HOMEBREW Digest #3235 Sat 29 January 2000

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		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

  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 at 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 at 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 ${1+"$ at "}' 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 at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:52:09 -0500 (EST) From: patrick finerty <zinc at 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 at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:16:47 -0800 (PST) From: erniebaker at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:54:45 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:10:12 -0800 (PST) From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:23:45 EST From: VQuante at 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 at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:43:47 EST From: VQuante at 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 at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:43:45 EST From: VQuante at 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 at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:47:56 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 17:51:22 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:27:21 -0800 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at 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. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:49:45 -0600 From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 21:53:09 EST From: LOneill953 at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 23:06:08 EST From: Warandle1 at 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!) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 16:38:44 +1000 From: "Darren Robey" <drobey at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 02:20:40 -0500 From: phil sides jr <psides at 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! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:57:39 +0000 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at 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. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:40:02 -0000 From: Tony Barnsley <tony.barnsley at 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 Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/29/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96