Home Brew Forums

Home Brew Forums (http://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum.php)
-   Gluten Free Brewing (http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f164/)
-   -   GF Chestnut IPA Success!!! (http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f164/gf-chestnut-ipa-success-348500/)

frothdaddy 08-18-2012 11:55 PM

GF Chestnut IPA Success!!!
 
Just poured the first of this GF Chestnut IPA today, and it came out great. Color is spot on; very hoppy; closest to a barley flavor that I've tasted in GF.

Recipe:
-5 lbs of med roast chestnuts, boiled in 5 gallons of H2O for 5 mins in grain bag. Shut off heat and steeped the chestnuts until temp came down to 150.
-Added 2.5 tsp. of amylase and 2.5 tsp. of pectic enzyme.
-Mashed for 24 hours at 140-150 degrees. Kept it on the stove for this. I found that my old electric stove was weak enough that keeping it on the lowest setting kept the temp almost constant. Overnight, I left the burner on the lowest setting and it only got down to 133.
- Added 5#'s of corn sugar
- Removed bag and rinsed with an additional 1 gallon of water, bringing total volume to 5.7 gallons.
- Boiled with the following additions:
- 60 mins - 3 oz Columbus
- 30 mins - 1 oz Columbus
- 15 mins - Whilfloc tablet; 2 lbs Sorghum syrup; 1 oz Columbus; 8 oz of Maltodextrin (mixed with 2 cups H20); added immersion chiller to kettle at this time
- 5 mins - 1 oz Columbus
- 1 min - 1 oz Columbus
OG - 1.072
After 2 weeks in primary, dry hopped with 1 oz Cascade
Kegged after about 6 weeks.
FG - 1.010

I was going to add heading powder, but forgot. Starts with a decent head, but quickly dissipates.

I would make this again, although with the chestnuts, it's fairly pricey.:mug::mug:

Psych 08-19-2012 12:53 AM

So do the chestnuts actually contribute to the OG or are we seeing just the 5lbs of corn sugar and 2lbs of sorghum? Are the chestnuts basically a steep for color and flavor?

frothdaddy 08-19-2012 12:28 PM

In Beer Calculus, I only get an OG of 1.060 with 5# corn sugar and 2# sorghum, so the chestnuts must be contributing something. After the steep, I tasted it and it was very sweet.

As I understand it, that's the whole purpose of adding the amylase in the chestnut recipes I've seen. I certainly hope they're contributing something, considering how much of a PITA it is to mash them for 24 hours.

igliashon 09-19-2012 02:46 PM

I wonder if anyone's bothered to check if the 24 hour mash is really necessary? Like take a gravity reading every couple hours, to see how much activity there really is after the first few hours.

frothdaddy 09-19-2012 03:00 PM

I thought gravity was reading the density of the solution, so it wouldn't matter whether that solution was sugar or starch? If I take a reading every hour, wouldn't the density remain constant, irregardless of whether it's starch or sugar? Or, does the conversion from starch to sugar change the density of the solution?

Wouldn't it be better to do an iodine test every few hours?

ChasidicCalvinist 09-19-2012 03:44 PM

What is heading powder? Is it GF?

igliashon 09-19-2012 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frothdaddy (Post 4425804)
I thought gravity was reading the density of the solution, so it wouldn't matter whether that solution was sugar or starch? If I take a reading every hour, wouldn't the density remain constant, irregardless of whether it's starch or sugar? Or, does the conversion from starch to sugar change the density of the solution?

Wouldn't it be better to do an iodine test every few hours?

Doing both would be the most comprehensive, but you're missing the fact that the starch does not all extract into the solution instantaneously when you add water. Enzymes don't take a long time to do their work; usually enzymes will convert starch to sugar in a matter of minutes! As I understand it, the reason barley mashes take as long as they do is that the starches take that long to gelatinize and become soluble, and the enzymes are continuously converting starch as it becomes soluble. My guess is that chestnut starch is harder to get into solution than most grain starch; but I can't imagine why, presuming you get a comparably-fine grind, that a 15-20 minute boil wouldn't fully gelatinize them, after which point you could cool them to optimal saccharification temp, add the enzymes, and get full conversion inside 2 hours. But I'm also not a food scientist, so there could be a piece I'm missing.

frothdaddy 09-19-2012 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igliashon (Post 4426207)
Doing both would be the most comprehensive, but you're missing the fact that the starch does not all extract into the solution instantaneously when you add water. Enzymes don't take a long time to do their work; usually enzymes will convert starch to sugar in a matter of minutes! As I understand it, the reason barley mashes take as long as they do is that the starches take that long to gelatinize and become soluble, and the enzymes are continuously converting starch as it becomes soluble. My guess is that chestnut starch is harder to get into solution than most grain starch; but I can't imagine why, presuming you get a comparably-fine grind, that a 15-20 minute boil wouldn't fully gelatinize them, after which point you could cool them to optimal saccharification temp, add the enzymes, and get full conversion inside 2 hours. But I'm also not a food scientist, so there could be a piece I'm missing.

Ah, that makes sense. That would be a worthwhile experiment, since the 24 hour mash really is a PITA. I may try that when I re-make this.

@ChasidicCalvinist, this is heading powder: http://www.northernbrewer.com/shop/h...wder-1-oz.html

Dextrose is GF, right?

muench1 09-19-2012 06:08 PM

It doesn't make any sense to have a mash that long because the amylase enzymes will certainly have denatured after a few hours at mash temps. If you're using added enzymes (lacking good pale malt, we have no choice) you could continue to add more throughout the mash for more conversion. The long mash may be for the pectic enzyme?

frothdaddy 09-19-2012 06:45 PM

I just did a quick google search, and it I didn't find much by way of an authoritative source, but everything seems to suggest that pectic enzyme denatures above about 113F, which is way below my mashing temp.

Maybe the pectin didn't do anything at all. It certainly looked like muddy water at the time it went into the fermentor. Perhaps the clarifying that I saw post-fermentation was only because of the lapse of time and the cold crash before bottling. Wine makers add it pre-fermentation, not prior to boil: http://www.ldcarlson.com/images/Chemicals/6382A.JPG

I guess this all calls into question whether this 24 hour mash is at all necessary.


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.