How to tell when conversion is complete

[Sadfield]

Going out on a limb here, and say the quoted brewer is more experienced and qualified than 99.9% of this forums membership.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/andy-runcie-51029129

So, yes they probably do.

 

[Rodcx500z]

He may well be more experienced and qualified but, his job most boring, get him on our level on a BZ gen4 woulddn't have a feckin clue

 

[Sadfield]

Deluded.

 

[ARNWD]

Off Topic but

it's an historical English "Ale" known as "Stitch"

On my text tab in my browser I have open "London and Country Brewer" first printed in 1730 and I am on page 23.

Page 23 includes "For brewing Strong brown Ale called Stitch". What a remarkable coincidence to read about "Stitch" then see it mentioned in a post as I start browsing this forum.

 

[Rodcx500z]

Deluded.

why i would hate to go to work everyday doing the same old thing

 

[Sadfield]

get him on our level on a BZ gen4 woulddn't have a feckin clue

Deluded if you think macros get to be billion dollar companies with global brands by not employing the cream of the crop. And that a certified master brewer with a degree in Brewing and Distilling, and 20 plus years experience, can't handle your poxy little BZ. Not liking the products doesn't mean you can throw all sensible logic out of the window.

 

[Twostage]

Off Topic but



On my text tab in my browser I have open "London and Country Brewer" first printed in 1730 and I am on page 23.

Page 23 includes "For brewing Strong brown Ale called Stitch". What a remarkable coincidence to read about "Stitch" then see it mentioned in a post as I start browsing this forum.

I've got that book/pdf permanently open. Its really interesting, how they interpreted what was going on during mash and ferment and how he considered rousing the yeast as evil.

It took me quite a while for my brain to convert f to s. It also shows the old way of writing etc. Great book.

 

[peebee]

Off Topic but



On my text tab in my browser I have open "London and Country Brewer" first printed in 1730 and I am on page 23.

Page 23 includes "For brewing Strong brown Ale called Stitch". What a remarkable coincidence to read about "Stitch" then see it mentioned in a post as I start browsing this forum.

(And @Twostage)

1730? I had 1736, but I guess "30" was a typo? And it was the recipe I was following (not much choice!), or at least an interpretation of it. Write up <here> and (off-site - Jim's Beer Kit) <here> (complete with pretty piccie and preceding posts working up to it). The interpretation was in CAMRA's "Homebrew Classics Stout and Porter" book, Pg.76. My own screwy brown malt emulations! Brewers now use a radically different malt that also gets called "brown malt" ... back in 1736 it was just "malt"!

No "Iodine" used! Would be handy if there was an indicator that could differentiate between unfermentable dextrin (and larger "oligosaccharides" ... dextrin is considered by some to only cover chains of up to twelve glucose units) and fermentable simple sugars (malto-triose is a dextrin that is fermentable by many yeasts). I've not found such an (cheap) indicator ... anyone else?

Remember, in 1736 they didn't know about "yeast". Some thought it was a chemical reaction which also created a waste product in the form of insoluble sludge. But they did know the sludge was useful to get the next lot going. The "yeast" they were using would most likely not handle the only fermentable (by some) dextrin (three glucose units long).

The malt and high temperature mashing (they had no thermometers in common use - though the principle was described in the 17th C.) resulted in the "liquid bread", or "ale". Hops had nothing to do with defining "ale". Many were happy to have hops in their ale once the Flemish immigrants had established the agricultural techniques (hops weren't common native plants across the nation): And many were not happy with hops in their ale! High temperature mashing (short) and dextrin averse yeast ("Windsor", although I've since found it unreliable as "dextrin averse"; try S-33 or WY1099 instead) were the techniques I used.

Ah! Let me make it pretty:

Ale at Xmas. The white stuff is hoar frost for those that have forgotten, and it used to occur in this country.

 

[Twostage]

I've got that book/pdf permanently open. Its really interesting, how they interpreted what was going on during mash and ferment and how he considered rousing the yeast as evil.

It took me quite a while for my brain to convert f to s. It also shows the old way of writing etc. Great book.

Realised that etc. should have been in quotes as in - the old way of writing "etc." which was "&c".

 

[Twostage]

Obvious conclusion: Iodine is a perfectly useless tool for confirming the "completion" of a mash.

This reminds me of when I used to work in Higher Education. There was a culture of "it must work for all situations or we can't use it". Used to drive me mad. The battles I had getting systems implemented that "only" worked 99.99% of the time but saved time and loads of repetitive, manual and error prone work.

 

[Sadfield]

Jesus. It's not or never has been an indication of completion of the mash, it's a tool for detecting potential problems.

"The iodine test is potentially useful for detecting major problems with saccharification, problems with rest durations in a step mash program, or problems with starch pickup during lautering and/or sparging. It's important to understand that the iodine test does not provide a good indication of wort fermentability or extraction—the absence of starch does not mean that the mash is finished." Narziss L, Back W, Gastl M, Zarnkow M. Abriss der Bierbrauerei. 2017.

Having done an Iodine test the OP could safely assume the low OG wasn't a saccharification problem.

 

[Rodcx500z]

You know when you have full conversion when this happens after 4 pints your 4% bitter

 

[peebee]

Jesus. It's not or never has been an indication of completion of the mash, it's a tool for detecting potential problems. ...

Apologies. I've just noticed you're saying the same thing as me yet I'm arguing about it on the opposite side! I guess that would be exasperating. It was you throwing in Coors to back up the argument that blinded me (I despise Coors! So, no way will I side with anything they say).

I did say I wouldn't use iodine to indicate anything useful to brewing, but I did word it as my opinion and if people want to use it and somehow get some comfort from it ... so be it. My memories of it were it only reinforced anxieties for no reason (false positives) but that was 50 years ago, so who knows what I was doing with it (I don't).

So, I dip out of this sideline, it was well off subject anyway. I liked the video of drunks though! And I guess some value could be drawn from the discussion ... people really do believe iodine indicates "completion" of mash; perhaps some will think twice about it now?