Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2098
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/07/09 PDT
Homebrew Digest Tuesday, 9 July 1996 Number 2098
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Re: starters, conversion at 158F ("Tracy Aquilla")
Roasted Barley/Garnet Color (genitom@nyslgti.gen.ny.us (Michael A. Genito))
Re: rotenone ("Tracy Aquilla")
Enzyme Inhibition (Steve Alexander)
Enzyme references - corrected (Steve Alexander)
HYPERBOLE, watery mild brown ale (George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro))
Too much HBD? (Jeff Renner)
Hop pests/ CO2 jokester (ccoyote@sunrem.com (John (The Coyote) Wyllie))
First Wort Hopping / Cleaning Stove Tops ("Kevin Imel")
salt4sweetness?/flavouring at bottling/skunked cans/iodophor/soap/Morris vs. Fix/Hunter (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Chook Entrail Beer, Efficiency Calcs., MORE Sacc temp stuff ("David R. Burley")
Fermentables (Bill Giffin)
maltose rest/space beer (2)/hop drying/FG (2)/Coopers yeast (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Mash Calculations ("Palmer.John")
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (un)subscribe requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
Send UNSUBSCRIBE requests to homebrew-digest-request@aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE
that if you subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending a
one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
On the web the AHA's web site is http://www.aob.org/aob and "The Brewery"
including the "Cat's Meow" archives is at http://alpha.rollanet.org/.
Information is also available at info@aob.org by e-mail. For other "Cat's
Meow" information send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org.
ARCHIVES:
Archives are available via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu in the
directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer, at http://alpha.rollanet.org on
the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail. The ftp archives can also
be accessed by using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. Send
e-mail to ftpmail@gatekeepter.dec.com for more information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 08:43:00 CDT
Subject: Re: starters, conversion at 158F
In Digest #2092:
"Craig Rode" <craig.rode@sdrc.com> wrote:
>Now on to another question. Like the rest of you, I found a huge increase in
>my beer's quality when I went to liquid yeast. For a starter, I have been
>using standard 22 oz bottles. I boil the bottle, boil the extract, add hot
>water to hot extract, cool, pitch the pouch, and wait 24 hours. Works great.
>However.....
>It occured to me I am adding an extra step. What if I:
>1) Sanitized my carboy
>2) Boiled the extract
>3) Cooled the extract
>4) Dumped that into my carboy
>5) Pitched the yeast
>6) Waited a day, then brewed, and siphoned my cooled wort on top of the
>waiting hungry yeast?
Good idea!
>Isn't the effect a small starter in a large bottle?
Yes.
>Why don't I do it this way? Do you?
I prefer smaller botles as they're easier to handle (eg. decanting and
shaking the starter).
>Would the risk of infection be increased because I can't boil a
>carboy?
Possibly, but if you practice good aseptic technique, this shouldn't present
a significant problem.
>And while we are (or I am) on the subject, how many of you use the sediment
>from your last beer to create a starter for your next beer? How many
>generations would this work?
Indefinitely, if it's handled properly.
>Would the yeast autolyze (er...eat itself) while
>it was waiting in the bottle?
If there's no sugar and lots of yeast cells, it's possible, especially if
the temperature is warm, but autolysis isn't a common problem unless the
yeast is stored without food for a relatively long time (weeks).
>Would it work better if I primed with DME
>instead of corn sugar? Does it matter?
I don't think it makes a significant difference.
In Digest #2093:
"David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>I understand that you think that my comments suggesting that the high
>temperature saccharification time be extended, to people that believe that
>short saccharification times are OK, somehow confuses the picture. Does George
>DePiro's comment, a couple of HBD's ago, that one would get a "barely
>fementable wort" by saccharifying at 158 F, mean anything to you? Is George's
>belief typical of modern day readers of HB books and this HBD?
I don't know if this is typical, but it sure doesn't agree with my
observations. I've made many beers that were mashed by single infusion at
158F for less than one hour. Depending on the malt used, conversion is
usually complete in 30-45 minutes. Typically these beers attenuate to about
65%+ (apparent atten.), depending on other variables. This is a great way to
re-create certain traditional beers, such as Scotch Ales, which some
historian-brewers suspect typically had a final gravity equal to about 1/3
original gravity.
Tracy
------------------------------
From: genitom@nyslgti.gen.ny.us (Michael A. Genito)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 08:47:31 -0400
Subject: Roasted Barley/Garnet Color
I'm doing all grain and would like a recipe for a nice garnet colored beer,
something like a Killian's Red.
Since from what I've read it seems that roasted barley is often used to give
a deep garnet color, does anyone have a temp/time recipe where one can
produce roasted barley from regular 2 row malt? I know I can buy roasted
barley at the brew supply, but I would probably often need only a few ounces
per batch, and it can be a PITA if all the other ingredients are already in
my possession.
Michael A. Genito, City Comptroller
City of Rye, 1051 Boston Post Road, Rye, NY 10580 USA
TEL:(914)967-7302/FAX:(914)967-4604
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 08:56:37 CDT
Subject: Re: rotenone
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 16:36:03 CDT
Subject: Re: rotenone
To: dconger@hal.hscribe.com
In Digest #2096:
David Conger <dconger@hal.hscribe.com> wrote:
in response to the following question:
>>Does anyone know of an
>>organic bug killer that I can use without out making "bug spray beer".
>
>I use a Rotenone/Pyrethrin spray on my hops and tomatoes. Its organic, but
>can not be applied within a week or two of harvest. I also use DE
>(diatomaceous earth) which can be washed off anytime, but which is a powder
>and therefore difficult to apply to the undersides of leaves. DE can be
>applied to the ground to keeps slugs away. Ladybugs are a great way to
>control aphids.
You might already know this and if so I apologize, but FYI rotenone is a very
toxic compound (particularly to fish) and although it's "organic", it isn't
necessarily 'safe', even though a lot of folks seem to see it that way.
Rotenone
is probably the most toxic organic insecticide in common use. It's acute oral
LD50 in rodents is actually lower than that of malathion (i.e. rotenone is MORE
toxic than many synthetics). Did you read the label before using this product?
Is it approved for use on hops to control the pest you identified?
Although I am not currently listed in the ESA directory or the ARPE registry as
a professional entomologist, I would not recommend use of this insecticide by
home gardeners. If you have a pest problem, I suggest first contacting your
county extension agent. Most of their services are paid-for by your taxes
('free') and you'll probably learn something useful to boot. The extension guys
around here actually do hops trials in Vermont and the local brew club picks
and
consumes the cones! They are in a good position to recommend locally-tested
trellis systems, fertilizers, and pest control methods to local hop
home-growers.
I hope you aren't offended by this 'speech'. I'll get off my soap-box now.
Tracy
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:04:32 -0400
Subject: Enzyme Inhibition
Tracy Aquilla writes ...
>In Digest #2090:
>Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com> wrote:
>>I have documentation that maltose competitively inhibits
>>beta-amylase.
>
>I'll bite. Specifically, at what maltose concentration is the rate
>significantly inhibited? I'm also interested in your source.
Springer Verlag Press (1991) edition of 'Enzyme Hanbook' cites three
references regarding maltose and glucose inhibition of beta-amylase
under the EC(Enzyme Committee) 3.2.1.2 entry as:
1) Thoma, Spradlin, Dygert in "The Enzymes", 3rd edition ed:P.D.Boyer)
volume 5, pp 115-189(review).
The good stuff is around pp 181-189 IMO. Access to this dozen+ volume
set is a treat, tho only a few of the volumes are relevent to mashing
& yeast activity.
2) Lizotte, Henson, Duke, 'Plant Physiology', (92), 615-621, 1989
The submission date was 1989, but volume 92 is a 1990 publication.
BTW this is the same Cynthia Henson I mentioned before. This article
studies beta-amylase from peas (pisum sativa) but reports and
references results from other crops including sweet potatoes (a rich
source of beta-amylase!) and grains. The inhibition coefficient K(i)
K-sub-i is around 11.8 milliMol(mM) for peas, and varies around 6mM
for the others crops.
3) Doehlert, Duke, Anderson, 'Plant Physiology' (69), pp 1096-1102, 1982
I don't have easy access to the older P.Physiology volumes.
The Springer-Verlag 'Enzyme Handbook' is a great starting point for
any enzyme research.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:15:10 -0400
Subject: Enzyme references - corrected
Correct citations for articles related to enzymic degradation of
starch granules are:
Z.Sun, C.A.Henson, 'Archives of Biochemistry and Physics', vol 284, No
2, Feb 1, pp 298-305, 1991, 'A Quantatative Assessment of the
Importance of Barley Seed Alpha-Amylase, Beta-Amylase, Debranching
Enzyme and Alpha-Glucosidase in Starch Degradation'.
The other (same authors) Plant Physiology (1990) 94, pp 320-327,
'Degradation of Native Starch Granules by Barley Alpha-Glucosidases'.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:10:31 -0700
Subject: HYPERBOLE, watery mild brown ale
This thread about high-temp mashing is becoming a noose around all of
our necks!
Yes, Al was right in saying that I exaggerated when I said that
mashing at 158F for any length of time would yield a "barely
fermentable wort." I'm prone to hyperbole! It would yield a pretty
sweet beer, though.
Al is correct in saying that experiments done by us have to be taken
for what they are - a guy in the kitchen making a mess! I'm an
analytical chemist by day, so I do things like calibrate my
thermometer (how anal, yeah go ahead and laugh...). Even so, I'm
never precisely sure of my mash temp. because it varies SO greatly
throughout. I've stirred 'till my arm is sore (and I'm in good shape)
and it's still tough to achieve a homogenous temp.
This could easily explain Dave's results.
Can we stop it now? Please!
On another subject, Jim Thomas asks why his mild brown has a somewhat
watery finish (not just a wine tasting term, Jim). My guess would be
the sugar, especially if it's also a bit cidery. The sugar you added
was completely fermentable and contained little in the way of proteins
to increase mouth feel. A mild brown shouldn't be too full, though,
so your beer is probably within the style.
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 11:27:45 -0400
Subject: Too much HBD?
When HBD was limited to ~45K and six days a week, it was somewhat
self-editing. There were sometimes delays of several days, but this may
have weeded some frivolous or long-winded posts from folks with more
time than most of us. And the more of these posts we get, the more
others will think it's OK and then we'll have even more. With immediate
gratification (remember psych 101?) and unlimited (?) expansion
possibilities, we'll be inundated. I don't know about others, but I
can't keep up with the traffic, especially with more than one issue a
day. I don't have that many coffee breaks! I'd sure hate to see HBD go
the way the newsgroup rec.crafts.brewing has. I stopped reading that a
year ago when it went past 100 posts per day; I'll bet it's over 200 and
completely useless for anyone with a life beyond beer and computers.
Shawn or others - any thoughts?
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
------------------------------
From: ccoyote@sunrem.com (John (The Coyote) Wyllie)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:35:11 -0600
Subject: Hop pests/ CO2 jokester
>From: Terry <brew@buffnet.net> www.dnci.com/brewfellow
>I have five varietys of hops growing in my back yard and they are growing
fine except some insects have been munching on them. Does anyone know of an
organic bug killer that I can use without out making "bug spray beer".
* Depending on what is after your hops you can use a number of approaches
without toxifying your hops. My rule of thumb is begin the battle early,
before the burs begin, but once the burs show up, let the bugs battle the
buds. You don't want even gentle debugging solutions on your cones, or
they will probably end up in your beer!
Major pests: grasshoppers, japanese beetles, aphids, spider mites.
There are some organic insecticidal soaps you can spray on the leaves,
especially the lower leaves. Some folks even suggest removing all the
lower leaves so bugs can't get at em. One thing to stay away from is
japanese beetle traps. They are rumored to attract more beetles than they
trap. Give some to your neighbors- friendly gesture dontchaknow.
If you want a homemade remedy- Murphy's Oil soap can be mixed (several
tablespoons to a gallon) and applied with a sprayer. If you wanna get more
severe you can mix up a chewing tobacco stew, blend some hot peppers in a
blender, strain, and dilute. Mix these together and spray away. Be sure
to protect your eyes! Anything that will make the leaves taste bad to the
bugs. BUT....test out a bit first to make sure you're not gonna burn the
plants! A more dilute solution applied more often is better than one
strong solution killing the plants.
Beneficial bugs can also be of...benefit. Lady bugs, preying mantis,
lacewings. You can buy these from local greenhouse/gardening suppliers, or
catalogs. These need to be applied in early spring to have an effect.
Good feeding and watering to keep the plants strong will serve as the best
first line of defense. A healthy plant is tougher to attach,
weakened/stressed plants are more susceptible to disease and pest attack.
Bugs like spider mites (look for yellowing of leaves, small webs on leaves,
later stages even show the mites crawling around- about the size of a
pinhead) don't like water, so a vigourous shower from below can help to
hurt them.
***
>From: James R Myers <James.R.Myers-1@tc.umn.edu>
Atmospheric CO2
>> In HBD 2094, John (The Coyote) Wyllie (ccoyote@sunrem.com) spouted:
>Whereas on earth the second most major gas in the atmosphere is CO2.
>I'm not sure what time period you happen to live in or planet you happen
to live on (Venus?),but lucky for us, you're wrong about CO2 in the here
and now. The last time CO2 approached anything near such
a significant portion of the earth's atmosphere was about 2.5 billion years
ago, ... CO2 currently makes up a measly 0.03% (and apparently rising).
Sorry for the lesson in atmospheric composition, but it seems at least
obliquely relevant to homebrewing.
* Duoooh! I'm so busted! Planet Zorgon will never take me back now!
Well, I sure am glad some people are awake out there! I just had to test
the waters and see what I could get away with these days. Glad to know
some people ARE checking their textbooks and checking up on each other. I
guess my odd approach to humor may not be well understood by you folks
these days. I justed wanted to be sure we weren't letting "speakers" get
away with any false truths they wanted to. Thanks Jim for busting my chop
and falsies! :) Keep it up!
- --------------------------------------------
/// The Cosmic Coyote \\\ ccoyote@sunrem.com
- --------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Kevin Imel" <kimel@moscow.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 08:47:24 +8
Subject: First Wort Hopping / Cleaning Stove Tops
Hi gang!
RE: First wort hopping. Just thought I would add in a data point on
this thread. I recently made a weizen (SG 1.053, FG 1.011, Wyeast
#3333, fermented at a constant 68F) where I used a combination of
first wort hopping and the standard aroma addition at the end of the
boil. I used 0.25 oz of Czk Saaz and American Fuggles for both
additions.
This beer has been in the bottle just over a month now and the hop
flavor is very pronounced. The hop aroma is about what I usually get
using just the aroma hop addition at the end of the boil. The
bitterness (around 25 IBU according to SUDSW using Mt. Hood and
Cascades for bittering) is incredibly smooth without any hint of the
"sharp" character one usually attributes to bitterness.
***********
RE: Cleaning stove tops. Here is the method that I have been using
for my beer and mead boil overs. Soak the stovetop in Formula 409
and pack wet paper towels over the worst spots. Go have a beer,
watch TV, whatever for about 45 minutes. When you remove the towels
the worst of the boilover mess will come with them. If anything is
left over repeat the proceedure. This is a whole lot easier than
getting out the oven cleaners and other nasty stuff.
For those disgusting crusties in the burner pans: First, why didn't
you line the pans with aluminium foil in the first place? However,
you can just soak these off in hot water. I have even boiled them
which also works.
Cheers!
Kevin
___________________________
Kevin Imel
kimel@moscow.com
Palouse, Washinington USA
"The only way to truely fail is to fail to try"
For a copy of my pgp public key send message with subject "SEND PGP KEY"
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 11:16:57 CDT
Subject: salt4sweetness?/flavouring at bottling/skunked cans/iodophor/soap/Morris vs. Fix/Hunter
Michael writes:
> I am in the process of making some rhubarb wine (mmmmmm!!!)... Anyway,
>it's a little bit bitter right now, and I'd like to sweeten it up a
>little. A friend of mine suggested adding salt to sweeten it.... Makes
>sense as salt can be used to sweeten green apples.. Any comments on what
>that will do to the yeast??? I am concerned because I want to make the
>wine sparkly - that means bottling it like beer with priming sugar.
It could be the chloride ions in the salt that may be giving the
impression of increased sweetness or (like another poster said) the
salt could simply be covering up the sourness of the green apple.
Either way, you would need some sweetness there somewhere whether
it is "increased" or just "uncovered." The problem with sweetness
and fruit beers/wines is that the sugars all get eaten up by the yeast.
One option is to kill the yeast before it is done eating all the sugars
(via preservatives or via alcohol, i.e. make it very strong so the yeast
poops out or add alcohol till the yeast dies as in Port wine), but then
you have to force carbonate somehow. You can use lactose (milk sugar, which
is not fermentable by brewer's yeast) if you are very sure about your
sanitation (since many bacteria can cut lactose into fermentable sugars).
***
Tom writes:
>Has anybody had any experience with adding flavored extracts, liquers
>etc. during the bottling stage? I was thinking it might be interesting
>to add some strawberry margherita syrup or something to a couple of six
>packs as I bottle my latest batch of pilsner but I am worried that the
>extra sugar might cause over-carbonation. Any comments or suggestions
>would be welcome.
I've tried several varieties of "100% natural fruit extract" and all the
ones that I've tried have given the beer bitter and/or medicinal flavours.
DON'T use strawberry margarita syrup! It contains sugar and your bottles
will explode! If you wish, you might be able to add it to the fermenter,
wait till it ferments out and then bottle, but you will lose all the
sweetness. You will have to add the sweetness separately (see the my
previous comment).
***
Kirk writes that he got skunky Heineken from a can.
Although light is the most common cause of skunking, there was a post in
HBD a few years ago in which the poster noted that he skunked a case of
beers by overheating them in the trunk of his car. I suspect that those
Heineken cans were overheated and then later cooled down to serving temps.
***
Bill writes:
>Also, can somebody confirm a rumor that it only takes about 5 minutes to
>sanitze glass, plastic, stainless steel in a 12.5 ppm solution of iodophor
>as opposed to a 2 hour soak in a bleach solution?
There was a post a while ago in HBD in which the poster said that most of
the brewing-related bacteria are killed by Iodophor within 15 seconds (I
believe) but that 15 minutes is the standard contact time. 15 minutes is
also the standard contact time for bleach solution. 2 hours is overkill!
***
John writes:
>The greyish powder is either dust or oxide. In either case, wash the keg out
>with a good detergent like dish soap. Something that will rinse clean.
Careful with your choice of words, John... "soap" is bad... "detergent" is
good. Don't use the sudsy liquid dish soap. It will leave a residue that
will kill head retention. I use either Sodium Carbonate (Washing soda) or
Automatic Dishwasher Detergent *without* a drying agent.
***
Keith writes:
>So do any of you have any comments on this? Are people confusing
>stale / carboard flavor with astringency? I obviously respect both
>Rodney's and Dr. Fix's opinions, but at the same time do not
>remember ever hearing the collective mentioning HSA and astringency
>in the same sentence. Was I sleeping in class again?
I don't think that there is any major contradiction between Rodney's and
George's opinions, just a difference of opinion on what's the worst effect
of HSA. Charlie S. recently posted about oxidation of phenols causing
astringency, so yes, Keith, you were sleeping in class ;^).
As for astringency from HSA, I think it may also have a lot to do with how
much of the phenolic compounds you have to oxidise. From personal experience:
I remember my first two batches (because I was recently reviewing my brewing
logbooks). In the first batch, I boiled my crystal malt for the entire 1-hour
boil (bad instructions) AND I aerated hot (HSA). In my second batch, I had
figured out that I shouldn't boil the crystal, but still aerated hot. The
first batch was very astringent (and puckeringly so!). Both batches had
a sherry-like aroma. So, while the HSA may have increased the astringency
of that first batch, I believe that the fact that I had far less phenolic
compounds in my wort, the HSA didn't increase the astringency enough to be
as noticeable as in batch 1. Frankly, at the time (1987), I didn't think
badly of the beers and it wasn't until I started to cool before aerating that
I noticed that distinctive sherry-like aroma.
***
Mike writes:
>Does anyone have experience with the long term reliability of the Hunter
>Airstat temperature controllers, and/or the homemade units?
I have owned four of these Hunter units. Two have worked great for over
three years, one was off by 11 degrees when I bought it and one died (open
circuit... fridge always off) after about two years. I agree with Roger
that those commercial fridge thermostats are probably the most reliable.
***
I've got to say, that Charlie Scandrett's posts are some of the best
information on brewing I've read in a long time.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 09 Jul 96 13:24:01 EDT
Subject: Chook Entrail Beer, Efficiency Calcs., MORE Sacc temp stuff
Brewsters:
Charlie Scrandrett writes ( my paraphrase) in response to my request for an
equation on wort viscosity vs temperature and concentration that instead of
always being too scientific one has to do a little playing by ear in brewing
because so many parameters are involved. He suggests some supernatural
solutions.
What I want to know is, Charlie, are you making chook entrail beer again?
Gregory Guy, sorry I couldn't remember your name before, Thanks for your
posting
on using permeability equations to explain wort flow through a grain bed.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Gray asks for formulas to calculate efficiency of extraction.. I use
Papazian's formulas from "The Homebrewer's Companion" (Avon Pub) pp 40
- -47.(1994) The Basic idea is to determine from your recipe what OG is expected
and compare this with what you actually measured.
Thus:( Actual Original Gravity/ Maximum predicted gravity)X100 = % efficiency
of
extract
Charlie has a table which lists the expected extract of most malts and
adjuncts.
For example, American 6-row malt has an expected maximum extract which will
produce an OG of 1.035 for one pound of malt in a gallon of wort. If you took a
pound of your 6-row American malt and brewed with it in a gallon of wort and
got
an OG of 1.030, than you would have an efficiency of (30/35)X100 or 85%. Note
to do this calculation you have to drop off the 1.0 from in front of the SG
measurements.
If you had 5 gallons of wort and say 10 pounds of this malt ( i.e. 2 pounds of
malt per gallon), your expected OG would be (10/5)X35 = 70 ( i.e. twice what
you
would expect from one pound of malt) and if you only got an OG of 1.030 your
efficiency would be:
Efficiency = (30/70)X100 = 42.8 %
Not very good by most standards. If your efficiency is poor, look at things
like: Is my malt and yeast OK? and are my actual processing conditions OK?
Temperatures, hold times, etc. Are my measurements OK? temp, SG, etc.
In order to be most accurate you should correct your readings on SG to 60F by
using the formula:
T(corr) = 0.00023/ deg F
Thus if you measured your OG at 70F the temp correction to the OG would be :
T(corr) = (70-60) X 0.00023 = + 0.0023 If you had measured your OG to be 1.028
@ 70 it would be 1.030 @ 60F
A brief summary of Pap's Table:
op cit pp. 44-47
MALTS
Light Pale Malts - 1.035 to 1.038
Wheat Malts - 1.037-1.040
Rye - 1.029
Vienna 1.035-1.037
Cara-pils and othe caramel malts,like crystal - 1.033 - 1.037
Black Roasted Malts - 1.023-1.030
Malt Extract -dried 1.045
Malt extract syrup - 1.037
ADJUNCTS - pp.49-51
Barley - 1.030-1.034
Corn/maize - 1.037
Wheat - 1.036
Rice - 1.038
Millet/sorghum 1.037
Rye 1.036
Oats - 1.033
Cane Sugar - 1.046
corn sugar/dextrose 1.037
honey 1.030-1.035
Maple syrup 1.030
molasses 1.036
rice extract 1.034
Hope this helps. Any more details needed can be found in the above reference
- -------------------------------------------------
AlK - Please stop paraphrasing me and what other people have written
paraphrasing me. I think this adds to the confusion, because I think that's all
this is. A misinterpretation of my comments. Go back and read all of my
comments on this subject for yourself. I have said from the beginning that high
temperature saccharifications give higher FG worts etc. I have even said on
more
than one occasion that we all agree on the basics.
PROPERLY CARRIED OUT, saccharifications at higher temperatures will produce a
less fermentable wort than at lower temperatures. That was never the problem.
The problem is when one gets HIGHER THAN EXPECTED FG, one may increase the hold
time during the saccharification step to make sure the beta amylase has done
all
it can do. This is easier to do than changing mash schedules and mash
compositions.
Short saccharification times can lead to higher than expected FG's since the
beta A is not given the chance to convert all the product from the alpha
amylase, particularly at the higher temperatures where the beta amylase
concentration (at any time t) is lower than at the same time t at a lower
temperature and the OVERALL rate of sugar production is lower. The alpha
amylase
products arise faster, because the rate is greater at the higher temperature.
Conceivably, under certain circumstances of mash composition and temperature
schedules all of the starch could be converted, but not all of the
intermediates
converted to sugar at the same time the starch disappears, particularly if the
beta amylase content is low..
IF THIS IS THE CASE, that not all the intermediates from the alpha amylase have
been converted and IF there is still beta amylase around, then holding longer
at
the saccharification temperature WILL give a more fermentable wort ( than if
you
DIDN'T hold longer), since more of the alpha amylase products will have been
converted. A more efficient extraction will result, if the alpha amylase has
more opportunity to attack the starch in the granules. I was warning the HBDer
that the short saccharification times promoted in some popular HB books are not
in line with commercial practice.
Short saccharification times can lead to higher than expected FG, to
inconsistent results and to a low efficiency of extract. This problem is
exacerbated at the higher saccharification temperatures.
Don't try to explain away my results by some fishy, poor stirring theory just
because they don't fit your ideas. Since I use the dilute-with-boiling-water
technique to move through the various temperature stages, the mash is very
fluid
during saccharification and stirring is not a problem, I use a stirrer that I
made from oak flooring with a blade that is approx. 4 inches wide and 8 inches
high cut down at the top to form a handle. I hit the desired temperature
quickly and I hold the kettle in an insulated box built to fit. The
temperature doesn't drop more than about two degrees over the 11/2 hour hold.
My thermometer is calibrated with boiling water and a crushed ice slurry. If
you want all the details, I will provide them. Even though I don't want to
spend
valuable brewing time on this minor point, I guess I will have to think of a
demonstration. If you have any ideas, please let me know.
Although I didn't point this out because it was not directly related to this
issue and it was a decoction mash, in an example for wheat beer I gave last
week, the Saccharification temp was 158-162F and the final OG was typically
1.015.
I never, ever said that holding longer at higher temperature would give the
same
fermentability as holding at lower temperatures. Someone in paraphrasing me
said
it.
Thanks for the tip on 80 cols vs say 60. Maybe this explains why people don't
clip me and choose to paraphrase me. I don't know how to do it with WinCIM
e-mail yet, but I will figure it out.
By the way, I always enjoy reading your excellent comments, too, so don't you (
or other HBDers) think this is some kind of hate battle, I just don't like to
be
mis-quoted, mis-interpreted, etc. I AM frustrated about spending so much time
on this minor subject. On the other hand, if I read your comments correctly,
you, like others, despite my example, find it difficult to believe that a
fermentable wort can be made at the upper end of the saccharification
temperature range. Maybe it is worthwhile to explore this a little. OK, I'll
try to prepare an example so we can all understand it and believe it based on
real facts.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
From: Bill Giffin <billg@maine.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 13:24:24 -0500
Subject: Fermentables
Good afternoon,
The to do between Dave B and Al K is just a bit much.
Al is correct about the temperatures for scarification. I doubt that not
much of any enzymes were left in Dave's mash tun at 158 F for an hour
and a half. But Dave used six row American malt in his beer, which has
enough enzymes to have completed the scarification even before the
mash reached 158 F.
Dave holding the mash at the temp. you did in my opinion didn't do
anything for the beer. Your apparent antenuation is due to the fact that
you had enough fermentations before you kept the mash at 158 F not
due to the wonderful analyses of Al about why it got there.
Bill
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 12:36:54 CDT
Subject: maltose rest/space beer (2)/hop drying/FG (2)/Coopers yeast
Dave writes:
>So, I interpret this to mean
>that a maltose rest and a sacharification are not the same thing, and that his
>definitions are in line with convention
>
>So, I'm puzzled. What is a maltose rest for? Any thoughts on this? Why is it
>called a *maltose* rest? Does it have anything to do with the wheat malt
>gelatinization temperature? I know rice has a much higher gelatinization
>temperature than barley, but what about wheat?
"Maltose rest" sounds like a new convention to me, but it's clearly a rest
at the low end of the amylase range in which the beta-amylase is allowed to
create some maltose. I don't know what geletinization has to do with anything.
Maltose is the primary thing created by beta-amylase. It is 100% fermentable
and therefore increasing maltose content increases fermentability.
***
The Coyote writes:
>Oh, Al. You've done it again. First you admit you never took Organic
>Chemisty, now you've demonstrated you haven't taken physical chem either.
Sorry Coyote, pChem has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but
you're right, I didn't take it. I looked at a friend's pChem textbook
and decided that I don't ever want to take it!
>* The bubbles do not rise because of gravity, but rather buoancy, ok
>so gravity might be involved.... But that aside, the real activity is a
>matter of gas exiting a liquid, gas exchange. This is due to partial
>pressure differences. Assuming you could contain a vessel of fermenting
>fluid in space, and come up with a "air-less" lock, you would find even
This is physics, not pChem... and I've had physics. Bubbles do, in fact,
rise due to gravity (the lighter gas rises above the heavier liquid) but
the problem with zero-gravity is that once the CO2 comes out of solution,
it does not have a place to go to. Since there is no gravity, there is no
"up." My guess would be that bubbles would coalesce into larger bubbles
as they come out of solution because of surface tension, but they would
just float around in the fermenting beer with no place to go. Yes,
eventually they would probably meet into one or several large bubbles
which, if you had some kind of probe you could "pierce" the bubble and
allow the CO2 to escape. Incidentally, it is not anything like osmosis
that causes CO2 to leave the beer but CO2 solubility in the beer.
***
George writes:
>It would seem to me that the best way to dry hops would be to use a food
>dehydrator.
I've used one, but you must rotate the trays often so the bottom trays'
hops don't over-cook and check them often. I did it for 8 hours and
it was too long. The hops seemed to be basically baked... far too crisp.
According to DeClerck (p.58), the avg moisture content of just-picked hops
is 75%. They should be dried to about 12-13% moisture quickly after
picking. The drying temp should not exceed 50C. Therefore, you want
to take some of your hops put them in a mesh bag, weigh them, subtract the
weight of the bag and then dry all the hops (including the small sample)
until your sample has lost 63% of it's weight.
***
Mark writes:
>I have read that the longer you hold the temperature during the mash the lower
>the FG will be. Is this True???
No Dave, I didn't put Mark up to this. See my post from yesterday on
fermentability. A high fermentability means a low FG, a low fermentability
means high FG. If you want a high FG, make sure your mash spends very little
time below 156F or so and mash for about an hour at 158F. If you want
a low FG, mash for about 1.5 to 2 hours at 149F and make sure you don't
overshoot this temperature or you will denature ("kill") some of the beta-
amylase that you need to get a fermentable (low FG) wort.
***
Andy writes:
>Do *not* use the packet Coopers yeast
>as it is actually the Maori Foods ale yeast in disguise. Drinking beer made
>from this yeast will render the punter incapable of pronouncing the vowel 'i'.
I've brewed with and tasted some very good beer made with this yeast. I don't
think it's fair to compleatly slam this yeast. Incidentally, these gold,
metallic Coopers yeast packages were the first ones in the US to have "Best
Before" dates on them. It may not be the yeast that Coopers uses, but it's
a good yeast, in my opinion.
***
Dan writes:
>1. Space Beer. The release of CO2 should not be a problem.
>A gas permeable membrane could keep the fermenting wort in
>an enclosed space while releasing the gas. A microgravity
>fermentation lock is easy. A ball attached to an elastic cord is the
>simplest I can think of.<snip>
Check the diffusion rates through semi-permiable membranes and the rate
of production of CO2 during fermentation. I am quite sure that they
would be at least an order of magnitude off, maybe two or three. In
a microgravity, there is the possibility that there would be enough
gravity so that the CO2 would all pool at one end of the fermenter
where you could draw it off with your fermentation lock, but judging
from the way that things float around the cabin of the Shuttle, my
guess would be that there would be no predicting where in the fermenter
the CO2 bubble would pool... quite possibly in the middle. Your
airlock would be spewing beer, not CO2.
Yeast flocculation would be an another problem, wouldn't you say?
An artificial gravity is needed... believe me!
***
Dave writes:
>As a result IF you are using very short saccharification times AND you are
>experiencing high OG's like 1.020 and up, chances are lengthening the
>saccharification time to an hour or longer will do two things 1) increase
>efficiency of the extraction of fermentables 2) decrease the FG. The
>probability
>that you will be having this trouble increases at the higher saccharification
>temperatures.
Probability of high FG is the wrong way to look at it. If you are mashing
at 158F, increasing the saccharification time will NOT decrease the FG!
An hour at 158F makes wort of the same fermentability (FG) as two hours
at 158F. If you have been mashing for only 10 minutes then your problem
will be starch haze AND poor extract efficiency. High FG will be the
least of your worries.
> In my original comment, I felt that because of the complexities outlined
>above
>that it was far easier to hold longer at the chosen (by the HBDer)
>saccharification temperature as a first step to solving a high OG problem than
>to mess around with temperature and wort composition as some contributors
>suggested.
You introduced the concept of short saccharification times later in the
discussion not at the beginning. The back issues of HBD are proof. Your
original comment said nothing about complexities and if you will please
review the back issues, Jim and I are the ones posting the simple relationship
between mash temperature and fermentability whereas you are adding the
complexity and incorrectly at that.
Your original comment was that to increase fermentability and lower FG a
brewer needs to increase mash time. This is only partly correct. It is
*only* true if the brewer is mashing at the lower half (let's say) of the
amylase range and *only* if they are mashing a very short time. It is
DEAD WRONG if the brewer is doing a single-step infusion at 158F. This is
what Jim said, this is what I said and this is what several others have also
confirmed including references to books by Fix and Hough et al.
What do you want me to do? Should I get a sound byte from Pierre Celis
or Jean-Pierre Van Roy on this and put it on a Web page? What do you need
to believe that mash temperature and not time determine fermentability?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Date: 9 Jul 1996 10:47:17 U
Subject: Mash Calculations
The following is text taken from my forthcoming book, How to Brew Your First
Beer. As with all material posted to this digest, it is copyrighted by the
posting author, but in this case especially. 'nough said.
To calculate your Mash efficiency you need to understand where the numbers are
coming from. The "formulas" using the numbers are very basic. The table below
lists average Yield data for various malts.
PPG = Points per Pound per Gallon ie. the change in specific gravity on a
hydrometer for one pound of a crushed malt mashed in a gallon of water.
Table 4 - Nominal Malt Yields in Points/Pound/Gallon
Malt Type % Yield PPG Max PPG(85%) PPG Steep
2 Row Base Malt 79 37 31 --
6 Row Base Malt 76 35 30 --
2 Row British Pale Malt 81 38 32 --
Biscuit/Victory Malt 75 35 30 --
Vienna Malt 75 35 30 --
Munich Malt 75 35 30 --
Brown Malt 70 32 28 8*
Dextrin Malt 70 32 28 4*
Light Crystal (10 - 15L) 75 35 30 14*
Pale Crystal (25 - 40L) 74 34 29 22
Medium Crystal (60 - 75L) 74 34 29 18
Dark Crystal (120L) 72 33 28 16
Special B 68 31 27 16
Chocolate Malt 60 28 24 15
Roast Barley 55 25 22 21
Black Patent Malt 55 25 22 21
Wheat Malt 79 37 31 --
Rye Malt 63 29 25 --
Oatmeal (Flaked) 70 32 28 --
Corn (Flaked) 84 39 33 --
Barley (Flaked) 70 32 28 --
Wheat (Flaked) 77 36 30 --
Rice (Flaked) 82 38 32 --
Malto - Dextrin Powder 100 40 (40) (40)
Sugar (Corn, Cane) 100 46 (46) (46)
Malt % Yield data obtained and averaged from several sources.
Steeping data is experimental and was obtained by steeping 1 lb in 1 gal at
160F for 30 minutes. All malts were crushed in a 2 roller mill at the same
setting.
* The low extraction from steeping is attributed to unconverted, insoluble
starches as revealed by an iodine test.
Extraction and Maximum Yield
All of these different grains can be used to produce the sugars that
make up the wort. Malt extract is simply a concentrated and/or
dehydrated wort. Each grain previously mentioned will yield a nominal
amount of fermentable and non-fermentable sugars that is referred to as it's
Percent Extraction. This number is the theoretical maximum yield and ranges
from 50 - 80% by weight, with some wheat malts hitting as high as 85%. Pure
sugar (sucrose) is used as the baseline because it yields 100% of its weight
as extract when dissolved in water. One pound of sugar will yield a specific
gravity of 1.046 when dissolved in 1 gallon of water. To calculate the
theoretical maximum yield for the malts and other adjuncts, the percent
extraction is multiplied by the reference number for sucrose (actually 46.31
pts/lb/gal). The nominal maximum yields for the malts are listed in Table 4.
For those of you working in metric units (Pts / Kg/ Liter) the conversion
factor between units is: 1 PKgL = 8.345 PPG.
Extract Efficiency and Actual Yield
The theoretical maximum is just that, a value you might get if all the
variables for extraction lined up and 100% of the starches where converted
to sugars. But most brewers, even commercial brewers, don't get that value.
Most brewers will approach 80 - 90% of the maximum yield and this is referred
to as a brewer's extract efficiency. The extract efficiency is very dependent
on the mash conditions and the lautering system. This will be discussed
further in the chapters to follow. For the purpose of our discussion of
extract potential for the various malts and adjuncts, we will assume an
extract efficiency of 85%, which is considered to be very good for homebrewers.
A few points less yield (80 or 75% extraction efficiency), is still considered
to be good extraction. A large commercial brewery would see the 10% reduction
as significant because they are using thousands of pounds of grain a month.
For a homebrewer, adding 10% more grain per batch to make up for the
difference in extraction is a pittance.
For a sample batch, a Porter, an anticipated OG using 85% Efficiency, for 6
gallons collected, would be calculated:
Porter Malts OG based on PPG (85%)
9 lbs of 2 Row 31 x 9 / 6 = 46.5
.5 lb of Chocolate Malt 24 x .5 / 6 = 2
.5 lb of Crystal 60 29 x .5 / 6 = 2.4
.5 lb of Dextrin malt 28 x .5 / 6 = 2.3
.25 lb of Black Patent 22 x .25 / 6 = .9
So, for 6 gallons of wort collected, based on 85% efficiency, you would expect
to get a grand total of 53.1 points or 1.053 specific gravity. I should also
point out that this is not Fermentation OG we are talking about, but Extraction
OG. During the boil the OG will change by a ratio of 6/5 of 53 = 1.063,
assuming that it boils down to exactly 5 gallons. Obviously, the tenths of
points included in the above calculation are not significant. But they do give
a better total to be shooting for.
In summary, when brewers talk about their Extraction and quote a number like 30
ppg, they are referring to the average of their malts potential versus the
amount of wort they collected. In the above example, the total pounds of malt
used is 10.75 and the total volume of wort collected is 6 gallons. If the
hydrometer gave a reading of, say, 1.050, then the brewers overall extraction
would be
50 x 6 / 10.75 = 27.9 or 28 ppg. Which is good, if not great. 30 ppg is
basically what everyone shoots for.
That should about cover it. This is an excerpt with extra text thrown in for
explanation of other text not included.
John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-ISS M&P
johnj@primenet.com Huntington Beach, California
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2098
****************************
