. Two of those have the twang but not so bad they spoil the beer, the other one has no twang at all. My first brew was primed with carbonation drops and this is undrinkable because of the twang. Same taste as the drinkable ones but so so strong. That said, it is a lot worse in some of these bottles than others. This got me thinking about the oxidisation theory. It was my first brew and, although I bottled using a bottling wand which should have minimised excess oxygen going into the bottles, I did leave varying gaps between the top of the beer and the top of the bottle. I wonder if this has made a difference? I'll dig out a couple of bottles at different extremes of "air gap" tonight to see if there's a trend.
Wouldn't it be brilliant if we could finally crack this eternal problem?!!!
I have noticed that the bigger the gap the better carbonated the beer either that or the homebrew has waterlogged my brain.
Homebrew twang was commonplace years ago when the fermenting bucket used to go into the airing cupboard, at temperatures above 30 °C.
I've also noticed that modern yeasts settle quickly when the fermentation stops.
I brewed 1 can kits + 1 kg table sugar for many years. Some had really bad twang. Others none at all. Worst offenders seemed to be bitters and `real ale'. Stouts were always pretty good. Before I switched to AG I'd settled on brewing them short - to 4 or 4.5 gallons instead of 5, and only adding half a kilo of sugar. Result: no twang in anything.
To this day I still brew in the airing cupboard when doing AG - no twang.
I sometimes add half a kilo of sugar - no twang.
I can only guess that it's a combination of factors rather than 1 single thing that causes twang.
Separate names with a comma.