HOMEBREW Digest #4418 Fri 05 December 2003

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          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 *********

  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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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? Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
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 - -- Return to table of contents
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 Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/05/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96