Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4418
HOMEBREW Digest #4418 Fri 05 December 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:
re: cleaning SS fermeter ("jim")
re: protein rest ("Chad Stevens")
Beer or Something More Dangerous? (Tom Franklin)
Keg Foam Problem ("Donald Miller")
Re: Rye Nutrients (Wes Smith)
CORRECTION re: re: Protein rest ("-S")
Berliner Weiss question for Marc Sedam (Michael)
Hopbacks (Michael)
sleepy Westmalle yeast (Todd Orjala)
Re: What's on tap? (NO Spam)
Re: Rye (Robert Sandefer)
Damn damnosus ("Jay Spies")
RE: thermistors, thermocouples, RTDs (Jeff Berton)
Grassy Hops (gornicwm)
Yeast descriptions (Fred Johnson)
Re: On Tap ("Don Scholl")
no sparge, cloudy worts, and my general paranoid disposition ("Gregory Jones")
re: Rye Nutrients ("-S")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* HBD Fundraiser Auction : Raudins Publishing Books *
* Auction ends Tuesday, 12/9/2003 *
* See http://hbd.org 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job. Note that the Digest now
automagically protects your address, so spam-proofing is a waste of
your time, anyway :^)
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.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:31:44 -0500
From: "jim" <jimswms at cox.net>
Subject: re: cleaning SS fermeter
congrats Gary. I have the same fermenter and love it.
Here's what I do.. empty keg of contents, and give it a good spray out to
get most of the gunk out. set it up above wherever you can drain it, in my
case, on top of the washer and next to the utility sink in my basement. Add
PBW, Fill it up with the hottest water out of the tap all the way to the
brim. put the lid on and let it soak for a couple days. then, run the water
out the bottom siphon tube into the drain. It comes out shiny!
For sanitizing, I take apart the fittings, and soak in Iodophor. then put it
all back together. put an inch or so of water in the fermenter and put it on
my propane burner (well, the kettle side of my SAbco Brew magic) and boil
10-15 min. just until there's a tiny bit of water left. seal it, and set it
aside. easy. done.
yep. that method of cleaning uses alot of PBW, but, I'm a fan of CIP! It
does a GREAT job. Besides, I'm still on the 8# tub of PBW I bought 18 months
ago, so, in my mind, it's $$ well spent!
cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:45:06 -0800
From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net>
Subject: re: protein rest
Gordon Strong pondering the imponderable protein rest in this day and age
(don't worry, you won't be burned at the stake; I may be however). This was
kicked around recently by a few of us, and, after much arm twisting, one of
HBD's more illustrious contributors conceded that a protein rest MAY be
appropriate SOMETIMES. I agree with your assertion that starchy adjuncts
can call for a rest, and your rule of thumb seams like a good one to follow.
As for documentation, WELL...nothing that comes out and says "protein rest
good-no protein rest bad." But this should serve as a general primmer for
fairly recent cogent commentary:
Proteolytic Enzymes are found and act both on the inside of the grain
(endogenous) and on the grain husk (exogenous). The great majority of
during the germination process. There are over 40 endoprotease activities
which have been identified. In the malting process, these proteases are
most active on the third day after steeping.
www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/jones.htmones
It has been generally accepted that protein degradation due to proteolytic
activity occurs during the malting process and that proteolytic activity is
minimal during the modern mashing process due to inactivation of the
proteases during kilning. This is not the case however:
www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/osman.htm
Barley malt samples removed at various stages of the typical American malt
kilning process showed no protease degradation up to the 85oC step and only
partial denaturing of some proteases at higher temperatures. Further, of
the soluble protein found in wort, 43% is preformed in the barley grain, 32%
is solublized in the malting process, and 25% is released during mashing
(Jones, 1999). Clearly, proteolytic activity should be expected during the
mashing process when using light colored fully modified base malts, and
especially undermodified malts.
Some proteases are heat sensitive while others are relatively heat stable.
Those which are heat stable (surviving 65oC for greater than 40 minutes) are
most active on glutelin, globulin, and prolamine, in that order. Optimal
conversion temperatures in the mash in degrees Celsius are: prolamine-40,
glutelin-50, and globulin-60 (Osman et al., 1999). Note 50oC corresponds
with the traditional 122of protein rest. Above 60oC in the mash, all
protease activity is quickly extinguished with virtually no activity
remaining after 10 minutes at 70oC. Note the same enzymes are denatured
more readily in solution (mash) than in the kernel (malting/kilning).
Proteases, and presumably other enzymes, are protected in the kernel.
Metallo-. Cysteine is a sulfur containing crystalline amino acid which is
responsible for 90% of proteolysis in germinating barley
www.scientificsocieties.org/jib/papers/2002/G-2002-0917-070.pdf
(Kihara et al., 2002) and the majority of proteolysis in the mash. This
class breaks down the gum that forms on top of some single-step infusion
mashes
www.asbcnet.org/Meetings/2001/Abstracts/P-2.htm
(Mikola, 2001). While active during the malting process, serine class
enzymes do not appear to play a significant role in the mash (not thermal
stable, denatured during kilning). Aspartic and metalloproteases are amino
acids which play a role during the mash process. The aspartic class of
enzymes account for nearly all of the endoproteolytic activity in unmalted
barley (Jones, 1999). Metalloproteases are a very powerful class of enzymes
which include various fungal secretions as in Streptomyces sp. and are also
found in Rattlesnake venom.
Enough bandwidth for one night.
Chad Stevens
QUAFF
San Diego, Kalifonea
www.quaff.org/afc2004/AFCHBC.html
America's Finest City Homebrew Competition, February 2004
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:18:29 -0500
From: Tom Franklin <fivecats at nc.rr.com>
Subject: Beer or Something More Dangerous?
Hi All,
I have a batch of beer that's been sitting in a secondary for over 8 months
now. (Yeah, I know, I know) It's developed a thin white layer of...
something over the top of the beer. I was all set to wipe a tear from my
eye and dump the beer when I noticed something odd. When I picked up the
glass secondary the beer, naturally, shook around a fair amount. The white
stuff, however, didn't dissolve as I'd expected, but broke into torn
segments. Five days later they're still in thin, discrete segments.
Anyone with any experience with this? It this salvageable (without
incurring really serious illness)? My guess is that the bacterial
infection is throughout the beer, but I figured it was worth asking the
collective.
many thanks
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 00:18:51 -0500
From: "Donald Miller" <milledon at comcast.net>
Subject: Keg Foam Problem
Thank you to everyone who helped me fix my problem. It was really just a
temperature issue. I lower the temp on the freezer and now all is good.
Wait, not good, it is GREAT!!!!! Thanks again.
Donald A. Miller
571-236-3914
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:00:52 +1100
From: Wes Smith <wsmith at rslcom.net.au>
Subject: Re: Rye Nutrients
Stuart Grant asks about the level of nutrient in Thomas Fawcett Pale Rye
malt - well Stuart I would happily provide you with a Certificate of
Analysis for that product but our first shipment is on the water right now
- due to arrive in Sydney in early January. We do stock the Weyermann
product and feel that may be what you have - do you have the original bag?.
Contact me off list and we can sort this out for you and get the correct
technical info to you.
Your comments about the stuck wheat beer ferment and your concerns about
adequate nutrient in Rye and wheat malts does not gel (intended pun!).
There seems to an urban myth circulating in Aussie homebrew circles that
wheat malt is very low in diastatic power (DP) and low in nutrient (FAN).
Australian wheat malts are just the exact opposite - we have seen DP's
running into the mid to high 400s (EBC) with Kolbach indices in the 50's
and 60's. My personal experience with Aussie wheat malts has always been
one of massive foam head on boil commencement and vigorous to almost
violent fermentation. Because of the latter I rarely use more than a 15 min
protein rest for my favourite Hefe recipe (70% wheat malt). I really think
you need to be looking at some other potential causes for your stuck
ferment like aeration/oxygenation for liquid yeasts.
As regards your rye recipe - I would steer clear of the flaked rye
(assuming this is a "local" health food store type product) as there is no
way of determining the degree of modification. Go with the 30% rye malt and
roasted rye but would suggest you utilise a short protein rest until you
are comfortable with the lautering capability of your setup. Assuming the
above, you will have something like 65% pilsner or ale malt in the grist
bill which will ensure more than adequate diastase.
Wes.
Suppliers of Joe White Maltings, Thomas Fawcett, Hoepfner (Best Malz),
Weyermann and Rhoen malts in the Down Under land.
>Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:22:35 +1100
>From: Grant Family <grants at netspace.net.au>
>Subject: Rye Nutrients
>
>G'day
>
>Having just come off a stuck fermentation in a wheat beer, I'm wary about
>nutrients in my upcoming rye-based beer.
>
>Does anyone have any data points on the nutrient contribution of rye malt,
>flaked rye and roasted rye (all of which I will be using). I'll be assuming
>that rye is similarly lower in nutrients to wheat unless I'm advised
>otherwise...
>
>Thanks
>Stuart Grant
>Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
>
>ps. I'm using ~30% Thomas Fawcett pale rye malt in the beer; has anyone
>tried doing a glucanase rest with this malt, or does anyone know of the
>glucanase enzyme potential of this/other malts?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 03:12:12 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: CORRECTION re: re: Protein rest
Tom Meier politely pointed out a glaring error in my post protein post.
I had spell checked all the occurrences of SNR to TSN.
Insufficient coffee is the root of all evil and the scapegoat for this
gaffe.
For the record
TN - total nitrogen.
TSN- total soluble nitrogen
PSN - permanently soluble nitrogen (estimated at 0.94 * TSN)
SNR - soluble Nitrogen Ratio (TSN*100/TN)
By convention Protein quantities are calculated as Nitrogen * 6.25
-S
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:58:31 -0600
From: Michael <grice at binc.net>
Subject: Berliner Weiss question for Marc Sedam
Or anyone else who makes one, assuming that you use the lactobacillus to
sour the wort to taste and then pasteurize it prior to fermentation as
Marc suggests. Have you checked the pH at this point? What with the
sugar in the wort and all and the changes in pH typical during
fermentation, I'm not confident in my ability to judge if the beer is
sour enough until after fermentation.
Michael
Middleton WI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:18:44 -0600
From: Michael <grice at binc.net>
Subject: Hopbacks
I'm looking at building one with a mason jar like the one on Alan
McKay's web site:
http://www.bodensatz.com/staticpages/index.php?page=20020429191318951
To ask a couple of questions that can't be answered in the archives,
how many of you out there use a hopback, and how many of you out there
who have think it's worth it?
Michael
Middleton WI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:53:18 -0600
From: Todd Orjala <t-orja at maroon.tc.umn.edu>
Subject: sleepy Westmalle yeast
I brewed a dubbel last week (1068) and pitched yeast I had revived from
an old bottle of homebrewed dubbel with a three pint starter. The yeast was
originally harvested from a bottle of Westmalle many years ago and I have
used it successfully to brew dubbels and tripels.
I pitched at 70 degrees and the fermentation took off in less than 12 hours
but didn't seem quite as vigorous as normal for this strain. The wort was
all grain plus a pound of dark candi sugar and was well oxygenated.
We had to leave for the weekend so I set our thermostat at a toasty 65 (here
in Minnesota you need to bring your fermentations up from the basement to
keep them warm). When we returned three days later, the yeast showed no
sign of activity. I thought that it might have fermented out but was suspicious
that it was too cold in the house and the yeast went into
hibernation. Sure enough,
the SG had dropped to just 1050. I can't recall this yeast being so temperature
sensitive (the fermentometer read 64). Could I have just pushed my luck by
reviving the yeast from a two year old bottle?
I stopped by Northern Brewer today and picked up a pack of Wyeast 3787
which I understand is the Westmalle yeast (Can anyone verify this? Does
Westmalle use a bottling strain?). I am trying to warm the wort up to at least
68 and pitch fresh yeast.
My pressing question is should I aerate again? Can this batch be salvaged?
Todd in Minneapolis
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:00:44 -0500
From: NO Spam <nospam at brewbyyou.net>
Subject: Re: What's on tap?
On Tap:
1. Apple Cider
2. Smoked Ale
3. Red Ale
4. Barely Wine
Bubbling:
1. White Wine Kit - "Murray River Reserve"
2. White Wine Kit - "French Chardonnay"
3. Red Wine Kit - "Malbec/Shiraz" Limited Edition
4. Wine Kit - "Island Mist Strawberry White Merlot"
5. Dry Stout
6. Red Ale
7. Sack Mead
8. Belgian Strong Dark Ale
9. Dopplebock
10. Stone Arrogant B*****d Clone
Yeah, I have some bottling to do.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:39:19 -0500
From: Robert Sandefer <melamor at vzavenue.net>
Subject: Re: Rye
This summer I did a rye beer (5 lbs Briess rye malt + 5 lbs German Munich
malt mashed at 155F).
And I had no trouble (Once I got done with the sparge--egad! 2+ hrs not
counting unsticking it twice, but at least I was expecting such behavior.).
During the planning stages I found the following article most helpful:
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.3/hayden.html
This article claims that rye worts have higher nitrogen levels (than
barley malt wort) and that rye malt has higher alpha-amylase
concentrations than barley malt.
Good luck with your sparge! (It's doable just time-consuming.)
Robert S.
Arlington, VA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:58:56 -0500
From: "Jay Spies" <jayspies at citywidehomeloans.com>
Subject: Damn damnosus
All -
I have a question for the collective that is puzzling me, perhaps someone
can offer some insight...
I brew 10 gallon AG recipes, single infusion, with temperature controlled
ferments in stainless steel. I have not had any problem with infected beers
in my brewery for years, until recently, when 2 non-sequential batches of
the same general recipe type were hit with the same type of off-flavor. Let
me elaborate:
About 4 months ago I brewed a cream ale roughly based on Jeff Renner's CACA
recipe (72% pilsner, 22% flaked maize, 6% munich). I fermented with Danstar
Nottingham dry yeast at 60 degrees. I pitched (4) 11G packs, so I didn't
underpitch. Batch OG was 1.050, FG was 1.010, and fermentation was strong,
finishing in 4-5 days. Out of the fermenter I got overwhelming diacetyl.
Like a mouthful of butter. Also had a slight undercurrent of sourness,
almost like (this is nasty) sweat socks. This taste is, I believe, spot on
with a Pediococcus Damnosus infection. I had to dump the batch.
In between this and the next incident, I brewed an APA, a German Alt, a
Bavarian hefe, and a spiced mead. All used the same stainless fermenter.
As a part of my cleaning regimen, and to add to the recent thread, I
disassemble and boil the bottom dump valve and racking arm/valve of the
conical, as well as sanitize with iodophor after re-assembly. So I don't
think it's critters hiding in the nooks and crannies of my fermenter....
The most recent batch (3 weeks ago) was a North German pilsner (95% pilsner,
2.5% white wheat, 2.5% carapils). I fermented with Saflager dry, and
pitched (5) 11g paks for 10 gallons. Fementation took off within a day, was
kept at 50 degrees, and finished in about 12 days. AGAIN, out of the
fermenter came butter and sweat socks. What gives here?
The other recipes used varying yeasts, hops and malts... Nottingham dry for
the APA, Wyeast Euro Ale for the Alt, Whitelabs Bavarian for the hefe,
Windsor Dry for the mead. The only common thread between the Cream Ale and
the Pils was the use of the same Pilsner malt in high volume. Could that be
the cause? Or did I miss something with sanitation? Seems wierd that the 2
light beers that I have made in the recent past have both been hit with the
same off flavor right out of the fermenter (well, I guess the hefe was light
as well), and yet the 3 intervening beers and mead showed no signs of
infection at all, even after several months in the keg for some......
I really would appreciate any insight, as it's very frustrating to dump beer
(not to mention a colossal waste of time and money).
GRRRRRR....
TIA,
Jay Spies
Asinine Aleworks
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:40:52 -0500
From: Jeff Berton <jeff344 at galaxy.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: thermistors, thermocouples, RTDs
Todd Snyder wrote:
> As far as accuracy of thermocouples, I'm looking at a Omega book on every
> imaginable thermocouple and it has the following:
>
> Type Range (Celcius) Error (+/-)
> T 0-350 1C or 0.75% whichever is greater
> J 0-750 2.2C or 0.75%
> E 0-900 1.7C or 0.5%
> K 0-1250 2.2C or 0.75%
>
> and there's a lot more types, but these are typical. For brewing,
> type T is most appropriate because it has the narrowest range, but
> it's still +/- 1 C, which is almost 2 degrees F. Not very good when
> you're trying to hit a mash temperature.
Before thermocouples get a bad reputation for inaccuracy, let me say that
they can be much more accurate than that. The accuracies Todd reported
above may be true if equipment and implementation is mediocre, but if care
is taken to use isothermal junction boxes, good ice reference units, highly
accurate digital voltmeters (better than a microvolt), etc., thermocouples
can be accurate to +/- 0.05C! Moreover, they can be used all the way down
to only a few degrees above absolute zero.
Granted, the equipment to do it properly is expensive and isn't common in
breweries.
Regards,
Jeff Berton
North Royalton, OH
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:27:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: gornicwm at earthlink.net
Subject: Grassy Hops
Hi Matt,
I feel your pain. Working so hard on big beers and
having them go south always hurts a brewer.
Is it bottled? If bottled, give it time and the hops will mellow and
blend nicely into the brew. If the beer is still in a carboy, I
would rack the beer off the hops and keep the beer in a tertiary
vessel for conditioning until you are ready to bottle.
If you can rule out the freshness of hops as being the culprit - and
it sounds like you can - consider that pelletized hops are pulverized,
pressed, and processed in such a way that could give that "stone-ground",
green, grassiness that you possibly may not have gotten with leaf hops.
Styrian Golding is a fine hop, but I would go leaf in the secondary next
time. All is not lost with your current batch and the flavors should blend
into the beer.
Best of Luck...
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:51:54 -0500
From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com>
Subject: Yeast descriptions
Dear friends:
For years (and recently on the HBD) I've heard various yeasts described
something like "emphasizes the malt" or "very malty" or "accentuates
the hops".
Would someone please confirm my suspicion that all we are talking about
is the general degree of attenuation at which these yeasts perform.
After all, doesn't maltiness only imply that there are sugars left
behind? Doesn't "emphasize the hops" only mean that the sugars from the
malt are more thoroughly consumed so that the hop flavor (or actually
bitterness) comes through more? It is well known that the ratio of
sugars to IBUs determines whether the beer is perceived as "malty"
versus "bitter" (read hoppy in yeast producers' lingo).
I know I am opening myself up for flames, so if my understanding is
incorrect, would someone please tell me how a yeast would "emphasize
the malt" if it is NOT by simply leaving behind some sugar?
If my understanding is correct, whatever ability the yeast has to
"accentuate the beer's maltiness" versus "...hoppiness" is easily
superseded by changing the wort composition. (I acknowledge that
"minerally" may be some other characteristic of the yeast.)
Flame away!
Fred L Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:35:36 -0500
From: "Don Scholl" <dws at engineeringdimensions.com>
Subject: Re: On Tap
Bottled Downstairs and aging for the tasting party in Feb. 2004!
(1)Barleywine
(2)Christmas Ale
(3)Dunkelweizen
(4)Super Hoppy APA
(5)Vanilla Porter
(6)Pale Ale
(7)Kolsch
Don Scholl
Twin Lake, Michigan
(140.9, 302.4)Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 01:31:05 -0800
From: "Gregory Jones" <buddha at teacher.com>
Subject: no sparge, cloudy worts, and my general paranoid disposition
Hi all,
I've recently took the leap into all-grain brewing, I'm making
my 3rd ag brew, and am trying my hand at no-sparge. I was a
little concerned that my grains were over- crushed, and sure
enough, lautering did not clear the wort as much as usual
(quite a bit of draff) I sent the wort through the tun a 2nd
time, but because of the spargeless technique I employed, I was
uncomfortable doing it for a 3rd time, and viola, cloudy wort in
the primary!
My questions: 1)When does no-sparge end up being sparge (ie
leeching more tannins into the wort) thereby nullifying its
value? 2)Is there a particular clarifier well-suited to
clearing husk matter in late fermentation? 3)Being that I'm
going for a malty brew that should disappear within a couple of
months, how much does it hurt not to use finings? (besides my
wounded pride whilst serving a muddy brew to friends) 4)What
kind of trade off do you think I've made, attempting to keep the
runnings malty, but leaving in some general silicate/tannic
nastiness?
Any words of wisdom you could offer would be appreciated, even
if it consists of, "shut up and enjoy your beer."
Thanks for your help.
Greg
buddha at teacher.com
- --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 06:27:00 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Rye Nutrients
Stuart Grant asks,
>Having just come off a stuck fermentation in a wheat beer, I'm wary about
>nutrients in my upcoming rye-based beer.
>
>Does anyone have any data points on the nutrient contribution of rye malt,
>flaked rye and roasted rye (all of which I will be using).
Rye and wheat have plenty of nutrients, and I even have an ancient
distilling book which recommends adding rye malt to make up starter
media for vigorous growth. The problem you are encountering is *probably*
due to a lack of free amino nitrogen (aka FAN or amino acids) in unmalted
grain (raw grains or flakes). Unmalted grain contains relatively little FAN
and small peptides that yeast use as nutrients, but instead have large
intact
proteins.
When using more that ~10% unmalted grains you should perform a peptidase
rest - thick mash around 50-55C. You could add an ammonia salt type yeast
nutrient to the fermenter and let the yeast create their own amino acids
from it,
but that's best left as a backup plan IMO. Such things whack out the
fusels,
esters and flavor profile obtained from a yeast.
>ps. I'm using ~30% Thomas Fawcett pale rye malt in the beer; has anyone
>tried doing a glucanase rest with this malt, or does anyone know of the
>glucanase enzyme potential of this/other malts?
I've used Briess malted rye quite a few times and also a lot of locally
grown raw rye and can tell you that the stuff is full of glucans and gums
and a too-extensive mash will extract a large amount and leave the wort
with a strong "oil slick" texture. Unless you're trying to avoid runoff
problems I'd limit the low temp' rests to what is necessary for FAN
development.
With the rye malt I've tried it's easy to extract a lot of phenolics and
HBDer a number of years ago but I don't know which rye malt he used.
Oddly that isn't as much of a problem w/ the raw rye I've tried. To limit
phenolics limit the total mash time and don't oversparge. To my personal
taste I think 30% rye malt is a bit too much - but then again I haven't
tried
the Fawcett product.
When mashing raw grains w/ a peptidase rest use a low kilned lager/pils
malt as the base and not a high kilned pale-ale malt. The low-kilned malts
have greater amount of the peptidase enzymes. Better yet, use some
distillers malt if you can find it.
Also check the mash pH when using lots of rye - it doesn't drop into
range as nicely as barley malt in my experience.
-Steve
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4418, 12/05/03
*************************************
-------
