Jump to content

CDE

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by CDE

  1. Hey Pooky bear (couldn't resist), that is absolutely an option for gelatinizing the corn separately then cooling to malted barley enzyme temperature ranges. Something to watch for is the starch thickening as the temperature drops and turning your mash into polenta. A high temp alpha amylase is your friend when working with corn. It is cheap, highly effective, and makes everything easier... --- To the second question. How much malted barley you want to use to corn in entirely up to you. Just take into account the DP of the malt you are using to convert X much more corn and how long your mash is going to have to sit to get the full conversion. More malt makes the conversion go faster (generally speaking) but also greatly increases the price of the grain per batch. That is a bit more subjective. People will argue that many ways. I would say look at your flavor as a total sum equation. grain bill + yeast profile + distillation (cuts etc.) + aging techniques + blending techniques = final whiskey flavor The grains are just one part of the many things that go into making a whiskey.
  2. Raw corn needs higher temps than a standard infusion mash to properly gelatinize the starch. 180F + for an hour or two works well, boiling also works awesomely. Problem is malted barley enzymes are limited to 160F (ish). So you are going to have to gelatinize the corn separately or first, then add malted barley after cooling and wait for those enzymes to do their magic for a couple hours in the 140-160 F range. Or you could gelatinize the corn at 180-190 F with a high temp alpha-amylase and everything will be grand. Side Note: Is 15% of the mash bill enough to call it a "Wheated bourbon"? I always figured wheaters had 30-40% of the mash bill being wheat derived... I would call that mash bill "four grain bourbon" or something. Maybe its just me. Cheers!
  3. Hey Jimmy, A better question is "What is the ideal pH for my initial yeast inoculation/pitch?" And/or "What is the ideal pH for whatever enzymes I am using to ensure I get a good conversion of starch to sugar?" Yeast (generally) enjoys being in the range of pH = 4-5 at the start, and then the mash acidifies as ethanol is produced and other products that acidify the mash over the course of the fermentation. It is not uncommon for a mash to drop from 4.5 to about 3.5 at the end of fermentation. This doesn't need to be corrected for typically, just start the yeast in the right pH range and they will do the rest (provided temp and nutrients are sufficient). Enzymes is a whole nother topic and details will vary based on enzyme source, I'll spare the details as there are other threads or websites that have good information about enzymes. Final pH is good information to have, but it should not be terribly important to your actual procedures. Instead final pH gives you an indication if something has changed. For instance if your mash was infected, your pH would keep dropping due to a sour bacteria or the like. Cheers! CDE
  4. Hey Jimmy, I think it might have something to do with RO removing salts from the water. So unless you compensated for that, you removed the natural buffer system in average (unfiltered) water. This would allow the acidification of the mash to continue to much lower levels than normally seen because nothing is slowing down the process. http://byo.com/malt/item/1675-advanced-brewing More info about buffer systems in the link above. You would need to re-add salts to the mash or water to prevent this from happening again. Cheers! CDE
  5. Heyoo Zwithers, I was reading this and realized that we needed to get you a good answer. I might recommend looking at this topic and seeing some of the stuff written. http://adiforums.com/index.php?showtopic=5862 To address your particular questions though here we go. Considering your current mash bill, you should be able to get away with a medium temperature mashing style. Bring temps into the 145-165 range with a medium temperature alpha-amylase and that should burn through the starch converting it into dextrins fairly quickly. In this mash your flaked corn has been gelatinized/ modified to an extent, so the starch should be easily accessible. Malted barley is also pre-modified and should gelatinize easily. The raw rye might not fully breakdown without the warmer temperatures of 160-170 F and a beta-glucanase enzyme though. That being said, I do not see much of a Saccharification enzyme in there except for the 6 row malt providing a beta-amylase. You should look into supplementing with additional beta-amylase (or fungal alpha-amylase) or a glucoamylase to assist in the degradation of dextrins into fermentable sugars. *More detail in that linked post Glucoamylase is what most industrial manufacturers use. That or a combination including glucoamylase. It is a wonderful enzyme that will break down every sugar it comes across into glucose. It also has side alpha-1,6 activity which will break previously unfermentable sugars down as well (has to do with the structure of amylopectin chains). Beta-amylase or fungal alpha-amylase (functionally similar) will work to supplement the beta-amylase that is being provided by the 6-row malt. It is a good enzyme that can be found at enzyme providers but is a bit more expensive. Enzyme Providers: Specialty Enzymes, Gusmer Enterprises (Novozymes), BSG (Kerry Enzymes), White Labs (DSM), and more… As for your OG, I think you can ferment that well enough with your yeast and a good nutrient program. But, as others have mentioned, you might have to deal with longer fermentations. Are you adding additional nutrients throughout the fermentation? What are you using currently to feed the yeast? Flaked corn is seriously deficient in nutrients… “Mcsology” Had some good recommendations. Best of luck! CDE
  6. Hey Jimmy, Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, maybe I will write a book one of these days… What “miller” said is correct, grinding to a flour provides higher extract on average, and is generally the best way to fully utilize the starch on simpler systems. However flour is a bit harder to work with (clumping and fire hazard) compared to cracked or rolled grain. Steaming and rolling is also a good method of getting your grain cell walls disturbed enough to extract the starch, though perhaps not as thorough as grinding. At the end of the say the take home is as such: The best method to use on your system, is the method that works best on your system. Though there might be better ways to theoretically get higher yields, it may not be possible on your system. Though “miller” is correct that sprouted of malted grain would save on cost of enzymes, it is important to point out that sprouted or malted grain is usually much more expensive than raw grain, so you would actually spend money avoiding enzymes. Raw grain conversions with enzymes is the cheapest and arguably the most effective method for starch conversion currently (go ask an ethanol plant). Cheers! CDE
  7. I forgot to mention. For a 100% raw wheat mash, you would probably want to look into a medium temp alpha-amylase, glucoamylase, and beta-glucanase. High temp alpha-amylase would work as well, the higher temps might not be worth their cost considering the lower gelatinization temp of wheat. That being said, if you plan on mashing other grains on a regular basis (like corn) it might be easier to have one procedure rather than several... CDE
  8. So we have everything pretty much laid out for you already OP but I'll rehash a little bit and consolidate. Typically you are looking at a 3 step conversion process to turn grain starch into fermentable sugars. Gelatinization – Process of solubilizing starch granules in water. Typically accomplished by grinding grain and heating in the presence of water. Liquefaction – Initial breakdown of solubilized starch. Converts starch into dextrins (random sugars) Saccharification – Final breakdown of dextrins into fermentable sugars. These have to be done in order or, in some cases, simultaneously. It is not a good idea to try to saccharify liquefied starch, nor is it a good idea to try to liquefy un-gelatinized starch. Enzymes do not assist gelatinization typically. They are generally used for liquefaction and/or saccharification. Liquefaction we are talking alpha-amylases. Of which there are thee main temperature ranges (already listed in above posts). The ideal part about using a high temperature alpha-amylase is that simultaneous gelatinization and liquefaction can take place at 80-90 C. Saccharification we are talking beta-amylases or glucoamylases (every enzyme that has “amylase” in it will work on starch because starch = “amylose”). Beta-amylases are common in brewing (as it is found in malted barley) and will work to produce maltose, glucose, and other unfermentable sugars. Glucoamylases are frequently used by distilleries because it will convert all dextrins (random sugars) into glucose. Additionally glucoamylase has a side 1, 6 activity which will allow further degradation of some sugars that were previously unfermentable. Beta-Glucanases on the other hand are a hemicellulase that will work to break down a very specific compound found commonly in wheat, barley, rye, and oats called beta-glucan. Beta-glucans can cause viscosity issues and gum up a mash or an immersion heater. This enzyme has little to no effect on starch and sugar conversions/yields. TL: DR. Alpha-amylase is used for Liquefaction, Glucoamylase is good for Saccharification, and Beta-Glucanase is generally only applicable to rye, wheat, or barley mashes. Please consult your enzyme provider for specific pH and temperature ranges of individual enzymes. Cheers! CDE
  9. Very well said. Hopefully, like you said, people will take a hint from the example being made on Templeton/Tito's/ whomever else. Yet also it hopefully does not set a precedent... I like the idea of companies being more honest, i just do no like the overhanging threat of being sued to be the motivator.
  10. Some people keeping track of the whiskey side of things... http://recenteats.blogspot.com/p/the-complete-list-of-american-whiskey.html I think Chuck might be laying into some people or working with someone on this issue. http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2014/07/urge-your-congressional-representative.html
  11. Hey Roots, I don’t see you using an alpha-amylase in there for the initial starch liquefaction. I also didn’t see anything about malt or other enzymes that were being used for conversion. The SEBamyl GL is a glucoamylase (an exo-amylase) and will work very slowly on long chains of starch. Generally glucoamylases are not recommended as the sole enzymes to be used for starch conversion, they are typically recommended as the second enzyme to be used after liquefaction with an alpha-amylase. Also didn’t catch the general mashing procedures that you were trying out or any limitations on the system as well… However, let’s volunteer some information and get on with it eh? The big 3 steps need to be addressed when we talk about turning starch into fermentable sugar: Gelatinization, Liquefaction, and Saccharification. These steps need to be performed in the aforementioned order, or (in some cases) these steps can be performed simultaneously. Example of simultaneously performing all three steps at once would be a standard infusion mash with malted barley. Gelatinization is accomplished by heat and in the presence of water. Need to hit the temperature range for the specific grain you are working on to achieve thorough gelatinization. Physical disruption (through finer grinding of the grain) helps tremendously here. Liquefaction is generally accomplished by an alpha-amylase. One provided by malt or exogenous will suffice. Work within the recommended pH and temp ranges. Saccharification in this case is performed by the glucoamylase, though other enzymes are used here as well. Work within manufacturer recommended temperature and pH ranges. Do all those steps in order and you will get good conversions. Maximizing your yields comes from making sure water: grain ratios are optimal for your system, calculating the theoretical yields based on your starch contents, working with optimum yeast fermentations, optimal yeasts, good nutrition, optimal agitation, so on and so forth. As fldme was aiming for, calculate your theoretical yields based on starch content and work from there to optimize. I doubt many people get 90%+ efficiencies (due to losses and inefficiencies), but it will give you a ballpark of where to be. If you provide more detail on the specifications of your mashing, I am sure we will be able to help. Cheers! CDE
  12. I second the flaked corn, that option is probably your best bet for a cold cook method with decent yields. Throw a low temp alpha-amylase and a glucoamylase into the mash for the starch to sugar conversion and it can all be done at room temp. If you want to use ground corn, the real problem you are going to run into is efficiencies. Gelatinization of the corn starch is only(really) accomplished through heating in the presence of water. If the starch is not gelatinized properly/thoroughly, the yields will be in the dumpster. Exogenous enzymes could help to some extent, but the starch in the corn needs significant amounts of heat to be freed up enough for the enzymes to munch on. Good luck!
  13. I don't know about TTB tables, but here is a table ripped from The Alcohol Textbook 4th Edtion by K.A. Jacque, T.P. Lyons, and D.R. Kelsall. Published 2003. ISBN1-897676-13-1 Table 2. Typical alcohol yields from various cereals. Cereal Yield (US Gallons Alcohol/Bushel) Fine Grind Corn1 (3/16 inch) ---------- 2.85 Coarse Grind Corn (5/16 inch)---------2.65 Milo ------------------------------------------2.60 Barley ---------------------------------------2.50 Rye ----------------------------------------- 2.40 Note that a distiller’s bushel is always a measure of weight. It is always 56 lbs., regardless of the type of grain. 1 Laboratory data using Rhizozyme™ as glucoamylase source.
  14. Volume measurements are very tricky and require some pretty intense math and conversions to make them work. Volume constants are given under STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure), or under SATP (Standard Ambient Temp and Pressure). So your 1L of water is really only 1L at whatever constant was found. If it is warm outside and you are at 3,000ft elevation, you have 2 corrections to make to your water, and 2 corrections to make to your ethanol. Every time you want to proof these calculations will have to be done again. This will also increase the margin of error and increase variability in the product As Left Turn also mentioned, volume is subjective. What looks like 100mL to one person, is 105mL to another. More room for potential error. Weight on the other hand is joyfully consistent with fairly easy calculations. The pull of gravity doesn't change all that much (except at elevation as well). Given that an accurate digital weight scale can be found for less than $100 and proofing containers could be 5 gallon water jugs... I would say weight is the best way to go.
×
×
  • Create New...