Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Big Monk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32
1
Ingredients / Re: Null-lox Malts from Morebeer
« on: Today at 01:35:05 AM »
Okay, you've got me.  I've been using meta and BTB,  I'll add the AA.   Is there anything else I need to know first?

I don’t think so.

2
Ingredients / Re: Null-lox Malts from Morebeer
« on: Today at 01:16:17 AM »
...but then I read about AntioxinSBT: “AEB sums it up as:

“A new generation of anti-oxidizing agent. The usage of AntioxinSBT in the brew-house will prevent most of the problems related to oxidation that can occur due to the LOX (lipoxygenase), not only In the early stages but all the way through the life of the beer. After neutralizing the LOX and chelating the metals In the mash tank, all the ingredients from AntioxinSBT completely disappear during boiling.”

The ingredients are listed as Gallotannins, Ascorbic Acid, and Potassium Metabisulfite.” (aka ‘the Trifecta’)

Based on the above, if SBT contains Gallotannins, Ascorbic Acid, and Potassium Metabisulfite, and it is suppose to prevent most of the problems related to oxidation that can occur due to LOX (lipoxygenase), why can’t his Null LOX grain do that in a more elegant way instead? 

The more I read the more confused I become. Thank goodness I don’t have to build a watch to know what time it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Firstly, if you crush with care (intact husks) and exclude oxygen as a general rule, LOX isn’t an issue. Also, anything kilned higher than a Pilsner neutralizes a large portion of the LOX in the malt.

In general:

1.) Metabisulfite is a FAST Oxygen scavenger. It’s there to absorb the major ingress during dough-in;
2.) AA is a SLOW scavenging agent, that works alongside the remaining Meta throughout the mash and boil;
3.) BTB/GT acts to chelate source water metals, malt derived nasties (fats, lipids), etc.

LOX less malt can’t replace any of the three substances above because LOX is the lowest man on the totem pole as far as flavor stability is concerned.

Interesting that AEB only focuses on the oxidation due to LOX and cheating in their product description.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Especially since they only have a small % of gallotannins.

You are better off building your own:

1.) Pick your Meta dose;
2.) duplicate it with AA;
3.) Dose with BTB per the manufacturer specs.

3
Ingredients / Re: Null-lox Malts from Morebeer
« on: Today at 12:54:08 AM »
...but then I read about AntioxinSBT: “AEB sums it up as:

“A new generation of anti-oxidizing agent. The usage of AntioxinSBT in the brew-house will prevent most of the problems related to oxidation that can occur due to the LOX (lipoxygenase), not only In the early stages but all the way through the life of the beer. After neutralizing the LOX and chelating the metals In the mash tank, all the ingredients from AntioxinSBT completely disappear during boiling.”

The ingredients are listed as Gallotannins, Ascorbic Acid, and Potassium Metabisulfite.” (aka ‘the Trifecta’)

Based on the above, if SBT contains Gallotannins, Ascorbic Acid, and Potassium Metabisulfite, and it is suppose to prevent most of the problems related to oxidation that can occur due to LOX (lipoxygenase), why can’t his Null LOX grain do that in a more elegant way instead? 

The more I read the more confused I become. Thank goodness I don’t have to build a watch to know what time it is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Firstly, if you crush with care (intact husks) and exclude oxygen as a general rule, LOX isn’t an issue. Also, anything kilned higher than a Pilsner neutralizes a large portion of the LOX in the malt.

In general:

1.) Metabisulfite is a FAST Oxygen scavenger. It’s there to absorb the major ingress during dough-in;
2.) AA is a SLOW scavenging agent, that works alongside the remaining Meta throughout the mash and boil;
3.) BTB/GT acts to chelate source water metals, malt derived nasties (fats, lipids), etc.

LOX less malt can’t replace any of the three substances above because LOX is the lowest man on the totem pole as far as flavor stability is concerned.

4
Beer Recipes / Re: Helles lager recipe suggestions
« on: Today at 12:44:22 AM »
I have brewed this , it doesn't follow tradition lagering technique but it makes a very enjoyable Helles. I use 029 in the first batch and 34/70 in the second and fermented at 66 degrees ramping at the finish to 72. http://brulosophy.com/recipes/munich-helles/

More on warm fermenting lagers http://brulosophy.com/2017/02/20/yeast-pitch-temperature-pt-2-cool-vs-warm-in-a-lager-exbeeriment-results/

Calling the Brulosphy Helles a Helles is fightin’ words! 😁

5
All Grain Brewing / Re: efficiency
« on: Today at 12:33:01 AM »
This is an interesting read...it seems a fine crush may be working against you...

http://www.craftbrewersconference.com/wp-content/uploads/ImprovingBrewhouseEfficiency-Havig.pdf
But note they're talking about  brewers doing conventional lautering (like them and me.)  There it makes sense.  But the OP is doing BIAB.  In that case, and especially full volume BIAB, you could grind finer because the flow concerns just don't apply.  I'd  think finer would help in that case.  Same should apply to batch sparge if you can adequately filter the wort.  Anyway, good summary of the issue there.

I just got through listening to the Master Brewer's podcast about this.  He had me going for a while.... but then lost me.  I'm "Havig" a hard time believing that his findings are true for all small brewers.  It's definitely something to think about and play around with, but I'd take great care in assuming either a hard crush or lighter crush is necessarily better or worse or whatever based on just one study.  More experiments are needed.  And like Robert says, any correlation to homebrewing, especially BIAB or batch sparging, is very likely irrelevant.  We as homebrewers need to take great care in determining what stuff from the commercial world we can apply to our stuff at home, and what doesn't fit well with what we are doing.  This might be the perfect example right here.

I think you should put “More experiments are needed.” in your signature.

Personally I like to condition the grain every so slightly to keep the husk intact, allow it to grab better in my simple 2 roller mill, and also so that I can crush a little tighter.

6
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: New info on sanitizers
« on: July 17, 2018, 01:57:57 PM »
Im using Distilled water, Bleach and Vinegar for 3 reasons:

1.) It’s dirt cheap;
2.) @ 1 oz./1 oz. per 5 gallons of water it’s no-rinse;
3.) @ that same concentration and the proper pH, Charlie Talley identifies it as a “stone cold killer”.

How much bleach in that mixture and what percentage bleach are you using? I'm cautious.


Most bleach out of the bottle is 5% or 50,000 ppm. I'm careful to replicate Charlie Talley's recommendations to the letter:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/basicbrewing/bbr03-29-07.mp3

He talks about concentration around the  18:00 minute mark.

In General:

1.) Use generic bleach (less sodium hydroxide) and buy small quantities
2.) Check color
3.) Verify %
4.) Use distilled water or RO water
5.) Add 1 oz. Bleach (~ 80 ppm) to the water
6.) Add 1 oz. Vinegar to water

NEVER ADD BLEACH DIRECTLY TO VINEGAR OR VISE VERSA or it will offgas chlorine gas.

...and if you overshoot and pH approaches 4.0, chlorine gas will be released, more effective at killing brewers than microbes.

I don't believe at the 1 oz. Bleach plus 1 oz. Vinegar per 5 gallons water concentration it's possible to go below 5 pH.

7
I'll join the zombies.... Petr was right about my results improving with my digital refractometer.   I've been using it long enough to conclude that its correction factor is effectively nonexistent,  1.00, with any apparent discrepancy with saccharometer readings attributable to the vagaries of eyeballing a thing floating in turbid, bubbly liquid. I am now confidently using mine throughout the process from mash to FG.  I'm using the BF calculator which uses the Novotný cubic I believe, but this and the two Dave mentions all converge pretty closely and all, as Dave says, "close enough."  In fact, I'd go along with "dead nuts."

I’ve recently received a Speidel Braumeister 20L so I’m back to just using a hydrometer post brewday to take readings.
Oh, I have the brew length to pull 200mL saccharometer samples all I want.  I actually find the digital refractometer terribly convenient and probably (now I have the system shaken down) more reliable than the combination of saccharometer, eyeball, and a sample with suspended matter and upwelling bubbles.  (Anything that takes me out of the equation is probably an improvement...  ;D )

My handheld refractometer is great for brewday measurements.

8
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: New info on sanitizers
« on: July 17, 2018, 03:15:39 AM »
Im using Distilled water, Bleach and Vinegar for 3 reasons:

1.) It’s dirt cheap;
2.) @ 1 oz./1 oz. per 5 gallons of water it’s no-rinse;
3.) @ that same concentration and the proper pH, Charlie Talley identifies it as a “stone cold killer”.
Are you distilling the water yourself?

Oh no. $0.87 per gallon at the grocery store. I brew with it as well.

9
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: New info on sanitizers
« on: July 17, 2018, 03:13:34 AM »
Im using Distilled water, Bleach and Vinegar for 3 reasons:

1.) It’s dirt cheap;
2.) @ 1 oz./1 oz. per 5 gallons of water it’s no-rinse;
3.) @ that same concentration and the proper pH, Charlie Talley identifies it as a “stone cold killer”.
Everything I've read suggests you've got a winner, although pH control (dead-nuts 5.0) is essential to get all the free chlorine in the form of hypochlorous acid at only 80ppm.  But it seems almost ideal.  I can, however, see how this might be as inconvenient for a commercial operation as some of their solutions (peracetic acid, chlorine dioxide) are inappropriate for us.  If I was a little more ambitious and a little more miserly, I could see going your route.  Someday.

(Also don't remember the stability of this stuff.  Iodophor can remain effective for hours to days. Derek, how long does it stay effective when properly mixed?))

I’m not sure. The goal is to mix what I need day of and use it then. The test batches I’ve made were right on at pH of 5 with the mix quoted above. Close enough at least.

10
I'll join the zombies.... Petr was right about my results improving with my digital refractometer.   I've been using it long enough to conclude that its correction factor is effectively nonexistent,  1.00, with any apparent discrepancy with saccharometer readings attributable to the vagaries of eyeballing a thing floating in turbid, bubbly liquid. I am now confidently using mine throughout the process from mash to FG.  I'm using the BF calculator which uses the Novotný cubic I believe, but this and the two Dave mentions all converge pretty closely and all, as Dave says, "close enough."  In fact, I'd go along with "dead nuts."

I’ve recently received a Speidel Braumeister 20L so I’m back to just using a hydrometer post brewday to take readings.

11
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: New info on sanitizers
« on: July 17, 2018, 12:42:05 AM »
Im using Distilled water, Bleach and Vinegar for 3 reasons:

1.) It’s dirt cheap;
2.) @ 1 oz./1 oz. per 5 gallons of water it’s no-rinse;
3.) @ that same concentration and the proper pH, Charlie Talley identifies it as a “stone cold killer”.


12
Ingredients / Re: Null-lox Malts from Morebeer
« on: July 13, 2018, 01:29:14 AM »
And I see these malts as more attractive to big brewers who need every possible lever to pull to maximize stability, whereas home- and craft brewers are better able to ensure their products are handled properly, another lever.  (Temperature, the great accelerator.)  Even there, I seem to recall Joe Hertrich in a podcast suggesting that accepting a bit higher color off the kiln and mashing higher might negate the need for null-LOX barley.  (Hmm, those seem to be his solutions to many issues....)

To be clear, LOX is pretty much kilned off on anything Pale Ale malt or higher. AFAIK, that leaves only Pilsner malts affected by the presence of LOX.

13
Ingredients / Re: Null-lox Malts from Morebeer
« on: July 13, 2018, 01:11:12 AM »
Big Monk, I can see this as another problem you can approach by reducing one or more elements of a triangle as it were.  Oxygen the catalyst, LOX the agent and lipids the substrate.  Reduce lipids (wort clarity,) minimize oxygen, thereby compensate for the presence of LOX.  But I realize lipid degradation can begin at (let's ignore before) mashing in, before you've run off clear wort.  Is this where gallotannin comes in?

That and the use of a bag as the filtering mechanism in lieu of the standard cooler braid and in conjunction with a false bottom. Constant recirculation helps as well, as it really sets the grain bed and increases efficiency so you don’t have to stir up all that junk before running off. No sparge helps as well by eliminating the Sparging step. Conditioned grains with intact husks is a great filtering mechanism as well.

Many many levers to pull here. As an engineer (Bryan is an engineer as well) I am looking at these issues as engineering problems and looking for practical solutions. Nothing esoteric here. You are solving problems and that doesn’t necessarily have to be shiny and high tech.

14
Ingredients / Re: Null-lox Malts from Morebeer
« on: July 13, 2018, 12:36:39 AM »
Hmmm. I thought the point of adding anti oxidants in low oxygen brewing is to reduce/ eliminate dissolved oxygen to limit/prevent staling. I thought this lox malt does that for you so you don’t have to add the anti oxidants.

The correlation of lactic acid to acidulated malt was based on that understanding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope.

The point of the antioxidants is to act as an active scavenger against oxygen introduced after pre-treating the water. After pre-treating you are at ~ 0 ppm DO in the strike water. You add antioxidants to counter the ingress from mashing in and the intrusion of atmospheric oxygen. The main goal is the protection of a fresh grain flavor we find appealing and that likely comes from one of two low weight malt phenolic compounds in the grain, which are oxidized and lost rapidly without precautions. The fringe benefit is long term stability of finished beer. LOX is a staling precursor activated, not exclusively I might add, in the presence of oxygen. It falls in this latter stability category. LOX less malt won’t get you the fresh grain flavors and seeing that it is only one of many known staling precursors, might not even get you long term flavor stability. Flavor stability in itself is the product of many process improvements, not just the removal of LOX. Also, LOX is denatured in malts with kilning more intensive then say Pilsner malt, so really it’s a small piece of that puzzle.

With that said, people using normal brewing process might benefit from this malt the most, being that most subject the mash to upwards of 8 ppm over 60-90 minutes, so having no LOX is a start at least.

I guess it goes back to the old saw: know why you’re doing what you’re doing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup. Knowledge is power in brewing and it introduces a measure of control over you’re variables. I would argue that paying closer attention to wort quality into the kettle and then into the fermenter will pay infinitely more dividends than trying to get LOX out of malt. From a flavor stability standpoint that is.

15
Ingredients / Re: Null-lox Malts from Morebeer
« on: July 13, 2018, 12:02:27 AM »
Hmmm. I thought the point of adding anti oxidants in low oxygen brewing is to reduce/ eliminate dissolved oxygen to limit/prevent staling. I thought this lox malt does that for you so you don’t have to add the anti oxidants.

The correlation of lactic acid to acidulated malt was based on that understanding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nope.

The point of the antioxidants is to act as an active scavenger against oxygen introduced after pre-treating the water. After pre-treating you are at ~ 0 ppm DO in the strike water. You add antioxidants to counter the ingress from mashing in and the intrusion of atmospheric oxygen. The main goal is the protection of a fresh grain flavor we find appealing and that likely comes from one of two low weight malt phenolic compounds in the grain, which are oxidized and lost rapidly without precautions. The fringe benefit is long term stability of finished beer. LOX is a staling precursor activated, not exclusively I might add, in the presence of oxygen. It falls in this latter stability category. LOX less malt won’t get you the fresh grain flavors and seeing that it is only one of many known staling precursors, might not even get you long term flavor stability. Flavor stability in itself is the product of many process improvements, not just the removal of LOX. Also, LOX is denatured in malts with kilning more intensive then say Pilsner malt, so really it’s a small piece of that puzzle.

With that said, people using normal brewing process might benefit from this malt the most, being that most subject the mash to upwards of 8 ppm over 60-90 minutes, so having no LOX is a start at least.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 32