Steeping Base Grains - Experiment complete
MDixon
thread entitled "ALL Grain to Extract conversion HELP????"
Based upon my results I stand by my position that base grains must be mashed
and cannot simply be steeped in a bag or loose in a large quantity of water
for conversion. Please see the article I have put on my page for the
details. It is located at
http://www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/Homebrew/BaseMaltExp.htm
Also it can be linked off my homepage...
Cheers,
Mike
www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
Denny Conn
---------->Denny
Dan Listermann
should have been deeply obviously black, blue, purple and it would have
easily shown on the photos. If you don't mind, I will continue to make some
really great beers steeping Munich at 150 for 45 minutes. Try it in a
batch. You might like it.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:Q6icncqnCbM...@portbridge.com...
MDixon
Dan Listermann <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
news:v86k7qd...@corp.supernews.com...
> With all due respect, that is not my idea of a positive starch test. It
> should have been deeply obviously black, blue, purple and it would have
> easily shown on the photos. If you don't mind, I will continue to make
some
> really great beers steeping Munich at 150 for 45 minutes. Try it in a
> batch. You might like it.
Also with all due respect, I will not...
They showed postive for enzymes. My camera did not show it, and there is
nothing I can do about it. The liquid tasted awful, and the pH was out of
range.
We will have to respectfully disagree...
Cheers,
Mike
MDixon
> should have been deeply obviously black, blue, purple and it would have
> easily shown on the photos. If you don't mind, I will continue to make
some
> really great beers steeping Munich at 150 for 45 minutes. Try it in a
> batch. You might like it.
One other point I just thought of. This was using my tap water, untreated,
just as I would do with a mash. Our water is fairly soft.
It could be the water chemistry where you are is substantially different and
allows the steeping pH to drop into an acceptable range and therefore
conversion occurs. Conversion did not occur in my esperiments as evidenced
by the taste if you reject the starch conversion test data points.
If the water you use had a higher Calcium concentration, that should lower
the steeping pH. However, if someone in Wake Forest, NC takes the advice to
steep base grains as an absolute, they are going to end up with an
astringent beer, there can be little doubt...
Cheers,
Mike
www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
Dan Listermann
>
> Dan Listermann <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
> news:v86k7qd...@corp.supernews.com...
> > With all due respect, that is not my idea of a positive starch test. It
> > should have been deeply obviously black, blue, purple and it would have
> > easily shown on the photos. If you don't mind, I will continue to make
> some
> > really great beers steeping Munich at 150 for 45 minutes. Try it in a
> > batch. You might like it.
>
> Also with all due respect, I will not...
>
> They showed postive for enzymes. My camera did not show it, and there is
> nothing I can do about it.
I went back and looked at it again. To look at those pictures, I am reminded
of the guys who call me, three hours into a mash, staring at a white dish
where little specs of blue eventually appear, agonizing about the mash not
converting wondering what they did wrong and will they have to throw it out.
A positive starch test should look like a deep black blue smudge.
Again, the beers I make this way do not taste awful. They are very good.
The proof is in the tasting.
Let me know if I can send you one.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
>
Dan Listermann
and low in carbonates.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:QQOdnWalCsq...@portbridge.com...
Ken Anderson
have two observations and a conclusion:
1) I thought the starch test tested for starch, and not for active enzymes.
2) I would think your gravity measurements have as much merit in terms of
concluding dissolved sugars, as do gravity measurements for wort created by
any typical home brewer.
My conclusion would be that sure, the steeping method produces sugars, but
(at least for a 45 mash) doesn't convert all the starches. Maybe the enzymes
are too diluted? I hope you don't mind me chiming in.
Ken A.
MDixon <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:Q6icncqnCbM...@portbridge.com...
dumbbrewer
and thought it was starch. Aren't there still enzymes present after
the starch has been converted?
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message news:<LxCdnWn7jKN...@portbridge.com>...
Mike D'Brewer
your conclusions, though. You stated:
"Quickly running through the math yields and extract for the straining bag
of 25.22 points and for the loose malt as 29.4 points. That would lead one
to calculate efficiencies of 68% and 79%. These figures could be misleading
mainly because they are not an indication of the sugars in our case, but an
indication of the solids. "
What leads you to the conclusion that the OG was affected by something other
than sugars? What might these solids be, and why wouldn't they be present
in a regular mash in similar quantities?
Beer here,
Mike
--
**Remove the obvious when replying**
MDixon <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:Q6icncqnCbM...@portbridge.com...
Dan Listermann
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"dumbbrewer" <dumbb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8148b2e8.03032...@posting.google.com...
MDixon
> Our water comes from the mighty Ohio. It is moderately hard with sulfates
> and low in carbonates.
The hardness could be the difference. I'd be interested to hear what the pH
(measured with a meter) of a 2 gallon water and 1 lb crushed Munich malt
steep was at the end of a 45 min steep with your meter...
Cheers,
Mike
MDixon
Ken Anderson <aken75...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:cxJga.10307$TW2.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> To take you up on your encouragement to come up with my own conclusions, I
> have two observations and a conclusion:
> 1) I thought the starch test tested for starch, and not for active
enzymes.
> 2) I would think your gravity measurements have as much merit in terms of
> concluding dissolved sugars, as do gravity measurements for wort created
by
> any typical home brewer.
>
> My conclusion would be that sure, the steeping method produces sugars, but
> (at least for a 45 mash) doesn't convert all the starches. Maybe the
enzymes
> are too diluted? I hope you don't mind me chiming in.
Not at all, I need to reread my typing and see if I need to change enzyme to
starch in the text...I wrote it this morning, and checked it, but little
things are easy to overlook.
As for #2, that is partially correct. SG is still sg, the question really
is what percentage is sugars that have been converted and what part is
particulates and I have no way of really knowing except for taste which
tells me very little other than the astringency. I have tasted wort at the
end of a long sparge that was below 1.010, and it did not taste like this
stuff. I almost spat it across the kitchen, but made it to the sink...
I think you are partially correct, I think the enzymes are too dilute, AND
the pH is too high using my water untreated. The interesting thing about it
all is that most extract homebrewers would not be treating steeping water
anyway, and if there water is similar to my own, they should get the same
nasty result.
Cheers,
Mike
MDixon
Mike D'Brewer <sa...@die-shpammers-die-sbabootcamp.com> wrote in message
news:629cfbf5a6017f0a...@news.teranews.com...
> Very interesting experiment. Thanks for taking the time. I'm curious
about
> your conclusions, though. You stated:
>
> "Quickly running through the math yields and extract for the straining bag
> of 25.22 points and for the loose malt as 29.4 points. That would lead
one
> to calculate efficiencies of 68% and 79%. These figures could be
misleading
> mainly because they are not an indication of the sugars in our case, but
an
> indication of the solids. "
>
> What leads you to the conclusion that the OG was affected by something
other
> than sugars? What might these solids be, and why wouldn't they be present
> in a regular mash in similar quantities?
The reason I believe they are solids (remember SG is not 100% a sugar
measurement) is when you steep crystal, a grain that should be steeped, you
get about 40-50% efficiency, I got 68-79% which is better than some people's
mash. At 68-79% efficiency and with my measured gravities, the wort should
have sweetness (you've tasted runoff from the tun). It really didn't,
mainly nasty husky grainy flavor. I even let it settle for an additional
two hours (didn't put this in the writeup) and retasted and rechecked the
gravity. The gravity remained constant, and the flavor remained the same as
well.
Munich would not have sweetness unless is was mashed, and my conclusion is
therefore based upon that. Since it had slight to no sweetness, the gravity
must have been contributed by solids, namely unconverted starches...
I am still pretty sure it was all due to the pH of the solution and the
dilution of the enzymes...
Cheers,
Mike
Ken Anderson
clarity, too. And good God! I hope the discussion about suspended
particulates affecting SG doesn't rear its ugly head again! Mike Dixon
trolling??? : )
Ken A.
MDixon <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:lGGdnbVPdaF...@portbridge.com...
MDixon
Ken Anderson <aken75...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:cxJga.10307$TW2.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> have two observations and a conclusion:
> 1) I thought the starch test tested for starch, and not for active
enzymes.
I made some changes...I forgot to reread the captions...thanks for the heads
up...
Cheers,
Mike
www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
Alan McKay
> http://www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/Homebrew/BaseMaltExp.htm
Excellent experiment, Mike! I wonder how the grain bag would work
with half as much malt.
cheers,
-Alan
www.thebeersite.com
D Schultz
Burp,
-Dan
--
email me at s_danno at msn dot com
---------------------------------------------------------
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
news:v870nsd...@corp.supernews.com...
Dan Listermann
mashing a couple of times to try out the strips. They gave expected
readings. I never have conversion problems so I don't worry about it.
Unless you have really weird water, I don't see a need for screwing with pH
meters.
I really think that some people confuse optimum pH with functional pH. It
does not have to be dead nuts optimum to work.
I just found my strips. If I have the presence of mind the next time I brew
extract, I will do a measurement, but frankly I don't think I will find
anything wildly out of wack.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:6picnX76_or...@portbridge.com...
Mike D' Brewer
OK, that makes sense. The astringency is what's throwing me. Curious, but
did you take the SG with a hydrometer or your refractometer?
Beer here,
Mike
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
<sa...@die-shpammers-die-sbabootcamp.com> wrote:
> Very interesting experiment. Thanks for taking the time. I'm curious about
> your conclusions, though. You stated:
>
> "Quickly running through the math yields and extract for the straining bag
> of 25.22 points and for the loose malt as 29.4 points. That would lead one
> to calculate efficiencies of 68% and 79%. These figures could be misleading
> mainly because they are not an indication of the sugars in our case, but an
> indication of the solids. "
>
> What leads you to the conclusion that the OG was affected by something other
> than sugars? What might these solids be, and why wouldn't they be present
> in a regular mash in similar quantities?
Starch
I believe starch will also show up in a SG reading. The reason it
doesn't in a mash is because in a regular mash you get complete conversion of
any soluble starches so you know that the SG is registering sugars. The
argument here is whether the same is true for steeping base grains.
Hypothetically, if Mike got absolutely no conversion and purely had starches
in water, I think it would still have shown an OG > 1.000. The OG by itself
doesn't tell you if conversion happened. I was under the mistaken impression
earlier that the OG would tell you something about whether you were getting
sugars from the grains, but now that Mike has mentioned this, I dont' believe
it's the case. It tells you that you're getting *something* from the
grains.
Mike, have you thought about trying to ferment your samples and seeing
if yeast can do anything with them? See what sort of attenuation, if
any, you get?
John.
--
*** John P. Kolesar ***
*** sp...@shagg.net --- http://www.shagg.net/ ***
*** Valley Mead Brewery ***
***********************
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
I have little bells ringing in my head...
Dan, you've mentioned before that you have an uncommonly difficult time
with tannins while mashing dark grains, and usually throw them in during the
sparge. I believe you've commented that you think it's due to your
local water chemistry. Could this be a situation where the same water
that makes it problematic mashing dark grains is also making it
possible for you to get conversion while steeping? If that's the case,
I would suspect the success with steeping base grains may be unique to
your water chemistry. That would explain why Mike got different
results.
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
> Hell, typos are really easy to overlook. Double check your summary for
> clarity, too. And good God! I hope the discussion about suspended
> particulates affecting SG doesn't rear its ugly head again! Mike Dixon
> trolling??? : )
> Ken A.
Soluble solids (sugars, starches, etc) and unsoluble solids (hop
particles, break material, etc) are different things. I believe the
"particles affecting SG" thread was about the latter.
Dan Listermann
Essentially our water is moderately high in sulfates and low in carbonates.
The only treatment our local microbrewers use is to run the water through a
charcoal filter to remove the chlorine. They don't usually make any
adjustments as it is considered unnecessary. I don't know if they handle
roasted malts differently. I will have to ask.
The double bock I am drinking was made with two pounds of Briess Bonlander
steeped in six gallons of tap water. It is perfectly bright with no starch
haze and has no astringency. I hate astringency.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"John 'Shaggy' Kolesar" <sp...@shagg.net> wrote in message
news:5941beb596b9c96c...@news.teranews.com...
Alan McKay
> My conclusion would be that sure, the steeping method produces sugars, but
> (at least for a 45 mash) doesn't convert all the starches. Maybe the enzymes
> are too diluted? I hope you don't mind me chiming in.
Yes, it would be interesting to see what it is like after 90 minutes.
I've often mashed that long when I was a newbie ... just for the heck of it ;-)
I still go about 70 min as a rule for most beers.
cheers,
-Alan
www.thebeersite.com
dumbbrewer
positive iodine test? Dan, what does your Munich wort taste like?
"Ken Anderson" <aken75...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<sQLga.10591$TW2.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
FrOg
I found this clone recipe and DO NOT have the time or
equipment to run an ALL grain batch...so I need an extract
conversion done for the following from
Brewer: Michael J. Uhrich
yield is 5 gallons POST-BOIL
6.5 gallons PRE-BOIL
Grain:
7 lb. American 2-row
1.5 lb. American Munich
.5 lb. Belgian biscuit
.75 lb. American crystal 20L
4 oz. American crystal 40L
4 oz. American crystal 120L
Yeast: white labs california ale yeast
ferment for 5 days at 65F. Rack to secondary and lower temperature to
50F and condition an additional 3 days.
CAN ANYONE CONVERT THIS FOR ME?
FrOg 8)
http://www23.brinkster.com/mypond/
FrOg 8)
Mark R
> I performed the experiment of steeping base grains as I promised on the
> thread entitled "ALL Grain to Extract conversion HELP????"
>
> Based upon my results I stand by my position that base grains must be
mashed
> and cannot simply be steeped in a bag or loose in a large quantity of
water
> for conversion. Please see the article I have put on my page for the
> details. It is located at
> http://www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/Homebrew/BaseMaltExp.htm
>
> Also it can be linked off my homepage...
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
> www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
>
>
Ramblings of the less experienced.
1. If you base your conclusion on a comparison of the steeping (both bagged
and loose) results against the "normally expected" results of an AG batch,
then your logic would prevail. You did not get the desired conversion.
2. In fairness to the question of water differences, Dan (if he wanted to)
should run the same experiment and compare his findings against yours. If he
gets the same results as you, it probably wont cause him to change his
practices. (see #3) and may demonstrate the importance water make-up to a
brew. If his results are different than yours, you will probably end up as
you already have, respectfully disagreeing.
3.An AG brewer wouldn't normally steep grain so your results are only a
point of interest to them. To an extract or partial brewer your results are
of more interest but will not have a large impact. I base my conclusion on
the understanding that when extract is the base malt, the grain bill part of
the recipe (and the way it is steeped/mashed) is used to add the desired
taste and complexity. Therefore, extract brewers have adjusted there recipes
to take into account any shortcomings of a steep or partial mash to achieve
the desired taste results.
After reading the above, it sounded like I was implying your experiment was
a waste of time and that was not intended. Hopefully it went a long way
toward answering a question in your mind, and those of us (extract users)
who are still chasing that elusive perfect batch can use your results to
help tweak our recipes. I also suppose that as a judge your results may help
you better critique an extract brew at a competition.
Enough rambling
Mark R
Dan Listermann
> Wouldn't suspended particulates contain husks and starches, and give a
> positive iodine test? Dan, what does your Munich wort taste like?
I have never felt a need to taste it. There haven't been any problems.
Maybe I will the next time. Since my starch test is negative, I don't
expect to taste starch. Since I hate astringency in beer and have never
picked that up in my beers made this way, I doubt that I would taste that
either.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
>
Tom Davidson
> OK, since this was MY thread that started this...
And it was answered in the other thread.
> 7 lb. American 2-row
> 1.5 lb. American Munich
Replace this with 6 - 6 1/2 lbs of Briess LME
> .5 lb. Belgian biscuit
> .75 lb. American crystal 20L
> 4 oz. American crystal 40L
> 4 oz. American crystal 120L
Steep this.
MDixon
> OK, that makes sense. The astringency is what's throwing me. Curious,
but
> did you take the SG with a hydrometer or your refractometer?
>
Both....
I took the reading while the wort was hot (and corrected the hydrometer),
and again once it had cooled but I still had to correct for a slight temp
differential with the hydrometer. I used the Hydrometer readings. The
readings from the refractometer calculated out to be between readings and
very, very close to the hydrometer, so I went with the hydrometer...
Cheers,
Mike
MDixon
That is exactly what I was saying (should I reword it?). If you take grain
and cold water and grind the grain in a food processor, stir it up, and then
immediately measure the gravity after straining out the grain through
something like pantyhose, I will guarantee you will end up with a gravity in
excess of 1.000....
I was under the mistaken impression
> earlier that the OG would tell you something about whether you were
getting
> sugars from the grains, but now that Mike has mentioned this, I dont'
believe
> it's the case. It tells you that you're getting *something* from the
> grains.
Exactly. When we take the SG, on a proper mash, we have no way of knowing
what percentage of that SG is sugars...
>
> Mike, have you thought about trying to ferment your samples and seeing
> if yeast can do anything with them? See what sort of attenuation, if
> any, you get?
I thought of it, and even though of boiling it down to a gallon and then
fermenting, but it really did taste completely awful. I know many, many
folks have tasted runoff, even near the end of the sparge, and it never
tastes anything close to this. Bad enough for me to waste good Munich malt,
but yeast too...;)
Cheers,
Mike
MDixon
Alan McKay <amc...@neap.net> wrote in message
news:ZeMga.7236$D24.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > http://www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/Homebrew/BaseMaltExp.htm
>
> Excellent experiment, Mike! I wonder how the grain bag would work
> with half as much malt.
>
Thanks, the grain bag was not nearly as full as I expected it to be. I
thought the grain bag would be chocked full and it was not. To be
completely full would have taken another pound of crushed malt. After I got
the grain/steep temp corrected, I did not stir for 45 min. At the end of 45
min, I stirred well and moved the grainbag through the water and then
drained. I did the same for the loose grain.
Cheers,
Mike
www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
MDixon
FrOg <fr...@nunya.com> wrote in message
news:d4p78v8cfo7s50spf...@4ax.com...
> OK, since this was MY thread that started this...
>
> I found this clone recipe and DO NOT have the time or
> equipment to run an ALL grain batch...so I need an extract
> conversion done for the following from
>
> Brewer: Michael J. Uhrich
>
> yield is 5 gallons POST-BOIL
> 6.5 gallons PRE-BOIL
>
> Grain:
> 7 lb. American 2-row
> 1.5 lb. American Munich
> .5 lb. Belgian biscuit
> .75 lb. American crystal 20L
> 4 oz. American crystal 40L
> 4 oz. American crystal 120L
>
> Yeast: white labs california ale yeast
>
> ferment for 5 days at 65F. Rack to secondary and lower temperature to
> 50F and condition an additional 3 days.
>
> CAN ANYONE CONVERT THIS FOR ME?
>
I did it. Reread my thread. I gave you three options. You will need to do
some math yourself.
Here is what I said...
"1) Ok, then one answer would be to not make the brew....WHY?...because you
cannot steep Munich malt. So you are at a crossroads. Either do a
mini-mash for the Munich with some pale malt, or find an extract that
contains some Munich. One that comes to mind is from Williams Brewing (get
the whole link)
http://www.williamsbrewing.com/AB1605000/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Product_ID=362&
CATID=11 it is 50% Pils, 50% Munich...
In your recipe above, the 2 row was ~70% of the grist, and the Munich
~15%...
So mix this extract with another fresh LME to get the OG you desire (you
didn't tell us what that was) and keep the proportions constant. So, if you
needed 6 total pounds of LME (just an example), 15% of the fermentables
should come from the Williams extract, or use 1.8 lb of the Williams extract
since it is 50% Munich...
2) A second answer would be to not worry about the Munich and just use
extract for the Pale and the Munich and make the brew with the rest of the
malts steeped.
3) I think the best answer is it is just a Pale Ale, especially with that
neutral yeast. Don't sweat it. Some Extra Light DME, some crystal malts,
fou fou it up with the biscuit and let it ride..."
You did not give your desired OG, so nobody can help you further until you
do, and basically #3 is it, change the contribution from the pale malt to
DME, the Munich to 10L crystal, etc....it's a pale ale, I'd use DME, some
60L crystal and the aromatic and skip adding 4 ounces of this and 4 ounces
of that...
Cheers,
Mike
MDixon
Mark R <markno...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:v886cfs...@corp.supernews.com...
> Ramblings of the less experienced.
> 1. If you base your conclusion on a comparison of the steeping (both
bagged
> and loose) results against the "normally expected" results of an AG batch,
> then your logic would prevail. You did not get the desired conversion.
>
> 2. In fairness to the question of water differences, Dan (if he wanted to)
> should run the same experiment and compare his findings against yours. If
he
> gets the same results as you, it probably wont cause him to change his
> practices. (see #3) and may demonstrate the importance water make-up to a
> brew. If his results are different than yours, you will probably end up as
> you already have, respectfully disagreeing.
He said he won't do it with a pH meter and might do it with strips. I don't
think most strips give an accurate read on the pH, most people only use
strips as a guide...
With all due respects to Dan, I did mention in the article that is was
untreated tap water, I never mentioned who I had the discussion with except
to link to the google group archive, and I put in there that folks should
make up their own individual minds...
I think it boils down to water chemistry, but I don't think we will truly
ever know...I actually have no problem with respectfully disagreeing, but a
couple of times lately people have suggested that things were a certain way,
I have perfomed relatively simple experiments and found the converse to be
the case...
>
> 3.An AG brewer wouldn't normally steep grain so your results are only a
> point of interest to them. To an extract or partial brewer your results
are
> of more interest but will not have a large impact. I base my conclusion on
> the understanding that when extract is the base malt, the grain bill part
of
> the recipe (and the way it is steeped/mashed) is used to add the desired
> taste and complexity. Therefore, extract brewers have adjusted there
recipes
> to take into account any shortcomings of a steep or partial mash to
achieve
> the desired taste results.
>
> After reading the above, it sounded like I was implying your experiment
was
> a waste of time and that was not intended.
Not at all...
Hopefully it went a long way
> toward answering a question in your mind, and those of us (extract users)
> who are still chasing that elusive perfect batch can use your results to
> help tweak our recipes. I also suppose that as a judge your results may
help
> you better critique an extract brew at a competition.
Actually I had no real question in my mind except whether or not there might
be a chance it would work. With my water it did not. Most extract brewers
will not take the time to tweak their water chemistry, so if they have
similar water characteristics to my own, it is out of the question for them.
I have no idea how many parts of the US have similar water chemistry to
NC....
Cheers,
Mike
www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
Kelvin Kundert
>OK, since this was MY thread that started this...
>
Hey, stop threadjacking! ;-)
Kelvin
Mark R
>
> Most extract brewers
> will not take the time to tweak their water chemistry, so if they have
> similar water characteristics to my own, it is out of the question for
them.
> I have no idea how many parts of the US have similar water chemistry to
> NC....
>
my LHBS have been crafted by the owner. Knowing the local water he does have
small quantities of Burton water salts, Calcium Chloride (I think) and one
or two others, that show up in certain recipes. I suppose I should get a
water chemistry report from my local MUD. (Municipal Utility Dist. not a
bad name for our water utility, is it)
A side note, I have a parrot (Yellow Nape) and the Mom&Pop pet shop claims
that our water is too harsh for the bird and caused a couple (from the same
clutch) to die of kidney failure. He and the whole family have been on
filtered and bottled water since I found that out. He's now 22 and can
legally drink!
And your experiment might have helped me already. Normally when the recipe
called for chemical additions, I added them into the boil. Thinking about
your results, it might be better if I add some (or all) to the mash. It
might help efficiency and improve flavor? I'll have to ask the LHBS as my
next batch is an ESB that has Burton water salts in the recipe.
Mark R
Chad Gould
<mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote:
>Based upon my results I stand by my position that base grains must be mashed
>and cannot simply be steeped in a bag or loose in a large quantity of water
>for conversion. Please see the article I have put on my page for the
>details. It is located at
>http://www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/Homebrew/BaseMaltExp.htm
So, all you need to do is change the water ratio to a proper one (1.5
to 2 quarts water instead of 2 gallons). Then, if your water is good
for brewing, it's a mash. It's inefficient, sure. Perhaps your water
isn't good for pale-malt-only, you may need a smidgen of dark grains
to get the pH right (like a lot of brewers do without treating their
water). But you'll get something. (15%-20% efficiency seems the
norm...)
That experiment merely proved, to me, that the water ratio matters,
you can't just arbitrarily steep grains in water and get good results.
Brian Lundeen
> I performed the experiment of steeping base grains as I promised on the
> thread entitled "ALL Grain to Extract conversion HELP????"
Having read through your experiment and all the responses (including FrOg's
rather rude attempt to claim perpetual ownership to the topic of steeping
grains ;-))....
I have to question the pH angle. Now, perhaps this will start an entirely
new debate but, the recommended pH range of 5.2-5.6 is for mash temps. When
the mash sample is cooled to room temp (as you said you do), the pH will
rise by about .35 which makes the acceptable room temp readings more like
5.5-5.9. Only your one 6.2 reading seems to deviate from this, and you even
question the accuracy of your uncalibrated readings.
Does this change the fact that starches were left unconverted or that it
tasted horribly astringent, and that that taste would likely carry through
into the finished product? Not in the least. I just don't think pH is the
reason. Dilution of the enzymes into too large a volume to work on the
grains, the particulate nature of steeped grains water that does not have
the benefit of a filter bed to clean it up, I think those have more to do
with the problems you described.
My two cents.
Brian
Denny Conn
> I have little bells ringing in my head...
>
> Dan, you've mentioned before that you have an uncommonly difficult time
> with tannins while mashing dark grains, and usually throw them in during the
> sparge. I believe you've commented that you think it's due to your
> local water chemistry. Could this be a situation where the same water
> that makes it problematic mashing dark grains is also making it
> possible for you to get conversion while steeping? If that's the case,
> I would suspect the success with steeping base grains may be unique to
> your water chemistry. That would explain why Mike got different
> results.
I heard the same bell, John. I think this might be why Dan gets at
least acceptable, if not optimal, results and Mike had such bad results.
---------->Denny
Dan Listermann
news:v886cfs...@corp.supernews.com...
-- > 2. In fairness to the question of water differences, Dan (if he wanted
to)
> should run the same experiment and compare his findings against yours.
I did this morning. I used two gallons of distilled water and a pound of
Weissheimmer Munich in a bag. I did my usual method of putting the grist in
the water cold and let the stove raise the temperature to 150. I failed to
consider that I may have been performing an acid rest as a result.
The pH strips I used are these cool plastic ones from Fil-Chem that
compensate for the liquid's color by having the color code directly on the
strip.
It took about a half hour to come to 150 or so. The pH was 5.5 or 5.6
depending on interpretation. At the end of 45 minutes I got bored waiting
for any signs of positive starch test after a about a minute. The wort
tasted slightly sweet not unlike what one would expect at the end of a
sparge. This would not be unexpected as there was only a pound per the two
gallons using an inefficient method of extraction.
When I went to cool the wort, I put the pot into a sink an turned the water
on. I walked away and got distracted. The pot flooded so we have no
gravity readings.
Using distilled water takes mineral profile out of the picture and lets
anybody try it themselves. I intend to do it again tomorrow and watch the
faucet more carefully.
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
>
> MDixon <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
> news:Q6icncqnCbM...@portbridge.com...
> > I performed the experiment of steeping base grains as I promised on the
> > thread entitled "ALL Grain to Extract conversion HELP????"
> >
> > Based upon my results I stand by my position that base grains must be
> mashed
> > and cannot simply be steeped in a bag or loose in a large quantity of
> water
> > for conversion. Please see the article I have put on my page for the
> > details. It is located at
> > http://www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/Homebrew/BaseMaltExp.htm
> >
> > Also it can be linked off my homepage...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Mike
> > www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
> >
> >
>
> Ramblings of the less experienced.
> 1. If you base your conclusion on a comparison of the steeping (both
bagged
> and loose) results against the "normally expected" results of an AG batch,
> then your logic would prevail. You did not get the desired conversion.
>
Dan Listermann
news:3E84A9AB...@all.com...
> > Dan, you've mentioned before that you have an uncommonly difficult time
> > with tannins while mashing dark grains, and usually throw them in during
the
> > sparge. I believe you've commented that you think it's due to your
> > local water chemistry. Could this be a situation where the same water
> > that makes it problematic mashing dark grains is also making it
> > possible for you to get conversion while steeping? If that's the case,
> > I would suspect the success with steeping base grains may be unique to
> > your water chemistry. That would explain why Mike got different
> > results.
>
> I heard the same bell, John. I think this might be why Dan gets at
> least acceptable, if not optimal, results and Mike had such bad results.
>
I did a variation on Mikes test this morning with distilled water and got
markedly different results.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
> John 'Shaggy' Kolesar wrote:
>
> > I have little bells ringing in my head...
> >
> ---------->Denny
Denny Conn
> I did a variation on Mikes test this morning with distilled water and got
> markedly different results.
> --
Wow, a whole new can of worms! I have to admit, I find this really
intriguing. Could you post your results when you have time?
------------->Denny
Denny Conn
> Wow, a whole new can of worms! I have to admit, I find this really
> intriguing. Could you post your results when you have time?
>
> ------------->Denny
Never mind...I saw your post farther down...
----------->Denny
MDixon
Brian Lundeen <blun...@spam.rrc.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:b6270p$dvt$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
> I have to question the pH angle. Now, perhaps this will start an entirely
> new debate but, the recommended pH range of 5.2-5.6 is for mash temps.
When
> the mash sample is cooled to room temp (as you said you do), the pH will
> rise by about .35 which makes the acceptable room temp readings more like
> 5.5-5.9. Only your one 6.2 reading seems to deviate from this, and you
even
> question the accuracy of your uncalibrated readings.
I really took things out of whack at the beginning although my water
measurement seems reasonable...
>
> Does this change the fact that starches were left unconverted or that it
> tasted horribly astringent, and that that taste would likely carry through
> into the finished product? Not in the least. I just don't think pH is the
> reason. Dilution of the enzymes into too large a volume to work on the
> grains, the particulate nature of steeped grains water that does not have
> the benefit of a filter bed to clean it up, I think those have more to do
> with the problems you described.
I have always wondered about a partial mash and just rinsing the grains. We
all work hard to establish a filter bed that a collander just does not
provide...
I still wonder about the pH....;)
Cheers,
Mike
MDixon
> I did this morning. I used two gallons of distilled water and a pound of
> Weissheimmer Munich in a bag. I did my usual method of putting the grist
in
> the water cold and let the stove raise the temperature to 150. I failed
to
> consider that I may have been performing an acid rest as a result.
>
> The pH strips I used are these cool plastic ones from Fil-Chem that
> compensate for the liquid's color by having the color code directly on the
> strip.
>
> It took about a half hour to come to 150 or so. The pH was 5.5 or 5.6
> depending on interpretation. At the end of 45 minutes I got bored waiting
> for any signs of positive starch test after a about a minute. The wort
> tasted slightly sweet not unlike what one would expect at the end of a
> sparge. This would not be unexpected as there was only a pound per the
two
> gallons using an inefficient method of extraction.
>
> When I went to cool the wort, I put the pot into a sink an turned the
water
> on. I walked away and got distracted. The pot flooded so we have no
> gravity readings.
>
> Using distilled water takes mineral profile out of the picture and lets
> anybody try it themselves. I intend to do it again tomorrow and watch the
> faucet more carefully.
An inadvertent acid rest going through the temps would certainly help to
lower the pH. I don't plan on recreating the experiment in the near future
(mainly due to time), but look forward to hearing what you have to say about
it, and also what temp it starts at and how long it takes to get to 150ºF...
Cheers,
Mike
Brian Lundeen
water
> on. I walked away and got distracted. The pot flooded so we have no
> gravity readings.
>
LOL!
This goes a long way to explaining your aversion to rehydration. ;-)
I'm sorry, I suppose I'm being a bit nasty, but all I can think of is...
This experiment was conducted by trained professionals. Don't try this at
home, kids.
ROTFLMAO at my own joke....
I'm sorry, I'm a prick, I admit it...
Brian
Dan Listermann
> An inadvertent acid rest going through the temps would certainly help to
> lower the pH. I don't plan on recreating the experiment in the near
future
> (mainly due to time), but look forward to hearing what you have to say
about
> it, and also what temp it starts at and how long it takes to get to
150ºF...
Our tap water is probably about 45 F at the moment and it took about a half
hour to get to 150F.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
MDixon
> "MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
> news:DfOdnX3KJP8...@portbridge.com...
> > An inadvertent acid rest going through the temps would certainly help to
> > lower the pH. I don't plan on recreating the experiment in the near
> future
> > (mainly due to time), but look forward to hearing what you have to say
> about
> > it, and also what temp it starts at and how long it takes to get to
> 150ºF...
>
> Our tap water is probably about 45 F at the moment and it took about a
half
> hour to get to 150F.
I'd guess my tap is 60 something now and it didn't take me long at all to
hit 150ºF, I had time to pull out the mill and grind the grain, so maybe 10
minutes, 15 minutes tops. Of course if an acid rest is the key, then it
would certainly not be hard for a person to do one for a few minutes before
the temp increase...
Cheers,
Mike
Dan Listermann
:) ) to anybody who wants to use diastatic malts in extract brews. It
produces a negative starch test and does not produce astringencies. Water
mineral content does not seem to be a problem. Starting in cold water and
heating to saccharification temperature may help, but I am not yet convinced
that it is necessary at this time.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:3fydndrPyYB...@portbridge.com...
John 'Shaggy' Kolesar
> I did a variation on Mikes test this morning with distilled water and got
> markedly different results.
You mean different from Mike, or different from what you get with your
normal water?
John.
--
*** John P. Kolesar ***
*** sp...@shagg.net --- http://www.shagg.net/ ***
*** Valley Mead Brewery ***
***********************
MDixon
> I have no problem recommending steep mashing ( I may have invented that
term
> :) ) to anybody who wants to use diastatic malts in extract brews. It
> produces a negative starch test and does not produce astringencies. Water
> mineral content does not seem to be a problem.
Then if your customer is from Wake Forest, NC and using tap water you would
be doing a huge disservice to that brewer. I have proven to my satisfaction
and to at least a few others that using my tap water and putting the malt in
after temp is reached doesn't work...
BTW - just doing it with distilled water (if it worked), would only prove
that it could be done with your water and distilled water. So if a brewer
used any other water besides your own and distilled, it could certainly
fail.
Saying steeping base grains works is bad advice IMO, so I will have to
continue to respectfully disagree...
Cheers,
Mike
www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
Dan Listermann
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:53:33 -0500, <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > I did a variation on Mikes test this morning with distilled water and
got
> > markedly different results.
>
> You mean different from Mike, or different from what you get with your
> normal water?
Different from Mike's results.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
>
Dan Listermann
test simulating it with distilled water and minerals.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:RKOcnWbtQpS...@portbridge.com...
MDixon
> Let me know what kind of water you have at Wake Forest and I will repeat
my
> test simulating it with distilled water and minerals.
I don't have any analyses handy, and actually quit worrying about them long
ago. I will see if I can get the info from my local water treatment, and if
time permits, I may try the experiment again in the next few weeks with
distilled water, in three steps, one using room temp distilled water and
heating to temp (I thought it a little odd your distilled water was at
40ºF), another using 150ºF distilled water (meaning put the grain in after
temp is reached), and a third using distilled water and gypsum added after
temp is reached, all with grain bags...
Cheers,
Mike
Mark R
>
>
> I have always wondered about a partial mash and just rinsing the grains.
We
> all work hard to establish a filter bed that a collander just does not
> provide...
>
> I still wonder about the pH....;)
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
>
>
just raise a question, at least for me. In your test you had the 2 glasses
of wort sitting side by side, and if I saw correctly, the grain bag only
produced about half the sediment that the loose grain produced. Have you
tried and how would a glass full of "clear" runnings from your mash compare?
Mark R
Dan Listermann
distilled was room temperature.
I repeated the test using 155 F distilled water to see if the serendipitous
acid rest was necessary. After the one pound malt bag was put in and
agitated to get wet, the temperature stabilized at 150. The pH was 5.5 just
minutes after the malt bag was added. After 45 minutes it took about a
minute to begin to see a slight bit of blue around the edges of the starch
test. I brought the wort to boil and checked again. There was no sign of
starch after a minute. Cooled, I had 16.02 pounds of 1.012 wort or 1.897
gallons. This works out to 22.76 points per pound. About 61.5% efficiency.
Not bad all things considered. The wort has a slightly sweet very, very
malty flavor. Astringency is absent.
Considering the absence of minerals in distilled water and the infusion
method used above I think that I can say for certain that the mashing
process is far more robust than some are lead to think.
Any one can repeat this test especially considering it used distilled water.
--
Dan Listermann
Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com
Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.
"MDixon" <mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote in message
news:nZudnSwkOOx...@portbridge.com...
MDixon
> I won't argue the benefits of AG against a partial mash or steep but you
did
> just raise a question, at least for me. In your test you had the 2 glasses
> of wort sitting side by side, and if I saw correctly, the grain bag only
> produced about half the sediment that the loose grain produced. Have you
> tried and how would a glass full of "clear" runnings from your mash
compare?
I have not "side by side", but after many moons of AG brewing can assure at
wost the runnings from my AG batch would barely even leave a smidge of
settling on the bottom. Don't believe me, check my page under Techniques,
you can see the clarity of my runoff there..
Cheers,
Mike
www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
Thomas T. Veldhouse
<mpdixon@_no_spam_ipass.net> wrote:
>I performed the experiment of steeping base grains as I promised on the
>thread entitled "ALL Grain to Extract conversion HELP????"
>
>Based upon my results I stand by my position that base grains must be mashed
>and cannot simply be steeped in a bag or loose in a large quantity of water
>for conversion. Please see the article I have put on my page for the
>details. It is located at
>http://www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/Homebrew/BaseMaltExp.htm
>
>Also it can be linked off my homepage...
>
>Cheers,
>Mike
>www.ipass.net/~mpdixon/homebrew.htm
>
I didn't read the original thread (or I don't remember it off hand),
but I thought that was a nit because of the soluble starches in base
grains.
Tom Veldhouse