Thread search of 1994 Lambic Digest for "turbid and mash" Output from bthread v1.3 By Tom Kaltenbach -- Modified 8/07/92 Search terms: (c) = case-specific "turbid" AND "mash" 34 postings found. Posting 1: My first pLambic is going... Posting 2: barrels, 60 gal french oak, Posting 3: shirts/turbid mash Posting 4: turbid mashing Posting 5: Re: oats and drawing off mash liquid Posting 6: The Turbid Mash Posting 7: Mail Order Help Posting 8: Thar she forms: I have a pellicle! Posting 9: Turbid mash question. Posting 10: more thoughts on Mike's ascii Posting 11: Re: Turbid Mash Posting 12: Chips, Both Wood and Cow Posting 13: turbid mash -- calling KUL / aspertaime Posting 14: turbid mash Posting 15: Re[2]: Turbid Mash Posting 16: turbid mashing -- an observation/question Posting 17: re;turbid mashing and traditions Posting 18: My turbid mash. Posting 19: Re: turbid mashing -- an observation/question Posting 20: more on turbid mashing Posting 21: More Turbid Bashing Posting 22: Turbid Mashing 2 Posting 23: Re: Lambic Digest #367 (June 10, 1994) Posting 24: Gueuze snobbery, again? Posting 25 Posting 26: Gueuze snobbery, again? Posting 27: Turbid Mash Report (This is a longee but goodee) Posting 28: In response to his lordship 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) Posting 29: Carbonation/What's crucial? Posting 30: Also Sprach Zarathustra Posting 31: Hope this gets through! Posting 32: Notes from my Belgium trip Posting 33: Turbid Mashing Posting 34: Re: Turbid Mashing and Temperature Posting 1: Extracted from file: 324 Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 08:10:29 PST From: Martin Wilde Subject: My first pLambic is going... Text item: Text_1 Well this weekend I finally did it... Started my pLambic. I followed the "turbid" mash schedule layed out by Dr. Robert Mussche's presentation at Homebrew U III. This is the same schedule Lindemanns uses. The mash schedule favors starch. Dr. Mussche mentioned that the pedio and brett need the extra starch/dextrins to sustain their long fermentation. Here's my ingredients and mash schedule: 8 gallon batch 10 lbs Belgian Pilsner Malt 5 lbs Soft Winter Wheat 2 oz 2yr old Northern Brewer leaf hops (aged 15 minutes at 300F) 2 oz 2yr old Mt. Hood leaf hops (aged 15 minutes at 300F) Wyeast 1056 chico - 10 minute rest at 118 degrees (should of been 113 - but within range). Used 1 qt/lb of H20 - Infused with 194F water to 125F for 15 minute rest - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid (yes liquid...) and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to raise to 135F. Added 6 qts 194F H20 to 140F. Added heat to 149F. 15 minute rest. - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to raise to 154F. Added 6 qts 194F H20 to 158F. Added heat to 162F. 20 minute rest. - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to raise to 166F. Added heat to 170F for mashout of 20 minutes. - Sparged with 185F (should of been 203F) H20 to collect extract for boiling. As you can see I had problems with raising the temperature between the steps. I ended up with about 6 gallons of water in my mash tun (Mussche says the final water to grist ratio can be as high as 8 to 1). So next time I may for go adding the water and just heat up the mash tun between steps to save time. The mash was a milky color until the 20 minute rest at 162F. I had no problems sparging since I just took my time and sparged nice and slowly. It took about 45 minutes to sparge and collect 10 gallons. My mash tun had alot of greyish glop in at - must be from the wheat. The runoff was just a bit hazy. I boiled for 3.5 (Mussche says 5-6) hours with the hops added at the beginning of the boil. Normally with that much hops, my garage would be filled with the aroma of hops, but this time just a slight aroma... After the boil was over, I tasted the cooled wort and it was very sweet with just a tad of hop bitterness - but no flavor. My final gravity was 1050. The bottom of the boiler was filled with protein glob. I will ferment with Wyeast 1056 (chico) in stainless until the gravity drops to about 1025. I will then rack into a French Oak cask and add the pedio, brett lambicus, brett brux, and the dregs from a Cantillion Framboise bottle. I did not want all that cold break in the cask, thus the initial ferment in a cornelius keg. Sometime later this year I will add the raspberries and some vanilla extract for a unique touch. I will keep you posted as I go!!! martin ------------ Posting 2: Extracted from file: 339 Date: Mon, 9 May 94 09:23:00 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Subject: barrels, 60 gal french oak, As usual I've bunched a few replies into this message. "DEV::FVH" writes: > Subject: Newly acquired barrel and other ?s > > My SO and I went to Temecula, Ca a couple of weekend ago. Touring the > winerys led us to a newly acquired establishment called Temecula Crest. > They were selling their old(from previous owner) wine barrels(55gal) for $30. I have long been tempted by similar prices on used wine barrels. I've always resisted because you can't move a 55gal barrel. You can't lift it to rack into bottles, etc. unless you have a pallete (sp?) jack. Storage space is also a problem... > Anyway, I am soaking it and am tossing around ideas and would like to > bounce some off the collective. Mr Winstead has already rebounded some > of these. I do not wish to make a 55 gal batch. At least not at first. > I would be willing to go 15 gal for a trial. Can I store this in the > cask with bung in place without worrying about the cask leaking? Will > the humidity inside the barrel be enough to keep a decent seal on the > parts that are not under the beer line? I can't address how much the barrel will dry out with only 15 gallons in it. I can tell you that in my _opinion_ you shouldn't make a batch size less than 2/3rds the barrel volume. Think about how 15 gallons will look in a 55gallon barrel -- You'll hardly make a dent in the total capacity and there will be a _LOT_ of beer in contact with the air. [2/3rds isn't a magic number. I know that I've had batches of plambic drop to ~2/3rds the volume of my barrel -- due to not topping up -- and still behave reasonably w.r.t. fermentation, infection, etc] > Also, since space is at a premium in Southern Cal, I plan to store this > outdoors. Perhaps make a make-shift table to help shade the barrel from > direct sun. Temps fluctuate from somewhere in the 40s(winter) to the > 90s(summer) where I am. I'm fairly close to the beach. Will this cause > a problem? 90s? hmmm. I dunno about temperatures that high. How are you going to keep the cask dry (when it does rain)? > Since I like to use fruit and whatever is available at a reasonable price, > I was wondering if using plums for a lambic is acceptable. Its your beer... I've never used plums in a lambic & haven't a clue as to what to expect. You've got ~1 year (maybe more) to figure out where the fruit is coming from. You don't add fruit until the beer has aged for a while (~1 yr). > Can tasting a lambic in various stages cause health problems? I can only say that I'm still healthy. I do have this wierd nervous twitch & occasionally howl at the moon, but... 8-) > For those cask users(or non-cask users), > do you use the hydrometer to check when the lambic is ready for bottling or > is it just whenever you're ready after a sufficient amount of time? After a year plus of being exposed to superattenuative yeast (Brettanomyces) and bacteria you're not going to have to worry about _anything_ left to ferment. FWIW, I just bottled my last batch (started a little over a year ago while I was still in Portland) and its FG was 1.006 I checked just for kicks. > I was planning on doing the primary with a belgian yeast(1214) in plastic > fermentors(about 1 week), then rack to the barrel and pitch some Brett and > Pedio. One opinion tells me to pitch everything at once. Any other opinions? Before continuing in this process figure out what a 'turbid mash' is. This technique creates a highly dextrinous wort that gives the pedio & brett something to chew on during their long stay in your beer. [yeah, I've been lax in posting info about the process. I'll try to rectify that soon]. Other random musings: I sure hope you're not getting in over your head. As I said above, I've always been tempted by cheap used wine barrels, but to be honest 55 gallons of beer takes a while to make. Thats three runs even in my equipment. Also, have you given thought to bottling? We're talking ~580 12oz bottles here. Now here is an interesting thought that I hope folks read... What happens if you buy a used wine barrel that was cut in half and then you seal plexiglass to the cut end with a little silicone sealer (food grade please)? This sounds like a way to get the neutral barrel character _and_ a more reasonable batch size. This idea just came to me, so I may be full of sh*t and realize it later. > Any ideas what might be in the wood already? Given what you're doing, nothing you need to worry about. (though you will extract some of the wine flavors from the wood in the first batch or two) ========================== bickham@msc.cornell.edu writes: > I recently ran across an interesting catalog from a store that claims > to cater to the Amish community in Western Ohio. Here is a summary of > some brewing-related items, including their barrel prices: > .... > Barrels and Kegs > - made of white oak, 6 hoops per barrel with 8 for the larger ones Lots of folks have been posting info on where to get American oak barrels lately. If you're _really_ serious about getting a barrel you _DO_NOT_ want American oak. I took that route initially and I'm just now (5? years later) getting my cask to the point where it doesn't produce tree-beer. Maybe somebody has a new way of cleaning these things & reducing the tanin levels in a new American oak barrel, but the methods I've tried (long soaks, soda ash soaks, etc.) have been unable to yield anything even remotely neutral. Only brewing a lot of beer has been able to remove the tannins. -- Mike ------------ Posting 3: Extracted from file: 346 Date: Mon, 16 May 94 15:39:53 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Subject: shirts/turbid mash Hi, First, a quick t-shirt update. If you haven't made arrangements for XL or XXXL its too late. L is still available. Now, on to the real purpose of this post... A few months ago at "Homebrew U" in Seattle there was a presentation made by Dr. Roger Mussche. Since I wasn't in attendance I can't tell you much about Dr. Mussche, but I was sent some notes taken during his talk. In these notes the following "turbid mash" technique is presented: (sorry about the ASCII graphics...) Malt Wheat Water ==== ===== ===== Milling Milling 500L 100kg | 55C | | | +-----------------> Mash at 45C <--------------+ | | <---- addition H20 @90C | Mash at 52C | Taking of <----------------+ <---- addition h20 @90C turbid mash | | Mash at 65C | | Taking of <----------------+ <---- addition H20 @90C turbid mash | | Mash at 72C | | Taking of <----------------+ turbid mash | | | Heating to 85C ----------->| | Filtration at 78C | | <---- washing with H20 of | 95C (in lauter tun) | (5-6h) boiling - annuated hops | 3kg/500L | Hop - sieve - filter in coolship Cooling and air-inocculation | | Fermentation in wooden barrels or wood-coated tanks ======== my comments: Yeah, I know this isn't really very clear in some spots (how much wheat is being used, how much H20 is added at the different steps, etc) but thats what is on the sheet. We can only guess from here. Why would anyone want to do such a thing? The objective is to obtain wort which contains a lot of complex dextrins. These are used by the Brettanomyces (and possibly other critters) in the later stages of the fermentation. The use of these dextrins is studied in Microbiology and Biochemistry of Lambic Beer Overattenuation by H.M. Chandana Shantha Kumara PhD thesis, November 1990, Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven --Mike ------------ Posting 4: Extracted from file: 347 Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 10:23:47 +0200 From: thomasr@ezrz1.vmsmail.ethz.ch (ROB THOMAS) Subject: turbid mashing Hello all, I just saw Mike's ASCII plan for the turbid mash. First a question, what does everyone understand by taking off the turbid mash? Is this like a decoction (ie remove the thickest part), or the opposite, (remove the thinnest part) or neither (ie stir first then remove some). Now the comments. I'm working without the paper in front of me, but van Oevelen (sp?) gives a very short description of the mash process. Though it has even less details than Mike's ASCII drawing, it suggests a similar (IMHO strange) process. The grains are step mashed, but the liquor is removed to a mash copper prior to adding more hot water. The mash copper is insulated. What I assume is happening is that first the proteins are roughly chopped up and some soluble starches and enzymes are dissolved. This lot is then removed. The second addition of hot water then starts the saccharification of the remaining grains. (with an unspecified balance of amylases since some have been drained off). This sugar rich and enzyme rich solution is pumped to join the previous decoction, where proteolysis and sacch' continues. The other steps of the decoction dissolve starches and these hot solutions when added to the other decocts inactivate the alpha amylase (is that the one? I mean the one that chops up the starches into small sugars). Finally, adding the lot back to the grains dissolved more starches, and creats the filter. The upshot of this? Selective removal of the amylase that breaks starch up smallest, as well as removing most of the enzymes from the grains, allows dissolution of the starches (which takes a while) but slows their breakdown (usually fast). Hence a wort high in starches and dextrins. Needless to say, this may be complete fantasy on my part, but it amuses me to think about it. I might even try it if I can get some more data (particularly how much water to add at each step). Rob. p.s. my lambic is starting to do strange things. I'll give it a couple more weeks and post a summary so far. ------------ Posting 5: Extracted from file: 348 Date: Wed, 18 May 94 09:57:52 EDT From: zen@hophead.north.net (Nick Zentena) Subject: Re: oats and drawing off mash liquid > From: thomasr@ezrz1.vmsmail.ethz.ch (ROB THOMAS) > Subject: turbid mashing > it suggests a similar (IMHO strange) process. The grains are step > mashed, but the liquor is removed to a mash copper prior to adding > more hot water. The mash copper is insulated. How about a different idea. Don't most of the enzymes go into solution rather quickly? Also can we assume that the malt used in traditonal lambics may be low in enzymes [at least low for a high adjunct mash]? If so drawing off the liquid portion is just an attempt to protect them from a too hot water infusion. Make any sense? > From: Mark Stickler > Subject: Oats & Recipe Request > > If I'm using raw oats as part of the grain bill should I be cooking them > prior to putting them in the mash? If so, how? Boil the Oats separately > prior to adding them to the mash? If so, for how long, what ratio of > water to Oats, should they be drained, if they don't absorb all of the > water, before adding to the mash? Any help will be appreciated! What kind of oats? If using flakes then just add them to the mash. Flakes IMHO are too easy to not use. If you are using something else you likely have to do a cereal mash. Beyond me. I use flakes-) Nick - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I drink Beer I don't collect cute bottles! zen@hophead.north.net - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Posting 6: Extracted from file: 348 Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 12:00:36 -0700 (PDT) From: malodah@pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: The Turbid Mash In Lambic Digest #347, ROB THOMAS had some questions on turbid mashing: > I just saw Mike's ASCII plan for the turbid mash. First a question, > what does everyone understand by taking off the turbid mash? Is > this like a decoction (ie remove the thickest part), or the opposite, > (remove the thinnest part) or neither (ie stir first then remove some). My understanding is that it's the thinnest part that's drained off. > Now the comments. I'm working without the paper in front of me, > but van Oevelen (sp?) gives a very short description of the mash > process. Though it has even less details than Mike's ASCII drawing, > it suggests a similar (IMHO strange) process. The grains are step > mashed, but the liquor is removed to a mash copper prior to adding > more hot water. The mash copper is insulated. Yes, this is the basic idea. The steps are achieved here through additions of very hot water, and the turbid abstractions make room for that new water in the mashtun. > The upshot of this? Selective removal of the amylase that breaks > starch up smallest, as well as removing most of the enzymes from > the grains, allows dissolution of the starches (which takes a > while) but slows their breakdown (usually fast). Hence a > wort high in starches and dextrins. > > Needless to say, this may be complete fantasy on my part, but it > amuses me to think about it. No, I think you've got it! Dr. Mussche made a couple of things very clear: 1. These starches and dextrins are what the Brettanomyces will be working on during its long fermentation, and 2. He (Mussche) might not be telling us the whole truth. He grinned impishly when he said this, but it certainly squares with my own experience of Belgian brewers, who generally seem too amiable to refuse to answer a question, but will smilingly answer with "disinformation" if they feel you're getting too close to their secrets ... - Martin = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell = = malodah@pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! (Unk.) = ------------ Posting 7: Extracted from file: 348 Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 22:43:30 -0400 (EDT) From: exe00833 Subject: Mail Order Help Howdy.... I'm pretty new at trying my hand at pLambic brewing. 1 1/2 years ago I used a weizen extract recipe with 10 pounds of Door Country (Wisconsin) cherries to make a pKriek. I used the Wyeast American Ale yeast and some vials of Brett and Pedio I picked up at the AHA convention in 1992. Last May I thought I had 5 gallons of Cherry Flavored Malt vinegar. Last night it tasted really good. Only problem was that it is so turbid that light barely passes through, even though a year ago it was crystal clear. I want to brew again, but this time I want to use unmalted wheat instead of the Briess Weizenmalt. Since I'm basicly lazy and don't want to get involved in decoction mashing, can I use an infustion mash with wheat flakes? Also, does anyone know of a good, reliable source for Brett, Pedio, and unmalted wheat flakes? I sure would appreciate some help because I better get started brewing soon. My five gallons is unlikely to last several more years. Thanks, Jeff Brown, exe00833@char.vnet.net ------------ Posting 8: Extracted from file: 349 Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 09:03:16 -0500 From: tmgierma@acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman) Subject: Thar she forms: I have a pellicle! Just wanted to report on another milestone recently reached with my first p-lambic. Yes a pellicle has finally formed! This is nearly as exciting as baby's first bowel movement - a sign that all is well and a relief to anxious parents everywhere. Let me back up. I posted on this "baby" shortly after conception back in December - well, actually, I think that it might have been entering its formative months at that time. This was a fairly standard grain bill and mash procedure so I won't go through it again. Besides, the fermentation part is the most interesting part, IMHO. I pitched with, I think, 300 ml Hoegaarden yeast, 50 ml Boon Gueuze dregs starter (that was the "old" Gueuze, using a different method of blending as compared to the "new" Gueuze, or so I am told - plenty of Brett and bugs in the "old") and a 5 ml pedio starter (which may have been too little). I believe that this "primary" fermentation lasted roughly 3-4 weeks (slowed down by cooler temperatures in the winter) and ended at a gravity of 1016. There was quite abit of Brett character at that point but no souring. However, in subsequent months and tastings I noticed that the Brett character had diminished in intensity (surprisingly so) coinciding with a drop in gravity to 1010. Between then and now, I received a sample of homebrewed p-lambic which was quite tart and reasonably horsey/goaty (well balanced overall). Having realized that I had meant to save the dregs, but forgot and dumped them, I poured several ounces into my fermenter from the glass I was drinking from (couldn't hurt, right?). Also, several months ago, I obtained some Cantillon Rose de Gambrinus and poured the dregs into the fermenter. So, back to the pellicle. This appears to be a yeast pellicle, rather than a bacterial one, formed by oxidative yeasts spreading out their pseudomycelia across the surface of the p-lambic - probably Brett. The pellicle is white and finely wooly, for lack of a better description, not slimy or waxy. I believe that my P. damnosus is not one of those slime forming strains (ick!). The pellicle formed from small islands of yeasts that gradually grew together. I was planning to pitch some Candida yeasts to form the oxidative mat before this pellicle appeared. Now I am not sure. Oh, okay, twist my arm...I'll pitch them. I am now reluctant to break the pellicle to gain access to a sample for tasting. I suspect that the presence of a pellicle may now encourage the pedio to go to work. _The Turbid Masher (TM)_ : Somebody better jump on this quick before a certain HBD gadfly gets a patent on it. I haven't attempted to deconstruct the turbid mash outlined in previous LD's. Just wanted to point out that some people augment their "standard" mashes by high mash out temps and very hot sparges to pull out any remaining starches - not necessarily a superior approach but a potentially easier one. Adding malto-dextrin to the boil would be even easier (if you could bring yourself to break with tradition). _Saccharomyces delbrueckii_ Okay, not to nitpick, but to add a little bit of info: S. delbrueckii has been reclassified in the last 10-20 years to fall into the genus Torulaspora (many Saccharomyces species have been bumped around over the years). The good news is that Torulaspora species yeasts often turn up in the primary ferment of lambics. So, everyone says that the Weihenstephan yeasts #66 and #68 are single species S. cerevisiae. Previous claims about the old WYeast 3056 (?) were that it was a mixed culture containing a S. cerevisiae and a S. delbrueckii (aka Torulaspora delbrueckii). So, if previous claims are accurate, then it would not be unreasonable to use the old Wyeast 3056 as a primary fermenter of a p-lambic - is anything unreasonable in a p-lambic? How about some E. coli K-12? Having grown cultures of #66, #68, Torulaspora fermentati and two strains of Torulaspora delbrueckii, I will say that I have found nothing remarkable about Torulaspora in terms of Weizen-like qualities. However, different strains have different attributes. Todd ------------ Posting 9: Extracted from file: 355 Date: 27 May 94 12:34:00 CST From: "DEV::FVH" Subject: Turbid mash question. Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 08:10:29 PST From: Martin Wilde Subject: My first pLambic is going... Well this weekend I finally did it... Started my pLambic. I followed the "turbid" mash schedule layed out by Dr. Robert Mussche's presentation at Homebrew U III. This is the same schedule Lindemanns uses. The mash schedule favors starch. Dr. Mussche mentioned that the pedio and brett need the extra starch/dextrins to sustain their long fermentation. Here's my ingredients and mash schedule: 8 gallon batch 10 lbs Belgian Pilsner Malt 5 lbs Soft Winter Wheat 2 oz 2yr old Northern Brewer leaf hops (aged 15 minutes at 300F) 2 oz 2yr old Mt. Hood leaf hops (aged 15 minutes at 300F) Wyeast 1056 chico - 10 minute rest at 118 degrees (should of been 113 - but within range). Used 1 qt/lb of H20 - Infused with 194F water to 125F for 15 minute rest - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid (yes liquid...) and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to raise to 135F. Added 6 qts 194F H20 to 140F. Added heat to 149F. 15 minute rest. - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to raise to 154F. Added 6 qts 194F H20 to 158F. Added heat to 162F. 20 minute rest. - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to raise to 166F. Added heat to 170F for mashout of 20 minutes. - Sparged with 185F (should of been 203F) H20 to collect extract for boiling. As you can see I had problems with raising the temperature between the steps. I ended up with about 6 gallons of water in my mash tun (Mussche says the final water to grist ratio can be as high as 8 to 1). So next time I may for go adding the water and just heat up the mash tun between steps to save time. The mash was a milky color until the 20 minute rest at 162F. I had no problems sparging since I just took my time and sparged nice and slowly. It took about 45 minutes to sparge and collect 10 gallons. My mash tun had alot of greyish glop in at - must be from the wheat. The runoff was just a bit hazy. I boiled for 3.5 (Mussche says 5-6) hours with the hops added at the beginning of the boil. Normally with that much hops, my garage would be filled with the aroma of hops, but this time just a slight aroma... After the boil was over, I tasted the cooled wort and it was very sweet with just a tad of hop bitterness - but no flavor. My final gravity was 1050. The bottom of the boiler was filled with protein glob. I will ferment with Wyeast 1056 (chico) in stainless until the gravity drops to about 1025. I will then rack into a French Oak cask and add the pedio, brett lambicus, brett brux, and the dregs from a Cantillion Framboise bottle. I did not want all that cold break in the cask, thus the initial ferment in a cornelius keg. Sometime later this year I will add the raspberries and some vanilla extract for a unique touch. I will keep you posted as I go!!! martin _________________________________________________ Date: Mon, 16 May 94 15:39:53 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Hi, A few months ago at "Homebrew U" in Seattle there was a presentation made by Dr. Roger Mussche. Since I wasn't in attendance I can't tell you much about Dr. Mussche, but I was sent some notes taken during his talk. In these notes the following "turbid mash" technique is presented: (sorry about the ASCII graphics...) Malt Wheat Water ==== ===== ===== Milling Milling 500L 100kg | 55C | | | +-----------------> Mash at 45C <--------------+ | | <---- addition H20 @90C | Mash at 52C | Taking of <----------------+ <---- addition h20 @90C turbid mash | | Mash at 65C | | Taking of <----------------+ <---- addition H20 @90C turbid mash | | Mash at 72C | | Taking of <----------------+ turbid mash | | | Heating to 85C ----------->| | Filtration at 78C | | <---- washing with H20 of | 95C (in lauter tun) | (5-6h) boiling - annuated hops | 3kg/500L | Hop - sieve - filter in coolship Cooling and air-inocculation | | Fermentation in wooden barrels or wood-coated tanks ======== my comments: Yeah, I know this isn't really very clear in some spots (how much wheat is being used, how much H20 is added at the different steps, etc) but thats what is on the sheet. We can only guess from here. Why would anyone want to do such a thing? The objective is to obtain wort which contains a lot of complex dextrins. These are used by the Brettanomyces (and possibly other critters) in the later stages of the fermentation. The use of these dextrins is studied in Microbiology and Biochemistry of Lambic Beer Overattenuation by H.M. Chandana Shantha Kumara PhD thesis, November 1990, Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven --Mike ------------ Posting 10: Extracted from file: 357 Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 08:52:14 +0200 From: thomasr@ezrz1.vmsmail.ethz.ch (ROB THOMAS) Subject: more thoughts on Mike's ascii Hello again, I had another thought on Mike's ascii scheme of the turbid mash procedure. This time, I wasn't looking so much at the mash itself (which really needs more information to be viable) but rather the last bit, concerning fermentation. What it said was: Fermentation in wooden barrels or wood-coated tanks I didn't think about it at first, but what is the general concensus about "or wood-coated tanks". Well, presumably the wood is there to support infection but the various beasts. So far so good. But what about the microaerophilic environment of the barrel? i'm not sure I can visualise the tanks very well, but presumably there is little O2 exchange if any. Do we assume then that wood chips in a glass fermenter will do just as well, so long as we reuse them religiously? Any thoughts out there? Rob. p.s. tasted my pLambic this weekend. The aroma is definately getting there, and lactic acid is pronounced but not high enough yet (I know, I know patience). SG 1010, which I calculate as 80 percent attenuation. Still lowish, but the Chimay yeast I pitched with couldn't have taken it that low (high) bearing in mind the large amount of dextrin I added. There is a scummy powdery layer on the liquid, rather like that in the Brett starter bottle, and in the bottled fermentations it could be described as creeping (ie "growing" up the neck of the rather full bottles). Oh, and I can identify with Mike when his daughter said it smelled like "all the cows in Belgium farted at the same time". My wife thought it had developed (sic) from diapers to cow dung. Personally I think she was being ating little harsh (but then it's MY baby!) ------------ Posting 11: Extracted from file: 357 Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 12:44:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Donovan Bodishbaugh Subject: Re: Turbid Mash On Sat, 28 May 1994, Martin Wilde wrote: > - 10 minute rest at 118 degrees (should of been 113 - but within range). > Used 1 qt/lb of H20 > - Infused with 194F water to 125F for 15 minute rest > - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid (yes liquid...) and raised to 185F. Returned > to mash to raise to 135F. Added 6 qts 194F H20 to 140F. Added heat > to 149F. 15 minute rest. > - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to > raise to 154F. Added 6 qts 194F H20 to 158F. Added heat to 162F. 20 > minute rest. > - Pulled 1/3 of the liquid and raised to 185F. Returned to mash to > raise to 166F. Added heat to 170F for mashout of 20 minutes. > - Sparged with 185F (should of been 203F) H20 to collect extract for > boiling. I've been thinking about doing something similar. I have a question though. From Mike's diagram, it looks like the three turbid mash decoctions are added back together at the end of the mash schedule. Martin added them immediately to help boost to the next rest temp. Comments? FWIW, the rodenbach I tasted Friday was as good as ever. Bring on the dishwater! Rick Bodishbaugh ------------ Posting 12: Extracted from file: 358 Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 06:56:55 -0700 (PDT) From: malodah@pbgueuze.scrm2700.PacBell.COM (Martin Lodahl) Subject: Chips, Both Wood and Cow In Lambic Digest #357, Rob Thomas mused: > What it said was: > Fermentation in wooden barrels or > wood-coated tanks > I didn't think about it at first, but what is the general > concensus about "or wood-coated tanks". > Well, presumably the wood is there to support infection > but the various beasts. So far so good. But what about > the microaerophilic environment of the barrel? i'm not > sure I can visualise the tanks very well, but presumably > there is little O2 exchange if any. Do we assume then > that wood chips in a glass fermenter will do just as well, > so long as we reuse them religiously? > Any thoughts out there? Yes. I wasted time chasing the thought that the magic of barrels was the low-level gas permeability before tasting the Kriek that remains the best synthetic lambic I've had to date. I by chance met the brewer later, and learned that it had been fermented entirely in glass, but with French oak chips added to the carboy. They were not re-used, but a single application. Could the value of the wood be as a substrate, or could it be that the beasties whose efforts we're trying to encourage have a serious need for tannins? > Oh, and I can identify with Mike when his daughter said > it smelled like "all the cows in Belgium farted at the > same time". My wife thought it had developed (sic) from > diapers to cow dung. Personally I think she was being ating > little harsh (but then it's MY baby!) That was my daughter (Ms. Mouth) who said that. That's one of the seldom-discussed hazards of this pursuit ... And Donovan Bodishbaugh addressed turbid mashing: > ... From Mike's diagram, it looks like the three turbid mash > decoctions are added back together at the end of the mash schedule. Martin > added them immediately to help boost to the next rest temp. Comments? Dr. Mussche said (I don't recall whether it was at the presentation itself, the party afterward, or another party a few days before) that the purpose of this mash process is to maximize tannins and unconverted starches in the fermenting wort. What "the other Martin" was doing, then, was more like a thin-mash decoction, and wouldn't have achieved those aims. The implication of that, though, is that this mash scheme washes an utterly horrendous volume of water through the mash, unless the abstractions and additions are very small indeed. This won't be an easy nut to crack. - Martin = Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell = = malodah@pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! (Unk.) = ------------ Posting 13: Extracted from file: 359 Date: Wed, 1 Jun 94 14:18:41 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Subject: turbid mash -- calling KUL / aspertaime Hi!, There has been a lot of talk about turbid mashes lately. I know that there is at least one person now reading the digest who might be able to lend some insight. I won't name names or addresses because I don't want to put him on the spot any more than I already am, but I will say he is at KU Leuven. This would be a great point at which to jump into our 'conversation'. On other matters--- Has anyone (other than Sarah White -- Hi!) heard about the use of aspertaime to sweeten commercial lambics? Is anyone (Jim? Dan?) interested in a few quick lab tests to verify the presence or absence of this in various lambics? I contemplated doing this myself but I just don't have the time. The results could be quite revealing. --Mike ------------ Posting 14: Extracted from file: 364 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 07:58:48 -0700 From: mole@netcom.com (Aaron Birenboim) Subject: turbid mash Would anybody care to outline a reasoanble homebrew version of a turbid mash procedure. (like one which uses a sparging technique?) I plan to start a lambic soon with flaked wheat. My new 10 gal system still has bugs, so I'd like to keep it simple. My general idea would be to step mash on the burner up to the last protein rest (say.... 128F ???), then "decoct" liquid, boil it (should I rest at 158F for a while???) & re-introduce to bring temp up to about 158 for sacchrification, then sparge with 180+F water a la guinard. any suggestions on rest temps? "decoction" volume??? is this general procedure sound??? aaron ------------ Posting 15: Extracted from file: 364 Date: Mon, 6 Jun 94 09:33:16 PST From: Martin Wilde Subject: Re[2]: Turbid Mash Text item: Text_1 In LD #357, Donovan Bodishbaugh asks if the three decoctions are combined at the end or during the mash. Like a normal triple decoction they are used to boost the mash temperature to the next step. Martin Wilde ------------ Posting 16: Extracted from file: 365 Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 10:26:21 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Subject: turbid mashing -- an observation/question Hi folks, A point to ponder: A turbid mash appears to be similar to a decoction but without using the drawn off liquid to raise the temperature of the main mash (leaving a very thin mash as previously commented on by many). [this diagram appeared before -- I'm going to refer to it so I thought I'd just put it in here] Malt Wheat Water ==== ===== ===== Milling Milling 500L 100kg | 55C | | | +-----------------> Mash at 45C <--------------+ | | <---- addition H20 @90C | Mash at 52C | Taking of <----------------+ <---- addition h20 @90C turbid mash | | Mash at 65C | | Taking of <----------------+ <---- addition H20 @90C turbid mash | | Mash at 72C | | Taking of <----------------+ turbid mash | | | Heating to 85C ----------->| | Filtration at 78C | | <---- washing with H20 of | 95C (in lauter tun) | (5-6h) boiling - annuated hops | 3kg/500L | Hop - sieve - filter in coolship Cooling and air-inocculation | | Fermentation in wooden barrels or wood-coated tanks The diagram shows 'taking of turbid mash' three times and then we heat to 85C and add back at the end of the mash. Question: Shouldn't the flow of this portion of the chart really be: Taking of <---------------- turbid mash | heating to 85C | Taking of <---------------- turbid mash | heating to 85C | Taking of <---------------- turbid mash | heating to 85C -----------> Why do I ask this? Well, if all you do is pull off the liquid and hold it while continuing the main mash aren't you allowing the enzymes in the liquid to continue converting the sugars/starches that have been extracted?? Isn't this counter to the reason for doing a turbid mash in the first place?? - --ALSO-- What about the sparge and the volume of liquid we've got?? How about this: What really happens can be thought of as a sparge in steps at different temperatures. When it comes down to the final steps the chart should read: pull off what liquid remains in the mash at 75C | _LIGHTLY_ sparge at 95C (remember, most of the sugars have already been removed by previous 'taking of turbid mash' steps. the volume of water needed is much less than a 'normal' sparge) | heating to 85C ---------------> | | boil (note the liquid portion being tansfered directly to the boil and not filtered through the grain bed) Comments??? Am I a genious or an idiot? (or is this obvious and I'm just slow?) (I feel real silly about not having seen this earlier.) --Mike ------------ Posting 17: Extracted from file: 366 Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 8:17:31 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil Subject: re;turbid mashing and traditions % ---------------------------------------------------------------------- % % Date: 07 Jun 94 06:43:15 EDT % From: Stephen George <74363.26@CompuServe.COM> % Subject: Kulminator pub lambic selections - 2 % % Here's part two of the Kulminator pub's Lambic selections. As I live in % Antwerp, I tend % to patronize this place more than any other. I will make a later posting with % some % observations about other 'hot spots' on the Flanders circuit. Will you please stop it! I am not in Belgium and you are driving me NUTS! Send Beer. :-) Mike writes in his ultimate wisdom: (stuff deleted) % Question: Shouldn't the flow of this portion of the chart really be: % % Taking of <---------------- % turbid mash % | % heating to 85C % | % Taking of <---------------- % turbid mash % | % heating to 85C % | % Taking of <---------------- % turbid mash % | % heating to 85C -----------> Probably correct. I would not expect any person working for Lindemanns to give out all the details. Of course they do produce such a fine product, NOT! % % Why do I ask this? Well, if all you do is pull off the liquid and hold it % while continuing the main mash aren't you allowing the enzymes in the liquid % to continue converting the sugars/starches that have been extracted?? Isn't % this counter to the reason for doing a turbid mash in the first place?? While all this discussion has gone on has anyone pickup their Guinard and read the procedure he outlines in detail? I think most of your questions will be answered. The turbid mash is boiled, I asked JX about it. He also said a number of brewers do things differently using step mashes. I asked Don Feinberg to ask Boon what he does. Of course to me this seems rather silly. The turbid mash method evolved from a time when direct heating of mash tuns wasn't done. The extraction and conversion rates were poor. Here we are in america making lambic in a far from traditonal manner ( using pure cultures, fermenting in plastic, fermenting for less than 2 years, lions and tiger and bear Oh My!). So what is the big deal about doing a turbid mash. Sound like a waste of time and effort to get poor extraaction. Even guinard says that after all the mash is ready to be run off it is recirculated until it is clear. So I feel that using a step mash with 40% raw wheat should a good level of unfermentables provided you sparge with boiling water. I beleive that even using such a mash scheddule that one can convert all the starch in raw wheat. Wit brewers seem to get alot of unfermentables in the wort with regular techniques (i.e Celis) And to further throw tradition to the wind I agreee with Todd that if it worries you then throw in apound of maltodextrin. Guinard thinks this would be a good way to ensure the right amount of food. Also at 4 months my wort still turns iodine purple and red. Regardless of the food if the bugs don't grow then you still don't end up with the right flavor. This happens in real lambic breweries. I also helps to have alot of the right bugs. :-) Call me a heretic. I will now put on my kevlar suit. % % Comments??? Am I a genious or an idiot? (or is this obvious and I'm % just slow?) I plead the 5th. :-) Jim ------------ Posting 18: Extracted from file: 366 Date: 8 Jun 94 11:27:00 CST From: "DEV::FVH" Subject: My turbid mash. This was my attempt at a turbid mash profile. Modified from Sharp, Wilde and Guinard. This should add to the confusion. No data points to go with this so take it for what it's worth.... (ASCII graphics...) 6 gal recipe Malt (2-row) Raw Wheat Water ==== ===== ===== 8lbs 4.2 lbs 12qts (qt/lb) Milled with GM Milled with GM 131F | | | | | | +-----------------> Mash at 113F <-------------+ | | <---- addition boiling H20 | (I skipped this part because I) | (missed the 113 temp) Mash at 126F 20 min Taking of <----------------+ turbid mash | <---- addition boiling H20 heat to soft boil | | Mash at 149F | 15 min Taking of <----------------+ turbid mash | <---- addition boiling H20 reheat to soft boil | | Mash at 162F | 15 min Taking of <----------------+ turbid mash | | | reheated to soft boil ---->| (about 9 qts) | (3+3+3) Rest at 172F 20 min | |-----> sparge off 2 gal | |<---- added 6 gal boiling H20 | (in lauter tun, I like batch sparging) Rest at 203F 5 min |-----> sparge off 7 gal | (9 gl) boiling - annuated hops | 3oz | cool with emmersion chiller sieve/filter into 6.5 gal glass carboy pitch American Ale yeast | | Added french oak chips and Ped. after 1 week. | Add Brett. 2 weeks after Ped. ======== my comments: I missed the first rest. My dough-in water was hotter than 131F. Oops! The takings were mostly liquid with some grain(not much). About 3 qts out, about 3 qts in at each stage. For 149F, I had to do a decoction of 5 qts. My final water to grain ratio was less than 4 to 1. Could have used more boiling water to raise the temp. Attenuated hops were 2 packages of hop tea baked at 300F for 15 min. Nice and toasty. Should have sparged with more H2O. Had to top off the carboy. After 3+ hours of boil, more than 3 gal of liquid had evaporated. Iodine test before boil was blue. Wort turned out to be darker than I had expected. Maybe to much carmelization? OG was about 1.042 but at a higher than 60F temp. Need to recalibrate that darned thermometer. More sparging would have also helped the OG. This went pretty well. I did this all in my Coleman 40 qt chest cooler. Nice size. No warpage after the 203 rest. Hmmm. No notes on how the Plambic is progressing because it is still early. I have yet to add the Brett. It will go in before the hot summer months. If someone else decides to use this, please let me know how the corrections worked and how much more water had to be added at each step when using the 113F rest. Flame retardant suit on, Dirk ------------ Posting 19: Extracted from file: 366 Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 10:39:56 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Subject: Re: turbid mashing -- an observation/question Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu asks (in private e-mail): > The point about heating to 85C immediately makes sense. > > But don't you want to add the 85C liquid back to the mash to raise the > mash temperature for "mash-out"? Here are a few _guesses_. I'll happily collect votes on which one you feel is correct. You want to extract complex sugars and starches. After heating to 85C you have deactivated the various enzymes that would break down the sugars. Adding this liquid back to the main mash would then expose it to active enzymes. You haven't made it impossble for the enzymes to do their work, just more difficult. And another guess: You don't add it back for 'mash-out' because it would only require more sparging of the grain to recover the wort you had. (the wort you add back is going to have to filter through the bed and you're going to have to wash it out of the grain _again_. this could only increase your final volume) Again, all thoughts and comments are welcome. I'm just hypothesizing here. --Mike ------------ Posting 20: Extracted from file: 367 Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 08:52:17 MDT From: abirenbo@redwood.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim) Subject: more on turbid mashing Jim Liddil referred to guinards procedure. As i recall, it was rather sketchy, and took only about 1 page. Was there another place where he went into more detail??? I seem to remember that after taking about 3 turbid mashes, he re-introduced them to the grist, the arrows of mikes drawing seem to support this, but mike kept on talking about not re-introducing, for fear of converting too much starch. Am I mis-interpreting you, mike? It seems like bothe the diagram and guinard talk of re-introducetion... but prehaps guinard went to musche's (sp?) talk??? And... perhaps lindeman's lied. Why one would re-introduce the turbid run-off... I donno. was it clarification (filteration)? I'd think that we could leave it cloudy, since most of use are using SECONDARIES. aaron ------------ Posting 21: Extracted from file: 367 Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 16:36:07 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil Subject: More Turbid Bashing Mike writes: % Here are a few _guesses_. I'll happily collect votes on which one % you feel is correct. % % You want to extract complex sugars and starches. After heating to 85C % you have deactivated the various enzymes that would break down the sugars. % Adding this liquid back to the main mash would then expose it to active % enzymes. You haven't made it impossble for the enzymes to do their work, % just more difficult. I bet originally they did pump the wort back, no they just add more hot water. Also I think it might not matter alot about the enzymes still being active. There is so much starch from the raw wheat that a little more conversion is insignificant. Also Guinard mentions that the enzymes are probably pretty well attenuated at this temp. % % And another guess: % You don't add it back for 'mash-out' because it would only require more % sparging of the grain to recover the wort you had. (the wort you % add back is going to have to filter through the bed and you're going to % have to wash it out of the grain _again_. this could only increase % your final volume) If one is boiling for the "traditional" 5-6 hours volume doesn't matter. But the mash does get infused with alot of hot water I think because of the poor extraction and conversion. The brewers wnated to get all the goodies out they could using the technology and knowledge they had/have. One of the dissertations from KUL mentions that extraction efficiencies were/are poor using this technique. There must be a compromise between good extraction and getting a highly dextrinous wort without spending all day doing it. I favor step mashing and minimal recirculation and boiling sparge water and maybe some maltodextrin for the heck off it. Who knows? % % Again, all thoughts and comments are welcome. I'm just hypothesizing here. % And so am I. :-) Jim ------------ Posting 22: Extracted from file: 368 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 7:47:36 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil Subject: Turbid Mashing 2 Aaron writes: % % Jim Liddil referred to guinards procedure. As i recall, it was rather % sketchy, and took only about 1 page. Was there another place where he % went into more detail??? See pages 60-65 and 66-69 for what I think is a reasonable description. Guinard told me that this is the sort of procedure Cantillon was using as far as he could remeber. It will be interesting to see what Boon does. % % I seem to remember that after taking about 3 turbid mashes, he % re-introduced them to the grist, the arrows of mikes drawing seem % to support this, but mike kept on talking about not re-introducing, for % fear of converting too much starch. Am I mis-interpreting you, mike? % It seems like bothe the diagram and guinard talk of re-introducetion... % but prehaps guinard went to musche's (sp?) talk??? Reintroduction is only done at the end to raise the mash temp to conversion temp. All other temp boosts are done with boiling water according to Guinard. % And... perhaps % lindeman's lied. Why one would re-introduce the turbid run-off... % I donno. was it clarification (filteration)? I'd think that we could % leave it cloudy, since most of use are using SECONDARIES. I hope that most people are not using secondaries. One wants all that dead saccharomyces in there to provide food for the brett and pedio. So don't rack. Ed and I just don't see the world the same way :-) % % >Probably correct. I would not expect any person working for Lindemanns to give % >out all the details. Of course they do produce such a fine product, NOT! % % This random bashing of beer is out of place in this forum. If you % want browny points for smearing breweries take it to alt.beer where young % impressionable frosh with their first accounts will be happy to take notes. This is not random bashing. I don't want browny points. I personally feel Lindemanns products are not worth the effort. What is the point of spending years fermenting something to then add a lot of sugar and mask the flavor beyond recognition? Blandification is a bad thing. Jim ------------ Posting 23: Extracted from file: 368 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 09:43:30 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Subject: Re: Lambic Digest #367 (June 10, 1994) abirenbo@redwood.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim) > Subject: more on turbid mashing > > I seem to remember that after taking about 3 turbid mashes, he > re-introduced them to the grist, the arrows of mikes drawing seem > to support this, but mike kept on talking about not re-introducing, for > fear of converting too much starch. Am I mis-interpreting you, mike? You're right that I don't want to re-introduce the wort that has already been taken off. You're also right that I don't want to convert too much of the sugars in what has been taken off, but thats not the only reason for not reintroducing it (as I see it). The other reason that comes to mind is that you would then have to re-extract all of this from the grain bed. Why bother with the extra work? +++++++++++++++++++++++ Ed Hitchcock > Subject: Must I keep saying this? > > I really hate to do this... so do I [minor flame (cigarette lighter sized) omitted] Yes Ed, you're right, we shouldn't be bashing commercial producers. It doesn't win points with anyone. Sometimes, however, its best to let the occasional stray comment go by. You can read many different meanings into an e-mail comment. Lets all shake hands & make up before degrading to a flame war (please). --Mike ------------ Posting 24: Extracted from file: 370 Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 17:18:30 -0500 From: tmgierma@acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman) Subject: Gueuze snobbery, again? No, this has nothing to do with Jim Liddil's disdain for the "blandification" process :-) (I do think that even opinions can be informative). I raised this issue once before: what we get over here is pretty much gueuze, gueuze with cherries, gueuze with raspberries, or what have you. This is essentially a blended product with or without "refermentation" in the bottle. Is it really feasible to approximate successfully such a product with a single batch p-lambic? I seriously doubt it, even if one has cultured the crud from between the barrel staves in a blender's cellar. But this is a plea for enlightenment, not an epiphany on a soapbox: could somebody who has the knowledge please take a moment to comment on some of the "straight" lambics that one finds on tap in Brussels? Could you attempt to compare them to the house's Gueuze product (say Cantillon lambic to Cantillon Gueuze, for example)? Having recently violated my p-lambic by piercing the pellicle and drawing off about 50 ml for sampling and measurements, I am now ruminating on the virtues of blending (yes, again). I am pondering ways of boosting horsiness and other Brett contributions - like Jim, I don't think that the turbid mash is necessarily the answer. Finally, after six months I am getting a noticeable (by taste and pH strips) drop in pH - about pH 4.2. Yes, the souring has begun. However, I have lost much of the horsiness that was there at the end of the primary (I added Brett in the primary) and I am looking to get it back. I think that this may require blending or spiking and then bottling. My gravity is down to 1006, so I am not sure that there is too much left in the way of fermentables to bring back the horsiness. Phil Seitz responded in LD 350 to my pining for sourness: >Now, I'm not the person to be authoritative on lambics, but remember >that Guinard says higher temperatures (+/-75F) of summer are important >to developing your sourness, as pedio is a warmth-loving lactic >producer. In other words, (in theory at least) you won't get the >sourness you want if you keep the beer at cellar temp only. Perhaps >you could take your lambic with you to the beach? I think Phil is being a bit disingenuous, because everybody knows: you can dress them up, but you can't take them out - North Carolina law strictly prohibits opened containers of alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles, and it's too far to bicycle :-) Todd ------------ Posting 25: Extracted from file: 370 End of Lambic Digest ************************ ------- From postmaster@longs.lance.colostate.edu Tue Jun 14 04:07:56 1994 Received: from longs.lance.colostate.edu by goodman.itn.med.umich.edu with SMTP id AA23451 (5.65b/IDA-1.4.3 for spencer@hendrix.itn.med.umich.edu); Tue, 14 Jun 94 04:07:51 -0400 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by longs.lance.colostate.edu (8.6.5/8.6.5a (LANCE 1.01)) id AAA09145 for reallambic@longs.lance.colostate.edu; Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:30:07 -0600 Message-Id: <199406140630.AAA09145@longs.lance.colostate.edu> Reply-To: lambic@longs.lance.colostate.edu (postings only - do not send subscription requests here) Errors-To: lambic-request@longs.lance.colostate.edu Status: O X-Status: From: lambic-request@longs.lance.colostate.edu (subscription requests only - do not post here) To: lambic@longs.lance.colostate.edu Subject: Lambic Digest #370 (June 14, 1994) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:30:07 -0600 Lambic Digest #370 Tue 14 June 1994 Forum on Lambic Beers (and other Belgian beer styles) Mike Sharp, Digest Coordinator Contents: Re: Blizzard Bock (bickham) Gueuze snobbery, again? (Todd Gierman) Re: Blizzard Bock (Timothy J. Dalton) Re: "Lambic Blizzard" (Jim Busch) tasting impressions... aren't you jealous???!!! (Aaron Birenboim) two for the price of one (Michael Sharp) Turbid Mash Report (This is a longee but goodee) (Donovan Bodishbaugh) Send article submissions only to: lambic@longs.lance.colostate.edu Send all other administrative requests (subscribe/unsubscribe/change) to: lambic-request@longs.lance.colostate.edu Back issues are available by mail; send empty message with subject 'HELP' to: netlib@longs.lance.colostate.edu A FAQ is also available by netlib; say 'send faq from lambic' as the subject or body of your message (to netlib@longs.lance.colostate.edu). ------------ Posting 26: Extracted from file: 370 Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 17:18:30 -0500 From: tmgierma@acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman) Subject: Gueuze snobbery, again? No, this has nothing to do with Jim Liddil's disdain for the "blandification" process :-) (I do think that even opinions can be informative). I raised this issue once before: what we get over here is pretty much gueuze, gueuze with cherries, gueuze with raspberries, or what have you. This is essentially a blended product with or without "refermentation" in the bottle. Is it really feasible to approximate successfully such a product with a single batch p-lambic? I seriously doubt it, even if one has cultured the crud from between the barrel staves in a blender's cellar. But this is a plea for enlightenment, not an epiphany on a soapbox: could somebody who has the knowledge please take a moment to comment on some of the "straight" lambics that one finds on tap in Brussels? Could you attempt to compare them to the house's Gueuze product (say Cantillon lambic to Cantillon Gueuze, for example)? Having recently violated my p-lambic by piercing the pellicle and drawing off about 50 ml for sampling and measurements, I am now ruminating on the virtues of blending (yes, again). I am pondering ways of boosting horsiness and other Brett contributions - like Jim, I don't think that the turbid mash is necessarily the answer. Finally, after six months I am getting a noticeable (by taste and pH strips) drop in pH - about pH 4.2. Yes, the souring has begun. However, I have lost much of the horsiness that was there at the end of the primary (I added Brett in the primary) and I am looking to get it back. I think that this may require blending or spiking and then bottling. My gravity is down to 1006, so I am not sure that there is too much left in the way of fermentables to bring back the horsiness. Phil Seitz responded in LD 350 to my pining for sourness: >Now, I'm not the person to be authoritative on lambics, but remember >that Guinard says higher temperatures (+/-75F) of summer are important >to developing your sourness, as pedio is a warmth-loving lactic >producer. In other words, (in theory at least) you won't get the >sourness you want if you keep the beer at cellar temp only. Perhaps >you could take your lambic with you to the beach? I think Phil is being a bit disingenuous, because everybody knows: you can dress them up, but you can't take them out - North Carolina law strictly prohibits opened containers of alcoholic beverages in motor vehicles, and it's too far to bicycle :-) Todd ------------ Posting 27: Extracted from file: 370 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 16:04:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Donovan Bodishbaugh Subject: Turbid Mash Report (This is a longee but goodee) This is the actual schedule of my interpretation of a turbid mash/brew, as it came to pass yesterday (Sunday). It went quite well, and was not as cumbersome as you might think. I used the step temps that Mike Sharp posted as guidelines (which are the same as those in Guinard), but here's what I actually did. Approx. hot water infusion volumes are shown in parentheses. Approx. total volume of the mash at each step is shown in the column at right. Grain Bill: 10# 2-row (half domestic, half DeWolf-Cosyns pilsner) 6.5# soft white wheat berries Hops: 6.6 oz. year old, oven-baked hops. (*See Comment) Mash: Mash Volume: Strike @ 125F (4.5 gal) 9.0 gal 20 min rest @ 117F 20 min rest @ 126F (1 gal) 10.0 gal 2 gal turbid mash decoction 8.0 gal 20 min rest @ 148F (3 gal) 11.0 gal 2 gal turbid mash decoction 9.0 gal 45 min rest @ 158F (3 gal) 12.0 gal 3.5 gal turbid mash decoction 8.5 gal Mashout @ 172 (4 gal) 12.5 gal Filter Mash Combine runnings and turbid mash in brewpot Boil: 3 hrs. Add all hops 30 min into boil. Cover and allow to cool overnight in boiler. Volume at start of boil = 14-15 gal Final yield = 7.5 gal OG=1.055 Fermentation: This morning, I pitched 50 ml each of the following: Klockera, Pedio, Brett. B., Brett A. I intend to pitch Saison Dupont and Gueuze Boon bottle cultures in a few days to a week. Comments: *This is Guinard's hopping rate of 0.4 oz./# grain. This is far less than the 5-6x normal figure commonly tossed around the LD. I mean, who makes beer with 1 oz. hops per 7.5 gal? I had a brief discussion with Mike Sharp about this a couple of weeks ago. I think we may be leading people astray with this 5-6x normal stuff (or we should really use 2 oz. hops per gallon). The mash itself went very smooth. The volume of liquid you collect is obviously ridiculous, but that's a boiling issue, not a mashing one. I mash in a 56 qt. Igloo cooler, and I adjusted the decoctions and steps to keep under that total. Hot water infusions were via a standpipe in the copper pipe manifold. Turbid mash decoctions were drained from the manifold (liquid only) and heated immediately to 185F. They were NOT returned to the main mash. The first one looked like milk. After that, they became progressively clearer. I could have kept the volumes lower by starting with a stiffer mash, and by more vigilantly keeping my infusion water at boiling. It slipped to 190F or so at one point. In any case, you can always adjust the decoctions to suit your setup. No, I did not sparge, but the last infusion is, in effect, a batch sparge. I recirculated the filtrate until clear, since I knew I had plenty of complex carbos already. The yield is not all that bad. I would have even been happy with a few points less. The boil also went quite well. My cut-off keg boiler only holds about 12 gal without risk of boilover, so I held back 2 gal or so for the first hour. Boiling off all that water was really no problem. My King Kooker with heat shroud was never more than about half throttle (wide open I think would melt the pot). I don't think a 3 hour boil is all that excessive anyway. Propane is cheap, and Guinard discusses reasons why a long boil is desired for lambics. I caught a good baseball game during the boil. Conclusions: This method is totally doable on this scale. This was a very long (maybe 8 hr. start to finish) brewing session, but a very low stress one. No gooey, pot-scortching wheat pre-boil. No sticky, drippy grain decoctions. No stuck wheat sparge/filter (due to all those steps). No cooling. The worst part was grinding the wheat berries (which I did the night before). I'd do it this way again (although my next batch will be a single step Pale Ale). If you are foolish enough to try this, here are my reccomendations: - Start early - Use an adequate sized mash vessel - Keep a BIG pot (I used a 10 gal) on the fire during mashing, topped up with boiling water for infusions. - Have some boiler arrangement that can cope with all that water. My Kooker can easily boil off 3-4 gal per hour. To quote Mike Sharp, "If you don't like it, then don't follow it". But please do comment. I'll post in a couple of years to tell you if this method makes good beer :). Rick Bodishbaugh ------------ Posting 28: Extracted from file: 383 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 09:15:57 PDT From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) Subject: In response to his lordship 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) Jim Liddil writes: > Subject: The Holy Grail and the Secret of My Success > > Well now that I have your attention, I want to publically thank Mike Sharp for > providing a forum for us to discuss making lambic-style ales. Thanks. Its nice to be appreciated. Now on to real issues... > Mike and I agree to disagree on some things but I feel that part of my success > as far as getting a big brett character and acidity is the use of multiple > organisms since this is what is found in real lambic. To clarify a bit, I'm not as convinced as Jim is about the importance of the enterics. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise and I reserve the right to change my mind again when I reread the thesis on enterics in lambic. 8-) I do pitch numerous organisms (maybe a dozen where in my last batch) at low concentrations. I don't think we disagree on the importance of the mixed fermentation in general, just on the importance of individual organisms and their interactions. For the moment I'm still playing with the turbid mash. I just received my P-2 gel from Bio-Rad a few days ago. I'm now about to start analyzing wort from different mash techniques. (after I finish some much needed _major_ body surgery on my car) > [various stuff about adding fruit too early] > ... > This reminds me of something Mike posted a while ago. He said he bottled his > framboise and added an ale yeast. Well MIke do you think the ale yeast could > survive in this kind of environment. In the dissertations the data show that > the sacchromyces is killed byt the environment I seem to recall. But you will > correct me if I am full of it. I have had a problem with carbonation, but I haven't determined if its due to a lack of sugars (will Brett/Pedio gobble them up faster than the Sacch. _and_ not generate CO2? or perhaps not enough priming sugar was added -- I'll have to check the notes) or the cells dying off. Jim Liddil then writes: > First as to my comment about Mike's use of ale yeast. Well I failed to > remember that Boon uses 96% old lambic and 4% 2-3 week old lambic in his > gueuze. And many of us seem to be able to culture only non-cylcoheximide > resitant yeasts from the bottles these days. So at least belgian saccharomyces > can work in that acid level. Or so it seems since there is also a fair amount > of bacteria present also. Hence the great mystery as to why my batch didn't really cabonate. --Mike ------------ Posting 29: Extracted from file: 384 Date: 1 Jul 94 16:44:00 GMT From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: Carbonation/What's crucial? I did not have any problems with carbonation of my pKriek (the one that has made it to the 2nd round two times now, only to be squashed by superior beers like Jim's -- actually, the judges said it needed more Brett nose -- I agree). Here's what my schedule looked like: 4/1/92 pitched starters from 1) SNPA, 2) B. Lambicus, and 3) P. Cerevisiae ~9/1/92 racked 3.5 gallons onto 13# of Washington Black Cherries 1/26/93 bottled, priming with 3/4 cup corn sugar I don't believe that I opened a bottle till about March or April, but it was acceptably carbonated. ************* What's crucial to making pLambics close to the real thing? Well, I still don't think we still know what's crucial, but I think we can now take a guess at what's not crucial: 1. turbid mash (Jim's pLambic was made with extract), and 2. wood (Jim's pLambic was made in plastic). Notice that I said "crucial" and not "helpful." So that's not to say that the beers may have come out even better with an all-grain, turbid mash, etc. Also, this may be a reinforcement of the theory that perhaps the true importance of the wood to a pure-culture Lambic is it's oxygen permiability (which Jim's plastic fermenters also have). Perhaps, Jim's beer would have been even better aged in oak -- more so for the oaky flavor than for the environment for the microbiota. This would imply that possibly oak chips added to a ferment in a plastic fermenter might be almost as good as actually fermenting in an oak cask. My point is that, I think that with all the talk about turbid mashs and casks lately, perhaps we should be careful to not place too much hope in a three-culture, all-grain, turbid mash batch aged in oak. Rather, I personally feel that Jim's success may indicate that finding the *right* cultures may be considerably more important than the turbid mash or oak aging. Don't forget also, that some extracts are very high in dextrins (like Laaglander dry) which could be used by the microbiota for long-term sustenance in place of the starch in the turbid mash. I hope I don't sound too cynical (I don't mean to) nor do I want to discount all the interesting experimentation that many of us have been doing with turbid mashes and oak casks. Oak chips in plastic fermenters may sound like blasphemy, but think about it: what most separates true lambic brewers from the Real Ale, Pils and other "conventional" brewers is the spontaneous fermentation, no? And we, pLambic homebrewers, have already replaced this with pure cultures. In my opinion, since we have little hope of producing anything close to Cantillon or Hansens or Boon via spontaneous fermentation in Anytown, USA, why would oak chips in plastic fermenters be any more blasphemous? Comments? Al. ------------ Posting 30: Extracted from file: 384 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 16:14:24 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil Subject: Also Sprach Zarathustra Mike writes with no sarcasm whatsoever % Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 09:15:57 PDT % From: msharp@Synopsys.COM (Michael Sharp) % Subject: In response to his lordship 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) And I hope you bow when you say that :-) :-o % Now on to real issues... % % > Mike and I agree to disagree on some things but I feel that part of my success % > as far as getting a big brett character and acidity is the use of multiple % > organisms since this is what is found in real lambic. % To clarify a bit, I'm not as convinced as Jim is about the importance of % the enterics. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise and I % reserve the right to change my mind again when I reread the thesis on % enterics in lambic. 8-) My belief is that the enterics and kloeckera both produce acid and use up the simple sugars and thus prevent the saccharomyces from getting out of hand as far as growth rate. And thus the bacteria and other yeasts have a gradual chance to adpat to the changing environment of increased alcohol and pH. Then they can grow better. That is my hypothesis based on the data. % I do pitch numerous organisms (maybe a dozen % where in my last batch) at low concentrations. I don't think we disagree % on the importance of the mixed fermentation in general, just on the % importance of individual organisms and their interactions. Well when someone produces a plambic that is close to the real thing using just yeast and pedio and lactos I will be convinced. Any one who has samples they would like me to try can send me private e-mail for the address to send them to :-) % % For the moment I'm still playing with the turbid mash. I just received % my P-2 gel from Bio-Rad a few days ago. I'm now about to start analyzing % wort from different mash techniques. (after I finish some much needed % _major_ body surgery on my car) % Publish in brewing techniques. % I have had a problem with carbonation, but I haven't determined if its % due to a lack of sugars (will Brett/Pedio gobble them up faster than % the Sacch. _and_ not generate CO2? or perhaps not enough priming sugar % was added -- I'll have to check the notes) or the cells dying off. % % Jim Liddil then writes: % > First as to my comment about Mike's use of ale yeast. Well I failed to % > remember that Boon uses 96% old lambic and 4% 2-3 week old lambic in his % > gueuze. And many of us seem to be able to culture only non-cylcoheximide % > resitant yeasts from the bottles these days. So at least belgian saccharomyces % > can work in that acid level. Or so it seems since there is also a fair amount % > of bacteria present also. % % Hence the great mystery as to why my batch didn't really cabonate. Some experiments to try. Submerge a bottle in water and see if the bottles leak gas since you used corks. Try to culture bugs out of the bottles. "Their dead Jim" % Brett generates lots of gas at least on YM slants. I did not add anything to my pgueuze prior to adding corn sugar. Perform some sort of sacrafice :-) Jim from on High ------------ Posting 31: Extracted from file: 387 Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 11:44:17 +0200 From: thomasr@ezrz1.vmsmail.ethz.ch (ROB THOMAS) Subject: Hope this gets through! Hello all, This is the fourth attempt to post this message. Hopefully it will get through this time! Anyway, I'll get to the points: 1) There has been sporadic discussion of the phenomenon called rope, or ropy beer. It seems to me that there is a certain misunderstanding of the symptoms of this weird affliction. My first attempted post was going to be a purely "I-read-here-and-there-that..." thing. However, I now have direct experience of the stuff. First of all, symptoms of ropiness don't include white scum, haze or any other stuff you might see when looking at the fermentation. What I have witnessed (in agreement with Hind, Briggs and van Oevelen) is that the fermentation looks normal (as far as this word can be used for lambics), but that the weirdness starts when you try pouring the stuff. My second batch is just such a case. The liquid has the consistency of hot honey (or possibly engine oil). When poured it looks like a rope (hence the name I guess). Currently it doesn't seem to be getting worse (van Oevelen reports bottles going solid!), but only time will tell. I suspect that the very hot weather we're having here has alot to do with it. The ferments are at upto 30 degC much of the time, which may be causing the Peds to mutate into slime formers. 2) There is alot of discussion about what is necessary for a good lambic, and what is superfluous, particularly now that there is a show-stopping example out there (congrats. Jim). My comment is that however good Jim's homebrew was, we should not start trying to emulate the techniques used to make it. Even more importantly, we should take all suggestions and many research results with a hefty pinch of salt, since the whole process of lambic brewing is so poorly understood. What seems important now may be taken as irrelevant later, and vice versa. Hence, the more people doing different things the better, since this all adds vital data points. 3) The fruit thing. Jackson has said that cherries are added as early as 3 months by some brewers, though more usually after at least a summer. 4) Also, I read somewhere that BelleVue have introduced an "uncompromising" gueuze on the market. Anyone have any further info? 5) Finally, Mike, the gpc technique seems to be the way to go for sugar analysis. I tried the tlc method and found I couldn't tell the difference between a decoction mash and the (heavily simplified) turbid mash I tried. they were obviously very different by taste (prior to boiling). I still think the most important part is the first removal, when the beta amylase is essentially removed. Anyway, happy brewing Rob. ------------ Posting 32: Extracted from file: 388 Date: Tue, 5 Jul 94 09:06:14 PST From: Martin Wilde Subject: Notes from my Belgium trip Text item: Text_1 While I was in Belgium the last couple of weeks I made a point to ask the various brewers questions that seem to surface here in the LD. Here is the questions and there responses: 1) How do you do a turbid mash: Frank Boon replied that you take roughly 30% of the liquid at mash in and bring that to a boil for 5 minutes. During the time the liquid is coming to a boil, you perform step mashes on the main mash. The boiled liquid is re-combined with the main mash at sparge time. 2) Temperature range for producing lambics: Frank Boon replied that you should never get above 19C (66F). I noticed that some felt brett did good at 75F. Mr. Boon replied that this is too warm... 3) Is there a difference in Boon Framboise/Kriek shipped to the US and that in Belgium: Mr. Boon replied no, the only difference is the labels... martin ------------ Posting 33: Extracted from file: 389 Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 15:47:32 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil Subject: Turbid Mashing Martin wrote: % 1) How do you do a turbid mash: Frank Boon replied that you take % roughly 30% of the liquid at mash in and bring that to a boil for 5 % minutes. During the time the liquid is coming to a boil, you perform % step mashes on the main mash. The boiled liquid is re-combined with the % main mash at sparge time. So you asked Frank what he does or did you say how would I (Martin) do a turbid mash. Is this actually what Frank does or is it what he suggested you to do? % % 2) Temperature range for producing lambics: Frank Boon replied that you % should never get above 19C (66F). I noticed that some felt brett did % good at 75F. Mr. Boon replied that this is too warm... Probably never gets above 19 C in Belgium anyway :-) Jim ------------ Posting 34: Extracted from file: 390 Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 16:34:08 PST From: Martin Wilde Subject: Re: Turbid Mashing and Temperature Text item: Text_1 In Digest #389 Jim Liddil asks: < So you asked Frank what he does or did you say how would I (Martin), < do a turbid < mash. Is this actually what Frank does or is it what he suggested you < to do? < % < % 2) Temperature range for producing lambics: Frank Boon replied that < you < % should never get above 19C (66F). I noticed that some felt brett < < did < % good at 75F. Mr. Boon replied that this is too warm... < Probably never gets above 19 C in Belgium anyway :-) Well Jim, since Frank told me he uses a turbid mash, I then asked him how he does his... since we had some confusion about it... (at least some of us...). If you paid attention to the weather reports you would notice that Brussells was in the 30C range the last couple of weeks (trust me I was there... without air conditioning). ------------ Requested from mashtun.jpl.nasa.gov, Tue Jul 12 18:09:43 EDT 1994 Thread by Tom Kaltenbach HTML translation by Spencer.Thomas@med.umich.edu