Looking for homebrewing gift ideas? Check out our previous gift guides here or here!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
Also, if you enjoy BrewUnited, please consider doing your Amazon shopping via our affiliate link!
OK, so a recent Dry Extra Irish Stout came in not-so-dry. BeerSmith estimated FG to be 1.013 with a mash at 149 F for an hour. This one came in at 1.016, which is a little over what the style should be.
I made a starter that probably had more than the recommended cell count. I oxygenated the wort prior to pitching. I added yeast nutrient to the boil. The OG was 1.058. How do I go about getting better attenuation when I'm pitching adequate yeast and controlling the temperature well? Rhetorical question.
I recently performed a Schmitz decoction for a Dunkel I'll soon enter in the NHC. It was a pain in the butt, however, it incorporates a really interesting concept of performing a beta amylase rest and then removing the thin wort (because it contains most of the conversion enzymes) before taking the thick mash to an alpha rest and then boiling the entire thick mash. The saved thin portion is reintroduced to the mash again after it is chilled back to beta rest temps.
After learning that the Extra Irish Stout finished a tad high for the style made me think that my wort was not as fermentable as it needed to be. In my mind, the same procedure used in the Schmitz decoction might help resolve this fermentability issue and could be done in the stout with simple infusion techniques.
Please review the mash schedule below and critique it for it's ability to create a more fermentable wort. I don't mind the extra steps if it helps the end product:
Beta rest - 145 F 1.25 qt/lb grain 20 min
Remove thin mash 0.25 qt/lb (hold at 145 F in oven)
Alpha rest - 158 F by infusing 0.25 qt/lb 20 min
B2B (Back to beta) 145 F by infusing 0.25 qt/lb 20 min (also add thin mash back)
The theory being that the initial beta rest converts most of the available non-branched starch to maltose and you collect a good bit of those enzymes in the thin mash before raising the temperature to alpha amylase levels. The alpha rest then creates many smaller starch chains ready for the beta amylase to convert them to maltose when you return the enzymes from the held thin portion at the proper beta rest temperature.
Comments? Will it work? I might try it on a K�lsch in the near future.
Posted 34 days ago.
These methods work, yes. Easier may be to make a cold extraction (Kaltauszug / Enzymebooster) @ 25-38�° from a part of the base malt and keep it 'cool'. Add it at the end of mashing.
A completely different method,depending on the yeast, is a stirred fermentation. On prominent reason for relative high FG is early flocking of the yeast and dropping out of suspension. Stirring prevents that, with it you can get Windsor and WY1968 to 80%
The intro is in Dutch the rest in English: Flocculation of brewers' yeast -quantification, modelling and control -
repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:3d5...
Posted 34 days ago.
Edited 34 days ago by ingoogni
Sweet. So, is there any way to slow the flocculation? Warming of the fermentation as the activity starts to slow?
Posted 34 days ago.
Look at Yorkshire square fermentation. Black Sheep circulates/rouses a specific volume of their fermenters every 12 minutes or so during the first few days. Open fermentation as well. I have done this to good effect, but expect more expressive ester production. The rousing keeps the yeast suspended and confounds their clumping and floccing.
Sent from Outlook Mobile
Posted 34 days ago.
Every 12 minutes? That's some serious lack of sleep in Texas....
Posted 34 days ago.
Greg, I have far too many thoughts on this to type on my phone. I'll either talk to you about it on the call or email tomorrow.
Very interesting stuff though.
Posted 34 days ago.
Just drop one of those small submersible chinese solar pumps in the young beer and switch it with a timer.
Posted 34 days ago.
>Beta rest - 145 F 1.25 qt/lb grain 20 min
>Remove thin mash 0.25 qt/lb (hold at 145 F in oven)
>Alpha rest - 158 F by infusing 0.25 qt/lb 20 min
>B2B (Back to beta) 145 F by infusing 0.25 qt/lb 20 min (also add thin mash back)
>The theory being that the initial beta rest converts most of the available non-branched starch to maltose and you collect a good bit of those >enzymes in the thin mash before raising the temperature to alpha amylase levels. The alpha rest then creates many smaller starch chains ready for >the beta amylase to convert them to maltose when you return the enzymes from the held thin portion at the proper beta rest temperature.
Huh? No, it doesn't work that way. That's really more of a modification of a Hochkurz decoction than anything. Schmitz doesn't have multi steps. Think of it more as a single infusion with a cereal mash thrown in the middle. At least that's what Pattinson has dug up and what's in Malting and Brewing Science. The point to a Schmitz is to gelatinize all the the starch to get the highest yield possible. It was developed to counteract poorly modified malts with minimal Maillard reactions. You get the enzymes, you make gelatinized starch, and then you let the enzymes go to town. If you add the alpha step or let the mash convert too much before boiling, you'll get Maillards and your mash will end up darker. Not that I mind getting some Maillards in there, but the whole thrust is to make a more fermentable wort without any additional effects. I'd think with today's highly modified malts, the additional gravity points you gain would be minimal. You'd really just do as well to crush a little finer and extend your beta rest longer.
Now, one interesting variation on Schmitz is the Weihenstephan method. They'll do the rest at ~95F or so and pull the liquid off there to preserve the maltase. They then go through and do a regular mash schedule, then cool the mash back down to 95, add the liquid and allow it to act on the maltose. The additional glucose it provides helps boost esters in wheat beers.
> Just drop one of those small submersible chinese solar pumps in the young beer and switch it with a timer.
That's super brave. I'm not sure I'd trust a pond pump in anything I'd consume. I'd try to get a peristaltic pump. Actually, I wonder if you had a BrewEasy system if you could start fermentation in the kettle and use the mash housing as the "square". You could put a timer on the pump. Now that I think about it, you could probably accomplish the same with 2 bottling buckets, a pump, and some fiddling with how they're arranged vertically relative to one another.
Posted 34 days ago.
OK, set me straight. Thanks for the response, btw.
Schmitz was the only decoction that I've seen that draws off the thin mash before boiling and then reintroduces it. Of course, I'm getting that from the internet and not Pattinson. Thanks for giving me another book to track down.
My meager understanding is that Beta-amylase has an ideal temperature of 140 F and starts degrading at 150 F. Alpha-amylase has an ideal temperature of about 155 F and starts degrading somewhere north of 160 F. That's from memory since I don't have Palmer in front of me. The recommended mash range is a compromise for the two enzymes.
Since Beta-amylase stops short on some of the branched starches it needs the Alpha-amylase to break those branched chains and make those sugars available to the Beta-amylase, right? Do both enzymes work to their fullest at temperatures in the 148 F to 152 F range and I'm simply going through the process for a miniscule increase in fermentability?
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 10:43 AM, uberg33k <[email protected]> wrote:
>Beta rest - 145 F 1.25 qt/lb grain 20 min>Remove thin mash 0.25 qt/lb (hold at 145 F in oven)>Alpha rest - 158 F by infusing 0.25 qt/lb 20 min>B2B (Back to beta) 145 F by infusing 0.25 qt/lb 20 min (also add thin mash back)>The theory being that the initial beta rest converts most of the available non-branched starch to maltose and you collect a good bit of those >enzymes in the thin mash before raising the temperature to alpha amylase levels. The alpha rest then creates many smaller starch chains ready for >the beta amylase to convert them to maltose when you return the enzymes from the held thin portion at the proper beta rest temperature.Huh? No, it doesn't work that way. That's really more of a modification of a Hochkurz decoction than anything. Schmitz doesn't have multi steps. Think of it more as a single infusion with a ! cereal mash thrown in the middle. At least that's what Pattinson has dug up and what's in Malting and Brewing Science. The point to a Schmitz is to gelatinize all the the starch to get the highest yield possible. It was developed to counteract poorly modified malts with minimal Maillard reactions. You get the enzymes, you make gelatinized starch, and then you let the enzymes go to town. If you add the alpha step or let the mash convert too much before boiling, you'll get Maillards and your mash will end up darker. Not that I mind getting some Maillards in there, but the whole thrust is to make a more fermentable wort without any additional effects. I'd think with today's highly modified malts, the additional gravity points you gain would be minimal. You'd really just do as well to crush a little finer and extend your beta rest longer.Now, one interesting variation on Schmitz is theWeihenstephan ! method. They'll do the rest at ~95F or so and pull the l! iquid off there to preserve the maltase. They then go through and do a regular mash schedule, then cool the mash back down to 95, add the liquid and allow it to act on the maltose. The additional glucose it provides helps boost esters in wheat beers.>Just drop one of those small submersible chinese solar pumps in the young beer and switch it with a timer.That's super brave. I'm not sure I'd trust a pond pump in anything I'd consume. I'd try to get a peristaltic pump. Actually, I wonder if you had a BrewEasy system if you could start fermentation in the kettle and use the mash housing as the "square". You could put a timer on the pump. Now that I think about it, you could probably accomplish the same with 2 bottling buckets, a pump, and some fiddling with how they're arranged vertically relative to one another.
Posted 34 days ago.
You're going through the process for MAGIC.
I'm decocting this dunkel...
Posted 34 days ago.
I'm not sure if I should respond here or to the main thread. I'm so confused.
Anyhow, you're right that alpha amylase can break down 1,6 bonds that beta can't and makes shorter dextrins that beta can act on, but I don't think you'll see a huge jump in conversion from it. Sure, it'll be worth a few points to be certain, but probably not so many as to make it seem worth the time. Today's modern malts are so hot in terms of diastatic power that you have way more than you really need. Remember too that there isn't a hard off of beta then hard on (heh) of alpha. There is a range where both enzymes are active. If you started at around 143F and did a slow ramp up to 158F or whatever, I think you'd find the process easier. Even if alpha amylase isn't hitting peak activity till about ~158F, it's still doing it's thing at 145, albeit slower. There's such a large load of enzymes in the malt, that given enough time in the "magic window" where they're both active, you're not going to see any practical difference between a long mash and a Schmitz process.
Now, if you want to talk about building color and flavor, then that's where decoction is really worth investigating.
Posted 34 days ago.
It's the slightly low FG that's got my attention at the moment and I'm looking for greater fermentability as a solution.
Posted 34 days ago.
> You're going through the process for MAGIC.
Posted 34 days ago.
Right, which means your yeast pooped early or you have too many dextrins in your wort. I'm saying you're not going to do anymore more to break those dextrins down with a Schmitz that you couldn't do with continuous ramping. The ramping would be easier because it involves one less pot and less moving stuff around.
Posted 34 days ago.
Got it. Thanks. Now to look for Pattinson.
Posted 34 days ago.
