Decision Time.. Need advice on mash phase of my new brewery

[r8rphan]

While we're on the subject of water, what are the chemical/minerals I will need to have on hand to bring distilled water to where it needs to be, and generally speaking how much will I need per batch (I guess figuring 15-20 gallons of water per batch?)...

From that information, I can decide how much to buy of each to have enough for what I might expect to brew over an extended period of time..

Also, where can I buy all this stuff? Is it something I'd find at the grocery store, garden store, brew store? On line?

 

[doug293cz]

While we're on the subject of water, what are the chemical/minerals I will need to have on hand to bring distilled water to where it needs to be, and generally speaking how much will I need per batch (I guess figuring 15-20 gallons of water per batch?)...

From that information, I can decide how much to buy of each to have enough for what I might expect to brew over an extended period of time..

Also, where can I buy all this stuff? Is it something I'd find at the grocery store, garden store, brew store? On line?

For light colored beers you will need Calcium Chloride, Gypsum (Calcium Sulfate), Lactic Acid (or Phosphoric Acid or acidulated malt), and maybe a little Epsom Salt (Magnesium Sulfate.) For dark beers you may also need to have Baking Soda (Sodium Bi-Carbonate.) You can get baking soda at the grocery store, Epsom salt at the drug store (cause you want USP grade, not foot soaking grade.) The rest you can get at your LHBS or on-line. (You could also get gypsum by carving some out of your dry wall, but I don't think that's food grade )

My water is pretty low mineral content (not quite RO grade), and I typically use around 2.5 - 5 g of gypsum, 2.5 - 5 g of calcium chloride, 0.5 - 1 g of Epsom salt, and 2 - 4 ml of 88% lactic acid in a five gal batch. So you would need to double those quantities plus a little more since your water will be totally blank.

Brew on

 

[r8rphan]

creating shopping list ipe:

 

[ferm.adventures]

Thinner mashes actually convert faster than thicker mashes (ref: http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?title=Understanding_Efficiency#Mash_thickness.) If your mashes are taking too long to convert, it is more likely that your crush is too coarse. How are you determining that your mash conversion has gotten worse for a given mash time?

Brew on

Iodine tests. I couldn't get a really good conversion test that i was fully happy with, after my planned 90 minute mash for another 30 minutes. I forget what my mill gap is, but I did double crush my malt.

That link seems to conflict, with John Palmer here, where he wrote:

The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars.

But my extenuating circumstances in this case were:

• Brewing a light lager with 20% of the grist consisting of corn malt, and no six row to up the enzyme content. I did add some "Amylase Enzyme", but I think that is all alpha, and not the greatest help here.
• Mashing at a lower temperature - 148 degrees for a more fermentable wort, which is beta amylase dominant, but is beta is less stable in thin mashes. (mash PH was measured at 5.17)
• Since I was doing a 90 minute boil, expecting a large amount of boil off and had a relatively small grain bill, my grist to water ratio was especially high. 3.4 qt/lb.

I'm guessing that when I get to a smaller grist/water ratio, my conversion times should be less extreme, but I think I need to explore introducing some sparge steps in cases like my last recipe.

 

[doug293cz]

Iodine tests. I couldn't get a really good conversion test that i was fully happy with, after my planned 90 minute mash for another 30 minutes. I forget what my mill gap is, but I did double crush my malt.

That link seems to conflict, with John Palmer here, where he wrote:

The grist/water ratio is another factor influencing the performance of the mash. A thinner mash of >2 quarts of water per pound of grain dilutes the relative concentration of the enzymes, slowing the conversion, but ultimately leads to a more fermentable mash because the enzymes are not inhibited by a high concentration of sugars.

But my extenuating circumstances in this case were:

• Brewing a light lager with 20% of the grist consisting of corn malt, and no six row to up the enzyme content. I did add some "Amylase Enzyme", but I think that is all alpha, and not the greatest help here.
• Mashing at a lower temperature - 148 degrees for a more fermentable wort, which is beta amylase dominant, but is beta is less stable in thin mashes. (mash PH was measured at 5.17)
• Since I was doing a 90 minute boil, expecting a large amount of boil off and had a relatively small grain bill, my grist to water ratio was especially high. 3.4 qt/lb.

I'm guessing that when I get to a smaller grist/water ratio, my conversion times should be less extreme, but I think I need to explore introducing some sparge steps in cases like my last recipe.

I'm not a fan of the iodine test. I believe the method of measuring the SG of the wort in the mash is much less ambiguous, as well as being quantitative.

There is a problem with the Palmer quote in that the second clause of the sentence is in direct conflict with the first. How can the wort from a thinner mash be more fermentable unless there was more total enzyme action in the same amount of time in the thinner mash, which means the enzyme action had to be faster? It's true that for chemical reactions with simple kinetics (where the reaction of the components is the rate limiting step) that higher reactant concentrations lead to higher reaction rates. However in a mash, the rate limiting step is usually the gelatinization of the starch, which is favored by having a higher water to grain ratio. Thick mashes are also subject to what is known as "substrate inhibition" which basically means the high concentration of starch inhibits the mobility of the enzymes, thus slowing reaction rates.

I doubt your slow mash completion was due to low diastatic power with only 20% corn. Most 2 row malts have enough diastatic power to convert 2 - 4 times their own weight. Unless you used flaked corn, your problem was likely the higher gelatinization temp required for corn (70˚ - 75˚C, 158˚ - 167˚F, ref: http://hbd.org/brewery/library/GelTemps_RL0796.html.) Especially since you mashed at a low temp (148˚F.)

Brew on

 

[ferm.adventures]

I'm not a fan of the iodine test. I believe the method of measuring the SG of the wort in the mash is much less ambiguous, as well as being quantitative.

There is a problem with the Palmer quote in that the second clause of the sentence is in direct conflict with the first. How can the wort from a thinner mash be more fermentable unless there was more total enzyme action in the same amount of time in the thinner mash, which means the enzyme action had to be faster? It's true that for chemical reactions with simple kinetics (where the reaction of the components is the rate limiting step) that higher reactant concentrations lead to higher reaction rates. However in a mash, the rate limiting step is usually the gelatinization of the starch, which is favored by having a higher water to grain ratio. Thick mashes are also subject to what is known as "substrate inhibition" which basically means the high concentration of starch inhibits the mobility of the enzymes, thus slowing reaction rates.

I doubt your slow mash completion was due to low diastatic power with only 20% corn. Most 2 row malts have enough diastatic power to convert 2 - 4 times their own weight. Unless you used flaked corn, your problem was likely the higher gelatinization temp required for corn (70˚ - 75˚C, 158˚ - 167˚F, ref: http://hbd.org/brewery/library/GelTemps_RL0796.html.) Especially since you mashed at a low temp (148˚F.)

Brew on

What is the concern with the iodine test? EDIT: nevermind, you addressed that. Currently I don't take a mash gravity measurement until the iodine test is to my liking.

The corn was "corn malt" from a small local maltster. They claim it "can be used in place of flaked corn." I debated cooking it anyway, but just went with chopping it up in a blender before running through my mill with the malt.

Gravity numbers wise after using it for the first time, it seems like a flaked corn was a good approximation. In the Beersmith recipe I just used the "flaked corn" for recipe. But I can't discount that it may have influenced the mash behavior here.

The gravity estimates versus my measurements:
Pre-boil gravity: Estimated: 1.035, Measured: 1.036
Original Gravity: Estimated: 1.047, Measured: 1.050 (boil-off slightly off.)
Final Gravity: Estimated: 1.008, Current: 1.011 (took measurement a couple days ago, before starting a diacetyl rest, so not sure if fermentation was fully complete at that time.)

Thanks for taking the time to pick at my assumptions. Learning a lot!

 

[doug293cz]

What is the concern with the iodine test? EDIT: nevermind, you addressed that. Currently I don't take a mash gravity measurement until the iodine test is to my liking.

The corn was "corn malt" from a small local maltster. They claim it "can be used in place of flaked corn." I debated cooking it anyway, but just went with chopping it up in a blender before running through my mill with the malt.

Gravity numbers wise after using it for the first time, it seems like a flaked corn was a good approximation. In the Beersmith recipe I just used the "flaked corn" for recipe. But I can't discount that it influenced the mash behavior here.

The gravity estimates versus my measurements:
Pre-boil gravity: Estimated: 1.035, Measured: 1.036
Original Gravity: Estimated: 1.047, Measured: 1.050 (boil-off slightly off.)
Final Gravity: Estimated: 1.008, Current: 1.011 (took measurement a couple days ago, before starting a diacetyl rest, so not sure if fermentation was fully complete at that time.)

Thanks for taking the time to pick at my assumptions. Learning a lot!

Flaked grains are pre-gelatinized, so they don't need a cereal mash. Malting by itself does not provide any gelatinization. Thus I doubt that corn malt is transparent w.r.t. mash process compared to flaked corn (i.e. the corn malt still needs a cereal mash.)

The iodine test usually gives different results if you include or exclude grits in the test. It's easier to get a clean "complete" indication if you exclude the grits, but under normal conditions, the unconverted starch is contained in the grits. This is a result of gelatinization being the rate limiting step. There is very little unconverted starch in the liquid wort after the first few minutes of the mash, but there can still be lots of starch in the grits.

Brew on

 

[r8rphan]

Ordered a book on water for brewing yesterday along with all the 1/2" line I need to transfer wort to fermenter... Also ordered a loc line setup for the mash...

Picked up enough cam lock fittings today to replace everything with those, I also got the tap and drill and hardware to create the adjustable tensioner doo hickey on top of the crane swivel.. Bought a 60L Speidel fermenter and a couple SS accessories for it... Also had a 1/2" bung welded into the bottom of the bowl on the bottom I cut off of my keggle, which once I make a little stand for it, will be 'perfect' to set the grain basket on, and squeeze out whatever wort I can from it.. Should just run out the bottom of the new dish dealie through a hose into a collection container as I squeeze...

Almost there!

Also asked and found out that they carry all the chemicals/minerals I might need for water treatment at the local HBS....

Within a week or two, I might actually be ready to think about brewing a batch of beer! I sure hope so, because the money thing is starting to get out of hand....

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

That's pretty much what I'm talking about doing.. As stated in the original post, the hottest I can get to will be about 135 degrees or so for the sparge water.. Is this an issue, or would it be better to use cold water?

I understand that just below 170 is ideal, but isn't that mainly to just release as much remaining sugar as possible without creating tanins? I'm wondering how much having a lower temp sparge water affects that?

Also, how do you have it set up for the sprage? What method are you using to actually deposit the sparge water in or on the grain? Picture?

What kind of efficiencies are you getting?

My brewing system consistently yields 70-75% efficiency. Sparging with water temperatures that are higher than 168F shouldn't present any problems with tannin extraction either, that reasoning seems to becoming more and more of a homebrewing myth lately.

 

[ferm.adventures]

Flaked grains are pre-gelatinized, so they don't need a cereal mash. Malting by itself does not provide any gelatinization. Thus I doubt that corn malt is transparent w.r.t. mash process compared to flaked corn (i.e. the corn malt still needs a cereal mash.)

The iodine test usually gives different results if you include or exclude grits in the test. It's easier to get a clean "complete" indication if you exclude the grits, but under normal conditions, the unconverted starch is contained in the grits. This is a result of gelatinization being the rate limiting step. There is very little unconverted starch in the liquid wort after the first few minutes of the mash, but there can still be lots of starch in the grits.

Brew on

Sorry to keep hijacking the thread, but for anyone following along, just confirming doug's comments, and what I did to address it. After taking some more reading on this "american lager" I have in the fridge, the gravity was relatively unchanged. There was still kind of a haze to the beer that I would assume would be a "starch haze" after reading a little bit about it - it just didn't look like a "normal" fermented beer. It didn't taste bad, but didn't look right.

I dosed the carboy with a teaspoon of Amylase Enzyme, and I have some light fermentation activity since this morning, and the beer looks different, and more "normal" and a slight "milkiness" is gone. I'll give it another week or two,or until the activity ends, and then will continue my cold crash.

Thanks doug293cz!

 

[ferm.adventures]

My brewing system consistently yields 70-75% efficiency. Sparging with water temperatures that are higher than 168F shouldn't present any problems with tannin extraction either, that reasoning seems to becoming more and more of a homebrewing myth lately.

Right, the more I read, the importance is more on the PH of the water than the +170 degrees temperature, where tannin extraction is concerned. Sparging with lower temperature water shouldn't propose any issues.

 

[doug293cz]

Sorry to keep hijacking the thread, but for anyone following along, just confirming doug's comments, and what I did to address it. After taking some more reading on this "american lager" I have in the fridge, the gravity was relatively unchanged. There was still kind of a haze to the beer that I would assume would be a "starch haze" after reading a little bit about it - it just didn't look like a "normal" fermented beer. It didn't taste bad, but didn't look right.

I dosed the carboy with a teaspoon of Amylase Enzyme, and I have some light fermentation activity since this morning, and the beer looks different, and more "normal" and a slight "milkiness" is gone. I'll give it another week or two,or until the activity ends, and then will continue my cold crash.

Thanks doug293cz!

Glad you found my post useful. Hope the amylase works out well for you.

Brew on

 

[r8rphan]

Been thinking about this water stuff quite a bit...

I have a 'basics' question.. Is the water profile only important for the mash?

IOW, if doing a brew, using DME or LME, is the water profile still important?

The answer to this may answer some questions I've had about my beers for years...