Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4860
HOMEBREW Digest #4860 Mon 03 October 2005
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
Visit http://www.northernbrewer.com to show your appreciation!
Or call them at 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
RE: Efficiency ("Dave and Joan King")
Cauchy & Riemann (Ricardo Cabeza)
Berliner Weisse advice? ("Chuck Brandt")
Efficiency and Mash Viscosity and Complexity and Cute Little Sparge Arms ("Dave Burley")
Re: Pils for your base malt (Jeff Renner)
Low Final Gravities ("Allan J. Horn")
Re: Corn, Corn Corn (Jeff Renner)
re:mash viscocity (Nathaniel Lansing)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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.
LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.
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 (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:39:53 -0400
From: "Dave and Joan King" <dking3 at stny.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Efficiency
Time for me to chime in. Semi-fly sparging is what I use, and it works
great for me, getting apparent extraction efficiency in the 80 to 88% range,
consistently (although that's a big range to call "consistent"). Slow 90
minute lautering is the key to getting decent extract efficiency, IMHO. The
"Semi" gives me time to get other tasks done. I use a 12 gallon rectangular
cooler for mashing and sparging, with a crude spiral of 1/4" Cu tubing near
the top of it's lid, with hack-saw slots cut in it, so hot water "sprinkles"
onto the grain bed, but I maintain an 1 inch or more over the grain, so
there's no need to apply the H2O real evenly.
I use a good volume of H2O to get from mashing to sparging temperature
(approx. 3 gal.), and after vigorous stirring and 10 to 20 minutes of
recirculation with my RIMS, I can slowly start collection and let it run,
during which I clean and prepare for the next step. When I see the grain
surface starting to get close, it's time to add a gallon or so of hot (180
to 210 F), and go on. At around the 6 gallon mark, I estimate how much hot
H2O I need above the grain bed (which holds about 1 gallon), to get my final
volume, add it to get there, and finish sparging.
I agree, whatever works for you is cool. The big issue is being able to
estimate how much grain you need to start with, in order to get the I. G.
you want, and another lb. or so of grain is no big deal. I still need to
underestimate, and add a little DME to dial it in, due to my efficiency
range, still no big deal. RHAHB.
Dave King, President of BIER (Brewers In the Endicott Region)
[396.1, 89.1] Apparent Rennerian
PS. I love this debate, too!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 01:45:30 -0400
From: Ricardo Cabeza <expunged at gmail.com>
Subject: Cauchy & Riemann
Steve Alexander wrote:
".....some guys named Cauchy &
Riemann have a much cleaner means of assessing the
continuous case than any Microzaftig Excel sheet could
ever produce [fergawdsakes Chad, at least exercise your
HB frugality and use the free OpenOffice suite]."
Could you explain the method from Cauchy & Riemann? Or point me in
the right direction for more info? The Cauchy & Riemann I remember
were from math class. Are these the same guys you're talking about?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:31:13 -0400
From: "Chuck Brandt" <ChuckB at techcollaborative.org>
Subject: Berliner Weisse advice?
I recently visited Nodding Head in Philly for the first time, tried
their Berliner weiss (with and without syrup)
and got hooked (on both). Does anyone have a good starting recipe and/or
some good advice they'd be
willing to share on recreating this wonderful brew? I'm a little
hesitant to 'dive right in' with any brewing
involving bacterial cultures because my home brewery is rather small
and, if required, finding space for a
second set of equipment would be challenging.
Thanks,
Chuck Brandt
[193, 88] apparent Rennerian
Aka Pittsburgh, PA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:35:50 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Efficiency and Mash Viscosity and Complexity and Cute Little Sparge Arms
Brewsters:
SteveA what have you been drinking? {8^)
Let's see. You believe that batch sparging is more efficient yet you aim for
inefficiency to get better tasting beer?? So what do you use? Batch or
continuous sparging? And that as you raise the temperature the mash
viscosity doesn't go down?
I think the main reason I do continuous sparging is the uniformity in my
sparge and added complexity. This lets me calculate the grist and all sorts
of nice things. I also get a graininess I prefer that is missing with most
batch sparging I have tasted. Batch sparged beer reminds me of an extract
beer, probably for a good reason. As the pH of the sparge changes over the
continuous sparge, different components are extracted from the grain adding
to the taste complexity. Of course, carried too far and if the pH rises to
much (depending on the mineral content of the water and any added acid) you
may begin extracting husk phenols to the point of developing unwanted
bitterness in the beer. I never have, since I taste the sparge periodically
and use my refractometer to examine the sugar content. OTOH a little
extracted phenols will develop a complexity not obtainable with batch
sparging.
I think Charley P's comment long ago that "just add another pound of malt"
is right up there with most of his other silliness like a 15 minute mash
based on an incorrect iodine test procedure and passing hot wort through the
air, as in his pictures. Remember, Charlie is Type A+, graduated as a
Nuclear Physicist to become an Unclear Physicist, in his own words. {8^)
I am puzzled by your explanation of why batch sparging can ever be more
efficient than continuous sparging. In a batch sparge, the "sparge" water is
a high concentration sugar solution, which reduces its ability to remove the
malt sugar from the interior of the grain. whereas the grain experiences an
ever lower concentration of sugar and more efficient extraction (i.e. faster
net diffusion) as the continuous sparing continues. Perhaps you are
including your personal time in this equation? And calling that more
efficient?
One test of the extraction efficiency would be to do an extraction both ways
on the same batch and the take the remaining brewer's grains and soak them
overnight (to eliminate kinetic issues) in a known volume of water to cover,
or more. and determine the concentration of the remaining sugar with
Clinitest.
I can't download that reference URL, as I couldn't the other day, but I
would expect the viscosity of a mash to drop as the temperature goes up
unless at the higher temperature more sugar or other solubles were being
brought into solution. Maybe your definition of "negligible" is the issue
here?
Maybe it is also a problem that we talk about mash viscosity (meaning the
rheology of the mash slurry of wort and extracted grain, which can be
Newtonian, Thixotropic or Dilatent) and we are thinking about the presumed
Newtonian viscosity of the wort??? What is being measured and how? In the
mash case, the rate of measurement will give different results, but I would
expect the trend to be the same. A lower Newtonian viscosity component at a
higher temperature.
- -------------------
Chad, I still love you too but the question I ask is why is your batch
sparging more efficient and why are your results for continuous sparging so
poor (It has been a while since I bothered to calculate it but I recall I am
typically in the high 80s and low 90s)? I wonder if you are getting
channeling? Do you let the bed settle for a minute or two before beginning
to slowwwly draw off the wort? and always keep the bed covered with wort or
water, carefully adding the sparge water just as the wort level drops to the
top of the bed?
And 18 years isn't as long as my 36 years of brewing, but it is respectable.
{8^)
And, Chad. I have made this argument before, but modern usage of the "-ster"
suffix is asexual as in "Jokester" (but not Spinster - although that can be
applied asexually to media personnel) or you can interpret it as the Captain
of a male football team saying to his team "OK, Girls, let's go get 'em."
Whatever pleases you to understand the affection I feel for all these
brewsters of both sexes over all these years.
- -------------------
And Alexandre, my thoughts and yours about using a variety of malts to
develop complexity are in complete agreement.
- -------------------
And Mike, I agree with your idea to use al foil with holes in it on top of
the bed. I also have used a small kettle lid that fits on the grain bed to
keep from stirring it up when I add my water to avoid channelling. The
sparge arm on a grain bed the size we use, strikes me as a little silly.
Sorry, Dan. But it is cute.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:48:04 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jsrenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Pils for your base malt
Darrell leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu wrote:
> Can you see any reason for not using, almost exclusively, pilsner
> malt for your
> base malt? I mean, if you tend to make both light and dark ales
> and lagers,
> then doesn't it make sense to use the pils so as to get the
> lightest (if you
> want it), and use dark malts to add color and flavor, if you don't?
>
> I purchase in 55 lb bags, and would rather have the mash too light,
> and darken
> it, than have it too dark and not be able to adjust. And, aren't
> the enzymens
> ok in both to handle all styles?
I can think of several flaws in this logic:
First, I find that pale ale malts, which are malted differently (more
modified) and slightly more highly kilned than pilsner malts, are
more flavorful and appropriate for ales. I especially like Maris
Otter malt. Now, for a really dark ale like a porter, this flavor
advantage might be lost, but it might not be.
I think Vienna malts might be simply a more highly kilned version of
Pilsner malt, I'm not sure, but I know that Munich malts are more
highly modified and kilned differently. They are, as I recall,
kilned in some fashion a bit like crystal malts, though not nearly
like them, but there is some degree of higher kilning while they are
still not completely dry. The flavor or a dark beer using a high
proportion of Munich malt is far different than one using a Pilner
malt base and a small proportion of some darker malt (roasted and/or
crystal). Even a 100% Vienna malt beer has a different, maltier
flavor than one with a Pilsner malt base and a small proportion of
some darker malt.
These different malts were developed empirically based on local
crops, water and brewing traditions, but there is a reason that they
are still used commercially. I think there is also reason for us to
use them in appropriate situations.
Jeff
- ---
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, jsrennerATumichDOTedu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
***Please note new address***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:03:56 -0700
From: "Allan J. Horn" <ipassgas at comcast.net>
Subject: Low Final Gravities
have been all grain brewing for 3+ years and have developed a confounding
problem.
My old 5 gallon system worked fine, with FG in the 1.012-1.016 range
(depending on style of beer). Then, I made my dream 10 gallon system with all
the bells and whistles, and have done 4 batches, all different styles, all of
recipes I had done before. My fermentations are super, but they ALL end at
1.020. (Starting gravities are typically in the 1.050-1.065 range)
The final beers taste great, no noticeable residual sweetness. I have tried
repitching, adding yeast nutrients, rousting the yeast, etc. to no avail. I
use a temp controlled cylindroconical fermentor and pre-oxygenate my wort with
pure o2. The only difference (besides batch size) is that, now that I have a
RIMS system, I perform a mashout at 170 for about 15-20 minutes. My efficiency
is around 80-82%(better than the old 70% or so that I had with my old system.
I do a single infusion mash, hit my target temp dead on (152), have calibrated
my thermometers and my hydrometers AND my refractometer AND my temp controller
for the fermentor.
Any ideas on what is happening? My only conclusion is that I am extracting a
lot of unfermentables that are leaving me with a high FG.
Allan
Code Brew Brewing Company
Orinda, CA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:11:43 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jsrenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Corn, Corn Corn
"Unix Bob" <neutrinodust at hotmail.com> wrote:
> does anyone have any estimates on what the
> effect of adding 1LB of corn starch to the mash might have on the
> SG of a 5
> gallon batch?
Corn starch is virtually pure starch, which will convert nearly 100%,
I would think. But it is ~10% moisture, so it give about 90% the
yield of sugar (45 ppg), or 41 ppg. My best guess, anyway.
For more info, even though it's 100 years old, see Wahl and Henius
"American Handy Book of Brewing and Malting Science at http://hbd.org/
aabg/wahl/. This classic resource can still give a lot of valuable
information. Click on the left menu on "brewing materials", then
click on the "starch" entry on the right hand menu - pp. 470 and 472.
You will need to do a cereal mash with a portion of malt - about 30%
as in a cereal mash, but it will take a very short time to gelatinize
the fine particles of starch. (See Wahl and henius).
This, of course, will give about the same ratio of fermentable/
unfermentable (~60%/40%) sugars as malt does.
> Also, I would be interested to learn anyones experience using
> corn starch may have on the final taste / aroma. For better or
> worse -
It will add virtually no flavor.
> Same thing for adding corn syrup to the boil. Again, I'm
> interested in
> learning effects on the SG and resulting taste / aroma. Any
> specific brands
> of corn syrup better than others?
Brewers us corn syrup especially made for brewing that has the same
kinds of sugars as mashed malt, or at least a similar ratio of
fermentable sugars (see above). I am not sure if these kinds of
syrups are available in the HB trade.
Other corn syrups may be 100% fermentable dextrose, or some other
sugars and ratio.
There will be no flavor from unflavored corn syrup, but Karo brand
has salt and, I believe, flavoring. The SG contribution will depend
on the amount of moisture.
> With regards to corn meal - I would be interested in any feedback
> using
> corn meal. I'm planning on doing a double decoction mash and
> boiling 2LBs of
> corn meal with a small amount of grain for 30 minutes to
> gelatainize before
> adding to the main mash. Does this end up being a gooey mess?
> Should I
> plan on a stuck sparge from the beginning? Again, any feedback is
> greatly
> appreciated.
The traditional cereal mash, or American double mash system (see
again Wahl and Henius) uses 30% as much malt as corn meal/grits. You
dry mix these, mash 20-30 minutes at ~153F, then boil (be careful of
sticking and scorching) for 30-60 minutes depending on particle
size. You should have no trouble with this being a gooey mess as the
malt liquifies it. It should also result in a normal runoff if you
keep the cereal levels reasonable. Commercial breweries go 50% or
higher. I stay under 30%
Corn meal or grits have a mild, sweet grainy flavor contribution.
Jeff
- ---
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, jsrennerATumichDOTedu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
***Please note new address***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:09:16 -0400
From: Nathaniel Lansing <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: re:mash viscocity
Steve asserts he is/was correct about mash out not
affecting mash viscosity and improving run off or efficiency
and points to the JIB as proof. Well, yes and no. The article
does a nice analysis of test mash viscosity and the effects
on vicosity of amylase quantities and gelitanization.
As far as if goes, Steve is correct, only about a 38% drop
in mash viscosity throughout the mash program.
BUT, they are measuring the total mash, grist and all.
from JIB...
>>The star-shaped
>>paddle rotor was specially designed by Goode et al.(20) for
>>attachment to the Bohlin. In all experiments it was adjusted
>>to obtain a distance of 0.5 mm between the bottom
>>of the rotor and the bottom of the cup. Its special design
>>enables mash particles to stay in suspension during measurement.
from footnote (20)
>>After pre-weighing the required
>>water and sample weights into the aluminium sample canisters,
>>the plastic stirrer was placed in the sample cup and
>>jogged up and down for a few seconds to ensure sample
>>mixing and to prevent sample clumping. The sample canister
>>was then immediately placed in the hot block of the
>>RVA, the plastic stirrer was re-attached to the instrument
>>and the pre-programmed rheological profile was initiated.
So if we were trying to run off the whole grist into our kettles this
would pertain, but we are trying to runoff the liquor.
The liquor itself is what matters during the sparge and that
viscosity drops by about 1/3 at mashout temperatures,
a drop in a 20P sugar solution from ~.98 mpa at 50 C to
~.68mpa at 74 C. These numbers are for a pure sugar
solution. Of course we are not working with a pure sugar
solution but these numbers compare very closely to numbers
from a raw sugar treatment website, raw sugar containing
many various impurities, molasses, plant fibers, proteins.
I don't imagine a 1/3 drop in absolute viscosity can truly be ignored.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4860, 10/03/05
*************************************
-------
