The spoiled batch, which had been in the keg for about 2 weeks had the following properties:

• Initial flavor was anti-septic (almost burning).
• Murky appearance (different than chill haze).
• Slippery mouth feel.
• Finshed soapy, with the flavor getting more pronounce, to the point I spit it out. The bitter antiseptic flavor lingers on the tongue.

What the heck! Had I gotten a lax on sanitization? Was my yeast bad? Was there something in the brewing process that lead to this? I asked some home brewing experts and they attribute this to a yeast deficiency – either an infection, or bad yeast. It turns out there were two main factors, repitching of yeast and a dirty spigot in my fermentor. While I am not sure which did more damage, I have evidence of both.

Here is what the carboy looked like, note the ring:

If you have a goopy ring around the krausen layer you might be in trouble. The off gases from the fermentation also smelled ‘cheesy’, which tipped me off there might be a serious problem.

Beer Forensics:

For what turned out to be the spoiled batch, I opted to re-pitch yeast (Wyeast Northwest Ale 1332) from a previous batch of IPA. The harvested yeast was in the fridge in a ball jar for about 2 weeks. That IPA was already in the keg and was drinkable, but it was not my best batch ever. It had a thin finish and there were some light ‘chemical’ flavors present that come and go from sip to sip. I figured at the time, the beer was just green – and it did improve a lot after a month went by. When I kegged the IPA and harvested the yeast, it looked and smelled fine, a fresh bready aroma was present. That meant it is good to go right? WRONG!

Something funny happened with the fermentation of that IPA. One night I forgot to set the furance at 64F, and instead turned it all the way down to 58F – so it got pretty cold in the house that night. It turns out NW Ale 1332 does best between 65F and 75F. In effect, that night the yeast were really stressed. I didn’t think much of it at the time. I do recall the fermentation slowed after that. I also left the IPA in the primary for 23 days, without racking, and then harvested the 23 day old yeast cake. In retrospect I should have spent the $4-$7 for a new yeast pack. Even though that yeast cake smelled good at the time, it was no longer to be trusted given its age, and the temperature fluctuation.

I gathered two ball jars from the yeast cake. Now a month later, on inspecting the second ball jar, there is a thin line of black mold growing on top. YUCK!

That IPA was fermented in a plastic bucket with a spigot. The subsequent failed batch was fermented in a glass carboy. I went ahead and tore apart the spigot on the bottling bucket, and look what I found in there:

It had probably been over 3 years since I setup that bottling bucket and spiot. Whoops! No doubt whatever mildew / mold / germ was living in there is not good for the beer. I terminated it with extreme prejudice – a strong bleach solution!

After I soaked everything, I thought I was ready to go again, but then I noticed, inside the sealed part of the spigot, there were some faint black spots. It is hard to see in the picture, so I enhanced the second one.

The mold / mildew, whatever it is, is growing INSIDE the sealed part where the spigot rotates. There is no way to scrub that section. I am looking into getting a different type of spigot that does not have this design flaw.

Yeast Re-pitching Revisited:

All this time I had thought I was being a good sport by re-pitching yeast. That is what the pro’s do right? Well, it turns out I did not realize the risks associated. I wrote an article awhile ago that praises yeast washing, and another on yeast repitching. I have updated those articles to point out what was learned here. The time it takes to harvest and clean the yeast (15-20 minutes), plus the risk is not worth the $3 savings it offers! I should have known that…

Key Take Aways:

• Yeast re-pitching can be risky and might not be worth the cost savings for home brewers.
• If you are going to repitch – I would rack after about a week and save that yeast. Let the secondary fermentation finish on its own, and discard that smaller, older yeast cake. I would also be very strict about temperatures ranges and sanitization. I successfully repitched many many times, but now I am starting to see where perhaps some inconsistency came into play.
• Tear everything apart now and then and completely clean it with PBW or a bleach solution if the materials are compatible with bleach.
• Look for stuff growing inside what appear to be sealed parts, such as the spigot on the bottling bucket.

PROST!

Heating Elements Used In Brewing:

With electric brewing a heating element is mounted inside the kettle. It works the same way an electric water heater works. Instead of heating the kettle from the bottom, the wort boils from inside. Here is how my boil kettle looks:

The elements can be purchased from HighGravityBrew:

For the HLT, they recommend a 5500 watt unit.

For the Boil Kettle, they recommend a 4500 watt unit.

Weld-less vs Welded fittings:

Getting the element into the kettle requires drilling a hole and using either a welded or weld-less fitting. Weld-less is a simpler option that worked well for me.

Step 1 – Drilling the hole:
This I did myself by carefully marking where I wanted the hole, relatively low in the kettle, such that the element would not hit my dip tube. On the mark, I took a center punch and made a dimple so the drill would have a place to slot into. Lots of oil, walled off with a damn made of plumber’s putty, and a standard hole saw made the cut in under a minute. For the HighGravityBrew elements a 1.25″ hole needed to be drilled. I spent some time fretting about the bit type. Some sites suggest using a stepped bit (aka unibit), but they are expensive. For the thin wall of my kettle (which was from MoreBeer / Polar Ware), a standard hole saw worked fine.

Step 2 – Fitting the element:

In the case of a welded fitting, a coupler is welded over the hole. The element slides through it and screws in to female pipe thread on the coupler. Welding shops were quoting around $75, plus the couplers.

The weld-less fittings use a silicone gasket and a stainless steel nut that go on the inside of the kettle. This approach was feasible to do on my own and cheaper overall. Zero leaks from the weld-less fittings after two brews.

Power Source:

A 30 AMP GFI breaker is required. Get it installed by a professional. My brewery has a 4 prong dryer outlet which the controller plugs into. The controller is described in the next section.

Controller:

To regulate the power going into the element, a controller is used. The controller plugs into the dryer outlet. The cord that leads out of the element plugs into the controller.

HighGravity brew has a couple turn key options. I bought the ECB II for $300. With this unit I can vary the power using the knob. The ECB II also has a bypass for a temperature controller. This allows the element to be turned on or off by a temperature probe. That way a HERMS system can be built with the ECB II as its heart.

HighGravityBrew also has a $200 model, which doesn’t not allow a temperature probe to be hooked up to it.

Wort Chiller:

I had to redesign my wort chiller so it would not sit on or bang up the element. My solution was to wrap another 50 feet of soft copper tubing around a 4″ PVC pipe and form it into the following:

Plate chillers and counter flow chillers are another alternative. I researched those quite a bit and decided against them. Stay tuned for an article on that.

Performance:

On the highest setting, the elements will increase temperature at the following rates:

• 15 gallons, +3 deg F / min
• 10 gallons,- +4 deg F / min

Strike water is ready in under 30 minutes. Going from mash out to boil takes under 10 minutes! After a rigorous boil starts, the dial can be set back to around 60% to maintain a steady boil.

In an electric brewery, the cost of boiling is measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh). In the northwest the price is around $0.10/kWh, but in Hawaii it is higher. Check your electric bill to be sure.

The equation is:
hours used * (wattage / 1000) * price/kWh = total cost

For an example, let’s say the the price is $0.12 / kWh, and a typical batch is brewed:

• 1 hour * (5500 / 1000) * $0.12 = $0.66 (hot liquor tank)
• 1 hour * (4500 / 1000) * $0.12 = $0.54 (boil kettle)

Total electricity cost for a standard batch of beer: $1.20

No More Propane:

Minimal cost savings aside, eliminating propane from the brewing equation is just awesome. Exhaust fumes are no longer a concern. There is no worry of a seal or hose coming loose and burning the shed down. Best of all, no more lugging the tanks around and having to get them refilled. If you are brewing indoors on a propane burner, seriously consider this upgrade. I have enjoyed brewing even more. I did not think that was possible. Electric brewing is safer, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly.

(O2 tank is no longer needed!)

(Hose and regulator are no longer needed!)

The way I aerate is so simple it seems lazy. Just splash around the wort as it drains into the fermenter. The procedure is to occasionally shake the bucket or carboy as it is draining to build up a nice frothy head. It reminds me of early extract brewing days. Some people sanitize a large spoon and stir up the wort. Some people rock the carboy back and forth, I find that takes extra effort though.

In the future I plan to rig up a splash manifold at the end of the drain hose. It would be suspended above the wort level in the fermenter and cause the wort pouring in to go all over the place. Stay tuned for a future article on that. It should be a pretty cool looking gadget and cost next to nothing.

I am an all grain brewer, so aeration is especially important because of the full wort boil (which drives off oxygen). The last four batches I brewed have been aerated with the new lazy approach. I have noticed zero problems with fermentation time, attenuation, and flavor. Aeration in home brewing is over emphasized by some sources. There is at least one experiment showing it is okay to be “lazy” about it. The following test indicated little if any improvement with using an aeration system, vs shaking:

Link: Aeration Experiment Including Time Lapse Video of the Sample Fermentations

For a commercial brewery, monitoring exact levels of oxygen in the wort is important for quality control. Personally, I am not going to loose sleep over O2 levels in my brewing. This information will hopefully save some readers the $50 it costs for a basic aeration system, if not more in time and hassles.

Standard Formula:

Most brewing sites use this basic formula:

ABV = (og – fg) * 131.25


This equation was created before the computer age.  It is easy to do by hand, and over time became the accepted formula for home brewers!

Variations on this equation which report within tenths of each other come from The Joy of Homebrewing Method by Charlie Papazian, Bee Lee’s Method, Beer Advocate Method. Some variations use 131 instead of 131.25. The resulting difference is pretty minor.

Alternate Formula:

A more complex equation which attempts to provide greater accuracy at higher gravities is:

ABV =(76.08 * (og-fg) / (1.775-og)) * (fg / 0.794)


The alternate equation reports a higher ABV for higher gravity beers. This equation is just a different take on it. Scientists rarely agree when it comes to equations. There will probably be another equation for ABV down the road.

The complex formula, and variations on it come from Ritchie Products Ltd, (Zymurgy, Summer 1995, vol. 18, no. 2) -Michael L. Hall’s article Brew by the Numbers: Add Up What’s in Your Beer, and Designing Great Beers by Daniels.

Why don’t calculators all agree?

1. The relationship between the change in gravity, and the change in ABV is not linear. All these equations are approximations.
2. Some calculators round internally as they go. The Brewer’s Friend calculator rounds only at the very end, which means significant digits are kept along the way (making it more true to the equation).
3. Other online calculators should be close to one of the two equations reported by the Brewer’s Friend ABV Calculator. If not, they are doing their own thing which warrants inquiry.

What equation should I use?

Your home brewing friends probably use the basic equation. If you don’t like math, go with the basic equation.

If you are a really tech heavy brewer, and want to brew a lot of high gravity beers, or prefer Daniels over Papazian, use the advanced equation.

Either way, they are close for beers below 6% ABV.   The difference does get larger as the gravity increases.   For a brew with OG 1.092, and an FG of 1.021, the standard equation reports an ABV of 9.32%, while the alternate equation reports 10.17%, that’s a difference of 0.85%.  At that alcohol level, after a few beers, you’ll be too drunk to care.

Prost!

Legal Disclaimer: The Brewer’s Friend ABV calculator is for entertainment purposes and should not be used for professional brewing. No warranty or guarantee of accuracy is provided on the information provided by this calculator.

Racking beer is not required, but it can add clarity in the final beer. I only rack my ales about a third of the time. If you are going to dry hop, doing a very strong beer, or fermenting for more than 3-4 weeks, then racking is a good idea. There is an exception, I always rack my lagers before cooling them down to 33F for 4-6 weeks.

Here is how I racked my latest batch of Oktoberfest:

1) At least one day before, lift the primary fermenter up to a table. This will give the yeast time to settle back down.

2) Sanitize secondary fermentor, hose, cork and airlock. I like StarSan for this purpose. Have your hydrometer and a sampling cup on hand.

3) Get the hose hooked up and dropped into the secondary. Turn on the hose. Minimize splashing if possible. Depending on how low the spigot is some yeast will come through, but not a lot.

4) About half way through I stop the hose, and take a sample for gravity and taste. I make sure my hands are VERY clean for this step.

5) Continue draining. Tip the bucket at the end. Make sure to fill it to the top.

6) Record your hydrometer value and note the flavors.

Primary fermentation in a bucket is easy for the following reasons:

• Easy to sanitize the bucket. Those 90-degree brushes for cleaning carboys can be a pain to use.
• Easy to clean the bucket after fermentation.
• When fitted with a spigot, draining is a breeze. No siphon is needed. There is less equipment to sanitize and clean up.
• Stopping the flow to take a sample is easy.

Knocks against using a plastic buckets as a fermenters:

• Odors can remain behind in plastic, especially strong dark beers.
• There is concern for oxygen penetration.
• The seal can fail around the spigot. Never had this happen, but it would be a major mess. I fitted mine with a double set of washers on the inside and outside. This did involve a trip to the hardware store, and I bought extra. I keep a habit of only turning the spigot clockwise, so I don’t accidentally loosen the thread.

The real solution to this issue is to buy a stainless steel canonical fermentor. This is how commercial breweries do it. Compared to a carboy or plastic bucket they are fifteen times the price! Figure spending at least $500 on one.

Notice there was no head space in the secondary. That was 100% on purpose to avoid oxidation. Check out information in this article about why topping of the secondary is important.

Update 11/12/2011: Check out the article on Infected Batches to see why you might want to tear down your bottling bucket now and then, since the spigot can get pretty gross without you knowing it.

In beer oxidation can lead to wet card board flavors, low shelf life, and other nasty defects. Leaving head space in the secondary is a sure way to trigger oxidation problems. Wine books say to top off the secondary with a similar style of wine. With beer that is not as easy because of the wide variation between beers even in the same style. The beer could be diluted with water but that doesn’t feel right to me if it is more than 1-2% of the total volume.

The best solution is to take the size of the secondary fermenter and add half a gallon to determine your batch size. For example if I will rack into a 5 gallon carboy, I would target 5.25 – 5.5 gallons for my batch size. Figure one to two quarts will be left behind in yeast and trub. Five gallons is a good size, easy to move around, and fits into a corny keg. I never use a bucket as a secondary fermenter because of the head space issue. Only carboys fitted with a stopper offer an easy way fill to the very top and prevent oxidation.

(5 gallon batch of lager, primary fermentation complete.)

(5 gallon batch of lager racked into the secondary.)

How do you get exactly the amount of wort you want?

For extract brewers, this will be easy because you are topping off with water. Just adjust your recipe for the target OG and water volume and top off to that level. Your fermentation vessel should have water volume marks established on it ahead of time (either by you, or labeled by the manufacturer).

For all grain brewers it is not as easy because of mashing, the full wort boil, and no topping off allowed. It takes some practice in knowing your equipment. I have been referring back to this article lately to dial in my water volume.

Note this head space issue only applies to secondary fermentation (if you are racking). Oxygen is good for wort that is going into the primary. Fermentation will drive oxygen out of the airlock. Oxygen is only harmful after the wort has fermented (green beer and afterwards). You need head space in the primary because the foamy krausen head will rise as fermentation happens (both for ales and lagers).

I also do bigger batches, using my 8 gallon plastic primary and then racking form there to glass. Be careful on that one. I recently found out I have a 7 gallon carboy, thinking it was a 6.5, and wound up with head space I was not counting on! In that case, I slowly vented the head space with CO2 for about a minute. A full seven gallon carboy is pretty heavy too. Ultimately doing an 11 gallon batch and splitting it in half is the best way to make a large amount of home brew in one go.

I tired this to see what it is like. I’m glad I did it once, but I probably won’t do it very often.

The wax can be bought in a variety of colors. Search for ‘bottle seal wax’ or ‘bottle wax’ online or at your local home brew store (LHBS). It might be in the wine section. A one pound bag is available for under $10.

Process:

Bottle your beer as normal and cap. I recommend oxy-caps. Clean out a tin can you don’t care about and gently melt the wax. Prepare a landing zone for the dipped bottles. The wax gets really hot and in my case, started to pop and shoot everywhere. It took a lot of time to get the wax completely melted, a puck formed on the inside of the can. I recommend a mild heat setting to melt the wax and a long stick to stir with. Make sure to turn off the burner when you go to dip the bottles.

Safety Disclaimer: The wax is hot and you should wear eye and hand protection. Do not over heat the wax, and do not leave the flame unattended. Shut off the flame when you are working above it. My package of wax recommended a temp between 160F and 170F, and to never pour water on a wax fire, instead use an extinguisher or cover with a metal lid.

After dipping the top I rotated the bottle to help cover the crimps in the cap. The cap is the hardest part to cover completely. Multiple coats will be needed depending on how thick you want the wax to be.

The wax can also be spooned out on top of the beer cap but this can create runs. Some people add floss or some kind of fabric around the cap so it makes the tear off easier.

Do It Yourself Wax:

Some people have used Gulf Wax (parrafin) and crayons for tint. This approach is a little cheaper than buying the already made wax beads. Using your own wax may require mixing in Vaseline or other additives to get the desired texture. I think buying the bag of wax pellets made for this purpose is worth the extra couple of dollars.

An excellent thread on a do it yourself approach using glue sticks is here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f35/hot-glue-bottle-wax-experiment-127485/

Some Critiques On Wax Sealed Beer:

Yes, the wax seal makes it harder to open the bottle and creates a mess, sealing the bottles is time consuming, and the need for an additional seal beyond the cap is questionable. The benefits are mainly aesthetic. Home brewing is all about fun, and pride in your brew, so go for it if you want to! I would not put much faith in the extra sealing power the wax affords. I use oxycaps on all of my bottled beer, and I’ve opened bottled 2 years later that tasted awesome.

One clear drawback I noticed is the extra time it takes to clean the bottle if you want to reuse it. Of course that is not a concern when the bottle is given away.

In commercial news on this issue, Maker’s Mark bourbon has legal protection for their wax sealing practice as it was ruled to be part of their trademark: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03bourbon.html

Big dark beers like Barely Wines, Belgian Strongs, Russian Imperial Stout, Double Imperial Porters, etc… are all great candidates for wax sealing!

There are several factors that go into how much water is lost during the brewing process from mash to fermentor.

1) Grain Absorption: Figure 1/2 quart per pound of grain. This comes out to ~1 pint (0.125 gallons) / pound of grain. Some reports are as high as 0.2 gallons per pound.

During the mash process the grains soak up water. This water is not transfered to the kettle when lautering. Make sure if you do a high gravity batch to account for this. My last big batch was a little short on wort volume and grain absorption is exactly why.

2) Mash Tun Dead Space: Dead space varies by equipment. Some of the water / sweet wort is left behind because of the shape of the mash tun or location of the valve.

I estimate 2 quarts (0.5 gallon) in my cooler mash tun.

3) Boil Off / Evaporation Rate: This depends on how vigorous of a boil and the shape of the kettle. The average is around 1.5 gallons (6 quarts) per hour. If the kettle is narrow (like a keggle), expect ~1 gallon per hour, or short and wide, as high as ~2.5 gallons / hour. If you are brewing with Pilsner malt and want to do a 90 minute boil to drive off DMS (which I do on my lagers), make sure to account for the extra boil time.

4) Trub loss: Water absorbed by hops or adjuncts. I estimate 1/2 quart (0.125 gallons).

5) Wort Shrinkage: When the wort cools it looses some volume (4% is standard). This is minor in a 5 gallon batch, about 0.8 qt in a 5 gallon batch, and 1.6 qt in a 10 gallon batch.

Example Calculation 1:
How much starting water is needed to make a 5 gallon batch given, a) 10 pounds of grain, b) 60 minute boil? I shoot for 5.5 gallons of wort, to allow for samples, losses in the fermentor and bottling bucket. It is easier to work in quarts for water volume measurements.

5.5 gallons wort = 22 quarts
Grain losses = 5 qt (10 pounds * 0.5 qt/pound)
Dead Space = 2 qt
Boil off = 6 qt (1.5 gallons/ hr)
Trub loss = 0.5 qt
Shrinkage = 0.8 qt

Total input water: 36.3 quarts, or 9.08 gallons.

Example Calculation 2:
How much starting water is needed to make a 10 gallon batch given, a) 25 pounds of grain, b) 90 minute boil? Let’s go for 11 gallons total.

11 gallons wort = 44 quarts
Grain losses = 12.5 qt (25 pounds * 0.5 qt/pound)
Dead Space = 2 qt
Boil off = 9 qt (1.5 gallons/ hr)
Trub loss = 0.5 qt
Shrinkage = 1.6 qt

Total input water: 69.6 quarts, or 17.4 gallons.

Figure out your mash tun dead space and your boil off rate, and you will be able to hit your target volume spot on every time!

Malt conditioning is a very simple process which consists of adding a very small amount of water to your grain bill prior to milling. The addition of water to your un-crushed malt results in more resilient grain husks. The husks take on a more “leathery” feeling. They are less dry and brittle, which means that they will remain much more intact during the milling process.

Why would a brewer care to leave their grain husks more intact during the milling process? There are several reasons that would lead one to consider malt conditioning:

• Pulverized husks can lead to tanning astringency in beer
• Intact husks will create a more free flowing grain bed (fewer stuck sparges)
• You can crush finer to increase conversion efficiency without shredding husks

Items you will need:

• Atomizer bottle (for misting the malt)
• Scale, preferably digital (to accurately measure the water you are about to add)
• Large spoon or paddle (to thoroughly mix the malt)
• Malt
• Grain mill

The amount of water that you are about to add to your malt is VERY important. If you do not add enough water, the husks will not absorb enough and will remain brittle. If you add too much water, you will potentially moisten the kernel, thus affecting your crush and perhaps causing gumming of your mill rollers. No worries, this technique is EASY.

You will want to add 2% of the weight of the malt bill, in water, to the grain. For example, if you have a 10 pound grain bill, which is 160 ounces, multiply this by .02 (2%) and your result will be 3.2 ounces. This is the WEIGHT of water that you will want to add to your grain bill for conditioning. By doing so, you will thoroughly wet the grain husks, but you will not create a sticky mess in your rollers.

Malt conditioning is easy. A few simple steps and you will be on your way:

1) Weigh the atomizer bottle of water
2) Mist the surface of the grain, and stir
3) Weigh the atomizer bottle again
4) Mist the surface of the grain and stir
5) Repeat until you have added the calculated weight of water to your grain
6) When complete, allow 10 minutes for the husks to absorb this water

As you add water to the grain, it will become more difficult to stir. You may find it easier to add the water to half the malt, or a third of the malt, at a time. When milling, there is no need to change your mill setting, unless you are also wishing to do so. This process will NOT affect the crush of the grain itself, only the condition of the husk material after milling.

If by chance you notice grain sticking to your rollers after milling, you can simply run a handful of dry malt through the rollers to clean them. Also, this could be a sign that too much water may have been added to the malt. You can adjust the water proportions accordingly for your process. Feel free to experiment with 2%, 1.5%, etc,. I have had excellent results, though, using the 2% rule.

Please note that just because this process will allow you to mill your grain finer without shredding the husks, it is not advisable to crush too fine. There will come a point where you will produce too much flour and no amount of husk material will protect you from a stuck sparge.

Below are a series of malt conditioning comparison photos, the results are astounding! The setting on my Barley Crusher for the test was .035”.

NON conditioned malt on the left, conditioned malt on the right.

Closeup of conditioned malt:

Closeup of NON conditioned malt:

I have to give credit to Kaiser over at www.HomebrewTalk.com, who also has his own website www.BrauKaiser.com. His website and informative posts within the online brewing forums have been instrumental in educating me on this process.

So, what makes beer foam?

LTP1 is a low molecular weight compound and is the primary substance in your beer needed for head formation. It has been shown that during the wort boil this compound is denatured and converted from an inactive form to a form that will actively make good foam in your beer.

Protein Z is an albumin, which means that it is soluble in water and coaguable by heat. This compound has a higher molecular weight than its partner, LTP1, and is the primary substance in your beer needed for head stabilization, or retention.

From what we have discussed, you may think that simply adding malts high in protein, such as wheat malt, are the answer to creating and retaining more foam. I have read this in the past, tried this, and have had no success, because it is almost certain that the malt bills that I used at the time were overflowing with enough proteins to create and retain beer foam.  One thing that might help for certain recipes is adding 1/2 pound of flaked wheat to the mash (or steep for extract brewers). Extract brewers in general may struggle with head retention depending on the age and quality of their extract. This is one more reason for extract brewers to take the plunge into all grain brewing.

So, where is the foam?

ANSWER: Foam destroying compounds that exist in your beer, bottles, kegs or glasses are robbing you of the foam that you strive to create. This is where the lack of foam, or lack of foam stability, can indicate flaws in your brewing process. Here are some examples:

• High alcohols (fusel oils from high fermentation temperatures, under pitching)
• Low carbonation levels (bubbles drag these proteins to the surface, causing more bubbles, more foam)
• Shaking kegs during carbonation (causing your beer to foam can use up these foam producing compounds before the beer ever meets the glass)
• Fat (soap scum or other fats occupy space on the surface of the beer, reducing foam)
• Protease production from stressed yeast (under pitching or under aerated, high gravity fermentation)

Good brewing practices are essential for good foam formation and foam stability. Here are some things to keep in mind when exploring how to improve beer foam creation and stability:

• Fermentation temperature must be proper for strain used (Belgian and German strains can tolerate more heat typically, others not so much)
• Vigorous boils are necessary to denature LTP1, so that it becomes an active foam producer
• Use the proper yeast pitching rate for your volume, OG and beer style (lager vs. ale)
• Make sure you have proper carbonation levels
• Proper water chemistry – see the brewer’s friend water chemistry calculator
• Clean all glassware (carboys and glassware)
• Adequately aerate the wort prior to fermentation
• Avoid the use of chilies, cocoa or any other food that contains fats or oils
• Do not shake your kegs to speed carbonation

You can easily determine if your beer is lacking foam forming compounds (ProteinZ or LTP1) or if you have too many foam killers such as the ones listed above. Here is a simple test:

• First, shake the problematic beer you are about to test
• Pour the beer into tall, clear and CLEAN glass
• Observe the amount of foam

If the shaking and the pouring has created foam, then your beer most certainly has all of the protein Z and LTP1 needed to create beer foam. If this is the case, your brewing processes may require some refinement as stated in the factors above. Your beer probably has some foam killers lurking in it that will not allow for a long lasting head.

If, however, the shaking and pouring do NOT produce foam, you may wish to experiment with the addition of malts that are high in proteins, such as wheat malt. A lack of foam after shaking almost certainly points to a lack of foam producers.

There are numerous factors that come into play when discussing beer foam formation and stability. Many studies have been completed, many resources written, and this article is by no means a complete resource on how brewing processes and chemistry affect this facet of beer production. This is, however, a very eye opening look at how good brewing practices can affect the production and stability of that sometimes elusive foam! The importance of solid brewing practices cannot be overstated.

For more resources on beer foam and stability:
http://www.byo.com/stories/article/indices/35-head-retention/747-head-games

http://www.byo.com/stories/article/indices/35-head-retention/625-fabulous-foam