Dried Sour Bacteria - New Lallemand Wildbrew Sourpitch
New Lallemand Wildbrew Sourpitch
Exciting update from the Lallemand team, we spent some time with the team recently at Drinktec in Munich, this is the first launch of a range of exciting new products, with a pitch rate on this new dried sour bacteria of 10g per h/l this is incredible value paired with an excellent new product
As sour beer gains more attention in the market, we are
thrilled to see brewers both reviving historical sour methods and pushing the
boundaries of traditional styles and flavor.
We meet the Lallemand team at Drinktec and it appears Lallemand Brewing
have been listening, and we have something for you. Lallemand have developed a product
specifically for avant-garde brewers looking to showcase creativity through
sour all the while maintaining consistency and quality.
Lallemand Brewing is proud to introduce the first product of the WildBrew™ product
line: say hello to WildBrew™ Sour Pitch,
a ready-to-use dried bacteria, a strain of Lactobacillus plantarum specifically selected for its ability to
produce a wide range of sour beer styles, including Gose, Lambic and Berliner
Weisse. WildBrew™ Sour Pitch will
deliver unmatched consistency,
effortless application, fully assured performance and unparalleled purity for
brewing the sour beer style of your choice.
Join this broad-reaching category and explore this mix of
historic and sometimes uncharted territory - from time-honored Belgian lambics
and traditional kettle-soured German ales to the Wild West of strange and
forward-pushing experimental sours. Focus on your creativity and style and let WildBrew™ Sour Pitch do the rest.
And just as with any of Lallemand Brewing’s premium brewing
yeasts, WildBrew™ Sour Pitch comes
with Lallemand’s unmatched technical support and expertise. If you have any
questions, doubts or simply want to know more, just visit www.lallemandbrewing.com/sour
WildBrewTM Sour Pitch is a
high-performance, high-purity lactic acid bacteria specifically selected for
its ability to produce a wide range of sour beer styles.
WildBrewTM Sour Pitch
produces a clean and balanced citrus flavor profile typical of both traditional
and modern sour beer styles. When inoculated at optimal temperature and the right
conditions, it is a powerful, safe and easy way to handle bacteria for various
beer souring techniques, such as a typical kettle souring process. Besides
providing an outstanding performance, WildBrewTM Sour Pitch is capable of
delivering consistent results for brewers.
Checkout the product for
recommended souring procedure;
https://www.geterbrewed.ie/lallemand-wildbrew-sour-pitch-250g-en/
https://www.geterbrewed.ie/lallemand-wildbrew-sour-pitch-250g-en/
Geterbrewed distribute Lallemand Brewing products in Ireland both North & South and we are pleased to be the first to launch these exciting new products to you, if you want to discuss your microbrewery yeast requirements then please contact one of our sales team at [email protected], we have unrivalled technical support and hold stock of all the Lallemand Yeast Products in our cold storage in County Antrim, Northern Ireland.
Geterbrewed will also have some sample packs for homebrewers soon too
Beer Finings in Brewing
Finings
Review
Introduction
The visual appeal of what we eat and drink has a
major effect on the mind of the consumer. For most consumers a bright clear
liquid is preferable to a cloudy one. In recent years there has been a movement
among some craft brewers to promote cloudy, or less bright, beers with
arguments that the flavour, for whatever reason is somehow better. However
since many of these brewers do not understand the practical application of
finings or do not possess the technology for filtration their disdain for beer
clarity would appear to be very convenient.
The vast majority of beer sold is bright and clear
and its clarity is considered an extremely important attribute.
To produce a bright cask conditioned beer the
brewer is totally dependent on the use of finings for clarification. The production of brewery conditioned beer is
less dependent on finings. However many brewers choose to use both kettle
finings and isinglass finings, and sometimes auxiliary finings, for
pre-filtration clarification. Even where brewers have turned their back on the
use of isinglass finings in favour of centrifugation etc. as pre-filtration
treatments, most continue with the use of kettle finings.
To achieve the best fining results it is important
to consider the whole system from the choice of raw materials to the design and
operation of brewing equipment along with the choice of finings, as well as the
dose rate and dose method. Furthermore it has been shown that optimising
clarity at each stage in the process will help considerably to produce the most
consistent and best clarity at least cost.
The exact mechanisms of wort and beer clarification
are still not fully understood. This is undoubtedly due to the complex nature of
wort and beer chemistry. However, sufficient of the critical factors are well
enough understood to allow a better use of finings than was the case even as
recently as thirty years ago.
Discussion
The pre-history of finings is inevitably pure conjecture
but it is possibly easier to see how Irish moss found its way into beer or wort
than it is to imagine how acidified fish swim bladder found its way into beer.
The monks who constituted most of the scientific community of medieval times
reputedly used Irish moss to clarify wine, beer and honey. At some point fish
swim bladders must have been subjected to the right set of circumstances which
revealed its clarification potential.
Kettle finings
Historically kettle finings were flakes of a
particular seaweed, Irish Moss, Chondrus crispus. However most kettle finings in
use today are produced from Eucheuma Cottonii – mostly grown in warmer
countries such as the Philippines. The active compound is the
polysaccharide kappa carageenan. It is manufactured in granular, powder or
tablet form, the tablets having about 40% active ingredient with the rest
binding and effervescing agents.
As
recently as the 1920s kettle finings were described as removing “protein
bodies” and were thought of as an auxiliary finings for beer (Harman et al.
1927:203). More recently by the 1980s it was suggested “that carrageenans
stimulate the precipitation of solids both in the hot wort and the cold wort”
(Mathews 1986: 384). Kettle finings were reported to be responsible for the
coagulation of fine particles into larger particles or flocs which then readily
sediment as well as the reduction in the level of wort proteins (ibid). The
reaction between kettle finings and soluble proteins alongside the reaction
between kettle finings and non microbiological particles to create flocs were
reported by (Vernon 1984:25),(Montgomery 1986). With (McMurrough 1985:93)
indicating that kettle finings react with the proteins most likely to be
involved with chill haze formation. Two papers examining firstly the molecular
basis of wort clarification (Dale 1995:285) and looking at the mechanism of
action of kettle finings (Dale 1996: 285) confirmed that kettle finings reacted
with soluble polypeptides and with non microbiological particles to create
flocs. They also put forward the importance of the change in carrageenan to a
helical structure on cooling to enable reaction with these particles.
The
importance of kettle finings as part of a complete fining pre-filtration system
was now beginning to make better sense and there was confirmation that removing
hot break and cold break at the relevant stage of the process was important to
the later successful filtration and even beer stability. Producing a
well-coordinated finings system requires the optimisation of each stage.
Currently the practical way of predicting the optimal choice and addition rate
of kettle finings is to carry out a series of tests on samples of wort, with
the brightest supernatant and the lowest level of sediment indicating the
optimal result (Thompson 1994). However there is hope for a more general
predictive test with some work carried out by (South 1996).
Beer finings
Many
of the early published papers on isinglass focus on the manufacture of
isinglass from fish swim bladders. The importance of the choice and quality of
the swim bladders is discussed (Berry 1907) along with the choice of cutting
acid or acids, the time to cut, temperature control and the mechanical mixing
(Burns 1944). This was obviously a process fraught with problems and pitfalls
for the unwary brewer who would easily end up with substandard isinglass which
would inevitably lead to poor beer clarity. The advent of isinglass floc and
shred considerably improved the brewers chances of successful isinglass
manufacture with a more rapid and even cutting process. The different fining
ability of isinglass made from swim bladders from different sources was
correlated with differences in the molecular size of some of the constituent
collagen molecules (Leach 1967) and that longer molecules produced better
fining results (Leach and Barrett 1967). The positive charge on isinglass attracted
to the negative charge on the cell wall of yeast is set forward as the
principal reaction of isinglass in beer as reported by (Wiles 1951: 84) which
also explains the inability of isinglass to fine wild yeast. This same
principal reaction is confirmed by (Vickers 1974: 19) and by (Taylor1993: 202).
However there is a more recent hypothesis that the “soluble collagen reacting
with a soluble beer component to form loose, fluffy flocs which as they form,
first enmesh and then interact with yeast and non-biological particles to form
tighter dense flocs which sediment to leave bright beer” (Leather 1994:432).
This would help to explain why the same isinglass addition rate for a certain
beer remains the same despite the yeast count varying from 0.5 to 2.0 million
cells per ml. The levels of fine particles in beer have been shown to have a
considerable effect on sediment volume and beer clarity. When these
non-biological particles have been categorised into three fractions namely
below 2 micron, 2 to 10 micron and above 10 micron it has been shown that the
optimum fining performance is obtained when all three categories contain about
one million particles per ml. If the beer contains too few particles while good
initial clarity is obtained the sediment is loose and if disturbed the
resettlement clarity is not as good. If the beer contains too many of these
fine particles a greater volume of sediment is produced and initial clarity is
poorer and any improvement is only possible with the addition of auxiliary
finings (ibid). The only way to identify which particular isinglass blend to
use and which auxiliary to use, if an auxiliary is required, and what the
optimum dose rates are, is by empirical trials. This involves a series of tests
on the beer and a visual determination of the clarity and sediment (Thompson
1994:474). The method of addition of isinglass to beer is of considerable
importance to achieving the optimum result. However a compromise in favour of a
simple system rather than a better much more complicated addition system is
usually the practical solution. Adding finings to chill and filter beer should
be done proportionately to the flow of beer during transfer. The finings should
be diluted to as low a viscosity as is practicable and the point of addition
should be at a point of turbulent flow. The same procedure is preferable for
addition to cask by adding isinglass proportionately to the beer passing to the
cask. However the normal compromise is to fill the cask, leaving enough space
for the isinglass and then to squirt the isinglass into the beer filled cask. This
improvement of performance due to the rapid and complete dispersal of isinglass
in beer to achieve the best possible result is further confirmation that the
initial reaction of isinglass in beer is more likely to be with a rapid
reacting soluble component than with the yeast cell wall (ibid).
Auxiliary finings appear to react with and remove
positively charged soluble material which would otherwise compete with
isinglass, or indeed to react directly with isinglass itself to initiate the
formation of flocs necessary for fining action. Polysaccharide and silicate
auxiliaries react differently in beer and so it is likely that both mechanisms apply
(Leather 1994:432) and as observed this would vary from beer to beer.
There is general agreement that a coordinated
approach to fining is required to obtain the optimum result both for cask beer
and for pre-filtration treatment of chilled and filtered beer. This approach is
well presented in both (Leather 1998) in the 1996 Cambridge prize lecture and
in the Brewers Supply Group (BSG) “Wort and Beer Clarification Manual” written
by Ian L Ward. While there has been some further progress towards understanding
the mechanism of kettle finings (Dale 1995), (Dale 1996), the BSG manual and
the aforementioned 1996 Cambridge Prize Lecture together contain the most
comprehensive presentation of how finings work and how they should be applied.
It should be noted that the BSG manual relies heavily on previous research carried
out and methodology employed by Savilles Clarification. This is embodied in the
statement:
It has been demonstrated empirically, and
has generally been accepted as best practice,
to remove particulates at as many stages of
the brewing process as practical, since this
gives a more efficient and consistent
process. In the case of cask beer, considerably
brighter beer is obtained using this
principle than if all the clarification is left to the
post-fermentation stage. For filtered beer,
both longer filter runs and lower post
filtration hazes are obtained (Ward, 2014)
Moreover, it is borne out by several observations
including for example, the inclusion of Leather’s observation of the mechanism
of kettle finings whereby the carrageenan in kettle finings can react with both
soluble proteins and insoluble proteins in separate reactions, in the latter
case leading directly to flocculation and in the former leading to first a
soluble carrageenan-protein complex and then an insoluble carrageenan-protein
complex. Furthermore, Ward makes an explicit recognition of the derivation of
these ideas from Leather’s Cambridge Prize Lecture.
The whole concept of finings is under serious
attack after many hundreds of years of service to the brewing industry. Concern
has been raised at the possible allergic reaction to any remaining traces of
fish collagen in beer treated by isinglass. Vegan vegetarians who have a very
loud voice for such a small group have managed to persuade Diageo, the owners
of the Guinness brand to stop using isinglass and instead use centrifugation. There
is no mention of how much more expensive this treatment will be in both
monetary and energy terms. Once brewers stop using products like isinglass the
likelihood is that they will never restart and yet another part of the
tradition of British and Irish brewing will have been lost. It will be
interesting to see if the use of isinglass persists elsewhere in the world. In
a recent paper on filtration choices (Boulton and Quain 2008) there was no
mention of any finings as a pre-filtration treatment and the only pre-filtration
treatment recommended for consideration was tannic acid.
Conclusion
After many hundreds of years of successful use of seaweed
extract as kettle finings and isinglass as beer finings the mechanisms of these
agents and how beer chemistry interacts with them are more clearly understood. There
are still many aspects which need further investigation but for now the level
of knowledge available in support of finings means that brewers using them can
be confident of a reliably successful and low cost clarification system.
Bibliography
Barrett J, Leach AA (1967) The molecular weight and
soluble collagen content of finings in relation to its fining potential. J. Inst. Brew. 73: 246-254
Berry AE (1907) The Manufacture of Brewers’ Finings. J. Inst. Brew. 13: 44-65
Boulton C, Quain D (2008) Making Choices. Brewers Guardian, May: 24-28
Burns JA (1944) II The fining of beer. J. Inst. Brew. 50: 119-123
Dale CJ, Morris LO, Lyddiatt A, Leather RV (1995)
Studies on the molecular basis of wort clarification by copper fining agents
(kappa carrageenan). J. Inst. Brew. 101: 285-288
Dale CJ, Tran HTN, Lyddiatt A, Leather RV (1996)
Studies on the mechanism of action of copper fining agents (K carrageenan) J.
Inst. Brew. 102: 285-289
Grimmett CM (1994) The Theory and Practice of Beer
Clarification – Part 3. The Brewer, December: 522 - 524
Harman HW, Oliver JH, Woodhouse P. (1927) Finings, J. Inst. Brew. 34: 203-213
Leather RV (1994) The Theory and Practice of Beer
Clarification – Part 1 – Theory. The Brewer.
October: 429-433
Leather RV, Ward IL, Dale CJ (1995) The effect of
wort pH on copper fining performance. J.
Inst. Brew. 101:187-190
Leather RV, Dali CJ, Morson BT (1997)
Characterisation of beer particle charges and the role of particle charge in
beer processing. J. Inst. Brew. 103: 377-380
Leather RV (1998) The Cambridge prize lecture 1996
From Field to Firkin: An integrated approach to beer clarification and quality.
J. Inst. Brew. 104: 9-18
Mathews AJD (1986) Copper Finings – A New Insight. The Brewer, October: 384-386
McMurrough I, Hennigan GP, Cleary K (1985) Interactions
of Proteoses and Polyphenols in Worts, Beers and Model Systems. J. Inst. Brew. 91:93-100
Montgomery GWG, Hough JS, Mathews AJD, Morrison KB,
Morson BT (1986) Proceedings of the
Convention of the Institute of Brewing (Australia and New Zealand Section),
Hobart.
Morris TM (1986) The Effect of Cold Break on the
Fining of Beer J. Inst. Brew. 92: 93-96
Taylor R (1993) The Fining of Cask Beer. The Brewer. May: 202-205
Thompson GJ (1994) The Theory and Practice of Beer
Clarification – Part 2 – Practice. The
Brewer, November: 470 - 476
South JB (1996) Prediction of wort cold break
performance of malt and its applications. J. Inst. Brew. 102: 149-154
Vernon PS (1985) Wort Clarification. The Brewers’ Guardian. 3:25-28
Vickers J, Ballard G (1974) Amelioration of
Colloidal Conditions of Beer. The Brewer.
January: 19-25
Ward IL https://bsgcraftbrewing.com/Resources%5CCraftBrewi...
[Last Modified 11 Feb. 2014]
Wiles A (1951) The Action of Finings and its
Relation to the Electrokenetic Properties of the Yeast Cell. European Brewery Convention Proceedings of
the 3rd Congress, Brighton. 84-97
Written by our head brewer Alistair Thompson (Hillstown Brewery)
Whole-Leaf Hops vs Pelletized Hops a contentious debate
Whole-cone hops or pellets this causes
more heated debate among brewers than anything else.
I suggest that it is difficult to
dispute that pellets are better where it counts – flavour, storage-capacity and
easy-of-use.
This is not intended as anti-leaf
propaganda and it should be noted that leaf hops do give off clearer floral
notes – so if that is you are looking for in your beer, then whole-leaf hops
are definitely advised. In any other sense, pellets are definitely a better
choice even when it comes to the actual taste of the beer. They impart
character quicker than leaf hops do, they provide more flavour, and most
importantly, they are more consistent in flavour.
There is something romantic about
using actual hops in
your brewing and there is definitely something to be said for that. However
there is nothing romantic about having to clean out the mess of spent hops from
brewing and fermenting vessels including clogged valves – or ending up with a
poorly hopped end-product because of the varying hop alpha and difficulty in
estimating the hop utilization correctly.
Pelletised hops are essentially hops
crushed into pellet form. This takes place within two or three days from
harvest – while the hops are still very fresh. In the process, the leaves and
stalks of the hop are removed, leaving only the cones in the pellets. Because
pellets no longer look natural but instead industrial, some brewers have the
notion that they are inferior to using actual hops, but this is simply not true.
Better Flavour
Firstly hop pellets give of more flavour than whole-cone
hops. According to studies, hop pellets give roughly 10% more bitterness,
flavour and aroma compared to whole-cone. In crushing hops for making hop
pellets, the lupilin glands inside the hops are crushed, which means you get a
better extraction rate of alpha acid – leading to more bitterness when the
alpha acid is isomerised in the boil.
In many blind tests, pellet hops have come
out on top in terms of flavour and scientists have found similar results by
analysing the chemical compounds in the flavour profiles. Various tasting
studies report similar results – that the flavour intensity was favourably affected by the use of hop pellets when
comparing to whole-cone hops and it has also been shown that pellets increase
the flavour stability brew-to-brew.
These are some of cited reasons that pellets
are preferred to whole-cone by professionals, who want consistency in their
product.
Having said all this, many people claim
that whole-cone gives off a better flavour when it comes to dry hopping.
However the results from blind tests are inconclusive. On top of which,
whole cone hops introduce more oxygen to the beer and soak up more of the wort
and they are also impractical in the brewing process for reasons given below.
Easier Storage
Having tried to deal with the big, contentious
issue – which type tastes better – we can move on to talking about what
everyone agrees on: pellets are way more practical, not least because how easy
they are to store.
Pelletised hops take up less space, pellets
have less surface area, so they oxidize more slowly which means they stay fresh
longer and have a better flavour for longer. Pellets have a lower rate of alpha
loss than whole-leaf hops, with only 10-20% loss over 12 months at 20oC
and almost no loss at all in a frozen state. They last up to 3 years in a
normal refrigerator. Whole leaf hops, on the other hand, last approximately 6
months and in the best-case scenario up to 1 year by which time they will not
give anything close to their original flavour. Smelly socks and parmesan cheese
have both been used to describe the smell of old hops.
Very, very fresh whole-leaf hops may be
equally as good as (some would claim superior to) pellets, but the high alpha
loss rate removes any advantage and only brewing with fresh, seasonal whole-leaf
hops would restrict brewing to three months a year!
Easier Brewing
The use of whole-leaf hops produces more
mess to clean up and can clog up the nozzles and valves of your brewing vessel.
Dry hopping in the fermenter produces another difficult cleaning job. Pelletised
hops are generally hosed out with very little effort.
It is advisable to use a muslin bag when
dry hopping with whole-leaf and to weigh down the buoyant leaves ensuring that
they are wetted and that the flavour gets into the liquid. This means you
typically need to use more 10-15% more hops (because of the muslin bag retaining some
flavour) increasing the cost of dry hopping with whole leaf hops.
Pellets, on the other hand, avoid many of
these problems. They are small and easy to handle, and for home brewers, they
eliminate most of the issues you will have with whole-leaf hops in the
dry-hopping process. They also soak up less wort than whole-leaf hops, leaving
you with more beer! The one problem with pellets is that they give of more trub
if used loose in for example a dry hopping situation.
This may lead to some clogging issues
similarly to whole-leaf hops, but these can be solved by using a muslin bag
when brewing and/or by using a strainer on your siphon when siphoning the beer.
Also, you should make sure to use a finer strainer when brewing with pellets so
that less hop matter transfers to the bottle.
In short: Choose pellets (most of the
time)
The bottom line is that pellets are not
only easier to store and to use; they are more consistent when it comes to
their flavour and they actually give off more flavour – seemingly contrary to popular belief among
some brewers. While there definitely is something to be said for the romantic
factor of using whole leaf hops “the way it has always been”, and they do give
off better floral notes for example, pelletised hops in our opinion win in the
long run on usability, storability, cost effectiveness and most importantly the
end result.
I may be harbouring a certain bias because
when I started brewing full time professionally on the 13th of
August 1979 at a brewery with a German designed brewhouse it was specially
designed for pelletised hops. It was several years before I became familiar
with the problems associated with whole hop usage.
Written by our friend George Thompson Brewing Consultant
Organic Malt Now available at Geterbrewed
Organic Malt
The importance of agricultural sustainability and the environment is becoming more and more apparent in the world today. Crisp Organic Malt is produced from barley that is certified as grown using environmentally friendly farming methods. These farms are certified by the Soil Association in the United Kingdom and globally recognised.
We have added the whole range of Organic Malts from Crisp Maltings
Available in Ale and Extra Pale and Crystal - Whole or Crushed fresh prior to dispatch
To ensure Crisp Organic Barley maintains its Organic state throughout malting, their malting plant in Great Ryburgh also endures strict inspections and standards to make sure there is clear segregation between products throughout the process.
How to read Malt Analysis
How To Read Malt Analysis
Typical British Pale Ale Malt Analysis | |
Variable |
Typical Value |
Colour |
4-6.5 °EBC |
Moisture Content (MC) |
2.8-3.3% |
Hot Water Extract (HWE) |
303-315 L°/kg |
Cold Water Extract (CWE) |
17-20.5% |
Total Nitrogen (TN) |
1.4-1.7% |
Soluble Nitrogen Ratio (SNR) |
36-45.5% |
Diastatic Power (DP) |
124-212 °WK |
Screenings <2.2 mm |
0.45% |
Friability |
85-95% |
Colour: In most of the world, colour is measured according to a visual method developed by the European Brewing Convention (expressed as EBC units).
In the US, malt colour is expressed in terms of the Standard Research Method (SRM) set by the ASBC or in °Lovibond, an older method of visual measurement upon which SRM is based.
The formula °EBC = (°L X 2.65) gives a reasonably accurate conversion to °Lovibond values.
Moisture content: The closer a malt is to 1.5% MC, the less it risks mould growth and the less flavour and aroma it will lose over time
Hot water extract (HWE): Indicates how many litres of wort at S.G. 1.001 a kilogram of a malt will give at 65 °C, and reports it as hot water extract, or L°/kg.
HWE for two-row lager or pale ale malt should not be less than 300 at 0.2mm grind or 295 at 0.7mm grind.
Grind difference (% FG/CG): The fine grind/coarse grind (FG/CG) difference indicates the modification of the malt.
A "steely" malt, one suitable only for a mash cycle that includes a protein rest, will have an FG/CG difference of 1.8-2.2%, while a mealy and well-modified malt suited to infusion mashing will have an FG/CG difference of 0.5-1.0%.
Cold water extract (CWE): British maltsters rarely give FG/CG values; instead, they usually quote CWE. The CWE is the amount of extract that is soluble in cold water 20 °C, and this value has a loose relationship to the FG/CG difference as an indicator of malt modification. A CWE of 19-23% indicates the malt is acceptable for infusion mashing; lower values indicate the need for low-temperature mash rests.
Protein or Nitrogen (%): Because proteins are made of nitrogen-based compounds such as amino acids, maltsters use protein and nitrogen values interchangeably; each 1% of nitrogen equals 6.25% of protein.
European lager and British ale malts are usually below 1.6% TN. One of the major reasons brewers prefer these malts for all-malt beers is because their protein levels are adequate for head-formation, body, and healthy fermentation, yet low enough to present less chill haze potential than high-protein North American malts. When adjuncts are used, malts of more than 1.6% TN are required to achieve acceptable head, body, and yeast nutrition.
Soluble nitrogen (% TSN): The amount of nitrogen in soluble form, expressed as a percentage of malt weight. The TSN parameters are used to calculate the soluble nitrogen ratio.
Soluble Nitrogen Ratio (% SNR): This ratio (SN/TN [soluble nitrogen/total nitrogen], or Kolbach Index) is calculated by dividing the soluble nitrogen value by the percent total nitrogen.
The SNR is an important indicator of malt modification. The higher the number, the more highly modified the malt. Malts destined for infusion mashing should have an SNR of 36-42%, or up to 45% for light-bodied beer. At a percentage much over 45% SNR, the beer will be thin in body and mouthfeel. For traditional lager malts, 30-33% indicates under modification, and 37-40% indicates over modification.
Brewers can take account of increases in SNR by adding low-temperature rests. Conversely, a decrease in SNR can be allowed for by shortening the duration of low-temperature rests.
Starch conversion: Diastatic power (DP) expresses the strength of starch-reducing enzymes in the malt and is measured in oWindisch–Kolbach ( oWK) in Europe or °Lintner in the US. The diastatic power, considered together with mealiness/steeliness, indicates how well a malt will respond to mashing. For conversion oWK = (3.5 x oLintner) - 16
Screenings: this figure should be as low as possible indicating that the maltster has cleaned the malt adequately and you are not paying for excessive unproductive dust.
Friability is the measure of a malt's readiness to crumble when subjected to crushing. Any malt should be at least 80% friable; for infusion mashing, malt should be at least 85% friable, in my experience 90%’ would be preferable. This measurement puts a figure on chewing the malt – it is always worth checking the quoted figure against a chew of five or six corns and storing the feel of the chew away in your memory!
George Thompson our friend has kindly written this article he has been a brewer and subsequent brewing consultant for his whole career, he always tells me UK malts are the superior malts for brewing.
Designing Beer Recipes
Beer Recipes Design
Starting point
Start by choosing a beer style. The beer style
no longer defines the beer in the way it may have done in my early days as a
brewer, there is plenty of room for imagination, rather the beer style creates
the baseline to build from.
Internet sources (many are American so not
always totally reliable from our perspective) will give you a guide to lots of
beer styles. They will give suggestions
on the range of colour and bitterness as well as strength, OG and PG etc. Another
way to start is when you come across a beer that you really like - see if you
can reproduce your version. Either by taste and see if you can guess the
various ingredients and their proportions or by finding out a little more about
the beer. Many publications claim to list the recipes of commercial beers.
These are sometimes surprisingly accurate, especially if they have been
provided by the brewer. They can also be a little misleading – I have seen published
recipes for beers that I was once responsible for which bore no relation to the
actual recipe. There are also beer recipe designing books – I have never read
any so cannot comment.
The Ingredients
Beer is brewed with water, malt and hops
with, occasionally, spices and of course fermented with yeast. All of these
ingredients contribute to the final beer taste. It is worth doing a bit of
research to determine what ingredients are typically used your target beer
style, and in what proportions. At this stage it is easier to work in
percentages for the malt grist for example 90% pale ale malt, 7% crystal malt
and 3% roast barley etc.. As a rule, traditionally about 90% of the malt is
normally the main or base malt there for flavour colour and fermentable sugars
with the other 10% of malts there for flavour and colour. You will find a lot
of new wave American influenced recipes with lower base malt % and consequently
higher coloured malt % but trust me for the most part this is a passing
fashion. By all means experiment but too much flavour is not always a good
thing.
Having determined the ingredients and
proportions that are appropriate to the beer style you are a long way towards
producing a recipe which will taste the way it should.
Getting the numbers right
You have selected your list of ingredients
and have the proportions roughly correct. It is now time to use a spreadsheet
or program such as Brewers Friend or BeerSmith, and see how the numbers
look. I still prefer to use an excel spreadsheet that I have been using for the
last 20 years. Before that as a young brewer I used a pencil, paper and a
calculator and spend many hours adjusting recipes until my Production Director
was happy that he had asked me to try every single permutation he could think
of. I take issue with some of the results you are given by the above mentioned
online calculators but eventually you will have to brew the beer and see what
it looks and tastes like and then make any alterations you think are needed.
The calculators often try to take account of the equipment you will be using
and offer all sorts of different ways of mashing and wort running this may help
if you are using a system which affects the extract efficiency etc. I tend to
keep to isothermal mashing, continuous sparging and balanced with wort running.
However I have the luxury of a miniature scaled down traditional ale brewery
which allows me to brew much like a commercial ale brewer.
With the numbers from your calculator now
confirming the OG, PG, abv, colour and bitterness that you should expect from
the recipe it is time to make any adjustments so that you get closer to what
you had intended.
Original Gravity or OG is an indication of the amount of fermentable and unfermentable
sugar you will extract. The original gravity along with the PG determines how
much potential alcohol the recipe will produce.
Present Gravity or PG (sometimes referred to
as the Final Gravity or FG) This figure determines the sweetness or dryness of
the beer as well as the alcohol. A higher PG will give you a sweeter beer with
less alcohol and vice versa. Lagers and IPAs tend to have a lower PG and
full-bodied ales and stouts tend to have a higher PG. You
can control this to some extent by adjusting the mash temperature to alter the
fermentability. The choice of yeast will also have a big influence The yeast attenuation
refers to the percentage of sugars consumed by the yeast, and some styles
require high attenuating yeast to achieve a clean flavour, while others require
a low attenuating yeasts for a more complex flavour.
Bitterness (IBU in the USA, EBU everywhere
else but as far as we are concerned the same) Bitterness
from hops balances the malty flavour from the malts and the fruity etc. flavours
from the yeast. The alpha acid content of your hops and how your equipment
interacts with the hops will allow you to calculate the bitterness. I use a
simple bitterness calculation that I have been using for almost 40 years it
never agrees with the fancy calculators on the internet but it works for me.
Colour (SRM Lovibond in the USA, EBC
everywhere else) – You can calculate the colour of
your beer from the grist used. Estimating the colour is important because we
drink with our eyes as well as smell and taste.
Bitterness Ratio (IBU/GU) – The bitterness ratio gives you a very rough measurement of the
bitterness to malt balance for the recipe.
Carbonation (Vols or g/l) (1 vol = 1.96 g/l) The carbonation of your beer should match
the style. Carbonation is commonly measured in volumes, where one volume would
essentially be a litre of carbon dioxide gas dissolved into a litre of beer.
Fermented beer at room temperature and open to the atmosphere contains about
1.0 volumes of CO2. Traditional English ales are often served with
only the benefit of natural carbonation developed in the cask at 1.5 vols while
many German beers are highly carbonated (up to 3.0 vols). If you research the
style, you can often determine the traditional carbonation level for the beer.
Brewing Techniques
After you have the proper ingredients and
have balanced the recipe by the numbers, the final step is to look at the
techniques needed to brew this style of beer. Different styles definitely
require application of a variety of brewing techniques. Some of the techniques
to consider include:
- Hop Techniques – A variety of hop techniques are available. Examples
include first wort hopping, dry hopping, late hop
additions, bittering hops, and use of a hopback. Different beer
styles require different methods to achieve the appropriate balance.
- Mash Techniques – For all grain and partial mash brewers, adjusting your mash
temperature is critical to achieving the appropriate body for your
beer. Lower mash temperature during the main conversion step will result
in a lower body beer and higher mash temperatures result in more body. In
addition, advanced brewers may want to consider advanced techniques
like decoction mashing or programme mashing if appropriate to
the style.
- Fermenting, Lagering and
Aging – The temperature for fermenting your
beer should be appropriate for the yeast and beer you are using. Yeast
manufacturers as well as most brewing software publish appropriate
temperature ranges for fermentation of each yeast. Aging and lagering
should also match your target style.
Beer design is partly art, and partly science,
which for me makes it the interesting and enjoyable hobby it is.
If you do your homework, select quality
ingredients, run the numbers and follow good brewing techniques you can make
fantastic beer at home using your own recipes.
Written by our friend George Thompson ( Master Brewer & Brewing Consultant )
Water Treatment for Home Brewers & Craft Brewers
The application of water treatment
Water treatment is all too often not given the attention it deserves by craft and home brewers. Some even justify their lack of understanding by condemning the use of “chemicals”.
If you want to brew beer that is not thin,
watery, and lacking in character read on.
The application of water treatment for
brewing is actually simple.
Around 95% of beer is water. As a young
brewer I was taught that I should taste the water for every brew. The quality
of the water you use to brew with will have a direct influence on the quality
of the beer. Water treatment seeks to both correct undesirable water content
and add in missing desirable content. Think of water treatment as if you were
preparing a surface for painting – through preparation will yield the best
results.
In medieval times, monks would taste the
local water and from that decided whether it was suitable for brewing and indeed
which style of beer it might best produce. After almost 40 years of
professional brewing, I can taste water and determine at least some of its
chemistry but that is no substitute for a water analysis from your water supply
company. The standard water analysis will tell you some things and may
alert you to a potential problem, but if you ask as well as the standard
analysis they should be able to supply you with a list of the ions in their
water that are important and you need to know about for brewing, more on this
later.
The first treatment you need to consider
for your brewing water is the removal of chlorine and chloramine. These are added
by water companies as disinfectants. If these are not removed, they will react
and cause off flavours most typically a chlorophenolic taste, which is not
pleasant. Remember to treat all water involved in brewing not just the mash
liquor.
Removal is simple either add the required
level of crushed Campden tablets (1 tablet per 50L of water) the
active sulphur dioxide diminishes rapidly as it reacts with chlorine and
chloramine or alternatively pre filter your water with an active carbon filter.
Next let us look at mash pH – this is most
influenced by alkalinity caused by carbonate and bicarbonate and if these ions
are in sufficient concentration, you will need to remove them. This is most
conveniently done by reacting with an acid. The amount of acid required is
directly proportional to the alkalinity of the water the water companies will
often express this as the concentration of carbonate (C03) or bicarbonate
(HCO3). The aim here is to achieve a mash pH of 5.2 to 5.4. I prefer to use
phosphoric acid if acid is needed to treat alkalinity where it is necessary this
is because it does not significantly affect the taste or the sulphate chloride
balance however other more easily obtained products are available such as, AMS which
will also add sulphates and chlorides as it is a combination of hydrochloric
and sulphuric acid. I would make any acid addition to the brewing liquor (mash
and sparge liquor) not to the mash.
Since alkalinity in water can vary,
it is important to check the mash pH as a routine.
I would recommend that you use an online
water calculator to calculate all of your additions.
As discussed above if your water has high
alkalinity and you want to brew a pale ale then you will need to add acid to
reduce your pH. However, if you have low alkalinity you may need to
add sodium carbonate to increase your pH when brewing a dark beer. This
is because dark malts reduce the mash pH.
With your mash pH under control, you can
look at the other important ions in your water. The ions which are relevant for
brewing are Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Chloride (Cl), Sulphate (SO4) and
Sodium (Na).
Calcium – The ideal range is 100 – 200
ppm. Low levels of calcium will cause fermentation
and clarification problems. Calcium is most easily added to the mash as Calcium
Chloride and Calcium Sulphate (gypsum). The choice being whether you
also want to add sulphate or chlorides or both see below.
Magnesium – Not above 10 ppm. Magnesium effects
the alkalinity of the water although nothing like as much as calcium. Magnesium
provides nutrition for the yeast and so aids healthy fermentation. Epsom Salts
(magnesium sulphate) is usually added to increase magnesium and sulphate
levels. Personally, I do not like the taste of magnesium and would avoid adding
it but would accept natural magnesium below 10ppm.
Chloride and Sulphate – These two ions work
together and will determine the flavour and character of your beer. The
addition ratio will highlight the malt or the hop flavours in the beer. More
sulphate will bring out the hops and bitterness and will create a hard dryness.
More chloride will bring out the malt flavours and create a soft sweetness. A
possible ratio for a hoppy beer would be 200 ppm sulphate : 100 ppm chloride.
If you want more malt flavour then 150 ppm sulphate: 150ppm chloride would work
better. As with all brewing taste the
result and make alterations if you are not happy. As already inferred, the
easiest way to add chloride and sulphate is as calcium chloride and calcium
sulphate (gypsum).
Sodium – up to 100 ppm sodium increases the
mouthfeel and fullness but too much will cause an unpleasant salty flavour.
Common salt (sodium chloride) can be used to add sodium but note this will also
add chloride. Avoid brewing with water that has been softened as the softening
process adds a lot of salt. Personally I would avoid adding sodium to my
brewing water.
In summary.
Obtain a water analysis from your water
supply company including the important brewing ions as follows: Calcium,
Magnesium, Sodium, Sulphate, Chloride, Hydrogen (pH), Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Then use an online water calculator to help
determine what treatments are relevant to your recipe.
Finally taste the result and adjust if not
quite right.
Written by our friend George Thompson (Master Brewer & Brewing Consultant)