HOMEBREW Digest #5225 Sun 02 September 2007

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

		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


                     Your Business Name Here
    Visit http://hbd.org "Sponsor the HBD"  to find out how!
    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Ale pitching rates (Signalbox Brewery)
  Fermentabilty of Wort WRT mash thickness (Signalbox Brewery)
  Split Rock Homebrew Competition ("Al Hazan")
  Sour cherry substitute for Stout (Tom Puskar)
  Re: Fermentability of Wort WRT mash temperature (Fred L Johnson)
  Powered sugar (Brew)
  re: Fermentabilty of Wort WRT mash thickness ("-s@adelphia.net")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:10:13 +0100 From: Signalbox Brewery <signalbox.brewery at ntlworld.com> Subject: Ale pitching rates Fred L asked about Fix's magic million. Lower pitching rates produce more esters, I believe, which are a characteristic of British ales. Strange people from other countries brew 'ales', but have the most peculiar ideas that they should have as little flavour as Anheuser-Busch's finest. They regard esters, sulphur and DMS as flaws... I don't know how Chris White survived the McCarthy purges. He likes the exciting range of ale flavours and advocates open fermentation to encourage them. He also regrets that he can't sell the more characterful yeast strains like Southwold, he told the Scottish Craft Brewers a couple of years ago. The (UK) Craft Brewing Association's champion beer in 2004 was a 1064 porter fermented with 11g of S-04 for 40 litres (10 US gallons). Any computer nerd can tell that's wrong, but the judges couldn't. (Do you say 'nerd' in the States? I think 'geek' is similar). cheers David Edge, Derby, UK Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:14:14 +0100 From: Signalbox Brewery <signalbox.brewery at ntlworld.com> Subject: Fermentabilty of Wort WRT mash thickness Steve Jones seems to recall that Palmer's view on thin mashes being fermentable was opposed to what was discussed here. I recall an informative post which stated that while thin mashes kill enzymes faster (and that's what most people focus on) they also reduce product inhibition hence a more fermentable wort. I can't find it using Google so perhaps it was in a personal reply to me. My experience agrees with JPs statement. While I didn't turn up the original post, the lucid technical exposition here on other mashy phenomena may be of interest. http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/4011.html#4011-2 ff David Edge, Derby, UK Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:25:03 -0400 From: "Al Hazan" <hazan at ptd.net> Subject: Split Rock Homebrew Competition This is the first announcement for the Homebrew Competition to be held on Saturday, November 17th, at the Split Rock Resort in Pennsylvania's Pocono Mountains. This competition is held in conjunction with their annual Micro Brew Festival. This is a sanctioned competition judging all beer, mead and cider styles. Entries should be shipped to the Resort at Split Rock, One Lake Drive, Lake Harmony, PA 18624, and Attention: Shelly Kalins Lutz, for receipt from November 3rd to November 15th. Entry fees of $5 per entry will be donated to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. By simply entering, you will be helping this charitable organization help others. Checks should be made out to The Resort at Split Rock. Two (2) brown or green bottles with no markings are required. Please use rubber bands to attach bottle labels. No tape please. Any standard entry forms identifying the brewer and the appropriate entry category/subcategory are acceptable. The 2004 BJCP Style Guidelines will be used for this competition. Get this from the BJCP web site at www.bjcp.org. Judges are needed and they should contact me to secure a position. Judges and Stewards can hand carry their entries if they pre-register with payment. All judges and stewards are required to be present by 8:30 so we can get started promptly at 9am. Judges will receive an entry to the beer festival or entry to the beer dinner for their efforts and need to indicate which they wish when they commit to participate. The BOS winner will receive a complementary weekend for two at next year's Split Rock Beer Fest as well. More information will be available at the Split Rock web site: http://www.splitrockresort.com/beerfest/. Or contact them at: spevents at splitrockresort.com. Al Hazan Competition Organizer hazan at ptd.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:02:16 -0400 From: Tom Puskar <tpuskar at optonline.net> Subject: Sour cherry substitute for Stout I found a recipe for an all grain chocolate cherry Imperial Stout that I wanted to try. Now I find that sour cherries are out of season and can't seem to find any here in NJ. Anyone know of a substitute that might work? Would one of those syrups most homebrew shops sell fill the bill? Thanks, Teejay in Howell, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:23:34 -0400 From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson52 at nc.rr.com> Subject: Re: Fermentability of Wort WRT mash temperature Steve Jones asked about the source of some published data that was discussed on HBD a long while back regarding temperature vs mash thickness vs fermentability. Steve Alexander provided us with those data on several occasions. Here are a couple of quotes from Steve Alexander indicating the source (from off-line correspondence with Steve or taken from the HBD archives). "Full Table 9.11 from M and B Sci 2nd edition data by Hall, quoted by Harris. Influence of mash temperature and concentration on the composition of sweet wort." "The data [SNIP] actually come from an American research by R.H.Hall, as reported by G.Harris in his book "Barley and Malt" Academic Press, 1962. The table appears in M and BS pp 289. [SNIP]... the earliest posting (and perhaps the best typeset one) appeared in HBD#1138, May 1993 from Rob Thomas. Set your mail reader to a fixed width font to read easily." Fred L Johnson Apex, North Carolina, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Brew <kristbigfoot at yahoo.com> Subject: Powered sugar What is the base sugar of powered sugar? Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:09:01 -0400 From: "-s at adelphia.net" <-s@adelphia.net> Subject: re: Fermentabilty of Wort WRT mash thickness Steve Jones brings up an old topic with ... > On Brews n Views there was a comment made quoting John Palmer on this: > "The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance > of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain > dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the > conversion, > but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are > not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars." > > This seemed counter to a discussion here years ago (when there was much > more traffic here) that was about this same thing (but also including > Temperature). I believe that -s was involved, and I have some data in a > spreadsheet from that discussion. It has 2 tables - one with mash temps > of 140F, 151F, and 155F, and shows the amount of each type of sugar > (including dextrines) extracted from that mash. It also showed %extract, > > and %fermentables. The second table showed these same parameters and > values at mash thicknesses of 1.4, .81, and .61 qts/lb. The last table > showed an average of %fermentables for each of the 9 combinations and > ranked them, showing that the most fermentable wort was produced at 140F > > and .81 qts/lb. > > Does anyone remember that discussion, and the source of the data? I can > post the tables if anyone is interested. > The data comes originally from an experiment by Hall, as quoted by Harris in "Barley and Malt", Academic Press 1962, but is reproduced in M&BS pp289 table 9.11 and partly reproduced in the late George Fix' first book. Steve Jones however is incorrect in one important regard - the fermentability% is highest at 140F, but with a mash thickness of 29%(1.65qt/lb) the thinnest lowest temp mash tested. The 140F normal thickness of 39%(1.23qt/lb) mash was only very slightly less in fermentability (76.1% vs 76.2%). Note that fermentability is something like the real attenuation, not the apparent attenuation so the apparent attenuation of these two would have been around 94% - very very high. I have another paper (not in front of me but it's by Thurston published in JIB), shows small fermentability increases as you decrease mash thickness from 1.25qt/lb to 2 qt/lb, and even a tiny increase as you add more water to 2.5qt/lb. FWIW German pale lager brewing (decoction) traditionally used mashes of 2.5qt/lb and even thinner - so this is not extreme. Yes thinner mashed increase fermentability. Perhaps it bears repeating; normal barley malt (pale or diastatic malt) has plenty of alpha-amylase(AA) to completely reduce all amylopectic and snip much of the amylose as well. The major barrier to high fermentability is the careful use of limited amount of beta-amylase(BA) available. Water is a limiting factor in the rate conversion early in a thick mash(<1qt/lb), but not so much at normal 1.25qt/lb mash or above. The water of a thick mash is initially trapped as a gel by the amylopectin, but as this starch is decimated by alpha-amylase the water is freed and the rates of amylase hydrolysis increase. Late in the mash the beta-amylase(BA) rate of reaction suffers from product inhibition. Higher maltose concentrations slow the activity of BA. This is when thinning helps. Many enzymes are inhibited by their own product. Ultimately all enzymatic conversions are reversible so if you add BA to a vat of pure maltose you will produce a tiny bit of maltotetraose(M4) as a result (tho' it is not energetically favored). Anyway maltose concentrations do slow the BA hydrolysis of amylose and slow any increase in fermentability. Too much water dilutes the enzymes and precursor which slows the reaction rate according to the Michaelis-Menten eqn. If high fermentability in a normal mash was my goal, I'd try a strategy of mashing at a normal thickness (say 1.25qt/lb) and after say 20 or 30 minutes in the saccharification range I'd dilute 2 or even 2.5 qt/lb. Of course observine pH and temp issues. Before you worry about extra-thin mashes you should verify that you can control mash temps accurately and that you are selecting an optimal pH for fermentability, but yes a thinner mash will marginally help, but lower mash temps are key. One irritating reality of the brewing universe is that malt gelatinization temperature, the temp at which the starch is released, is about 65C(149F) and that the 'ideal' temp for maximal maltose production in a reasonable amount of time is closer to 60C(140F). If you want high fermentability and you also want normal extraction rates, then you'll have to work past the contradiction of full gelatinization while maintaining a mash temp around 60C. Yanking the grist from a thin low temp mash, in a decoction-like fashion, and only just gelatinizing this at ~67C and then returning this to a ~60C remix might be a useful strategy. OTOH be aware that BA is denaturing at a significant rate even at 60C, so you really don't want to waste a lot of time with the BA not in contact with amylase while you heat a 'pseudo-decoct'. Now if the goal is fermentability and not optimal tasting beer I'll point out that distillers regularly approach or slightly exceed 100% apparent attenuation by mashing in and leaving the grist and enzymes in contact for several days - during the ferment. Of course there is no mashout, no boil, no sanitation and no hops extraction or protein coagulation but it is highly fermentable. Ignore this extreme - longer mashes favor higher fermentability (even some alpha-amylase products are fermentable) but this is not generally positive for beer flavor & body. A very similar extent of attenuation can be made by mashing and processing normally and then adding amyloglucosidase enzymes to the fermenter. A few years ago I bought a bottle (I believe it was a 1L bottle and it requires only a few ml per barrel). These enzymes are intended for brewing, distributed by Crosby & Baker. My LHBS (grape&granery - shameless plug for some very nice people) obtained and sold me the bottle for abt $15. So it's very easy to create a "normal beer" and then drive the attenuation to 100%. My experience using the enzyme was that it had little impact on flavor and it did noticeable remove body at 100% attenuation, but less so that I would have thought. I never want very far inexperimenting at adding smaller amounts of enzyme to limit the attenuation. In all you can make very tasty beer at 100% attenuation, but you will want to bump up the protein level to compensate for the body loss. -S Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/03/07, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96