Interesting German Brewing PDF

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
...

I cannot guarantee it, but it is something to look into and far less labour intensive than chasing CO2 supplies. (FYI you could consider a 60/40 mix instead of pure CO2 - which is how good pubs push lager out).

...

Using beer gas (N2/CO2 mix) won't help at all. Equilibrium carbonation level is determined by temperature and CO2 partial pressure. If you reduce the CO2 partial pressure, the carb will go down over time. If you are killing a keg in a day or two, this probably won't matter. But, if you want to serve a keg over a few weeks, you have to maintain the CO2 partial pressure at the equilibrium value for the carb level. If you switch to beer gas, you have to increase the total pressure in order to keep the CO2 partial pressure constant. For example, if you are using 10 psig of pure CO2, that constitutes a CO2 partial pressure of 24.7 psi (absolute pressure = gauge pressure + atmospheric pressure [14.7 psi @ sea level].) If you were to use 60/40 N2/CO2 beer gas instead of pure CO2, the total pressure would have to be 24.7 psia + 24.7 psia * 60/40 = 61.7 psia, or 47 psig. You would get the same amount of O2 in the keg from the "contaminated" CO2 either way. In addition, you would also get additional O2 depending on the O2 contamination level of the N2 supply.

The reason commercial establishments use beer gas to serve lagers is to compensate for long lines, and elevation increases from the storage area, Longer lines and elevation increases force a higher serving pressure in order to maintain the desired pour rates. If you used pure CO2 at the higher serving pressures, the carb level would increase over time.

Brew on :mug:
 
My impression was that it is not necessary to carbonate the beer that much once it's connected to the serving lines.

I am not qualified to give you any indication as to the purity of any of the ingredients used, Nitrogen or CO2. But that's what is generally employed by the trade.

Mind you, the pressure they need to use to push it through are much higher than the ones needed for simple dispensing from zero level, so that may be the reason. It may be to avoid over-carbonating the beer.

On the other hand there could be other benefits, but that is speculative.

Without measurements and analysis it's a stab in the dark anyways. I sometimes thought that my Co2 was at fault whereas it effectively was my process.

Up to you. But I hope the awareness of possible thermal shock during conditioning may help you trouble shoot this.
 
Isn't it interesting that these messages aren't in chronological order?

Nothing nefarious going on here. I was writing a response to one of your suggestions when @schematix posted, and it turned out that my response to you happened to answer schematix's question, which I didn't see until after I posted.

Brew on :mug:
 
I could definitely envision packing a canister full of whatever compound is in those packets (or whatever else) and putting it inline with the co2 stream. Hopefully more info to come on this idea.

I'd be nervous about the iron and its oxide that could come along with the gas stream.
 
Have a question about oxygen and BIAB...

I know BIAB is frowned upon because of squeezing the bag right after the mash. I lose a ton of efficiency points if I don't squeeze (went from 1.036 to 1.045 after squeeze yesterday on an Oat Stout). Could one raise the bag slowly to where it doesn't drip and heat the wort at the same time. Then once the wort starts to boil, start squeezing. Would the boil drive off oxygen once the squeezed wort hits the drained wort?
 
Have a question about oxygen and BIAB...

I know BIAB is frowned upon because of squeezing the bag right after the mash. I lose a ton of efficiency points if I don't squeeze (went from 1.036 to 1.045 after squeeze yesterday on an Oat Stout). Could one raise the bag slowly to where it doesn't drip and heat the wort at the same time. Then once the wort starts to boil, start squeezing. Would the boil drive off oxygen once the squeezed wort hits the drained wort?

Something seems odd here. Your pre boil gravity shouldn't increase with squeezing, right?
 
Something seems odd here. Your pre boil gravity shouldn't increase with squeezing, right?

No it shouldn't, IF saccharification is complete when the bag is pulled. If saccharification is incomplete when you pull the bag, then it can continue while you wait for the initial draining to complete. Continued saccharification while draining would raise the OG of the wort still in the bag.

Brew on :mug:
 
I don't squeeze. Just let the bag drain without drips, for as long as it takes to come to a boil.

And I agree, there's something unusual going on with your numbers. Are you testing them at the right temperature (60 or 68F)?
 
I have been following this thread quietly since the beginning, and have been testing out some of the changes, per the primer. I replaced copper with stainless, but I still have a brass ball valve on the BK. Is brass a concern with oxidation or Fenton reactions?

Also, with the BIAB gravities above, I've seen that, and it seems to be a function of unmixed wort.
 
I am making a German Pilsner on saturday. In my hop inventory i have quite a bit of saaz, hersbrucker and spalt that i bought about 5 months ago. It was packaged in thin plastic bags that i doubt are even purged (never buying hops from that place again)

Do you all think it's ok to use these in a LoDO or should i just toss them and use the tettnang and other noble-ish varieties have that are properly packaged?
 
Used some LoDo tactics on last nights beer. Underlet the grain bed for the first time ever. Worked great... so much better than dumping and stirring anyways. So long dough balls.
 
Used some LoDo tactics on last nights beer. Underlet the grain bed for the first time ever. Worked great... so much better than dumping and stirring anyways. So long dough balls.

Under letting does not 100% solve the dough ball issues... if it was, pro breweries wouldn't have mash rakes to stir it.

Underletting with a quick stir is sufficient and doesn't go against LoDO if you keep it gentle.

My first LoDO i didn't have any dough balls with only an underlet and a quick stir, but my 2nd one where i didn't stir still had dry spots even after a 2 hour mash. My 3rd and 4th i could tell would have had i not stirred them.
 
If you underlet too fast, the liquid level is rising faster than the speed of the capillary front and you can create the dry spots that way. Once you've encapsulated that 'gas bubble' (aka: dry spot) in your bed, there is no other way to get it out other than mechanical mixing of the grist.
 
I underlet pretty slowly but yeah, gave it a careful stir to check. I don't think I would trust not checking for air pockets in there.
 
LoDO did wonders on this IPA i made a month ago. It pops unlike any IPA I've ever made before.

I hate the process but love the results.
 
LoDO did wonders on this IPA i made a month ago. It pops unlike any IPA I've ever made before.

I hate the process but love the results.

I have an IPA that I did LoDo on finishing up fermentation / dry hop in keg with spunding valve right now.

Looking forward to trying it in a week or so.
 
I'm happy it worked for you. I've done 5 LoDo APA/IPAs and honestly couldn't tell the difference. Malt forward styles have been killer though. Except cream ales. I have a flagship cream ale that IMO came out lifeless brewed with LoDo methods. The sulfur just doesn't play nice like it does in German lagers.
 
I'm happy it worked for you. I've done 5 LoDo APA/IPAs and honestly couldn't tell the difference. Malt forward styles have been killer though. Except cream ales. I have a flagship cream ale that IMO came out lifeless brewed with LoDo methods. The sulfur just doesn't play nice like it does in German lagers.

I did a low DO cream ale and it ended up being a dumper. Sulfur was CRAZY in that batch, even after bubbling CO2 through it daily for a week. And it had a distinctive white wine type flavor. Thought I could age it out but no dice.

Just made my Belgian Tripel a couple weeks ago, low DO. It killed it on the Lone Star competition circuit this year, so I'm curious what a low DO approach is going to do to it. Need to have an entry for the MCAB comp, so I'll probably better it the regular way as well to have a side by side comparison.
 
I did a low DO cream ale and it ended up being a dumper. Sulfur was CRAZY in that batch, even after bubbling CO2 through it daily for a week. And it had a distinctive white wine type flavor. Thought I could age it out but no dice.

Just made my Belgian Tripel a couple weeks ago, low DO. It killed it on the Lone Star competition circuit this year, so I'm curious what a low DO approach is going to do to it. Need to have an entry for the MCAB comp, so I'll probably better it the regular way as well to have a side by side comparison.


How much SMB did you use? I'd have to think it's a process issue not a recipe or style issue.
 
I haven't noticed much difference between LoDO with SMB and LoDO without SMB IPA's.

Also, I get MUCH more "It" factor from from pre-boiling and cooling the strike water than I do with the yeast/dextrose method.

Anybody else notice this?
 
How much SMB did you use? I'd have to think it's a process issue not a recipe or style issue.


In my case 20mg/l while Ive been doing 40 for other styles. The sulfur isn't overwhelming it just sticks out. I'm confident it wasn't a process issue. I have a Helles on with the same protocol and it's awesome. There's something about the flavors that meld while in other cases they don't.
 
Also, I get MUCH more "It" factor from from pre-boiling and cooling the strike water than I do with the yeast/dextrose method.

Anybody else notice this?



That's correct, I call it muddy with yeast deoxygenation. I would always choose preboil if you have the choice. However yeast deoxygenation is much better than nothing.
 
Your sulfur tolerance is more yeast dependent more than anything.
 
The PDF gives rationale for using wet conditioned malt that seems to suggest having more intact husk will result in less oxidation. Would it be equivalent to use something like a Monster Mill 3 that is supposed to do less damage to husks rather than wet conditioning?
 
Please bear in mind that the info in this PDF is basically from Kunze or from Narziss.

What we tried was to adapt it to smaller systems like one finds in a home brew setup.

Using SMB in mash water was a bit of a forgotten practice that actually is/was used in English brewing. To credit his ingenuity, techbrau came up with this independently. This is one of the methods not used in German brewing, but it's the most elegant method I know of for homebrewers to obtain degassed water without having to use packed columns or membrane contactors.

Apart from that little detail, most of this info is Generally available in English or German texts. It's therefore best to treat the PDF like a writeup of the summary of a series of experiments testing our journey through various sections of these books.

Malt conditioning is amply explained in Narziss and Kunze as well.

The idea is to condition with water at 80 Celsius to further limit LOX activity (amongst other benefits).

I use Malt bags to condition my grain. I ended up pouring it in several batches. There is no need spraying it. My grain bill is about 13Kg for a standard Helles at 12 deg Plato. It always mixed well and a bag is less clumsy to handle than buckets.

A friend of mine has a monster mill (3 roller). Judging from the results it's hard to justify some of the prices.

So you won't need a 3 roller mill (a bit pointless to me). Conditioned Malt and a mill with thick rollers like the MattMill Kompakt or some of the monster mills, will do nicely. You really want that hot water to limit LOX. I cannot see how this can otherwise be done mechanically.

Hope this helps.
 
The idea is to condition with water at 80 Celsius to further limit LOX activity (amongst other benefits).

I use Malt bags to condition my grain. I ended up pouring it in several batches. There is no need spraying it. My grain bill is about 13Kg for a standard Helles at 12 deg Plato. It always mixed well and a bag is less clumsy to handle than buckets.

A friend of mine has a monster mill (3 roller). Judging from the results it's hard to justify some of the prices.

So you won't need a 3 roller mill (a bit pointless to me). Conditioned Malt and a mill with thick rollers like the MattMill Kompakt or some of the monster mills, will do nicely. You really want that hot water to limit LOX. I cannot see how this can otherwise be done mechanically.

Hope this helps.

My Barley Crusher is no longer able to crush grain so i was looking to get something new. The malt conditioning process adds about 30 minutes overall to my brew day so I was trying to get a 2-for-1 with the new mill but it doesn't sound like its going to accomplish that. The MM-3 looked like it would be a good combination of bling and function. However if it doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to do, while conditioned malt with a 2 roller works, i'll look in that direction.
 
Everyone's results are different and I have actually given up conditioning in favor of simply using a wider gap and slow speed (80 rpm) in my 3 roller mm3 mill. There is hardly any damage to the hulls and no flour dust. The grist is perfect size for my recirculating system getting uniform good flow through the grain bed. Conditioning for me, ended up being a waste of time with no obvious benefit in quality in the beers. In fact since I stopped wet conditioning they have improved.
Think about the oxidation potential from the massive amount of wet surface area exposed to air in conditioned milled grain. I don't think the smb in the small amount of conditioning water can keep up. The German macro breweries wet mill under inert gas and deliver directly to the mashtun in a stream of DO water at temperature. What conditioning we are doing as homebrewers hardly approximates that process.
 
Everyone's results are different and I have actually given up conditioning in favor of simply using a wider gap and slow speed (80 rpm) in my 3 roller mm3 mill. There is hardly any damage to the hulls and no flour dust. The grist is perfect size for my recirculating system getting uniform good flow through the grain bed. Conditioning for me, ended up being a waste of time with no obvious benefit in quality in the beers.


What gap size do you use on the 2nd crush ?
 
I assume you mean the gap on the second or lower roller. Mine is set at .048 to .050" and I mill at no faster then 80 rpm which is also a big factor in the quality of the crush. I used to mill at 350 rpm and even at the wider gap it still tore up the hull and made a lot of flour.
I really see conditioning as a bandaid for small diameter roller 2-roll mills and or any mill moving too fast.
 
My Barley Crusher is no longer able to crush grain so i was looking to get something new. The malt conditioning process adds about 30 minutes overall to my brew day so I was trying to get a 2-for-1 with the new mill but it doesn't sound like its going to accomplish that. The MM-3 looked like it would be a good combination of bling and function. However if it doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to do, while conditioned malt with a 2 roller works, i'll look in that direction.

Please excuse the thread hijack.

What went wrong with your Barley Crusher? Did it die as a result of too many years of use, or did it die because something was wrong with it. I ask because my BC has less than a hundred pounds under its rollers and seems not to want to do much crushing anymore, no matter how often nor how tightly I try to set it. My grain comes through way too close to intact for my tastes.
 
Please excuse the thread hijack.



What went wrong with your Barley Crusher? Did it die as a result of too many years of use, or did it die because something was wrong with it. I ask because my BC has less than a hundred pounds under its rollers and seems not to want to do much crushing anymore, no matter how often nor how tightly I try to set it. My grain comes through way too close to intact for my tastes.


The tips have worn off from 90% of the knurled rollers. It won't catch and pull grain in anymore. I estimate it's crushed less than 2 tons in 5 years.

I've rebuilt it, re squared it, re-gapped it, and while its the smoothest it's ever run, it just won't pull grain in unless the gap is unacceptably large (>0.040)

I went to the LHBS last week and there was a new one on the shelf. The rollers looked substantially more pointed. The owner also showed me his that was over 10 years old, and while it was obviously more worn, I'd say only 5% of his roller tips were worn off.

I've gotten my money's worth out of it but I feel like it really hasn't done all that much other than sit on a shelf.

EDIT: buy a set of feeler gauges if you don't have them. Also the idle roller should spin very freely. If not you may have dust built up. I blow mine out with the air compressor immediately after every use and tons of stuff comes out.
 
Thanks for the reply. Mine is hardly worn at all, so either I am doing something wrong or else it is. I will end this hijack and start a new thread.
 
Thanks for the reply. Mine is hardly worn at all, so either I am doing something wrong or else it is. I will end this hijack and start a new thread.


There are plenty others on your issue... no need to start a new one. :)

Clean your rollers cleanliness and check your gap. It's almost guaranteed one of those.
 
Back
Top