Correlation between recirculating and head retention?

[day_trippr]

Doesn't the water taste fishy? Great for chowders I'd bet.

Seriously, though, most neutralizers use dolomitic limestone (a combination of magnesium and calcium carbonates). Are you sure yours used oyster shells?

Mmmmm...chowder!
Nah, that's just a joke, because the stuff sure looks like granular crushed oyster shells.
It's actually calcite media...

Cheers!

 

[MSK_Chess]

AHH, well fermenting under pressure is a whole new animal. Why are you doing that?

I read that it produces less esters and I had a spunding valve sitting around for ages that I wanted to use. The thing is though that you need your Cornelius keg to be able to hold at a fairly low pressure.

 

[rabeb25]

I read that it produces less esters and I had a spunding valve sitting around for ages that I wanted to use. The thing is though that you need your Cornelius keg to be able to hold at a fairly low pressure.

Yea thats not a "thing" on our scale. Don't you want esters in a kolsch, I know I do... Thats what makes it a Kolsch

Use it spudning for carbonation.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Yea thats not a "thing" on our scale. Don't you want esters in a kolsch, I know I do... Thats what makes it a Kolsch

Use it spudning for carbonation.

Do I want esters? gee I dunno, I never really thought about it really. Are they a good thing or a bad thing? I suspect it depends on style? One other idea is that it naturally carbonates. Apparently there is some kind of difference in bubble size? in naturally carbonated beer than force carbed the former being finer and more 'champagne like'. I had a Bavarian Helles yesterday, imported from Germany, finest beer I ever tasted. I don't think I will ever be able to make beer that good.

 

[dyqik]

There's definitely no difference in bubble size intrinsically between naturally and force carbed CO2. It's CO2. It has three atoms, and it can't tell where it came from.

Some other bits of the process might alter the beer's viscosity/surface tension, which is what sets bubble size for a given gas content. But probably not.

 

[ba-brewer]

I don't know how this fits into the discussion, but I have split batches of beer before and fermented each half with a different yeast where one would end up producing better head retention and lacing. Wyeast California lager yeast is a yeast which seems to produce good head retention and lacing for me.

 

[rabeb25]

Sure you can, I do.

You have to follow our paper religiously though.

 

[mabrungard]

There's definitely no difference in bubble size intrinsically between naturally and force carbed CO2. It's CO2. It has three atoms, and it can't tell where it came from.

With time, this is true. However, initially there can be a big difference. We can easily impart high carbonation into water and beer with enough pressure. But those bubbles will initially be very coarse...think about the bubbles in your soft drink from a soda fountain. That CO2 was just injected into the water and it has not had the opportunity to 'hydrate' with the water. Hydration of CO2 is a time-dependent phenomena that cannot be significantly accelerated. Using a fine diffusion stone does not improve the initial fineness of the carbonation. Only time can do that.

At typical cold storage temps, I find that it takes about 2 weeks for carbonation to fully hydrate and to produce those fine bubbles that we often desire.

 

[MSK_Chess]

Sure you can, I do.

You have to follow our paper religiously though.

I pledge myself to your teachings Lord Vader

 

[dyqik]

With time, this is true. However, initially there can be a big difference. We can easily impart high carbonation into water and beer with enough pressure. But those bubbles will initially be very coarse...think about the bubbles in your soft drink from a soda fountain. That CO2 was just injected into the water and it has not had the opportunity to 'hydrate' with the water. Hydration of CO2 is a time-dependent phenomena that cannot be significantly accelerated. Using a fine diffusion stone does not improve the initial fineness of the carbonation. Only time can do that.

At typical cold storage temps, I find that it takes about 2 weeks for carbonation to fully hydrate and to produce those fine bubbles that we often desire.

Inline carbonation at serving can be completely different to force carbing in a keg, because the CO2 bubbles injected inline don't ever have to dissolve and reform when the pressure is released. But force carbing a keg by pressurizing the headspace requires CO2 molecules to enter solution, so that they can get from the CO2 gas above the beer to the pickup tube.

 

[rabeb25]

Inline carbonation at serving can be completely different to force carbing in a keg, because the CO2 bubbles injected inline don't ever have to dissolve and reform when the pressure is released. But force carbing a keg by pressurizing the headspace requires CO2 molecules to enter solution, so that they can get from the CO2 gas above the beer to the pickup tube.

And spunding is different from that.

The yeast are excreting the co2 while they are spread about the beer fermenting. Thus, the co2 (which is pure, unlike canister co2) can act as basically a "carbonation stone". I can ferment at 45F for 5 days, spund on day 5, and have fully carbonated finished beer on day 7. Yes the co2 goes into the head space, but only after percolating though the beer. What takes a person force carbing 2 weeks (fine bubbles/proper carb) to achieve is done in 2 days by the yeast.

 

[dyqik]

Sure, the carbing up rates are different. But the end result at equilibrium is the same.

I don't know what Martin means by "hydrating" CO2. That's not something that CO2 does. It can reach an equilibrium with carbonic acid, but in water at an atmosphere or two, that's more than 1000:1 CO2: carbonic ratio, and the rate of forming carbonic acid is pretty fast (faster than yeast or diffusion of CO2 through the beer).

 

[mabrungard]

I don't know what Martin means by "hydrating" CO2. That's not something that CO2 does. It can reach an equilibrium with carbonic acid, but in water at an atmosphere or two, that's more than 1000:1 CO2: carbonic ratio, and the rate of forming carbonic acid is pretty fast (faster than yeast or diffusion of CO2 through the beer).

It appears that you should have spent a moment to research this fact before responding. "Hydration of CO2" is a well known phenomena.

 

[dyqik]

It appears that you should have spent a moment to research this fact before responding. "Hydration of CO2" is a well known phenomena.

Googling, hydration of CO2 appears to be formation of carbonic acid from dissolved CO2 in the CO2 + H2O:H+ + HCO3-:H2CO3 equilibrium that I referred to. It seems a bit of an odd phrasing to this physicist and was only used in passing on the wikipedia page or the chemistry dept lecture notes on carbonic acid formation I looked at (I missed it until now), so I was guessing that it was something different. But then I'm more used to thinking about reactions in gases in molecular clouds or on surfaces than in solution.

How much of a role does this actually play in carbonation, given the equilibrium I mentioned above in water and how far it is to the dissolved CO2 side. Is the equilibrium in beer (with lower initial pH/higher buffering than water) far from the plain water equilibrium? And how fast is that equilibrium reached?

 

[ajdelange]

When CO2 dissolves in water it quickly (milliseconds) hydrates: CO2 + H2O --> CO2(aq). Then some, but only a very small part, of that reacts, but slowly* to become carbonic acid: CO3(aq) <--> H2CO3. There is a separate equilibrium constant for each of these but keeping track of them is a PITA so chemists often write CO2 + H20 --> H2CO3* with H2CO3* representing the sum of the hydrated and carbonic acid. Then [H2CO3*] = PaCO2*Khy with Khy being the familiar Henry coefficient which can be calculated from the CO2 + H2O --> CO2(aq) Henry coefficient and the equilibrium constant for CO3(aq) <--> H2CO3. Also H2CO3* <--> H+ + HCO3- with the pK for this reaction being a function of the equilibrium constants for H2CO3 <--> H+ + HCO3- and the CO2 + H2O --> CO2(aq) Henry coefficient. Most of us sail blissfully along writing CO2 + H2O <--> H2CO3 and H2CO3 <--> H+ + HCO3- using pKhy = 1.41 and pK1 = 6.38.

As for what happens to foam in beer according to the source of the carbonation I think we have all observed that the CO2 seems to meld with the beer over time. This is pretty subtle and we wonder what the outcome of a triangle test exploring this phenomenon would find. The reaction rate of CO2(aq) in slow but not that slow, at least not on the time scale over which I observe (or fancy I observe) this melding so I have to think, as has been suggested in this thread, that the phenomenon is caused by changes in the chemistry of the beer over time resulting in changes in the surface tension.

*The forward reaction rate for the conversion of CO2(aq) to carbonic acid is much to slow to allow our bodies to use CO2 to regulate blood pH. We have, therefore, the enzyme carbonic anhydrase which speeds the reaction immensely.

 

[dyqik]

When CO2 dissolves in water it quickly (milliseconds) hydrates: CO2 + H2O --> CO2(aq). Then some, but only a very small part, of that reacts, but slowly* to become carbonic acid: CO3(aq) <--> H2CO3. There is a separate equilibrium constant for each of these but keeping track of them is a PITA so chemists often write CO2 + H20 --> H2CO3* with H2CO3* representing the sum of the hydrated and carbonic acid. Then [H2CO3*] = PaCO2*Khy with Khy being the familiar Henry coefficient which can be calculated from the CO2 + H2O --> CO2(aq) Henry coefficient and the equilibrium constant for CO3(aq) <--> H2CO3. Also H2CO3* <--> H+ + HCO3- with the pK for this reaction being a function of the equilibrium constants for H2CO3 <--> H+ + HCO3- and the CO2 + H2O --> CO2(aq) Henry coefficient. Most of us sail blissfully along writing CO2 + H2O <--> H2CO3 and H2CO3 <--> H+ + HCO3- using pKhy = 1.41 and pK1 = 6.38.

As for what happens to foam in beer according to the source of the carbonation I think we have all observed that the CO2 seems to meld with the beer over time. This is pretty subtle and we wonder what the outcome of a triangle test exploring this phenomenon would find. The reaction rate of CO2(aq) in slow but not that slow, at least not on the time scale over which I observe (or fancy I observe) this melding so I have to think, as has been suggested in this thread, that the phenomenon is caused by changes in the chemistry of the beer over time resulting in changes in the surface tension.

*The forward reaction rate for the conversion of CO2(aq) to carbonic acid is much to slow to allow our bodies to use CO2 to regulate blood pH. We have, therefore, the enzyme carbonic anhydrase which speeds the reaction immensely.

Thanks AJ, that's more detail than I can process immediately! But, I'll certainly accept that yeast would put CO2 into the beer in a different initial mix of CO2(aq), H2CO3 and H+ + HCO3- over force carbing. The mechanism for getting CO2+H2CO3* out of yeast cells and into the beer is obviously unlikely to favour the same initial mix as pushing CO2 gas in from the headspace.

I guess the time to stable carbonation is much longer than I was thinking, if the H2CO3* equilibrium really is changing the bubble properties. Maybe that isn't a direct effect, but something that affects the viscosity via an even slower reaction with some of the other compounds in the beer?

 

[MSK_Chess]

wow I seem to be caught in some kind of a mad scientist vortex

 

[MSK_Chess]

guys we need a walk through on how to make saurgut for kettle and/or mash acidification.

 

[aeviaanah]

wow I seem to be caught in some kind of a mad scientist vortex

Yes! Answer to OP was beer simply wasn't on gas long enough!

 

[Big Monk]

guys we need a walk through on how to make saurgut for kettle and/or mash acidification.

http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/ingredients/a-sauergut-reactor/

 

[MSK_Chess]

http://www.lowoxygenbrewing.com/ingredients/a-sauergut-reactor/

Ok, thanks I think i could do that. Mini 2 litre Pilsner mash at 1040, add 240 grams of Pilsner malt, let sit @ 48 Celsius for 5 days and I will get roughly a saurgut with an acidity of 1%. Have a question, should I let it sit uncovered or sealed with airlock? should it be oxygenated prior to adding the grains or not

 

[rabeb25]

Sealed, and no oxygenation, never want oxygen and sour bugs to meet..

 

[MSK_Chess]

ok thanks. Its a plan!

 

[MSK_Chess]

Great ones, another question!

My oxygen scavenging food grade Sodium Metabisulphite arrived today and I was wondering what is the best way to incorporate the dosage levels into Bru'n'water. I know you guys produced your own spreadsheet but I know my way around Bru'n'water, like it and feel confident with its use.

For my 14 litre (3.7G US) Mash I need 0.36 g of SMB which imparts 26ppm of So4 and 6ppm Na. Should I simply add this to the existing water profile?

Also how to incorporate the addition of 0.12g of SMB @ 5ppm for the Sparge (24litres, 6.3G US) ? Is this amount so negligible that I could simply ignore it?

Any thoughts most appreciated - regards Robbie

 

[MSK_Chess]

ok brewing tomorrow, I am just gonna go with the idea (don't know if its correct or not) that adding 0.36g of sodium metabisulphite to 14 litres of water will result in adding 26ppm of sulphate and 6ppm of sodium to the profile.

 

[ajdelange]

I'm guessing (I didn't check your math) that every sulfur atom in the metabite becomes fully oxidized to sulfate. My only comment would be that bisulfite forms adducts with aldehydes (I don't know about other compounds) and do not become sulfate ions. The sulfur is oxidized to +VI and thus the aldehyde is reduced but there is no sufate ion released. In any case, the metabite had done what it is supposed to do: get rid of an oxidized compound. Now how much of the S winds up in an adduct rather than in an SO4-- ion is going to depend on a lot of things about which I, for one, have no idea. So I'd say think of the number you calculate as the maximum amount of sulfate ion you could get were no adducts formed. If that is acceptable then don't worry.

Now I'll note that I have trouble in my Pils if the sulfate is as high as 27. This is infuriatingly close to what you calculated for and addition of metabite which I assume has been shown to be effective at reducing mash DO. Adduct formation may save you - it may not.

In case this has given someone the idea that he might be able to remove excess acetaldehyde from beer be aware that you can. But also be aware that the adduct tastes, if you can conceive of such a thing, worse than the acetaldehyde.

 

[MSK_Chess]

I'm guessing (I didn't check your math) that every sulfur atom in the metabite becomes fully oxidized to sulfate. My only comment would be that bisulfite forms adducts with aldehydes (I don't know about other compounds) and do not become sulfate ions. The sulfur is oxidized to +VI and thus the aldehyde is reduced but there is no sufate ion released. In any case, the metabite had done what it is supposed to do: get rid of an oxidized compound. Now how much of the S winds up in an adduct rather than in an SO4-- ion is going to depend on a lot of things about which I, for one, have no idea. So I'd say think of the number you calculate as the maximum amount of sulfate ion you could get were no adducts formed. If that is acceptable then don't worry.

Now I'll note that I have trouble in my Pils if the sulfate is as high as 27. This is infuriatingly close to what you calculated for and addition of metabite which I assume has been shown to be effective at reducing mash DO. Adduct formation may save you - it may not.

In case this has given someone the idea that he might be able to remove excess acetaldehyde from beer be aware that you can. But also be aware that the adduct tastes, if you can conceive of such a thing, worse than the acetaldehyde.

Thank you. Will be making a British Porter with emphasis on coffee and chocolate flavours. Plan to forgo the addition of Calcium sulphate entirely to account for the addition of sodium metabisulphite and simply use additions of Calcium chloride.

 

[mabrungard]

Plan to forgo the addition of Calcium sulphate entirely to account for the addition of sodium metabisulphite and simply use additions of Calcium chloride.

This has largely been my approach too. SMB often supplies all or some of the sulfate content that I want and other chloride sources supplement the water. When I first started using SMB for oxygen reduction, I didn't account for its sulfate contribution and quickly found that beers can be too dry with that sulfate content.

 

[rabeb25]

Be careful with roasted malts and low oxygen. They are wicked potent.

Are you preboiling?

 

[mabrungard]

Be careful with roasted malts and low oxygen. They are wicked potent.

Are you preboiling?

I wasn't when I started. But after completing a oxygen source assessment and realizing that the 4ppm oxygen remaining in mashing and sparging water was a very substantial percentage of the total oxygen load, I changed my tune!!!! Mashing and sparging water need to be deoxygenated prior to use in order to enable a much smaller SMB dose.