Topics

16

The Pub / Why hide behind a Alias?

« on: November 02, 2011, 01:22:12 PM »

I've noticed that a lot of participants on this list hide behind an alias and they don't reveal who they are.  As far as I'm concerned, I don't feel that anyone that can't reveal their name can expect to be taken seriously.  Why would a reader assume that if someone is not willing to stand behind what they say, that they should be believed or taken seriously?  On top of this, I think that when you know that others know who you are, you're probably not going to act like an a$$ on the list. 

This is sort of along the lines that created the Rennerian coordinates on Homebrew Digest.  I believe it came from an attempt by Jeff Renner to get participants in that list to identify themselves and improve the factuality and civility of that list.  Fortunately, I haven't noted any uncivil manners on this list.  But it sure would be nice to know who my fellow list mates are. 

Stand up and let the world know who you are.  Put your name in your signature line and stand behind what you say!  You would not be alone.  The folks who only ADD content to this forum let you know who they are.
 

17

Equipment and Software / New Carbonator Caps

« on: August 24, 2011, 05:37:47 PM »

I was just on the Crankandstein website and noticed they are producing a pretty nice setup for carbonator caps.  Price for 4 caps with the filling chuck....$20 !!!!  And it fits your ball lock gas out fitting.  Way to go.  I'm going to have to cough up some dough and try these. 

http://www.crankandstein.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=4

18

Equipment and Software / Utility Sink for Electric HLT

« on: August 18, 2011, 12:21:10 PM »

I just thought of an interesting and inexpensive alternative to create an electric-fired HLT for my new all electric brewing system.  The typical SST keg or pot is the typical vessel for a hot liquor tank, but that was going to be expensive and require some modification.  Not too bad an alternative, but I was searching.  Aluminum pots are another alternative, but again they will require modification.  Either of those vessels would be more difficult to insulate since they are cylindrical.  

A typical insulated water keg is another option, but I am concerned with placing an electrical element in a plastic vessel with thin plastic walls.  Plus, they have relatively small diameter and that would require installing the element vertically in the keg.  

I pondered other barrels and tanks and then lit upon the idea that a typical single-basin sink could suit my requirements.  I brew batches up to 10 gallon volume, so I might have the need for about 10 to 11 gallons of sparge water.  A utility sink would work since they typically have 20+ gallon capacity.  

The good thing with a utility sink is that a drain outlet is standard and the typically straight side walls are well suited to mounting a flange-mounted heater element so I wouldn't have to deal with a 1" NPS fitting or nut.  There are stainless utility sinks, but there are also the thick plastic or composite sinks that might also be suited to this elevated temperature duty (say 180F).  

The flat sides and bottom of the sink should make it pretty easy to glue on panels of foam insulation.  I figure that insulation shouldn't cost too much and it should pay off with less heating losses.  Another slab of foam can be employed to serve as a lid to the HLT.  

I think this could be pretty neat and effective.  Any other thoughts?

19

All Grain Brewing / Mash Average Diastatic Rating vs. Mashing Time

« on: July 04, 2011, 01:53:23 PM »

We had an interesting discussion on mashing time last fall, but it did not cover mashing time vs. diastatic power.  I bring this up after reading a bit about low diastatic mashes requiring more conversion time in Strong's 'Brewing Better Beer'.

In the discussion of Ingredients (pg 108), Gordon mentions that mashes with lower diastatic power may require more time to convert.  Intuitively it makes sense, but I had not heard it before.  The general concensus is that the average diastatic rating of the mash needs to be at least 30 to 40 Lintner to provide complete conversion.  I'm more inclined to believe its 35 to 40 Lintner minimum based on Gordon's information.

Given Gordon's statement and the fact that base grains are easily over 100 Lintner, is there really a difference in the time to a negative iodine reading with respect to the average Lintner rating of the grist?  I did a brief search, but do not find guidance from anyone having performed such a study.  Clearly, a grist with its average diastatic rating
above 100 Lintner will have plenty of enzymatic power to convert, but is it going to convert faster than a grist with 35 Lintner?

Another curiousity is how the average diastatic power is calculated.  Since diastatic power is only needed to convert starches, is there any reason to include the weight of grains such as crystal malts in the calculation of the average diastatic rating for the grist?  Dilution by those grains is one thought, but I'm not sure its valid.  I'm thinking that the total sum of diastatic power divided by only the total weight of STARCHY grain and adjuncts might be valid.  This is in contrast to the total diastatic power divided by the total grain and adjunct weight.

20

Yeast and Fermentation / Effect of oxygenation on alcohol perception in high gravity beers

« on: May 02, 2011, 10:37:42 AM »

We have had discussions on fusel alcohols and on oxygenation.  One thread mentioned that excessive oxygenation may cause excessive yeast growth and promote fusel alcohol production.  I'm not sure the thread confirmed that finding, but my question is slightly different.  

I have had beers that report 7 to 9 percent alcohol that presented low perception of alcohol in the beer.  I have also had beers with similar alcohol percentage that present high perception of alcohol.  The high perceptions may not have been fusel in nature (hot).   A local brewery has crafted beers that had little alcohol perception in the past, but now seems to create beers that smack me in the face with alcohol and they are similar strength beers.  

Would excessive oxygenation promote the increased perception of the alcohols in a beer even if those alcohols might not be fusel in nature?  We know that under-oxygenation promotes ester formation and potentially poor or incomplete fermentation, but I have not heard a lot about over-oxygenation effects.
  

21

General Homebrew Discussion / National Homebrewing Competition Fees and Support

« on: April 24, 2011, 12:35:28 PM »

I just finished up a 4 day run of judging for the NHC Indy Regional.  I have to say that I'm dissappointed and am ranting to get the ball rolling on things that MUST change regarding the fees charged and support provided by AHA for the NHC.  

Needless to say, NHC is a huge undertaking.  Through the hard work of hundreds of judges, stewards, organizers, and sponsors, it does get done.  The problem that is occuring is that there isn't enough support provided to the people that run and organize these contests and the popularity of the NHC continues to grow.  Clearly, the law of supply and demand is not being followed and its time to comment on it.  

At many of the regional competitions, the pool of highly qualified judges in a locality is limited and getting additional judges from the region is needed.  I was very pleased to see judges at the Indy Regional that traveled up to 6 hours to participate.  My hat was off to them!  But I wouldn't have traveled that far for the lunch and door prize that they recieved.  The few judge experience points are poor compensation for the hundreds of dollars that some of those judges probably shelled out for travel, lodging, and meal expenses.  There needs to be a significant change to the program to correct that.  

In talking with Janice (NHC Coordinator) over the years, I know that the contest is expensive as is and that is with the limited support they currently provide to the regional contests.  The popularity of the contest is unquestioned, as the entry quotas are exhausted in short order.  Given the need for additional support at the regional contests, the costs to run the competition are going to rise significantly. Therefore, the entry fees need a commensurate increase.  

Judges traveling more than about 50 miles need to be compensated for their travel and other expenses to make it worth their while to make the trip.  Before too long, the only judges showing up will be the locals and they will have to deal with the 750 entry pool themselves.  See how long any of those overworked local judges stick in there after they have spent days at the contest.  Then you won't even have the locals participating.  

In my opinion, a daily stipend for judges traveling over (50?) miles is needed now.  Those are the folks that are critical to the contest execution and they are too far from home to make the drive back after a couple of sessions.  They are footing their bill for travel and lodging and the contestants need to be paying for that.  In addition, better meal support needs to be provided.  A single lunch is not cutting it.  If its a full day of judging, then at least 2 meals need to be provided.  If its just a half day of judging, then a single meal should be provided.  

These incentives only serve to offset the cost of judging and organizer participation since there will always be the significant contribution of time that would be hard to equitably compensate.  The potential is that the entry fees for NHC could easily double. Given the popularity of the event, it may not make a dent in the entry numbers.  But at least there would be higher likelihood that an adequate number of qualified judges would show up.  If these changes are not implimented, there is the distinct possibility that NHC Regional contests could fail (ie. not enough judges show up to complete the contest in a timely manner).  

Again, my hat is off to you hardy souls that contributed your time and money to participate as an organizer or judge in the NHC.  You have gone above and beyond.  That needs to change!

PS: These same arguments apply to any local contest too.  Organizers, If you're wondering why you can't get judges to participate, you need to make it somewhat worth their while.  The days of the low entry fee are over.

22

Ingredients / Acid Malt Usage

« on: March 13, 2011, 08:53:15 AM »

It has come to my attention that there is a potential problem with the Rule of Thumb that exists for Acid Malt usage. Acid malt is also known as Acidulated Malt or Saurermalt. That ROT is: Each 1% acid malt by weight added to a grist will drop the mash pH by about 0.1 unit.

Since acid malt contains lactic acid, adding acid malt to the grist is just like adding a few drops of lactic acid per pound of malt in the grist. Acid malt is typically used when the brewing water's alkalinity is too high to allow the mash pH to drop into the desired range. Under typical usage, its only added when a check of the mash pH shows that the pH has not dropped enough. Under this usage, the ROT should be fairly effective.

The problem comes when programs like Bru'n Water enable the brewer to predict mash pH prior to actually conducting the mash. The prediction indicates that the mash pH will be high and the brewer plans on an acid malt addition. Part of the problem stems from the variability in acid content of various acid malt products. Apparently Weyermann acid malt is soaked in lactic acid solution for several days while other maltsters just spray a lactic acid solution onto the grain. It appears that the quantity of lactic acid in acid malt products is generally between 2 and 3 % by weight. Bru'n Water assumes that the acid malt used has the higher 3% by weight lactic acid content.

Knowing that a mash pH problem may be looming can be helpful, but brewers need to use caution when adding acid malt or acid directly to the mash based on a program prediction. If the mash water alkalinity and residual alkalinity are low, the ROT for acid malt effect may not hold. In that case, the alkalinity that is moderating the pH drop may have been consumed and minor acid additions can have a larger than expected pH drop.

This pH effect is similar to the fact that adding a drop of acid to a fixed quantity of water will generally produce a somewhat consistent pH reduction with each drop. But as the water's alkalinity is used up, each drop of acid has a progressively increasing pH drop (pH falls off a cliff).

23

Ingredients / Advanced Software for Brewing Water Analysis

« on: February 18, 2011, 07:09:38 AM »

I have just published my advanced brewing water software, Bru'n Water.  This is the first program that I know of that includes the contribution of grain acidity and water alkalinity to allow the brewer to better predict and tailor their mash pH.  We know that tailoring brewing water based on the beer color does not work well.  This program moves beyond that limitation.  Mash pH is a strong factor in creating cleaner flavor, proper body, and desired fermentation and attenuation performance.

The program includes all the typical mineral calculators and goes on to provide acid calculators, dilution tools, extensively researched water profiles, and a comprehensive water knowledge section.  I think you will find that it is quite a useful tool for analyzing your water and truly figuring out how to make it fit your current beer's mashing requirements.  

The mash pH prediction equation in the program has been proven to come within 0.2 pH units.  With continued observations and reports from the brewing community, I expect that the prediction capability may be refined to as little as 0.1 pH unit.  

I have set up a web site to further explain and illustrate the program and serve as a downloading point for interested brewers.  Please visit the following site:

https://sites.google.com/site/brunwater/

Enjoy!

24

Ingredients / Decarbonation by Boiling

« on: February 05, 2011, 08:20:28 AM »

The following information was taken from the water knowledge that I will be publishing with my water calculator shortly.  The following presentation on what happens when water is treated by boiling should help brewers understand the process and results.  Enjoy.

Decarbonation by Boiling is a practice that was employed historically and it does reduce alkalinity and calcium (hardness) in water with high Temporary Hardness.  The boiling process drives off carbon dioxide (CO2) that helps keep chalk (CaCO3) soluble in water.  When the CO2 is driven off, the CaCO3 will precipitate out of the water.

This process provides results that can be somewhat similar to performing Lime-Softening.  In my opinion, lime-softening is a less energy intensive and less expensive way to reduce temporary hardness, but it may not reduce alkalinity to the degree that the boiling method can.  
                              
The water is heated to boiling or near-boiling and stirred, splashed, or aerated to help get the CO2 out of the water.  As CO2 leaves the water, CaCO3 precipitates and causes the water to become cloudy.  The heating is ended and the precipitate is allowed to settle quietly to the bottom of the vessel.  The water is then immediately decanted off the sediment and used for brewing.  The water cannot be allowed to sit too long on the sediment or CO2 will again diffuse from the atmosphere into the cooled water and redissolve the CaCO3.  

This process does not reduce the magnesium content since Mg(OH)2 is much more soluble than CaCO3 in water and the CaCO3 precipitates first, leaving the magnesium with the bicarbonate remaining in the water.  
                              
Boiling reduces both bicarbonate and calcium content of the water when performed properly.  The practical limit for the process reduces the bicarbonate content to between 60 and 80 ppm.  Therefore, the quantity of CaCO3 that can be precipitated will be based on the difference between the starting and ending (60 to 80ppm) bicarbonate content.  A reasonable assumption is to use the upper bicarbonate limit for the ending bicarbonate concentration since that allows for more error in the process.  The ending calcium content for the water can be calulated using the following formula:  

Ending Ca (ppm) = Starting Ca (ppm) - ((starting HCO3 (ppm) - ending HCO3 (ppm))/3.05)
                              
The equation above assumes that the water has a high enough calcium concentration to execute the reaction to volatilize the CO2 and precipitate the CaCO3.  An ending calcium concentration that is negative indicates that additional calcium would be required.  If the calcium concentration is not high enough, it will be neccessary to add calcium in the form of Gypsum or Calcium Chloride to achieve the ending 80 ppm bicarbonate concentration.  The decision as to which of these supplemental calcium sources to use should be based on the desire for more sulfate or more chloride in the water.  
                              
A technique to help encourage and speed the precipitation of CaCO3 from the boiled water is to add more Chalk to the water.  The Chalk provides nucleation sites for the precipitating CaCO3 to agglomerate with and form larger flocs that will settle faster.  A teaspoon of Chalk per 5 gallons should be sufficient to improve the settling.  The added Chalk does not dissolve and add to the calcium concentration since it is not soluble in water without CO2.
                                
Examples of the effect of Decarbonation by Boiling are presented in the water profiles below.  The bicarbonate content was assumed to be reduced to 80 ppm and the calcium corresponding to the quantity of removed bicarbonate was also removed.  All other ion concentrations remain as for the original water.  In the case of the Burton and Dortmund profiles, the low original RA and significant reduction in RA with boiling, indicates that those profiles do not need to be treated in this way for brewing.  Typically, water profiles such as Dublin, Edinburgh, London, Munich, and Vienna are suitable for boiling treatment.

Brewing Center   Ca     Mg    Na    SO4    Cl     HCO3

Burton             213     40    25    610    35     80
Dortmund        179     15    40    330    130    80
Dublin              43       4    12     55     19     80
Edinburgh        33      20    55    140    50     80
London            42       6    15     40     38     80
Munich            6        17    4      18      8      80
Vienna            27      15    10     60     15     80


These profiles present the theoretical precipitation of calcium that will occur as the water is decarbonated by boiling.  I'm not sure that I truely believe the really low Ca result for the Munich profile, but the chemistry indicates it is possible. The practical limit for calcium removal using lime softening is about 30 ppm, so I remain skeptical that a 6 ppm Ca result could be attained.
                              
Although the effect of boiling on Temporary Hardness is well documented and understood, the effect of minor water heating is less understood.  Since the solubility of CO2 is inversely proportional to the water's temperature, it follows that minor heating will produce some of the effects of boiling.  Bubbles can often been seen on the side of the kettle as the water heats.  Therefore, a partial reduction in alkalinity and calcium content may occur when heating water with high Temporary Hardness to mashing or sparging temperature if the water is stirred and the bubbles are forced into the atmosphere.   Since precipitation and decanting is not typically performed for mashing and sparge water preparation, the effectiveness of heating on the alkalinity and calcium reduction is probably limited.  As already known for chalk, the precipitated CaCO3 in the water does not readily redissolve in the mash and therefore the heating may provide some minor alkalinity and calcium reduction.  

25

Ingredients / Palmer Spreadsheet Error

« on: December 14, 2010, 06:12:55 PM »

After reviewing a water profile created by a brewer using Palmer's Spreadsheet, I found a very serious error that must be corrected.  

The bicarbonate concentration calculated from the addition of chalk is in error.  It appears that the calculation is actually giving the carbonate concentration instead of the bicarbonate concentration.  Since carbonate cannot exist at typical mash pH, it must be converted to the bicarbonate form.  That means that the carbonate concentration should be multiplied by 2.033.  This also means that the alkalinity calculated for the chalk addition in the spreadsheet is also in error and should be multiplied by 2.033.

Another significant error in the spreadsheet is the residual alkalinity that the spreadsheet recommends based on the beer color.  It is far too aggressive and recommends far too high a RA value to the brewer.  There are no water profiles from the historic brewing centers with a RA higher than about 180.  This spreadsheet will frequently point a brewer to recommended RA values of 300 to 400.  That is extremely excessive and leads to soda water beers.  A more appropriate correlation between RA and SRM is as follows:  RA = SRM x 4.5.  And given that correlation, the maximum RA a brewer should ever use is about 200.  

Until the revised spreadsheet is issued, I recommend that brewers refrain from using this program.

26

Commercial Beer Reviews / Bell's Christmas Ale

« on: December 01, 2010, 09:33:35 AM »

I had this beer last night on tap from a beer pub in Indy.  This beer is quite different from typical spiced Christmas or Winter beers.  My first impression upon tasting was Cotton Candy.  Not a flavor I had experienced in a beer before.  Upon reflection, I determined that the beer had a cherry-like flavor and aroma with slightly elevated acidity.  Hop bittering was moderate to low with the malt flavor being more noticable, but the acidity providing a crisper finish.  

Bell's website confirms that there are no spices in this brew and the character is all from malt and hops.  I'm surprised that there isn't any cherry juice in the beer, but with the character of the new hop varieties, I'm not surprised that they were able to craft this cotton candy/cherry character.  

I found it interesting and enjoyable.  My wife did comment that she had a bit of heartburn after the glass, so the acidity may be a little pronounced for some.  

I'd also say that it could still be a pretty good summer beer too.

27

Ingredients / Chloride Sulfate Ratio

« on: November 03, 2010, 06:18:28 AM »

I am reading Charles Bamforth's (UC Davis Brewing professor) book "Beer: tap into the art and science of brewing, 2nd Ed".  On page 73, I noted a damning statement regarding the validity of the chloride to sulfate ratio.  His comment follows.

"The importance of this chloride to sulfate ratio is one example of the plethora of dogmatic beliefs held by many brewers.  In fact, there is little if any published scientific data to justify the conclusions made concerning this ratio - which is not to say that it is not important but rather that, if it were in the dock in a court of law, it wouldn't have much of a hard-and-fast defense."

There has been similar skepticism expressed by myself and AJ DeLange in the past regarding this ratio.  The contention that this ratio is applicable or appropriate for brewing without caveat is misguided in my opinion.  Any respected brewing text generally cautions against having the water's chloride concentration above 100 ppm when the sulfate also exceeds 100 ppm. A review of water profiles from the historic world brewing centers shows that all profiles (Burton, Dublin, Edinburgh, London, Munich, Vienna, Pilsen) have chloride concentrations under 100 ppm.  Burton and Edinburgh both have sulfate concentrations above 100 ppm. 

The only historic water profile that has elevated chloride (~130 ppm) in conjunction with elevated sulfate (~330 ppm) is the Dortmund profile.  Interestingly, this is a profile that is known for imparting a minerally character to beer.  Also notable is that the chloride concentration is not too far above 100 ppm, so that points to the suggestion that the 100 ppm limits mentioned above are somewhat soft and possibly imprecise. 

So, what I'm suggesting in this post is that the chloride to sulfate ratio may not be applicable under all conditions.  But it does appear that the ratio can be useful when the chloride concentration is less than about 100 ppm.  I've heard of software and other brewing water recommendations that utilize the chloride to sulfate ratio to characterize the beer flavor between bitter and malty.  While I agree with the general concept of the ratio, its apparent that the 100 ppm (or thereabouts) chloride caveat needs to be inserted into its use.

28

Ingredients / Rahr 2 Row Attenuation

« on: October 14, 2010, 10:23:11 AM »

I heard an interesting comment from a very skilled brewer yesterday regarding his findings on Rahr 2 Row malt.  He commented that his brewing results have shown that this malt is very insensitive to mashing temperature with respect to the degree of wort fermentability.  In other words, when he uses this malt, he gets highly fermentable wort no matter if the mash was performed at high temp (say 158F) or low temp (say 149F).  He did note that he is able to control wort fermentability when brewing with other base malts (ie. Muntons, Briess), so its probably not his mashing process.

He commented that he likes using the Rahr 2 row, but he has to resort to adjusting the secondary grain bill to modulate wort fermentability. 

Has anyone else noticed this type of mashing performance with this base malt or other highly-modified malts?