Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4238
HOMEBREW Digest #4238 Tue 06 May 2003
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Fermenter Cooling System ("Dave")
Re: Subject: re: Extremely high ABV ("-S")
more re: Hi Alc beers ("-S")
Re OT the definative history of Rennerian co-ordinates ("Grant")
mash pH ("Dave Burley")
high alcohol beers (Marc Sedam)
re: Faux decoction ("The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty")
Starch - the big picture (simplified and non-technical) (Jeff Renner)
re: First Wort Hopping ("-S")
RE: Cheapest Beer that is Non-screwtop? ("Leonard, Phil")
galvanized in brewing ("Rob Dewhirst")
pictures ("Fred Scheer")
Cheapest Beer that is Non-screwtop? ("Andrew Moore")
Harshness and water chemistry (Michael)
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*
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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 22:14:16 -0700
From: "Dave" <brewingisloving@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fermenter Cooling System
Hello,
I have the basic components of the cooling system for my fermenter up on my
webpage. I plan on adding more information in the future. If you were
thinking of building a large box to cool your conical fermenter, then you
might want to check this out first.
http://webpages.charter.net/davesbrew/
Cheers,
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 03:17:51 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: re: Extremely high ABV
Guy asks about hi alc beers ...
> Which strains are known for being particularly sturdy?
WY1028 is known to be capable of making good barleywines. If you find a
local micro that uses WY1028 you may be able to get enough yeast at the
right times to make this feasible. After barleywine ready strains start
looking thru any of the hi-alc strains - WY3787, WY1214 ... .
Wine strains will generally add unwelcome flavors - too much esters and ....
Champagne yeast, S.bayanus gives a rather neutral flavor and will tolerate
17% ABV without breaking a sweat, more if you push it. Actually I've used
S.bayanus in brewing a couple times and it can give very nice results on
it's own - tho' sometimes tart.
> How massive? Massive as in requiring specialized
> equipment and special yeast propagation techniques?
> How does one determine a reasonable extract
> concentration, how often to add it, and how much yeast
> to add with the repitchings?
OK so let's say you want to make 5(5.3) gal of 20@ABV beer. If you have
wort extract w/ 75% fermentability you'd need the equivalent of an SG 1.200
and an FG of 1.050. You can't start with that high a gravity.
5.3gal(~20 liters) of 1.200 wort has a mass 24kg. The mass is 10.6kg of
extract and 13.4liter of water. Back in US units that's 3.55gal of water
and 23.33 lb of extract which will make 5.3 gal of hi alc beer.
I'd start with 4 gal of 15P wort (preferable all grain). This wort has
3.6gal of water - the full amount - and also 5.3lb of extract. You'll also
need another 15lb of DME to add incrementally. You'd pitch this at the
conventional rate for 4 gal of 15P wort which is 1billion viable cells per
degree plato, per liter (10^9 * 15.12L * 15P = 226B cells). That's 8 fl.oz
of thick highly viable ale yeast slurry according to Fix.
Before the fermentation leaves the log phase you need to add more extract
and more yeast. I'd shoot for the addition of approximately 2.5 lb of DME.
At the same time you;ll need to add more yeast and the yeast must be from a
well oxygenated environment. With the 2.5lb of extract you'll want to add
another 3 fl.oz of thick, healthy, oxygenated slurry. This is effectively
adding about 5P to the final beer's fermentables.
You can oxygenate the slurry with an air stone (not pure oxygen) for 4 to 6
hours prior to this repitching. Keep the yeast cool during this period.
Again - check gravity and before the attenuation is through add more extract
and yeast ....
You'll have six additions and this will likely take over 30 day.
Personally I'd get a slow mechanical stirrer into the fermenter - both the
stir up the added extract and to drive off excess CO2. Additions of
magnesium (as in epsom salts) are said to have a positive impact on high
gravity fermentation. Very tiny amounts of zinc also (<1ppm) too.
You really don't want all that dead & slow yeast sitting there for long
periods - so I'd rack off the beer from the sediment at least every 2 weeks,
leaving some at the end for a diacetyl rest. Although 3 fl.oz of good
oxygenated slurry *should* handle the added 2.5 lb of extract, I would
expect that later and at high alc levels that this might be very slow. Plan
on doubling that figure about half way through.
How massive an amount of yeast ? It's gonna take about 1 liter of slurry
by my estimates, but you'd better be prepared to bump that up. Also you'll
need to have this high quality slurry available every 2 to 6 day for a month
or more. That's why you need to get friendly with a microbrewer who can
fill a quart canning jar for you every week or so. You'll probably want to
start pitching in some champagne yeast along the way when the brewing yeast
gets sluggish.
I know all the books claim that so-n-so yeast gives up at 7% or whatever,
but there have been a lot of recent studied that show otherwise when
incremental feeding and enough oxygen is available. Ethanol is a yeast
stressor but there is no hard ethanol limit for yeast.
BTW I was mistaaken - Boulton & Quain replrt many brewing yeasts can be
coddled to 18%(not 15% I mentioned).
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 03:20:52 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: more re: Hi Alc beers
Pete Ensminger writes,
>'-S' asks "why do
>you want to do this?" Why not? Already made the smoked potato(e)
>beer, the wasabi beer, and the vanilla stout.
I hope to die from a Clostrium infection before I become so bored that I
resort to adding vegetables to beer. Does the AHA sponsor deprogramming
for good brewers who are lured to the dark side ?
-S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 19:17:57 +1000
From: "Grant" <gstott@primus.com.au>
Subject: Re OT the definative history of Rennerian co-ordinates
Nathaniel wrote
>So, can anyone out there beat
>[6627.8, 41.1] Apparent Rennerian? ;)
Piece of cake, :) don't forget that the HBD is read beyond the U.S.
There is even an article on C.A.P. on the Aussie Craftbrewer website.
www.craftbrewer.org
Just look under featured beer styles.
Then Llew wrote
>If my calculations are right, I beat you by a few miles!
>Llew
>Johannesburg, South Africa
www.luco.co.za/llewsbrewery
[8484.6, 96.8] Apparent Rennerian
But the southern part of Australia is a bit further away.
Grant Stott
[9906, 260] AR (statute miles) or [15942.2, 260] AR [Km]
(Geelong, Victoria, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 08:33:12 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley@charter.net>
Subject: mash pH
Brewsters:
In Marc Sedams' welcome short summary, he forgot to mention a related topic
also of a semi-annual nature.
The pH of the mash is measured at room temperature even though the mash itself
is hot.. Remove the sample of mash and put it into a metal pan cooled by water
and when it is at 20C or RT, meausre the pH. Discard the sample.
Never put your pH electrode directly into the mash as you risk mercury
contamination. Food grade pH electrodes with temperature compensation do
exist, but most are not. Should you use such a device, your mash pH guidelines
wil be different as pH changes ( falls) with temperature by around 0.2 units
in this range, as I recall..
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 09:12:49 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: high alcohol beers
I have made several attempts at giant beers, many of them employing a
three hour mash first suggested by Jim Liddl. The instructions can be
found in http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/3522.html#3522-9. It's a mash
schedule employed by the brewers of "dry" beer (now called "low carb"
beers) with the intent of having very few carbs left in the final
product. You can see at the link that this batch lost 99 gravity points
(1.116 to 1.017) using a lager yeast.
When Jim and I were discussing this some years back he also sent me a
bottle of beer with an OG of 1.130 (or greater) that tasted clean and
delicious. You'd have never guessed the alcohol content without first
noticing that the beer did have 'legs' in a glass. His trick was
fermenting a gallon of beer with three packs of EDME dry yeast as an
experiment to ensure fermentation was quick and complete. If I recall
correctly he said fermentation was done in 3-4 days.
For those interested, try the mash schedule above. Use lots and lots of
yeast nutrient (boiled in water but added to the chilled wort) with
regular blasts of O2 for the first day or two. I would also consider
brewing with massive amounts of dry yeast (one package per gallon of
wort) and adding infusions of sugar water or honey to get to the gravity
you seek. I suppose you could also boil down a regular gravity beer 5
gallon batch into a gallon of concentrated wort and add that to the
fermentation in four equal dosings. Just a suggestion.
Dr. Cone from Lallemand (sp??) was very clear that most brewing yeasts
can handle fermentations of ~20%abv if treated properly. I have to say
that I enjoyed my Samichlaus clone greatly.
- --
Marc Sedam
Chapel Hill, NC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 09:19:20 -0500
From: "The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey@swampgas.com>
Subject: re: Faux decoction
=== In HBD 4237 Brian Lundeen <BLundeen@rrc.mb.ca> writes:
[Details of Schmitz Mash omitted]
> Back to me: Sounds interesting, and also a little scary. Comments and
> details from the experts in here would be greatly welcome.
No need to be frightened; I use this method (or an approximation
thereof) pretty regularly with good results. I first came across it a
few years back, when George DePiro posted a similar method involving a
single, very large decoction. Until this last Zymurgy, I didn't
realize it had a name.
I'm certainly no brewing expert, but then again, I've never let a
dearth of qualifications stop me from speaking authoritatively on any
OTHER topic, so here's my procedure (all temps in degrees Fahrenheit,
God's favorite unit of temperature measurement):
=== Procedure ===
1) Let the entire mash saccharify at whatever temperature suits you.
I've used anywhere from 145 to 156. I'll rest at this initial temp at
least 30 minutes to an hour.
2) Using a large strainer pull all (or as much as you can reasonably
get -- no need to be obsessive) mash solids into the decoct pot (I use
my old extract pot). If you kettle mash, you could just drain all the
liquor (as recommended in the article) and use the mash tun as the
decoct pot, but the end effect is the same. Plus, my Gott doesn't take
well to direct heating. As you strain, you'll want to leave most of
the liquid behind; this is where the enzymes live, and you want to
avoid destroying them by boiling.
3) You want to be sure the decoct is neither too dry, nor too wet. If
it looks dry, I add a little brewing water. The idea is that the
spaces between the grains should be just filled with water. If it
looks too wet, I don't really worry much about it; moisture will boil
off as we proceed. Err on the side of wetness, if you must err at all.
4) Next, I heat the decoct to boiling. No need to take it through a
sacch rest on the way up. Once at boiling, I boil for 20-30 minutes. I
stir frequently, trying to bring the contents on the bottom of the pot
up to the top. Should the mash begin to dry, I might add a little
brewing water. Note that the mash will darken considerably during the
boil
If I begin to smell scorching (and you almost certainly WILL get
scorching, although a thick-bottomed kettle might help in this regard)
I usually end the decoct. Don't worry about a little scorching; the
flavor won't make it into the finished beer, and it's actually quite
easy to clean (see below).
5) Once the decoct is done, I SLOWLY add it back to the main mash,
trying to keep the temperature below 160. This is pretty easy to do.
Once everything has been added back, I let it rest for 20 -30 minutes.
The idea is to convert any starches liberated during the decoction to
sugars.
The whole process should take less than an hour, which is a major
improvement on most other decoction schedules.
=== Results ==
The results you'll get are pretty much identical to a double decoction
as far as I have been able to tell, although bear in mind the effects
of a decoction are subtle at best, and IMHO, not even particularly
noticeable in some styles. I'd wager the effects are the same as a
triple decoct, but I've only done that once. I also notice a small but
measurable increase in efficiency of up to 5% or so.
I have had very minor trouble with the subsequent lauter on occasions
(using an EasyMasher-type system, but not with a false bottom), but
this was easily cleared up.
== Handy Clean-Up Tips ==
Your decoct pot will probably scorch, although as I mentioned earlier,
a thick bottom might help this. An easy way to clean up (if you are
using SS) is to get about 1/2 inch water in the bottom of the pot and
add a fair amount of lye (I use Red Devil -- "It's Not Just for
Poisoning Your Cheatin' Baby Anymore!"). I let the pot soak overnight,
pour off the solution in the morning, and rinse. If the scorching is
not gone completely, what's left usually comes off with a sponge.
CAUTION: Lye is dangerous, nasty caustic stuff. Use gloves and goggles
when applying, and be careful of any splashing from the caustic
solution. Never eat lye. Do not put lye down your pants, no matter how
funny it may seem at the time. Trust me on this last point.
Hope that helps -- mikey
====
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 11:47:34 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner@comcast.net>
Subject: Starch - the big picture (simplified and non-technical)
Thanks to Marc and Steve for their excellent posts about starch. As
an ex science teacher who is always interested in how things fit
together (and whose kids always said I couldn't just give the short
answer), I thought I'd put these wandering thoughts together. Hope
it doesn't belabor the obvious, but I hope it offers insight for some
who have never thought about this.
Did you ever wonder just why it is that grains have starches in them?
And proteins? And enzymes that break them down into their simpler
constituents, so we can make beer? If you think it is because God
wanted us to have beer to let us know He loves us and wants us to be
happy, then PgDn now. If you think evolution had something to do
with it, then read on.
Seeds are plants ways of making new plants, and of providing food for
the baby plants. Starches and proteins are ways of storing the
needed energy sources (sugars) and building blocks (amino acids) in
forms that are less easily consumed by hungry competing
microorganisms. As has been pointed out, many microbes are unable to
utilize complex sugars and starches. If the parent stored food for
its babies in the form of sugars and amino acids, the offspring would
never get to use them. As is it, they are pretty well protected,
both molecularly and physically by the seed's structure. Seeds can
remain viable and undamaged by microbes for years, possibly even
centuries (the reports of viable seeds being found int he Egyptian
pyramids are apparently apocryphal).
In a germinating seed, the enzymes are exquisitely "designed" to
produce just the amount of sugars and amino acids that the growing
embryo and baby plant needs at any moment over a period of days.
That way there is no excess to be attacked by bacteria, mold or
yeast. We speed the process up to a matter of an hour by heating the
sprouted barley seed to mash temperatures.
In the grand scheme of life, if there is a living to be made somehow,
something will probably evolve to exploit that niche. Organisms are
in a constant race to evolve protections against other organisms'
attempts to eat or otherwise feed off of them. Hosts evolve to fight
off pathogens, which evolve to overcome these defences. (There is a
great book about this eternal struggle, "The Red Queen" by Matt
Ridley, the Red Queen being the character in Alice in Wonderland who
has to keep running just to keep in the same place. And see RM
Nesse's "Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine" for
a look at human disease from this viewpoint). Plants evolve nasty
substances to keep animals from eating them, or thorns, or silicates,
etc. to keep animals from eating them. Impalas evolve great speed,
keen eyesight and sense of smell, and herding instinct to protect
against predation from cheetahs, which develop great speed,
protective coloration, sense of smell, etc., to overcome these
defenses.
And, so, some microorganisms have evolved their own enzymes to to to
utilize these stored sugars and amino acids. But plants evolve other
defenses - such as tannins and phenolics in the outer layers of the
seeds to discourage attack. And so it goes throughout the eons.
A related matter - did you ever wonder why the mold Penicillium
produces an antibiotic? I mean, what was Sir Alexander Fleming
thinking that day in 1928 when he bought a moldy melon in a London
market to see if the mold would kill bacteria? Was he just testing
every possible weird substance? Had he checked out ear wax the day
before?
No, as you may well know, the antibiotic activity of the Penicillium
mold is its way of elbowing aside competing microorganisms who also
want a piece of that rotting melon. And while over the eons the
bacteria it fought had not yet managed to evolve an effective
counter-measure against this, our use (and overuse) of it has
resulted in accelerated evolution by the bacteria so that many now
are unaffected.
Enough rambling.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 13:50:13 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: re: First Wort Hopping
Chad Stevens writes ....
>>Perhaps there is some weird
>>kind of protein/hop reaction that locks in flavor.
>
>Steve responds: Just the oils and oxygen.
>
> have to disagree. Albumin, [...]
>
>So long story short, there is quite a bit of native albumin at mash-in,
less
>at sparge, and virtually none upon boil. Further, albumin binds flavinoids
>and this complex appears to survive the boil. [...]
>Albumin/flavinoid binding is virtually non-existent
>once vigorous boil has commenced because of albumin coagulation.
I think there is a huge misunderstanding behind Chad's post so let's start
from ground zero.
The original question by Joel ... to paraphrase ... how does first wort
hopping(FWH) work? For those who still don't know FWH involves placing
high quality hops in the boiler as the first wort is collected near mashout
temp. These hops appear to provide much more characteristic hops flavor
and aroma. By characteristic flavor/aroma I am not referring to weedy
astringent phenolics nor hop bitterness. Characteristic flavor is the
spiciness of Saaz of the appetizing aroma feature of H.Mittelfruh. The very
odd thing about FWH is that this characteristic aroma/flavor survives into
the beer. The same hops added early in the boil do not express their
characteristic aroma/flavor very much, probably because these flavor
chemicals have been boiled off. Joel's question was ... how does the
characteristic flavor survive the boil ? This has nothing to do with
flavanoids or proteins as far as I can tell. BTW mash hopping is a variant
of FWH in which hops are added even earlier - in the mash.
Hubert Hanghofer posted the technical reasons as to how FWH is supposed to
work in 1997, HBD#2479. Volatile hop oils, the aroma factors, oxidize
forming epoxides and alcohols in the warm wort and survive the boil and
fermentation. Normally these volatile oils (terpenes, sesquiterpenes) boil
off or are lost during fermentation, but not the more soluble epoxides &
alcohols. These epoxides are quite reactive chemically so there is a whole
complex manifold chemistry nugget buried here. Hubert sites L.Narziss,
"Abriss der Bierbrauerei".
http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/2479.html#2479-8
http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/3294.html#Contents
A recent and fairly conclusive paper has points to a set of chemicals as
the character flavor in hops. In Q1 2002, JIB published a paper by Goiris
et al (Belgian researchers) [JIB 108(1) pp86-93, "the oxygenated
sesquiterpenoid fraction[OSTF] of hops in relation to the spicy hop
character of beer"]. This paper describes the fractional distillation by
supercritical CO2 dissolution of certain oxygenated hops sesquiterpenes from
5 different hops <Saaz, Tettnanger, Hersbrucker, Spalter Select, Perle>.
When these combinations of OSTF extracts were added to beer devoid of hops
aroma compounds at only 20ppb(!!) it "undoubtedly demonstrated the spicy or
herbal properties...". BTW 20ppb is at least an order of magnitude less
than had been previously considered. Hubert's reported mechanism is likely
still correct, but the list of specific volatile oils involved have been
refined to microscopic amounts of specific sesquiterpenes.
In brief FWH and mash hopping somehow allows these flavor compounds to
survive thru the boil, while early boil hops additions have much of their
flavor boiled off, and late hops additions cause significant amounts of
weedy phenolic flavors in the beer. To the extent this mechanism works
FWH & mash hopping should provide superior flavor.
FWH character flavor chemistry appears to have nothing to do with
protein-phenolic binding.
====
Chad disagrees with my assertion that the protein-hops reactions are not
related to FWH unusually ability to preserve hop flavor thru the boil.
Unfortunately I can't understand how his statements change that conclusion
in any way.
Chad seems to be hinting that removal (or is it binding and later release)
of flavanoids (flavanoids are the class of biphenols w/ C6-C3-C6
configuration) to albumin is somehow related the survival of the FWH flavor.
That doesn't match any report of hops flavor origin that I've ever seen.
Flavanoids at measured levels in beer are below the flavor threshold. Only
aout 25% of beer flavanoids come from hops. Flavanoids play a large role
in haze formation but that's a different topic.
A lot of points in Chad's post are in error or at least in need of proper
terminology and explanation. Coagulated proteins DO participate in phenolic
weak bonding and several protein fining agents rely on this. There is no
evidence presented that "albumin binds flavinoids and this complex appears
to survive the boil". Why would they survive the boil when the
flavanoid-protein binding cite removal decreases the solubility of the
protein ? I expect that flavanoid albumin complexes end up in the break.
I could go on but let's first hear from Chad how flavanoid-albumin complexes
relate to FWH hops flavor character surviving the boil ... the original
question.
-Steve
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:34:57 -0500
From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard@dsionline.com>
Subject: RE: Cheapest Beer that is Non-screwtop?
Ryan want cheap non-screwtop bottled beer...
Schmitz is the cheapest I know of. In my neck of the woods [612 251.4 AR] this
is it. $9.40 a case plus $1.50 deposit (all US$).
Philip
[612 251.4] Apparent Rennerian
Overland Park, KS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:53:43 -0500
From: "Rob Dewhirst" <rob@hairydogbrewery.com>
Subject: galvanized in brewing
> Don't know where you got your info from but a year or so ago the company I
> work for had a rep from a galvanizing company in Cincinnati give a
> presentation on the subject. He stated "galvanize is food grade".
Galvanize
> is just a zinc coating on metal. Zinc is a necessary nutrient.
The concern is the galvanized metal will give beer, especially lighter
bodied ones, a metallic taste.
This has been covered both here and in rec.crafts.brewing many times.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 16:12:47 -0500
From: "Fred Scheer" <FHopheads@msn.com>
Subject: pictures
HI All:
Just finished posting the pictures from
Charlie Papazians trip through the area.
Also, you can look at the pictures how
the Music City Homebrewers celebrated National
Homebrew Day at Boscos.
www.brewsbrothers.net
Fred
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 18:17:01 -0400
From: "Andrew Moore" <abmjunk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Cheapest Beer that is Non-screwtop?
Ryan writes:
"So, whats the cheapest bottled beer that comes in non-screwtop amber
bottles? Could it be Amstel light? :)"
Ryan:
Why suffer? When I was building a supply of suitable bottles, I drank the
beer I liked and considered it a worthy cause. My advice is to choose a beer
based on: #1 suitable bottles, #2 something you like and finally, #3
easy-to-remove labels (i.e. not Samuel Adams).
Andrew Moore
Richmond, Virginia
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 23:03:33 -0500
From: Michael <grice@binc.net>
Subject: Harshness and water chemistry
My last few brews have been marred to varying degrees by astringency and
harshness. I believe this is because of my water. I think I have the
astringency licked, but not the harshness.
Yesterday I made a pale ale. I was very careful to adjust the pH of the
mash and all water added to about 5.5 with 10% phosphoric acid (it took
4-5 mL to do it). The grain bill consisted of 9 pounds of Maris Otter,
a pound of Belgian aromatic malt and 13 ounces of Crystal, and I batch
sparged. After sparging, the wort tasted sweet, and I didn't notice
any astringency. I added maybe 10 HBU's of Cascade leaf hops to the
collected wort.
When I tasted the wort after it came to a boil, it was already extremely
harsh. The pH at this point was also still about 5.5.
Two things really have me puzzled here. First, up until early in the year
I had no trouble with my water supply. For instance, I made a pale ale
based on a very similiar recipe in December without treating the water
at all that turned out extremely well--no harshness, no astringency,
nicely malty.
Second, I can't see a real pattern here in terms of the beers affected.
I've had a stout (~45 IBU) and an IPA (~ 50 IBU) that were moderately
affected, and an ESB (~40 IBU) and a pale ale (~35 IBU, but I'm not all
that certain anymore) loosely based on a Fat Tire clone recipe that were
heavily affected. Perhaps the roasted barley in the stout lowered the
acidity into the normal range, but the IPA frankly was pretty close to
the badly affected pale ale. (I still don't know what Fat Tire tastes
like, not that my recipe would have been all that close.)
It does occur to me, though, that my water softener might be an issue
here--depending on the component of my water which is causing the
problem. As I see it, there are four potential problems here:
1. Alkalinity (although I've adjusted the pH).
2. Carbonates/bicarbonates (perhaps a problem even after adjusting pH).
3. Sodium.
4. Sulfates (7-13 ppm, but apparently last tested in 1999).
If I understand the chemistry, my water softener wouldn't do much besides
replacing calcium and magnesium with sodium--and excessive sodium might
be a problem. Could my sulfates be excessively high?
So: am I crazy? Is my water softener hosed? Should I forget about the
thing altogether and use bottle water? Why the heck did my water change
on me? I know, I know, I'll have to call the water utility...
FWIW, I also live within two miles of a brewery--Capital Brewery, producer
of fine German-style beers. I particularly like the Kloster Weizen. I
imagine they might treat their water (and I am under the impression
they do a lot of brewing up in Stevens Point).
Michael
Middleton, WI
Born in and went to middle school in Ann Arbor, not far from the
homebrew center of the universe
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4238, 05/06/03
*************************************
-------
