Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3235
HOMEBREW Digest #3235 Sat 29 January 2000
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Re: Extraction Efficiency Formula (patrick finerty)
Re: Stuck Sparge with EM (patrick finerty)
Brewers response (erniebaker)
Mash Hopping (Nathan Kanous)
All-Grain Brewing, Caustic, Practical Brewing, Etc. ("Steven J. Owens")
Re: 5 yr old homebrew found (VQuante)
Re: Germany Beer Tour (VQuante)
Re: wyeast kolsch 2565 off-flavor (VQuante)
raising mash pH/ FWH/ stir plates/ choc malt ("Alan Meeker")
RTQ, mash pH (Dave Burley)
Mash Effficiency and Yield (long) (John Palmer)
Micorwave Bombs ("Jack Schmidling")
Kegging (LOneill953)
storage and use of cracked grains (Warandle1)
practical brewer ("Darren Robey")
Online Brewing Courses (phil sides jr)
Troy's Water ("A. J. deLange")
re: Efficiency vs.Yield (Tony Barnsley)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:47:45 -0500 (EST)
From: patrick finerty <zinc@zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Extraction Efficiency Formula
here's a little perl script i wrote some time ago to do the
effieciency and pts*gal/lb calculations. i'd be interested in hearing if
people think my numbers are wrong. oh, no comments on my coding style,
or lack thereof, i'm a biochemist after all!
=======================
#!/usr/bin/perl
eval 'exec perl -S $0 ${1+"$@"}'
if 0;
#-----------------------------
# constants:
#
# GRAIN pt/lb
#
# 2 Row 35
# wheat malt 38
# crystal malt 24
# chocolate malt 24
#
#-----------------------------
print"lbs of 2 row: ";
$row=<>;
print"lbs of crystal malt: ";
$crystal=<>;
print"lbs of wheat malt: ";
$wheat=<>;
print"lbs of choc malt: ";
$chocolate=<>;
#
print"S.G. reading: ";
$sg=<>;
print"volume in gal: ";
$vol=<>;
#
# calculate the total weight
$total_weight = $row + $crystal + $wheat + $chocolate;
#
# calculate the total pts
$total_pts = ($row * 35 ) + ($crystal * 24) + ($wheat * 38) + ($chocolate * 24);
#
# calculate the extraction efficiency
#
$extract_effic = (100* ($sg / ($total_pts / $vol) ) );
#
$pts_gal_lb = (($sg * $vol) / $total_weight);
#
print " \n";
printf "extract efficiency = %4.2f%\n\npts*gal/lb = %4.2f \n
28 is good, 31 is great \n", $extract_effic, $pts_gal_lb;
=======================
On January 25, 2000, Andrew Nix wrote:
> I checked the archives first (for the last 3-4 years at least) and was
> wondering if someone might be able to send me the simplified formula for
> calculating potential OG based on certain types of malts. Last year,
> someone sent me this and I cannot find it. It was really simply, with
> values for pale malt, specialty malts, etc.
- --
"There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer
finger pfinerty@nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key
http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:52:09 -0500 (EST)
From: patrick finerty <zinc@zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Stuck Sparge with EM
On January 25, 2000, Jack Schmidling wrote:
> There is absolutely no point in trying to get crystal clear wort as
> subsequent process steps will clarify the beer. This is
> particularly important when doing an infusion mash with no ability
> to add heat. By the time you get clear wort, it is too cold for a
> proper mash.
i don't know if i agree with this statement. it is likely that the
particulate matter in the runoff contains parts of grain husks and
boiling this material will extract tannins from it. this gives the
resulting beer an unpleasant astringent quality.
personally, i recirc until the wort becomes as clear as i can get it
in a reasonable amount of time. some times this is 15-20 minutes,
other times it's longer.
also, it is possible to add heat when doing an infusion mash. i just
have the H2O in the HLT at ~170-180.
-patrick in toronto
- --
"There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer
finger pfinerty@nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key
http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:16:47 -0800 (PST)
From: erniebaker@webtv.net
Subject: Brewers response
Here in 29 Palms,CA there are no homebrew clubs and the nearest Supply
store is about 90-100 miles away. So I depend a lot on this digest for
info.
On 19 Jan. i requested help in adjusting the corona mill, i received 11
responses to my request, so i went from knowing nothing to almost an
expert. i would like to thank the following for their concern: Jeremy
Bergsman, Scott Vliek, George Hummel, Bill Riel, Jim Booth, Dave
Hinrichs, Sean Richens, Dr. Dana Edgell, Bill Frazier,Bob Sheck and
George McNally. Believe me I understand the mill now. Thanks folks, its
people like you that make the "Digest" work.
Ernie Baker
29 Palms, CA
Happy Brewing
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:54:45 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Mash Hopping
Don't quote me, but I think that the Kalamazoo Brewery puts hops into the
mash for it's Two Hearted Ale. I don't recall where I heard this, but when
I lived in K-zoo, I spent enough time with the guys that worked there, I
may have heard it from them. Just a thought.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:10:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: All-Grain Brewing, Caustic, Practical Brewing, Etc.
Okay, one last try. The first version I sent of this got bounced
for some of the lines being too long, and the second version got
misdirected to homebrew-request, so here's try number three.
Brent Ritchie (Suds2468@aol.com) writes:
> Just when you thought it was safe to read HBD you see someone dredging
> up the topic of whether it's okay to use caustic as a sanitizer.
A year or two ago I talked to the brewmaster at a recently
opened brewpub in the Pittburgh area and got a personal tour of the
facilities and Q&A. Nice folks. But he'd never done any kind of
homebrewing, all of his experience was with larger, commercial
brewers, so some of my questions just elicited shrugs. When I asked
him what the biggest pain - and expense - of brewing was, he answered
"probably the same as you homebrew guys, cleaning." He said they used
"caustic" but he had no idea offhand what was in it.
So what the heck *is* "caustic" anyway?
"Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com> writes:
> Pondering in Pittsburgh,
> Del
Is that Del from Triangle Homebrew?
Good to see you here. I'm about due to make another supply run
to your shop (my brewing activities have been slow lately). A
heretofore unsuspected-of-brewing friend spotted me reading Papazian's
_Homebrewers Companion_ the other night and told me he'd brewed one
batch so far, he got the stuff in a kit at "some shop". When I
pressed him for details, he decribed a typically Del-like response,
"Kit? Sure I can sell you a kit. You'll need one of those, one of
those, one of these..." :-).
I'm going to introduce him to dark sleep stout tonight.
"Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy@yahoo.com> writes:
> I've started the arduously slow process of downloading the Practical
> Brewer (see http://www.mbaa.com/membonly/publication/pdf.html ) I am
> guessing that many of you are doing the same, since the best I can get is
> just over 1 Kbyte/s. (I have a lightly loaded 112k ISDN at the office, so I
> suspect the bottleneck is at the mbaa site.)
> Can someone with good bandwidth post the pdf's on their site and let the
> rest of us know? (Would that be illegal?)
If you figure the legality out, let me know and I'll gzip up the
copy I have downloaded and put it somewhere you can get it.
Meanwhile, for those of us with access to a networked Unix shell
account, try something along these lines. First, do "which lynx" to
see if you have lynx (a text-only web browser) installed on your
system. If you do, make a file named "fetchbeer.sh" and put the
following in it (not counting the dashed lines):
The original post had the actual URLs for the Practical Brewing
pdf files, but the list processor decided they were too long, so I've
left them out here.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
lynx -source -dump http://yadda.yadda.com/yadda/yadda/yadday.pdf > yadda.pdf
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
The main URL is http://www.mbaa.com/membonly/publication/download/
Under that the files are:
contents.pdf
Intro.pdf
Ch01.pdf
...
Ch21.pdf
Appendix.pdf
Index.pdf
Then make it executable by chmodding it, put it in a subdirectory
named something like "beermanual" and execute it. This will start up
about 25 processes at once, all running in background, fetching the
documents and dumping them into files. The total files fetched will
take up about 150 megabytes. You might want to do it when both the
network and the Unix system you're using will probably be lightly
loaded, like later at night on the eastern seaboard. Now you can
mass-download them normally from there to your PC.
I deliberately did not include excruciating amounts of detail in
the above. If you can't figure it out on your own from the above
information, you're probably better off not doing this by yourself -
find Unix-savvy friend to help you.
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:23:45 EST
From: VQuante@aol.com
Subject: Re: 5 yr old homebrew found
In einer eMail vom 25.01.00 06:11:12 (MEZ) Mitteleuropaeische Zeit schreibt
"MAS, JOHN C. [FND/1820]" <john.c.mas@chi.monsanto.com>:
> In cleaning out my basement, I found about 9 bottles
> from my first batch of homebrew. Will it still be drinkable??
Hi, John,
it doesn't matter, that these bottles are already five years old. But
much more to worry about: They are from your FIRST BATCH of
homebrew... ;-)
But serious: My personal record up to now is two year old
homebrew, it wasn't a barley wine, but a simple wheat / weizen,
and still was very fine!
Volker
Volker R. Quante
Brunnenbraeu Homebrewery
Brewing and working in Warsaw / Poland, but definitely a German Homebrewer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:43:47 EST
From: VQuante@aol.com
Subject: Re: Germany Beer Tour
In einer eMail vom 25.01.00 06:11:12 (MEZ) Mitteleuropaeische Zeit schreibt
"Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox@cmsenergy.com>:
> The Preliminary Route is to fly into Frankfurt 1 April, drive to
> a friends in Stutgartt, then to Munich, Budvar, Prauge, Pilsen,
> long trip to Dortmund (via Berlin?), Dusseldorf, Koln, and back
> to Frankfurt to fly home 8 April.
Uff! Are you sure, Phil, that you'll survive that???
If you happen to be in Cologne, I would recommend to go to all the
original brewhouses in the inner city area as well as to the small pubs
along the Rheinufer on the western banks of the Rhine. Everywhere,
really everywhere, you'll find very good koelsch.
Near the Barbarossaplatz, in the street "Am Weidenbach 24" you'll
find a brewpub, which produces good wheat / weizen beer and koelsch,
it's always worth a visit.
Not far from the "Alter Markt" you'll find the Paeffgen-Brewery, also a
good brewpub, which produces the best koelsch in the city!
And, my last proposition: On the other side of the Rhine - east - there's
a very special pub, very famous, because there was no renovation during
the last 50 years, it looks a little dirty, even destroyed, but it's very,
very
famous, and the koelsch people like this pub. It's called Lommerzheim,
or "beim Lommi", and it's in the "Siegesstrasse 18 ". If you look at it, you
won't believe, that it is still busy, but that's part of its image...
Have fun! And greetings to the city, in which I spent some great weekends...
Volker
Volker R. Quante
Brunnenbraeu Homebrewery
Brewing and working in Warsaw / Poland, but definitely a German Homebrewer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:43:45 EST
From: VQuante@aol.com
Subject: Re: wyeast kolsch 2565 off-flavor
In einer eMail vom 25.01.00 06:11:12 (MEZ) Mitteleuropaeische Zeit
schreibt "Dan and Kim Lyga" <lygas@snet.net>:
> I was wondering if any has encountered any off flavors when
> using Wyeast kolsch 2565. When I racked the beer into the
> secondary, and even after tasting the beer a week after bottling, it
> had a distinctive mineral, almost medicinal, taste that seems to
> linger. I fermented in the mid-to-upper 60s and did not notice any
> obvious quirks.
Hi, Dan,
I used the above mentioned yeast several times, fermented at
18 C, and during fermentation the yeast developped a very
fruity flavour, reminding me of strawberries. Very intensive!
During secondary it was less intensive, and in the bottles only
a weak, fruity taste is left - which is, by the way, typical for
original koelsch (I was living Cologne for some years and know
nearly all original (!) koelsch beers).
But don't lose hope! My beers brewed with wyeast #2565 aged
nearly perfectly - the beer became crystal clear and very smooth
after about three or four months in the cellar at about 12 to 15 C.
Good luck!
Volker
Volker R. Quante
Brunnenbraeu Homebrewery
Brewing and working in Warsaw / Poland, but definitely a German Homebrewer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:47:56 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: raising mash pH/ FWH/ stir plates/ choc malt
Troy Hager asked about raising the mash pH:
>In the past I have thought my water produces a fairly acidic mash but I
>haven't been too concerned about it. I have always read that being on the
>acidic side of optimum (5.3-5.5) is much better than being on the basic
>side.
As far as pH optima go people are usually referring to the pH optima of the
starch-degrading amylase enzymes of which there are two main types in barley
malt - alpha and beta. The issue is a bit complicated. For instance, the
presence of calcium can have a very large effect on enzyme stability
effectively broadening the range pH over which these enzymes are highly
active. Also, the two types of amylases exhibit differences in their
temperature stabilities and pH stabilities (beta is much more stable than
alpha at lower pH, a fact that was used to help purify beta amylase away
from contaminating alpha amylase). The concentration of substrate also has
an effect (more substrate = protective) so mash thickness will have an
effect as well. From various sources that I have read it looks like a decent
pH to shoot for is 5.3 (+/- 0.2 pH units). This will give a good balance
between the pH optima of the two amylases. All the pH/activity graphs I have
seen show that the optimal pH is in fact broad enough that if you're off by
a few tenths of a pH unit it wont have major effects on the enzymes'
efficiencies and this will be especially true if there is sufficient free
calcium available in the mash.
I too have compared the ColorpHast pH strips to the meter in my lab and the
papers consistently came to within 0.1 pH units of the meter value so I am
pretty comfortable using these to measure mash pH.
You're water does look fairly soft, much like the water here in Baltimore. I
don't understand why it came out of the tap with such a low pH. My water
here usually clocks in around pH = 8 or so out of the tap.
You're test mash started off "around 5" but what was it exactly? If it was
in the low 5's then it was probably fine and didn't require any pH
adjustment. The value of 4.4 seems way low and didn't agree with your other
measurement so something is a little screwy here...
You started adding chalk to raise the pH, getting a very small increase
after adding quite a bit of chalk. Chalk can be quite insoluble and the fact
that your mash looked "chalky" seems to indicate that much of the added
chalk didn't actually make it into solution.
For pale malts the ultimate mash pH that gets set is primarily the result of
a reaction between free calcium and malt phosphates which liberate hydrogen
ions (lowers pH). This phosphate buffering system is what you are working
against in trying to increase the pH of the mash. I would try your
experiment again but first treat the water by adding calcium (either gypsum
or CaCl2) and then boiling it prior to use. This will eliminate much of the
carbonate, will raise the starting pH of the water, and will supply free
calcium for the mash. See what results you get with this treatment.
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Cavan commented on FWH:
>...The point they raise is that the
>oils, which are responsible for flavour and aroma, react better at a
>lower temperature and high pH than one finds during the boil. I think
>150F was mentioned as a good temp
I'm still a bit confused by the whole FWH concept. For this proposed
mechanism what is meant by "react better?" Somehow the hop oils have to be
changed in a fundamentally different way in FWH vs later additions and these
changes must result in compounds that survive the wort boil and the
fermentation to end up making a real (perceptible) difference in the final
beer. Supposedly there is at least one study out there showing that the
/spectrum/ of hop oil compounds is in fact different between the two
methods. Documented cases of taste test results in which FWH beers are
consistently judged better have been cited in various sources so it does
seem like a real phenomenon though the work to date seems to have focused on
lighter lagers...
- --------------------------------------------------
Stir bars and aeration:
>A stir bar obviously would be better at stirring than bubbles but I think
>it would be poor for aeration. While the stir bar agitation would dissolve
>oxygen from the air inside the jar, it seems to me that that would get
>depleted rather quickly.
Actually gas diffusion is such a powerful effect that the yeast will get
plenty of oxygen as long as the container is not tightly closed. Two nice
examples of this: first, I often grow my starters from a few single yeast
colonies off an agar plate putting them directly into a liter of nutrient
medium. The starter quickly grows to saturation and this could not happen
without oxygen getting to the yeast which would otherwise be limited to only
about 4 generations of growth. Second, you can grow yeast using a stir plate
in a synthetic medium containing food that can /only/ be used by aerobic
respiration. If these yeast ran out of oxygen they could not grow at all,
yet they grow up just fine. Three things you can do to help maximize
aeration include 1) have as large a surface-to-volume ratio as you can in
the starter. 2) have a large opening in the container. 3) do not close off
the opening any more than is necessary to prevent contamination.
- -------------------------------------------
Roger Ayotte asked about choc malt use: Roger, I've tried both ways -
including it in the grist and adding late in the mash but I haven't noticed
too much of a difference in the end results. Adding at the end of the mash
requires that you add a little more choc for the same effect so I've just
gone to always including it in the grist itself. I have noticed that a
little choc does indeed go a long way - it's easy to overdo it!
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:51:22 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: RTQ, mash pH
Brewsters:
Alan Meeker chooses to continue his
misquoting and singling me out for comment
for reasons only he can know.
I doubt I ever even implied that alcohol
wasn't a major contributor to calories,
as you suggest in your comment, just
that alcohol is not a carbohydrate.
I hope that chemistry isn't too complex.
No doubt the subject of "mouthfeel"
and subjectveness of same are
complex and even personal subjects
as I said in one of my first comments
on this.
I didn't say dextrins don't contribute
to mouthfeel without support,
experts say they don't.
Both Paul Smith and I referred to
M&BS' comment on p 840 vol 2 ed 2
"Viscosity measurement has been
suggested as a method for assessing
this property ( palate fullness - DRB)
but little data is available for evaluation.
On page 811( op cit):
"The viscosity of the beer can be a
useful figure reflecting the content and
degradation states of various contributory
factors, such as beta glucans, derived
from the wort."
Now in the sense that I provided quotes
from M&BS that beta glucans contribute to
palate fullness, one could assume that
viscosity could be a potentially useful
measure to determine palate fullness.
This is consistent with M&BS comment
about viscosity. It seems intuitively obvious
but no data exists ( or didn't when the text
was written). Still dextrins are nowhere
considered as a substantial contributor
to viscosity or palate fullness that I can find.
On a weight % basis the low molecular
weight nature of dextrins would mean
their contribution would be low compared
to the much higher molecular weight of
some of the beta glucans and soluble
proteins. Question is what % are the
beta glucans and proteins versus the
dextrins? Apparently, even though the
dextrins are probably higher on a percent
basis, the dextrins are outweighed by
other contributory factors as M&BS
implies in the quote I provided the
other day in which dextrins were said
to contribute to nothing more than the
caloric content of the beer.
No one, including Alan, has been able
to provide a quote which supports the
contention that dextrins contribute
susbtantially to palate fullness.
- ---------------------------------
Troy Hager, your problem is that you
subtracted 0.3 from the pH, when the
guideline figures 5.2-5.5 refers to the
pH of the mash measured cool as
you did. Don't subtract anything.
Only thing I could see that might be
a slight ( but not really) problem is the
alkalinity. Try boiling and cooling your
water. Do a mash study after you decant
in case the analysis is incorrect.
Personally, I think your water seems just
fine as is, if the analysis is correct. As
you indicated, adding excessive
quantities of chalk will ruin your beer
and is not needed.
Remember that each pH unit is a factor
of 10 and that you will have to add ten
times as much chalk to move from
5 to 6 as from 6 to 7, barring buffering
phenomena. Bicarbonate and other
malt acids provide buffering and make
the pH even harder to move with
additions.
You indicated you added crystal and
Vienna malt, but didn't give exact amounts
of each only that the sum was 1 pound
with two pounds of pale malt. Large
percentages of dark crystal could have
dropped the pH quite a lot with water as low in
dissolved solids as you indicated.
Trust that, except for very
unusual water supplies, the mash will
come into the correct range
automatically. Don't worry....
- -------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:27:21 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Mash Effficiency and Yield (long)
The following is an excerpt from my book. Which is still not done yet. But
will be soon. I will post when it is available. Should be next month. :-}
John
Extraction and Maximum Yield
All of these grains can be used to produce the fermentable sugars that make
up the wort. But to brew the same beer recipe consistently, we need to be
able to quantify how much yield we can expect from each type of grain. Under
laboratory conditions, each grain will yield a typical amount of fermentable
and non-fermentable sugars that is referred to as its percent extraction or
maximum yield. This number ranges from 50 - 80% by weight, with some wheat
malts hitting as high as 85%. This means that 80% (for example) of the
malt's weight is soluble in the laboratory mash. (The other 20% represents
the husk and insoluble starches.) In the real world, we brewers will never
hit this target, but it is useful for comparison.
The reference for comparison is pure sugar (sucrose) because it yields
100% of its weight as soluble 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 maximum yield for the malts and other
adjuncts, the percent extraction for each is multiplied by the reference
number for sucrose-46 points/pound/gallon (ppg).
For example, let's look at a typical pilsner base malt. Most light base
malts have a maximum yield of 80% by weight of soluble materials. So, if
we know that sugar will yield 100% of its weight as soluble sugar and that
it raises the gravity of the wort by 46 ppg, then the maximum increase in
gravity we can expect from pilsner base malt, at 80% solubility, is 80% of
46 or 37 ppg.
The typical maximum yields for the malts are listed in Table 9. You may be
wondering how useful the maximum yield number of a malt can be if you can
never expect to hit it. The answer is to apply a scaling factor to the
maximum yield and derive a number we will usually achieve - a typical
yield.
Extract Efficiency and Typical Yield
The maximum yield is just that, a value you might get if all the mash
variables (e.g. pH, temperature, time, viscosity, grind, phase of the
moon, etc.) lined up and 100% of the starches where converted to sugars.
But most brewers, even commercial brewers, don't get that value in their
mashes. Most brewers will approach 80 - 90% of the maximum yield (i.e. 90%
of the maximum 80%). This percentage is referred to as a brewer's extract
efficiency and the resulting yield is the typical yield from our mash. The
extract efficiency is dependent on the mash conditions and the lautering
system. This will be discussed further in the chapters to follow: Chapter
13 - What is Mashing? and Chapter 14 - The Methods of Mashing.
For the purposes of our discussion of the typical yields 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 (i.e.
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 day. For
a homebrewer, adding 10% more grain per batch to make up for the
difference in extraction is a pittance.
Table 9 - Typical Malt Yields in Points/Pound/Gallon
Max. Max. Typical PPG
Malt Type Yield PPG PPG (85%) Steep
2 Row Lager Malt 80 37 31 --
6 Row Base Malt 76 35 30 --
2 Row Pale Ale 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 (15L) 75 35 30 14*
Pale Crystal (40L) 74 34 29 22
Medium Crystal (60L) 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-DextrinPowder 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 160'F
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.
Mash Efficiency
There are two different original gravities (OG) that matter to a brewer: one
is the pre-boil or extraction OG, and the other is the post-boil or pitching
OG. And, ninety percent of the time, the pitching OG is what people are
referring to because it determines the strength of the beer. When brewers
plan recipes, they think in terms of the pitching OG, which assumes that the
wort volume is the final size of the batch, e.g. 5 gallons.
But, when it comes to the efficiency of the mash and lauter, we want to
think in terms of the pre-boil gravity. The Extract Efficiency section and
table gave us the typical malt yields that allows us to evaluate our
mashing process.
When all-grain homebrewers get together to brag about their brewing
prowess or equipment and they say something like, "I got 30 (ppg) from my
mash schedule", they are referring to the overall yield from their mash in
terms of the amount of wort they collected.
It is important to realize that the total amount of sugar is constant, but
the concentration (i.e. gravity) changes depending on the volume. To
understand this, let's look at the unit of points/pound/gallon. This is a
unit of concentration, so the unit is always expressed in reference to 1
gallon ("per gallon"). In mashing, you are collecting "x" number of
gallons of wort that has a gravity of "1.0yy" that was produced from "z"
pounds of malt. To calculate your mash extraction in terms of ppg, you
need to multiply the number of gallons of wort you collected by its
gravity and divide that by the amount of malt that was used. This will
give you the gravity (points per gallon) per pound of malt used. Let's
look at an example.
Palmer's Short Stout (target OG = 1.050)
Malts
6.5 lbs. of 2 Row
0.5 lb. of Chocolate Malt
0.5 lb. of Crystal 60
0.5 lb. of Dextrin Malt
0.5 lb. of Roast Barley
(8.5 lbs. total)
For our example batch, we will assume that 8.5 pounds of malt was mashed
to produce 6 gallons of wort that yielded a gravity of 1.038. The brewer's
total sugar extraction for this batch would be 6 gallons multiplied by 38
points/gallon = 230 points. Dividing the total points by the pounds of
malt gives us our mash extraction in points/pound e.g. 230/8.5 = 27 ppg.
This value is good, if not great; 30 ppg is basically what everyone shoots
for. Comparing these numbers to lager malt's 37 ppg maximum gives us a
good approximation of our mash efficiency: 27/37 = 73%, while 30/37 =
81%.
If we look at the maximum ppg numbers from Table 9 for each of the
recipe's malts, we can calculate our actual mash efficiency:
Malts OG based on Max. PPG
6.5 lbs. of 2 Row 37 x 6.5 / 6 = 40.1
0.5 lb. of Chocolate Malt 28 x .5 / 6 = 2.3
0.5 lb. of Crystal 60 34 x .5 / 6 = 2.8
0.5 lb. of Dextrin Malt 32 x .5 / 6 = 2.6
0.5 lb. of Roast Barley 25 x .5 / 6 = 2.1
Total 49.9 points
In this case, our mash extraction of 1.038 means our percent efficiency
was 38/49.9 = 76%. Usually I think you will find that your efficiency will
be 80% or better.
Planning Malt Quantities for a Recipe
We use the efficiency concept in reverse when designing a recipe to achieve
a targeted OG. Let's go back to our Short Stout example.
To produce a 1.050 wort, how much malt will we need?
1. First, we need to assume an anticipated yield (e.g. 30 ppg), for the
recipe volume (e.g. 5 gallons).
2. Then we multiply the target gravity (50) by the recipe volume (5) to
get the total amount of sugar. 5 x 50 = 250 pts.
3. Dividing the total points by our anticipated yield (30 ppg) gives the
pounds of malt required. 250 / 30 = 8.3 lbs. (I generally round up to
the nearest half pound, i.e. 8.5)
4. So, 8.5 lbs. of malt will give us our target OG in 5 gallons. Using the
malt values for 85% Efficiency in Table 9, we can figure out how much
of each malt to use to make up our recipe. Malts OG based on PPG (85%)
6.5 lbs. of 2 Row 31 x 6.5 / 5 = 40.3
0.5 lb. of Chocolate Malt 24 x .5 / 5 = 2.4
0.5 lb. of Crystal 60 29 x .5 / 5 = 2.9
0.5 lb. of Dextrin malt 28 x .5 / 5 = 2.8
0.5 lb. of Roast Barley 22 x .5 / 5 = 2.2
8.5 lbs. total 50.6 points total
Remember though that this is the post-boil gravity. When you are
collecting your wort and are wondering if you have enough, you need to
ratio the measured gravity by the amount of wort you have collected to see
if you will hit your target after the boil. For instance, to have 5
gallons of 1.050 wort after boiling, you would need (at least):
6 gallons of 1.042 (250 pts/6g)
or 7 gallons of 1.036 (250 pts/7g)
So, when planning to brew with grain, you need to be able to figure how
much malt to use if you are going to collect 6-7 gallons of wort that will
boil down to 5 gallons at a target OG. (Actually you need 5.5 gallons if
you plan for fermentation losses from the hops and trub.) These
considerations are taken into account in Chapter 19 - Designing Recipes.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:49:45 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Micorwave Bombs
This may seem a streatch for being on topic but I frequently boil water in a
microwave to sterilize glass ware and would like someone smarter than me to
comment on this. It seems like just another urban legend and microwaves were
not around when momilies were invented. I can not think of any reason
whatsoever
for the phenomena but bombs are bombs. I received this from a friend who got it
form someone else and god only knows where it really came from........
> Subject: Microwaving Water to Heat it Up
>
> I feel that the following is information that any one who uses a microwave
> oven to heat water should be made aware of. About five days ago my
> 26-year old son decided to have a cup of instant coffee. He took a cup of
> water and put it in the microwave to heat it up (something that he had
> done numerous times before). I am not sure how long he set the timer for
> but he told me he wanted to bring the water to a boil. When the timer
> shut the oven off, he removed the cup from the oven. As he looked into
> the cup he noted that the water was not boiling but instantly the water in
> the cup "blew up" into his face. The cup remained intact until he threw it
> out of his hand but all the water had flew out into his face due to the
> buildup of energy. His whole face is blistered and he has 1st and 2nd
> degree burns to his face which may leave scarring. He also may have lost
> partial sight in his left eye.
>
> While at the hospital, the doctor who was attending to him stated that
> this a fairly common occurrence and water (alone) should never be heated
> in a microwave oven. If water is heated in this manner, something should
> be placed in the cup to diffuse the energy such as a wooden stir stick,
> tea bag, etc. It is however a much safer choice to boil the water in a tea
> kettle. Please pass this information on to friends and family
Comments please....
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:53:09 EST
From: LOneill953@aol.com
Subject: Kegging
I bought some Keg lube and put it on my kegs quite a while ago probably a
year or more. This stuff has become sticky and has made it quite difficult
to snap my gas line or picnic tap on (how ironic - huh?) Any suggestions of
how to get this crap off my kegs and more important off my connects?
Lance O'Neill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 23:06:08 EST
From: Warandle1@aol.com
Subject: storage and use of cracked grains
Hi all,
I have 3 lbs of cracked 2 row American barley malt. It was cracked on
1-26-00. I will not be brewing this coming weekend. I have read that
cracked malt should be used relatively soon after cracking. Will my malt be
fine in the refridgerator until the following weekend--Feb 5 or 6? Should I
make a point to brew sooner?
Thanks,
Will
Ashland/Columbia, MO (Kicking Jayhawk butt, BABY!)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:38:44 +1000
From: "Darren Robey" <drobey@awb.com.au>
Subject: practical brewer
As is happens yesterday I had another try after very slow downloads of the
first few chapters. I then tried again yesterday lunch time (Australian
time) at work on an unknown internet link and was pulling 17 to
18kbytes/sec. I had the whole thing down in an hour. WOW it was quick.
never seen anything like it.
Anyhow I don't know how this can be use to anyone else on the list as I
don't have a web page or access to anything other than internet access and
email and am a little technically challenged, but I thought I'd let
everyone know it can be fast,. Pity the quality is poor and printing takes
a lifetime. I just don't have time to read it at work.
Darren
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:20:40 -0500
From: phil sides jr <psides@carl.net>
Subject: Online Brewing Courses
I am taking four brewing courses being offered online (distance
education) by Milwaukee Area Technical College and I figured there would
be others here who are interested in taking them as well. The course
topics are Malt, Water, Yeast and Hops and are being taught sequentially
beginning 02/14/00. Each course lasts four weeks and tuition is very
reasonable ($65 + $2 out-of-state fee if you do not live in WI). The
textbooks are common books that can be found in homebrew shops or
perhaps already on your bookshelf. I only had to order one of them from
the AOB/Beertown website.
All of the requisite information can be found at
http://online.matc.edu/SchedSp2000CHS.htm and you can register right on
the website.
Phil Sides, Jr.
Concord, NH
- --
Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:57:39 +0000
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Troy's Water
RE Troys experiences (and Jeremy's response): Something definitely
isn't kosher here but I'm not sure what. Soft water would be expected
to give a mash pH around 5.7 - 5.8 unless a lot of high kilned malt is
used. Troy added a "little munich and caramel" to the extent of 33% of
the test grist. That's quite a bit and I would guess it's enough to drop
pH to 5.2 - 5.3 with a modestly alkaline water, perhaps as low as 5.1 or
even below 5 with very soft water. Troy got a reading of 4.4. with the
Merck strips which is absurd and a reading around 5 with the Micro
strips which may well be within a couple of tenths of the actual pH but
the message here is that the two manufacturers' strips differed by 0.6
pH and in this game that's a great deal. As brewers we are looking for
changes of 0.1 pH or less and, as Troy suggests at the end of his
article, a meter is really the only way to reliably and repeatably (once
you get used to the quirks of the meters) read to that level of
accuracy. Note that the Merck papers read 1.5 pH below the reading of
the Micro papers in the tap water test again casting suspicion on them.
Certainly 2g of chalk should be plenty to neutralize the acid of 1 pound
of a mix of Munich and caramel. The pH should have shot up to or more
probably past the desired range. With 20 grams of chalk in a gallon of
water and mash it should look chalky and taste funny and the pH should
be in the 9's as the solution is certainly saturated at this point.
Readings of 5.8 with this much chalk are definitely erroneous.
I can only think of two things that could explain this. The first is
faulty papers and the second is, as Jeremy suggested, that not enough
time was allowed for the reaction between chalk and the mash to take
place. I suspect the former based on some of the earlier data. In mixing
chalk with a mash, however, one must mix very, very thoroughly because
the chalk is a very fine powder which tends to clump and it is not very
soluble at all. In fact the malt acids which it is desired to neutralize
are necessary to dissolve the chalk.
Jeremy asked about what causes the acidity in the first place. The
answer is acids produced when the sugars in malt are raised to high
temperature in making colored malts. Even malts which are quite pale
contain some so that soft water mashes at pH's of 5.2 - 5.3 are seen
with, for example, pale ale malts but not with Pilsner malts. The blacks
and patents contain lots and lots of acids. I think I recall determining
that a kg of patent malt carried about the equivlent of 5 mL of 9N
(hardware store strength) hydrochloric acid. The kilns used to produce
this stuff are of special construction and in contant need of
maintenance because they are quickly ruined by corrosion otherwise.
Other things to neutralize with: Jeremy suggested sodium bicarbonate and
that's fine if you don't mind the sodium. Sodium carbonate (soda ash)
can also be used but also results in increased sodium levels. Some
brewers object to the bicarbonate from these salts as well. Calcium
hydroxide (slaked lime, pickling lime) and calcium oxide (quick lime)
can be used and have the advantage of increasing calcium without an
accompanying increase in bicarbonate. The former is available in food
grade in super markets. The latter is a bit dangerous if it gets wet.
I think the best thing for Troy to do is borrow or buy a pH meter. They
keep getting better and cheaper. Lots of homebrew suppliers carry units
in the $100 price range which are accurate to 0.1 pH or better. They
have limitations WRT the laboratory or better handheld units but they
are adequate for what Troy is trying to observe in this case. There's
lots of stuff in the archives on pH meters and there is also the two
part article I wrote on them in BT a couple of years ago (I'm still in
the Middle East and unable to look up the issues).
Since writing this I see Carm's antiphon from upstate New York. His post
reported pH below 5 for a pale ale malt soft water mash with some
crystal and as I said above that may not be so surprising.When I use
pale ale malt with a few percent crystal I typically get pH about 5.2
and my water's alkalinity runs 60 - 90. Carm's post said he did the
same experiment as Troy but he didn't specifically mention addition of
chalk. Water with any appreciable alkalinity shouldn't allow the pH to
get below 5. Jeremy's approach of adding sodium bicarbonate has the
advantage that it is easily dissolved in the liquor thus eliminating any
potential problems with even mixing throughout the mash. Adding 84 mg of
this salt for each liter of mash water raises the water's alkalinity by
50 ppm as CaCO3. Twice this amount should control mash pH for the
typical ale grist. 37 mg/L of slaked lime will also give 50 ppm
alkalinity.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:40:02 -0000
From: Tony Barnsley <tony.barnsley@blackpool.gov.uk>
Subject: re: Efficiency vs.Yield
Jack S and Others Have said
"gravity per pound per gallon says it all."
Or something like that. GO METRIC !!!
Degrees / Kilo / Litre is the way to go!
:-> (for the humour challenged)
Incidentally, does anybody recall the conversion factor from one to the
other 8.something seems to ring a bell.
- --
Wassail!
The Scurrilous Aleman
Schwarzbad Lager Braueri, Blackpool, Lancs, UK
Reply To Aleman At brewmaster Dot demon Dot co Dot uk
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3235, 01/29/00
*************************************
-------
