Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Lambic Digest #0367
From postmaster at longs.lance.colostate.edu Fri Jun 10 03:10:16 1994
Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA17456
(5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer at hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Fri, 10 Jun 94 03:10:13 -0400
Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5a (LANCE 1.01)) id AAA15703 for reallambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu; Fri, 10 Jun 1994 00:30:08 -0600
Message-Id: <199406100630.AAA15703 at longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Reply-To: lambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu (postings only - do not send subscription requests here)
Errors-To: lambic-request at longs.lance.colostate.edu
From: lambic-request at longs.lance.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here)
To: lambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Subject: Lambic Digest #367 (June 10, 1994)
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 00:30:08 -0600
Lambic Digest #367 Fri 10 June 1994
Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles)
Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
more on turbid mashing (Aaron Birenboim)
Must I keep saying this? (Ed Hitchcock)
More Turbid Bashing (Jim Liddil)
Send article submissions only to: lambic at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Send all other administrative requests (subscribe/unsubscribe/change) to:
lambic-request at longs.lance.colostate.edu
Back issues are available by mail; send empty message with subject 'HELP' to:
netlib at longs.lance.colostate.edu
A FAQ is also available by netlib; say 'send faq from lambic' as the
subject or body of your message (to netlib at longs.lance.colostate.edu).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 08:52:17 MDT
From: abirenbo at redwood.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim)
Subject: more on turbid mashing
Jim Liddil referred to guinards procedure. As i recall, it was rather
sketchy, and took only about 1 page. Was there another place where he
went into more detail???
I seem to remember that after taking about 3 turbid mashes, he
re-introduced them to the grist, the arrows of mikes drawing seem
to support this, but mike kept on talking about not re-introducing, for
fear of converting too much starch. Am I mis-interpreting you, mike?
It seems like bothe the diagram and guinard talk of re-introducetion...
but prehaps guinard went to musche's (sp?) talk??? And... perhaps
lindeman's lied. Why one would re-introduce the turbid run-off...
I donno. was it clarification (filteration)? I'd think that we could
leave it cloudy, since most of use are using SECONDARIES.
aaron
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 14:41:52 -0300
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca>
Subject: Must I keep saying this?
I really hate to do this, but once again snarkiness rears it's ugly head:
>Probably correct. I would not expect any person working for Lindemanns to give
>out all the details. Of course they do produce such a fine product, NOT!
This random bashing of beer is out of place in this forum. If you
want browny points for smearing breweries take it to alt.beer where young
impressionable frosh with their first accounts will be happy to take notes.
____________
Ed Hitchcock ech at ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. |
Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. |
Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________|
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 16:36:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL at AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: More Turbid Bashing
Mike writes:
% Here are a few _guesses_. I'll happily collect votes on which one
% you feel is correct.
%
% You want to extract complex sugars and starches. After heating to 85C
% you have deactivated the various enzymes that would break down the sugars.
% Adding this liquid back to the main mash would then expose it to active
% enzymes. You haven't made it impossble for the enzymes to do their work,
% just more difficult.
I bet originally they did pump the wort back, no they just add more hot water.
Also I think it might not matter alot about the enzymes still being active.
There is so much starch from the raw wheat that a little more conversion is
insignificant. Also Guinard mentions that the enzymes are probably pretty well
attenuated at this temp.
%
% And another guess:
% You don't add it back for 'mash-out' because it would only require more
% sparging of the grain to recover the wort you had. (the wort you
% add back is going to have to filter through the bed and you're going to
% have to wash it out of the grain _again_. this could only increase
% your final volume)
If one is boiling for the "traditional" 5-6 hours volume doesn't matter. But
the mash does get infused with alot of hot water I think because of the poor
extraction and conversion. The brewers wnated to get all the goodies out they
could using the technology and knowledge they had/have.
One of the dissertations from KUL mentions that extraction efficiencies
were/are poor using this technique. There must be a compromise between good
extraction and getting a highly dextrinous wort without spending all day doing
it. I favor step mashing and minimal recirculation and boiling sparge water
and maybe some maltodextrin for the heck off it. Who knows?
%
% Again, all thoughts and comments are welcome. I'm just hypothesizing here.
%
And so am I. :-)
Jim
------------------------------
End of Lambic Digest
************************
-------
