HOMEBREW Digest #4325 Mon 18 August 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 *********

  Dr. Cone Responds - Al Korzonas - Yeast Density ("Rob Moline")
  Exploding CO2 Tanks, Really? ("Rob Moline")
  Dr. Cone, 2003 - Metabolism  (follow up) ("Fredrik")
  Dr. Cone, 2003 - Aerobic yeast starters (Fred Johnson)
  Practical starter setup? (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Dr. Cone - Attenuation ("Dave")
  Dr. Cone Respomds - Organic and Engineered Yeast - Alexandre Enkerli ("Rob Moline")
  Carbonation in the keg ("Jason Evans")
  Dr. Cone Responds - increasing cell density - Eric Dahlberg ("Rob Moline")
  Potatoes / Beet Sugar / Aneurysms (nlkanous)
  re: autolysis smells ("-S")
  Dr.C.Cone ("-S")
  re: Mash Step Time  and Mash pH & Aerobic yeast propagation ("-S")
  Malt Rice Beer ("Colton House")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IN PROGRESS! * * * * * * * * * Dr. Clayton Cone Fortnight of Yeast * * 8/11/03 - 8/22/03 Yeast Questions Answered * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. 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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 22:42:42 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Dr. Cone Responds - Al Korzonas - Yeast Density Dr. Cone Responds - Al Korzonas - Yeast Density Dr. Cone-- I've read somewhere (but cannot find it anymore) that yeast will multiply until they reach a certain density (cells/ml) or exhaust their supply of sterols, whichever comes first. But, then I've also read that sterol-deficient yeast (presumably from underoxygenation at pitching time, right?) will have weak cell membranes, ultimately resulting in low alcohol tolerance and high Final Gravities. These two seem to be contradictory. Which is correct? Thanks. (Can you tell I've been saving up these questions for quite some time? This is the last one for now, I think. Thanks again!) Al. Al. Sterol, fatty acids, lipids can act as a growth factor. They keep the cell wall elastic and fluid allowing transport systems into and out of the cell to operate. When there is a deficiency during the growth phase the yeast can not bud, the cell wall is too leathery for the bud to form. When there is a deficiency later in the fermentation, the cell wall is no longer fluid and the transport systems do not allow sugar into the cell and alcohol to move out of the cell. Alcohol builds up to the point that it becomes toxic. The cell eventually dies unless it receives oxygen to produce more lipids. Yeast will usually continue to multiply until they have exhausted their nutrient supply: sugar, minerals, vitamins, nitrogen etc. or until they stop because they have produced a high enough level of their waste product (alcohol) that it becomes toxic. The toxic effect of the alcohol begins almost as soon as the alcohol production begins. The toxic effect is only very slight in the beginning but becomes very noticeable as the it reaches 5%. There is limited growth after the fermentation reaches 5% alcohol. The yeast still produce alcohol for cell maintenance. In the commercial production of yeast, cell density becomes a factor even though the yeast is healthy. The cell population becomes so great that no know oxygenating equipment can supply enough oxygen to keep the cells multiplying. Clayton Cone - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:32:39 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Exploding CO2 Tanks, Really? From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Exploding CO2 Tanks, Really? The CO2 tanks are not capable of exploding. Explosion is not the danger; propulsion is the danger. If damage is caused to the valve stem of the tank, you risk having a 1000+ psi steel or aluminum rocket fired in an unpredictable direction. Those things can go through cinder block walls. This is not an urban myth, it can and does happen. I add another warning: don't pick up or drag your tank by the valve. Michael Columbia, MO I can add a further caveat...be sure your tanks are tested/inpected as required....damage to valves is not the only area of concern. Doubters can be referred to Free State in Lawrence, KS., who suffered through the negligence of their gas/tank supplier to maintain standards. A steel tank had corroded through the bottom, and indeed became a hazard through it's subsequent propulsion through several layers of ceiling/flooring above the tank storage area. Happily, this occurred during off-hours, when no one was present. Cheers! Gump "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 09:55:52 +0200 From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com> Subject: Dr. Cone, 2003 - Metabolism (follow up) Dear Dr.Cone and Tobias! Thank you very very much for answering all the questions!! :) :) Your answers gave me some very valuable ideas how I need to revise and extend my thinking on these topics! I sure hope I am not beeing rude by asking too many questions considering the limited bandwidth!? But If there is still space left at the end of this two week period , I do have a couple of follow up questions. (Lage phase and glycogen) 1) If there is basically no matebolic activity during the lag phase - is the glycogen level not an issue during the lag phase? I had the impression that low glycogen levels (like in stored yeast?) would cause an extended lag due to some "free energy limitation"? I thought that until yeast start to uptake and metabolise sugars, glycogen (and some others) was the energy supply for whatever activites that is going on at this time? It this wrong? Are all the adaptations in the lag phase of passive nature, like equalizing gradients? requiring no metabolic energy to be spent? I understand that choice of strain may impact the lag time, but for any given strain, what would be the most important factors and variables be that determines the length of the lag? (sugar utilization) 2) From your answer about sugar utilization, to make sure I got it right, did I understand things correct if I think there is no regulation of sucrose uptake and invertase activity due to external glucose? so they would both start at the same time and go on in parallell? If, as like I would guess(?) that glucose uptake is alot quicker than sucrose uptake, would it be possible to observe a small dip in CO2 production activity at the point where the external glucose is consumed or reached soem treshold? I did observer such a dip in a test I did. It sure is possible that ambient conditions cause this, but in this case for some reason I think not, and the dip coincidently occured at about 6% depletion of fermentables. I would like to ask you about your opinon if you think that detecting such a dip (about 1.5 hours long and the "dip" was lowering the CO2 rate by some 15%) is possible? Or do you think I should rule this explanation out and start looking for another explanation of the dip? /Fredrik Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:01:20 -0400 From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com> Subject: Dr. Cone, 2003 - Aerobic yeast starters Dr. Cone, Some of us (or perhaps only I) are attempting to culture our yeast starters in a respiratory state (with high oxygen and low glucose concentrations). In my experience, I cannot deliver very much air to the spinner culture using an aeration stone without creating too much foam. I have made several beers with poor head retention when I've included FermCap in the starter in sufficient quantity to prevent foaming in the aerated starter, so I've tried another method that does not require FermCap. I have been pumping filtered air at 2 liters/minute into the head space of a spinner culture with vigorous stirring. Questions: 1. Can pumping air into the head space with vigorous stirring provide sufficient oxygen to the yeast to maintain them in a respiratory state during incremental infusion feeding? 2. Can FermCap be used in aerated starters without detrimental effects on the beer? Fred L Johnson Apex, North Carolina, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 10:02:19 -0400 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremy at bergsman.org> Subject: Practical starter setup? Martin Brungard posts the following ideas about yeast starters: > for a starter, you want continuous aeration. My simple > oxygen regulator doesn't allow me to meter out really low continuous flows, > so my oxygen system is no good for continuous use. > But it appears that incremental feeding is a > little more important with a malt wort since the glucose level is higher. > That means I've got to come up with some sort of sterile drip system to > continuously feed I have built a (nonbrewing-related) device for other applications which might serve both purposes. Given a certain total volume of wort that you would like to feed to your starter, take a sealable container with several times this volume, place the wort in it and fill it with O2 at, say, 15 PSI*. Give it a good shake. This is now a pressurized resevoir which can supply oxygenated wort on demand. You could control the output with a pinch valve on "rubber" tubing or with an electronically controlled solenoid valve. The main question is whether this is enough oxygen. Wort saturated with this much O2 is considered more than sufficient for brewing, but I'm not sure if it would be ideal for starters. An easy way to build such a device is with PVC plumbing parts. The Lid should be a ball valve, for filling with solution. The Body is some pipe, maybe 1", held vertically. The Bottom should adapt down to a hose barb for taking off the solution during use. And somewhere on the side you need a gas inlet. This could actually be done through the tube on the Bottom, but you would need to think about how to seal it (the pinch valve might be sufficient). You can use a T or tap a hole inthe Side, depending on how you want to hook up your O2. If you are making an extra larger starter it would be easy to refill during the process. * Rule of thumb (not totally accurate): to get a full dispense the pressure must be >15PSI/(container volume/wort volume). PVC is good to much higher than 15PSI, but I would probably try to limit the pressure to something in this range for safety issues since a gas-pressurized pipe explosion is more dangerous than a liquid-pressurized pipe explosion. As long as the wort is less than half the volume it should dispense at 15 PSI. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremy at bergsman.org http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 14:23:41 -0700 From: "Dave" <brewingisloving at hotmail.com> Subject: Dr. Cone - Attenuation Dr. Cone, I have a situation where I switched from bottled spring water to tap water filtered through the 10" carbon filter, found at http://www.morebeer.com/ (FIL32), and my beer's attenuation has suffered, seemingly, because of the change. My attenuation levels for identical recipes went from 1.013 - 1.015 to 1.018-1.019. Increasing the amount of aeration and/or oxygenation at the start has no effect on the FG. Is there maybe a third cause I am overlooking, or can filtering water through a carbon filter change the water chemistry enough to alter the amount yeast attenuates the wort. Thanks for any information you can provide, Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 19:26:50 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Dr. Cone Respomds - Organic and Engineered Yeast - Alexandre Enkerli Dr. Cone 2003 - Organic and Engineered Yeast - Alexandre Dr. Cone, [Don't want to ask too many questions, and this one is really a matter of curiosity...] Noticed on the label for Wolaver's brown ale that 98% of the yeast was organic while 2% wasn't. Thinking about your comment on ADN markup, I was wondering if genetic engineering of brewer's yeast might be a significant field of yeast development. Again, thank you. Alex, in Montreal Alex, First, I am curious what the 2% non organic would be. A significant amount of genetic engineering is being done on all industrial yeast: pharmaceutical, distilling, wine, beer etc. At the moment it remains mostly an academic endeavor (except for the pharmaceutical industry) because a significant amount of the public is against it. Some fusion work is been done. This is a type of breeding that is acceptable to the public. Clayton Cone - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:07:09 -0400 From: "Jason Evans" <brew4me at charter.net> Subject: Carbonation in the keg I just gathered all the nessecary components to start kegging my lovely homebrew, but I am unsure how to carbonate it. Am I able to use the CO2 and pressureize it, or must I use DME? Any help in this area would be appreciated. Jason brew4me at charter.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 23:08:19 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Dr. Cone Responds - increasing cell density - Eric Dahlberg Dr. Cone Responds - increasing cell density - Eric Dahlberg Dr. Cone, Thank you for your valuable assistance to our homebrewing community. I was hoping you could recommend ways of rapidly increasing cell density in slow growing yeasts like Brettanomyces. What little I have read about them mentions that they exhibit a negative Pasteur effect. How should I alter typical starter procedures for this unique species? Eric Dahlberg Rochester, NY Eric, I have very little experience with the non spore-forming Brettanomyces or the spore forming Dekkera except for the laboratory technique of identification a Brett infection in beer and wine. I know that Brettanomyces requires glucose and lots of oxygen. A regular wort with 3% glycerol and a magnet stirrer for aeration should be satisfactory. Brett produces acetic acid. This could become a growth limited factor, so it would be worth while 2% calcium carbonate in the media to neutralize the acid as it is being produced. We have ten or more strains of Brett in our culture collection. There is a vast difference in the growth rate of each. Some grow a 100 fold faster that others. You may be interested in contacting Dr. Ken Fugelsang, professor in the Enology department, Cal. State University, Fresno, Ca. 559 209 278 2791. Ken has done a lot of research on growth rate of Brett, primarily regarding the wine industry. I am curious why are you interested in a procedure for rapidly increasing the cell density of Brett? Lambic beer? Clayton Cone - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.509 / Virus Database: 306 - Release Date: 8/12/2003 Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 09:28:42 -0400 From: nlkanous at netscape.net Subject: Potatoes / Beet Sugar / Aneurysms Morning, Dan Morey posts his results of making potato beer and Jeff Renner wasn't terribly impressed with the potato beer he tried. Dan goes on to post recipes and suggests that his potato beer was much "silkier" in mouthfeel, as I recall. One thing to keep in mind about potatoes is that some are waxy and some are starchy. I'll bet Jeff knows this. Dan reported good results with red potatoes. If I recall correctly, these are waxy potatoes and I would expect them to add a "silkiness" to the beer as they have a sort of silky texture themselves. He also mentions his Yukon Gold that didn't do as well in competition. I don't recall whether this is waxy or starchy but I'd guess starchy. The old Idaho Russett potato would be a classic starchy potato. Anyhow....not all potatoes are the same. As for beet sugar processing.....clean or dirty in the end I can tell you that Bay City Michigan simply stinks when they're refining sugar beets. Regarding aneurysms and beer / lifestyle, keep in mind that this is not a medical forum. The information you get here will not always be medically sound (although some of us have strong medical backgrounds). The answers you seek are far more complicated than anyone can easily provide and are not simply the result of one or the other factor. My condolences on the loss of a family member for whatever reason. nathan in madison, wi...home of the Great Taste of the Midwest Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:08:28 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: re: autolysis smells Wyeast's Dave Logsdon via the Gumpster posts ... >Regarding other possible sources you inquired about, autolysis >typically can be better described as sulphery, and dirty diaper. >[not burnt rubber or scorched plastic.] Jethro - would you pass on my special thanks to Dave Logsdon. I've been knocking heads on this forum for several years stating that autolysis NO WAY NO HOW smells like burnt rubber. That description is an error from some old HB books and like a pernicious infection it's tough to stamp out this silly mis-information. DaveL's insight that phenolics may be the culprit with this type smell is an inspired thought. Medicinal, burnt circuit board and solventy-plastic are all in line with certain phenolics. Sulphery & dirty diaper and brothy, sometimes rancidity are autolysis signs. Quite different. The first SURE sign of autolysis is a not-so-great background bitterness flavor. Not a prominent flaw - but a clear one. -S(teve Alexander) Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 20:21:42 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: Dr.C.Cone Great thanks for considering my questions Dr.Cone. Many HBDers like to store yeast slurries. Storage under finished beer or deionized water at refrigeration temperatures is common. Some homebrewers reuse these stored slurries after as much as 60 days of refrigeration ! I have very grave concerns about the vitality and viability after such long storage and think that 30 days storage is pushing the envelope. 1 - What is an acceptable figure for pitched yeast viability (say by a haemocytometer + MethylViolet stain count). Is the commercial target of 90% viability too stringent for the homebrewing environment ? 2 - What is the viability of properly rehydrated dried yeast like Lallemand's ? 3 - Please comment on the expected vitality and viability of a wet homebrew slurry stored at refrigeration temperatures for various periods. Obvious there is no definite answer to such a general question, but perhaps you can suggest how long is 'probably OK' ? How long is 'likely too long' ? 4 - Some yeast vendors package wet yeast in refrigerated 'pitchable' tubes. Is there any means that they could employ to improve the yeast storage properties beyond that of a homebrewer's refrigerated slurry? For example, does anaerobic handling or phosphate buffers, etc improve 'fridge shelf life of a wet slurry by a great amount ?. 5 - Does the iodine test (iodine into slurry sample to detect glycogen) have any comparative value to homebrewers as a quick and dirty test of slurry vitality ? [Some sources state brief exposure to O2 will rapidly deplete yeast glycogen .] 6 - What are the consequences of pitching low viability slurries given that sufficient viable cells are pitched ? If I pitched one unit of 100% viable slurry versus 3 units of 33% viable slurry what would be the expected difference in the beer ? Autolyse of non-viable cells ? Other ? Does racking the beer off trub to a secondary prevent this harm ? - -- On a different topic ... Many HBers build up large yeast starters, but they do not wish to dilute their 5 gallon batch of XYZ-style wort with several quarts of pedestrian starter wort. They wish to separate the yeast from the starter wort before pitching. Many will allow the starter fermentation to nearly complete then refrigerate it and allow the yeast to sediment before decanting and pitching . 7 - Does the <attenuation, refrigeration, sedimentation, separation> process hold potential harm for the yeast ? For example is the yeast likely to be less vital than if pitched directly from a high kreusen starter ? - -- Yet another direction ... 8 - Is there any significant advantage to *very* short 'lag times' (time between pitching to first sign of fermentation - usually CO2 outgassing) ? Many HBers seem obsessed in reducing lag times from 8 hours to 5. Personally I doubt it makes much difference so long as the lag period is reasonably brief. I know that 8 koans in Cone's fountain is a bit, but hopefully some admit concise answers. thanks again, -Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:58:00 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: re: Mash Step Time and Mash pH & Aerobic yeast propagation Martin G writes ... >They only hold a mash step for 10 >minutes before either stepping up or going to the mash out temp. >He indicated they use a steam heated tun and they could do temperature >increases of about 1C per minute. He did report that they still have a long >runoff time of about 90 minutes. The surprising thing was that they report >88 percent efficiency with their mashing process. I'm not shocked but this efficiency sound a little on the high side. I'd expect more like 80% than 88%. Remember that *if* they do a simple single infusion rest or 10min at 55C then a full 1C/min step to mashout at 77C they already have a 32 minute mash period plus the MO rest. You really have to count that slow 1C/minute slide time as part of the mash period. The mashout rest will vent about as much extract from the grist as is possible given the hydration period and the amylase will happily reduce it at MO temps. They obviously use a very well modified malt for this to get 88%. ========== >Fred's source indicates that molasses is a better >feed stock for the yeast in that it keeps the glucose level low. I think that's a misreading. Any simple sugar can induce Crabtree but the levels where this happens are quite different for different sugars. Molasses is cane sugar residue and contains primarily sucrose, quickly inverted to equal amount of fructose and glucose - each of which can induce Crabtree effect. Wort OTOH has only a modest amount of glucose (~6%) and fructose and sucrose with a majority of the carbs as maltose and lesser amts of maltotriose. The maltose & -triose have higher Crabtree thresholds. Molasses is not superior by reason of preventing Crabtree at given level I think. Fred ? The difficult w/ wort as an aerobic growth medium is that the yeast have to shift gears from glucose to maltose to maltotriose and then back again when the next dosing comes. That's a lot of metabolic, 'permease' shifting and schedule of doses is critical to performance. Mannose and ethanol are other perfectly acceptable aerobic media - but you need nutrients and amino acids etc. >Low glucose >keeps the yeast from making alcohol, creating cell mass instead. Not exactly. Low levels of all the various simple sugars ALLOWS, but does not require the yeast to respire rather than ferment. Too much sugar forces yeast to ferment despite the presence of oxygen. Yeast build yeast mass on either energy diet. They steal a little of the carbon for their organics chemistry and they oxidize the rest for energy. The huge difference is that aerobic oxidation yields something like 18 times the energy of fermentation. >All of this information really firms up some changes that I need to >implement. I think they may be useful for others to ponder. > >1. Oxygen definitely has its place in my brewing procedures. [...] > But for a starter, you want continuous aeration. That's not necessarily so. Yeast will use oxygen when it's available during growth for UFAs and after squalene precursors are formed in the case of sterols. You could probably hit yeast starters with O2 once a day and get the same sterol and UFA content as for continuous oxygenation or aeration. What Fred is doing (and I've toyed with it) is radically different - he is causing the yeast to respire rather than ferment. That does require continuous O2 supply, and low concentrations of glucose *and* other simple sugars. The amount of energy available this way is vast *BUT* the amount of nutrients per unit of wort or molasses is still the same. You'll run out of amino acids and biotin and niacinimide and a hundred others before you run out of respirable carbon energy. Basically respiration makes the energy cheap but the relative nutrient:energy ratio very low - which is a problem. >2. I prefer dry malt extract for my starters since it stores well. I know >it has the proper nutrients. But it appears that incremental feeding is a >little more important with a malt wort since the glucose level is higher. >That means I've got to come up with some sort of sterile drip system to >continuously feed Well really you need to change the drip rate to match the exponential yeast growth rate without missing the mark by too much or else you'll starve them or induce crabtree. By the time your done exploring this in detail you'll need a lab fermenter which can monitor CO2 and ethanol levels automatically and dose sugar accordingly. You might (and Fred probably has) read up on what they do for yeast growth and harvesting on molasses media (common practice for bread yeast). My hunch is that they grow the yeast in aerated molasses till some nutrient growth limit kicks-in, then the separate the yeast despite the fact that there is sugar but insufficient nutrient remaining. I think what Fred is playing with is great and terribly interesting stuff but I'm not sure where this takes us in practice. If you use W amount of malt extract you have the energy via fermentation to produce X amount of yeast. By inducing respiration you have the energy to produce 18X amount of yeast *but* you only have amino acids for maybe 2X amount of yeast and *maybe* some of the other nutrients are even at lower levels. It's impractical to buy and add the full set of yeast nutrients - cheaper to buy malt extract or molasses. So maybe you get 2X the amount of yeast (well aerated and sterol-full and ready for pitching) for the trouble of forcing respiration and carefully dose feeding the batch. Does that sound about right Fred ? -S(teve Alexander) Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:55:57 -0600 From: "Colton House" <coltonhse at btl.net> Subject: Malt Rice Beer I was searching the HBD and internet for a recipe using Pearl Barley and found this recipe for Malt Rice Beer from Vision Brewing. 2 kilos of pearl barley 400 grams of Malt Rice [Koji Rice] 4 grams 9% alpha hop pellets 1 pkt ale yeast 10 litres water The recipe goes on to explain how to cook the barley and convert it with the malt rice. Not having access to Koji rice and wanting to experiment with pearl barley I brewed the following 1 gallon brew last week. 1 lb pearl barley 1 lb medium grain rice 1 lb 2 row malted barley 1/2 oz northern brewer hop pellets at 7.7% 1 tsp amylase enzyme 1/4 tsp irish moss 1/2 pkt muntons ale yeast 1. Crushed barley and rice and boiled in 1 gall water for half hour. 2. Added cold water to cool to 138 degrees added 1 tsp amylase enzyme and let stand overnight. 3. Iodine check for conversion then added 1 lb crushed malt and had to add 2 tsp calcium carbonate to bring to 5.2PH. Then raised temp to 158 degrees for 30 min. 4. Mashed out at 168 degrees and sparged. 5. Boiled for 90 min with one hop addition at 30 min and irish moss at 75 min. 6. Strained and chilled 1 gall beer with O.G. of 1.060. 7. Presently fermenting in fridge at 65 degrees. My question is - has anybody tried mashing with amylase enzymes. My understanding is that it makes a very dry beer and that is why I added some malted barley to give a bit of body. My second question is - has anybody got a recipe using pearl barley. Alan Colton Swamp Water Brewery of Belize Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/18/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96