1. Section
1
Name:
John
Schnettler
Name
of
Brew:
Study
Break
IPA
Style
of
Brew:
American
IPA
Brew
Date:
9/13/2014
Bottling
Date:
10/3/2014
Batch
Volume:
40.00
l
(actual:
42.00
l)
Original
Gravity:
15.2°
P
Final
Gravity:
3.8°
P
Calculation
#1
–
IBU’s
37g
Columbus
(60
min):
14.1°
Brix/1.04
=
13.558
Plato
SG
=
(4*13.558)/1000+1
=
1.054
(37.00g
*0.135*0.221*1000)/49.2
l
=
22.437
IBU
34g
Columbus
(45
min):
14.1°
Brix/1.04
=
13.558
Plato
SG
=
(4*13.558)/1000+1
=
1.054
(34.00g*0.135*0.171*1000)/49.2
l
=
15.953
IBU
54g
Perle
(5
min):
16.8°
Brix/1.04
=
16.154
Plato
SG
=
(4*16.154)/1000+1
=
1.065
(54.00g*0.092*0.073*1000)/45
l
=
8.059
IBU
Total
IBU’s
=
22.437+15.953+8.059
=
46.449
IBU
(I
chose
not
to
calculate
the
IBU’s
of
whirlpool
additions
despite
Beersmith’s
calculations
of
the
5-­‐minute
whirlpool
additions
due
to
the
fact
that
the
hop
utilization
chart
does
not
account
for
post-­‐boil
hop
additions)
Calculation
#2
-­‐
%ABV
(15.2°
Plato
–
3.8°
Plato)
*
0.516
=
5.88%
ABV
Calculation
#3
–
yeast
pitch
volume
(15.2*106
mill/ml*
42
l)/1500*106
mill/ml
=
425.6
ml
(Instructor
Jeff
Biegert
estimated
the
slurry
count)
Calculation
#4
–
apparent
attenuation
(15.2°
Plato
–
3.8°
Plato)/15.2°
Plato
=
75%

2. Section
2
Material
Bill
Water
Additives:
Ingredient
Amount
Step
Time
Gypsum
20.00
g
Mash
60
minutes
Lactic
Acid
4.00
ml
Mash
60
minutes
Epsom
Salt
1.50
g
Mash
60
minutes
Salt
1.00
g
Mash
60
minutes
Grist
Bill:
Malt
Amount
Color
(European
Brewing
Convention)
Colorado
Malting
Co.
2-­‐Row
7.85
kg
2.3
EBC
Vienna
Malt
3.55
kg
6.9
EBC
Munich
Malt
–
10L
0.82
kg
19.7
EBC
Hops:
Hop
Varietal
Amount
Alpha-­‐Acid
Content
Step
Time
Columbus
37.00
g
13.50%
Boil
60
minutes
Columbus
34.00
g
13.50%
Boil
45
minutes
Perle
54.00
g
9.20%
Boil
5
minutes
Bravo
54.00
g
15.00%
Steep/Whirlpool
5
minutes
Cascade
54.00
g
8.20%
Steep/Whirlpool
5
minutes
Columbus
27.00
g
13.50%
Steep/Whirlpool
0
minutes
Bravo
54.00
g
15.00%
Dry
Hop
2
days
Columbus
54.00
g
13.50%
Dry
Hop
2
days
Simcoe
54.00
g
15.00%
Dry
Hop
2
days
Yeast:
Odell
House
Yeast
Other:
Whirlfloc
(1
tablet)

3. Equipment:
A.
Gifford
Sabco
BrewMagic
Brewing
System:
-­‐Hot
Liquor
Tank
(1/2
barrel
keg)
-­‐Mash
Tun
(1/2
barrel
keg)
-­‐Brew
Kettle
(`1/2
barrel
keg)
-­‐Sabco
Pump
-­‐Sabco
Frame
(V350MS
PLC,
USB
Port,
RTD
Sensor,
E-­‐Stop,
LP
Bottle
Rack,
3x
Gas
Valves,
Locking
Front
Casters)
B.
Chill
Wizard
plate
chiller
C.
Chill
Wizard
pump
D.
Grain
mill
E.
Garden
hoses
F.
Food
grade
tri-­‐clamp
hoses
G.
Extension
cords
H.
Propane
tank
I.
Oxygen
tank
with
tubing
and
filter
J.
Metal
spoon
K.
Mash
thermometer
L.
Hot
gloves
M.
Tool
bucket
N.
Iodophor
spray
bottle,
freshly
mixed
O.
Clean
rags
P.
Long
lighter
Q.
Box
of
extra
tri-­‐clamps
and
gaskets
R.
pH
meter
S.
Tub
for
spent
grain
T.
Kim-­‐wipes
U.
Refractometer
V.
Deionized
water
bottler
W.
Hose
sprayer
nozzle
X.
Slop
buckets
Y.
PRONTO
cleaning
solution
Procedure
Pre-­‐Boil:
9/12/2014
1. We
measured
out
all
water
additives,
grains,
and
hops
and
used
the
grain
mill
to
crush
all
grains
into
grist,
leaving
the
husk
still
intact.
-­‐Colorado
Malting
Co.
2-­‐Row
malt
served
as
our
base
malt
and
primary
source
of
fermentable
sugar.
Vienna
malt
was
used
to
provide
fermentable
sugars
and
coloring
and
Munich
malt
was
used
in
order
to
add
sweetness
as
well
as
contribute
to
an
orange/golden
color.
The
grains
we
utilized
had
already
been
steeped,
germinated,
and
kilned
in

4. order
to
develop
and
preserve
enzymes
for
the
mash
as
well
as
break
down
grain
cell
walls
in
order
to
be
modified
for
an
effective
mash
and
fermentation.
In
addition,
the
kilning
process
affects
the
color
and
flavor
of
the
grains.
These
processes
constitute
the
malting
of
the
grain.
-­‐We
used
Columbus
hops
for
bittering
due
to
the
fact
they
have
a
high
alpha-­‐acid
content
of
13.5%.
Alpha
acids
are
a
soft
resin
found
in
hops
that
add
bitterness
to
the
beer
when
isomerized
during
the
boil.
Perle
hops,
normally
a
bittering
hop,
were
used
at
the
end
of
the
boil
to
contribute
aroma.
In
addition,
Bravo,
Cascade,
and
Columbus
hops
were
used
post-­‐boil
during
whirlpool
to
contribute
a
variety
of
citrusy,
fruity
and
floral
aromas
and
flavors
thanks
to
the
essential
oils
contained
within
their
lupulin
glands.
Finally,
Bravo,
Columbus,
and
Simcoe
hops
were
used
for
two
days
of
dry
hopping
to
add
more
citrus,
pine,
and
aroma
flavors
despite
their
high
alpha-­‐acid
contents.
-­‐We
used
a
variety
of
water
additives
at
the
beginning
of
our
mash.
We
added
Gypsum
(calcium
sulphate)
in
order
to
increase
the
hardness
of
the
water,
enhance
bitterness,
and
lower
pH.
We
also
used
lactic
acid
in
order
to
acidify
our
pH
to
the
5.3-­‐5.6
range
where
conversion
enzymes
will
be
most
effective.
Finally,
we
added
Epsom
Salt
(magnesium
sulphate)
as
well
as
regular
salt
to
enhance
bitterness
and
slightly
lower
pH.
A
big
reason
for
using
several
pH-­‐lowering
additives
was
that
the
lighter
malts
we
used
are
less
acidic.
-­‐Grain
is
milled
in
order
to
reduce
and
control
the
size
of
the
grain
and
break
up
the
endosperm
in
order
to
make
convertible
starches
more
available
at
the
desired
extract
yield.
9/13/2014
1. The
teaching
assistants
cleaned
all
Sabco
brewing
system
equipment
and
materials
thoroughly
using
Pronto
(0.5
cap
per
gallon
of
hot
water)
and
rinse
with
hot
water.
-­‐Cleaning
is
vital
in
removing
soil
and
a
majority
of
existing
microorganisms
from
the
equipment
that
can
cause
inactivation
of
sanitizer
and
potential
contamination
of
the
final
product.
2. The
teaching
assistants
sanitized
all
equipment
and
materials
thoroughly
using
Iodophor
and
cold
water.
-­‐Iodophor
is
a
halogen
sanitizer
containing
surface-­‐active
agents
that
inhibit
the
function
of
microbial
proteins
thus
removing
any
microorganisms.
Iodophor
does
not
require
rinsing
degrades
to
flavorless,
odorless,
and
non-­‐toxic
compounds
which
volatize.
3. We
started
by
heating
54
l
strike
in
the
hot
liquor
tank
and
34.9
l
of
strike
water
in
the
mash
tun.
In
addition,
we
began
heating
water
in
the
kettle
to
be
used
in
sterilizing
the
plate
chiller.
4. Once
the
mash
tun
water
reached
73.7°C,
we
added
the
culmination
of
our
2-­‐Row,
Vienna,
and
Munich
malts
to
the
mash
tun
at
a
steady
rate
while
simultaneously
stirring
to
avoid
clumping
of
grain,
which
can
decrease
the
efficiency
of
the
mash
in
converting
starches
to
fermentable

5. sugars.
We
also
added
our
20.00g
Gypsum,
4.0
ml
lactic
acid,
1.5g
of
Epsom
salt,
and
1.00
g
of
salt
at
the
beginning
of
the
mash.
-­‐We
utilized
a
downward
infusion
mash
consisting
of
an
insulated
mash
tun
and
stainless
steel
false
bottom
allowing
for
effective
separation
of
wort
from
grain
that
is
unstirred
and
facilitates
starch
conversion
at
a
single
temperature.
-­‐The
mash-­‐in
occurred
at
9:16am
and
the
strike
water
brought
the
mash
to
64.8°C
for
one
hour
which
we
closely
monitored.
At
this
temperature,
although
both
alpha
and
beta
amylase
enzymes
were
functioning,
beta-­‐
amylase
was
predominant
thus
creating
chemical
conditions
lending
to
a
lower
extract
yield
but
higher
fermentability.
This
higher
fermentability
will
occur
based
on
beta-­‐amylase’s
creation
of
maltose
which
is
a
less
complex
carbohydrate
and
thus
easier
to
break
down
during
fermentation.
This
lower
mash
temp
will
ultimately
contribute
to
a
drier
beer.
-­‐We
took
a
pH
reading
during
the
mash
and
observed
a
pH
of
5.4,
a
great
pH
for
amylase
to
effectively
function.
5.
While
we
allowed
conversion
to
occur
in
our
mash
tun,
we
began
sterilizing
our
plate
chiller
in
preparation
for
post-­‐boil.
-­‐The
plate
chiller
was
sterilized
by
running
hot
water
that
had
been
heated
in
the
boil
kettle
to
temperatures
above
82°C.
This
removed
all
residue
and
microorganisms
in
order
to
avoid
contaminating
our
wort
during
cooling
after
the
boil.
6.
We
started
our
vorlauf
at
10:15am,
delaying
it
five
minutes
from
our
desired
vorlauf
time.
We
would
normally
allow
the
vorlauf
to
occur
for
fifteen
minutes;
however,
we
extended
the
process
an
extra
five
minutes.
-­‐Vorlauf
is
the
German
word
for
“pre-­‐run”
and
is
utilized
in
brewing
to
draw
off
and
recirculate
the
wort
throughout
the
mash
tun
without
running
off
into
the
boil
kettle.
-­‐Vorlauf
is
important
in
clarifying
the
wort
being
drawn
out
of
the
mash
tun
and
establishing
a
good
filtration
system
through
the
grain
bed.
The
first
runnings
will
appear
hazy
and
contain
some
milled
grain
particles
but
will
eventually
clear
up.
-­‐We
delayed
the
vorlauf
due
to
the
fact
that
the
plate
chiller
was
leaking
and
the
boil
kettle
hadn’t
fully
drained
due
to
the
fact
the
kettle
burner
wasn’t
properly
working
so
we
wanted
to
be
sure
the
kettle
was
drained
before
runoff.
Because
the
kettle
burner
wasn’t
properly
working,
we
changed
interchanged
the
kettle
burner
and
mash
tun
burner.
7.
After
clarifying
our
wort,
we
began
our
runoff
into
the
boil
kettle
at
10:37am.
At
10:40am
we
began
sparging
using
31
l
of
water
at
78°C.
During
the
sparge,
we
made
sure
to
adjust
the
sparge
pump
so
that
the
liquid
level
was
about
2-­‐3
cm
above
the
grain
level
in
order
to
ensure
a
steady
rinsing
of
the
grains.
While
we
ran
off
into
the
kettle,
we
simultaneously
heated
the
boil
kettle
and
held
at
a
temperature
just
before
boiling
in
order
to
be
able
to
begin
boiling
quickly
after
finishing
runoff.

6.
-­‐The
technical
term
for
the
runoff
is
lautering,
where
wort
is
separated
from
grains.
Our
mash
tun
also
acted
as
a
lauter
tun
due
to
the
fact
that
it
has
a
false
bottom
that
effectively
filters
the
wort
without
letting
the
grain
drain
off
in
to
the
kettle.
-­‐We
sparged
in
order
to
give
the
grain
an
extra
rinse
to
drain
off
any
residual
fermentable
sugars
on
the
grain
bed
into
our
boil
kettle.
To
avoid
extracting
tannins
from
the
grains,
we
sparged
using
water
at
a
temperature
that
wasn’t
too
hot,
avoided
over
sparging,
and
avoided
sparging
above
a
pH
of
5.8.
8.
We
finished
sparging
at
10:59am
and
ended
our
runoff
into
the
boil
kettle
at
11:07am.
Our
pre-­‐boil
volume
was
49.2
l
and
had
a
pre-­‐boil
gravity
reading
of
14.1°
Brix
measured
using
a
refractometer.
-­‐Our
pH
just
prior
to
boiling
was
5.3,
indicating
we
had
a
good
acidity
and
hadn’t
extracted
tannins
based
on
pH
during
the
sparge.
-­‐Our
actual
pre-­‐boil
volume
of
49.2
l
was
right
on
our
estimated
pre-­‐boil
volume
of
49.21
l
and
our
actual
pre-­‐boil
gravity
of
14.1°
Brix
was
also
very
close
to
our
estimated
pre-­‐boil
volume
of
14.411°
Plato
which
converts
to
13.857°
Brix.
-­‐It
is
important
to
note
that
refractometers
are
fairly
inaccurate
when
measuring
alcohol
and
typically
shouldn’t
be
used
for
beer.
However,
we
use
a
refractometer
anyway
to
obtain
a
rough
estimate
of
numerous
gravity
measurements.
-­‐We
monitor
the
gravity
of
our
wort
throughout
the
brewing
process
because
gravity
is
a
measurement
of
sugar
concentration
in
wort/beer,
which
allows
us
to
know
the
fermentation
capacity
of
our
brew
and
how
much
alcohol
will
ultimately
be
produced
during
fermentation.
-­‐We
also
made
the
decision
to
end
runoff
based
on
our
monitoring
of
the
gravity
throughout
and
once
we
had
reached
our
estimated
pre-­‐boil
gravity
we
ended
runoff.
The
Boil:
9/13/2014
(Same
day)
1. We
began
our
boil
time
at
11:28am
after
achieving
a
rolling
boil.
At
this
time
we
momentarily
shut
off
the
burner
and
added
our
first
hop
addition,
32.0
g
of
Columbus
hops,
which
would
last
the
duration
of
our
sixty-­‐minute
boil.
-­‐We
boil
our
wort
(unfermented
beer)
in
order
to
evaporate
water
thus
concentrating
the
wort’s
fermentable
sugars,
boil
off
any
volatiles
such
as
dimethyl
sulfide,
and
extract
bitterness
from
hops
via
isomerization.
In
addition,
boiling
wort
is
essential
in
stabilizing
the
wort
by
denaturing
amylase
enzymes
from
mash
as
well
as
killing
any
microorganisms
present
in
the
beer.
Furthermore,
boiling
helps
to
react
simple
sugars
with
amino
acids
to
form
melanoidins
and
flavor
compounds.
Finally,
boiling
denatures
proteins,
causing
the
formation
and
precipitation
of
undesirable
protein-­‐polyphenol
complexes.

7.
-­‐Hops
added
toward
the
beginning
of
the
boil
are
known
as
bittering
hops
because
the
heat
of
the
boil
isomerizes
(changes
the
6-­‐carbon
ring
to
a
5-­‐carbon
ring)
alpha-­‐acids
making
them
soluble
in
water
and
bitter
when
they
were
previously
insoluble
in
water
prior
to
boiling.
These
alpha-­‐acids
are
soft
resins
known
as
humulones
found
within
the
lupulin
glands
of
hops
along
with
essential
oils.
-­‐When
adding
hops
to
the
boil
it
is
important
to
monitor
the
level
of
liquid
in
the
kettle
in
order
to
avoid
a
boil
over.
When
adding
ingredients
to
the
Sabco
system
we
turned
off
the
burner
to
avoid
boil
over
and
also
kept
a
hose
nearby
to
spray
any
erupting
wort.
2. Fifteen
minutes
later,
at
11:43am,
we
added
our
second
hop
addition
of
34.0
g
of
Columbus
hops
also
for
bittering
purposes.
3. Thirty-­‐six
minutes
later,
at
12:19pm,
we
added
one
Whirlfloc
tablet
in
order
to
help
clarify
the
wort
by
precipitating
proteins
and
beta
glucans
that
contribute
haze
in
the
final
product.
4. At
12:23pm,
we
added
54.00g
of
Perle
hops
with
five
minutes
left
to
boil.
-­‐Although
Perle
hops
have
a
fairly
high
alpha
acid
content
and
still
contribute
some
bitterness
to
the
beer
due
to
the
fact
they
are
being
isomerized
with
heat,
their
primary
role
in
this
brew
was
to
contribute
flavor
and
aroma
to
the
beer
based
on
their
short
boiling
time
of
five
minutes.
Perle
hops
are
known
for
contributing
slightly
spicy
and
minty
flavors
and
aromas.
5. At
12:28pm
we
turned
off
the
heat
ending
the
boil,
a
process
known
as
flameout.
Although
cleaning
and
sanitation
are
emphasized
throughout
the
entire
brewing
process,
it
is
absolutely
vital
that
anything
that
comes
in
contact
with
the
wort
from
this
point
forward
is
clean
and
sanitized
to
avoid
contamination
due
to
the
fact
that
the
major
antibacterial
step,
the
boil,
is
finished.
Post
Boil:
9/13/2014
(Same
day)
1. After
turning
the
kettle
burner
off,
we
simultaneously
initiated
the
whirlpool
and
prepared
the
Chill
Wizard
plate
chiller
for
knockout
at
12:28pm.
To
initiate
the
whirlpool,
we
used
a
clean
and
sanitized
spoon
to
vigorously
stir
the
wort
into
centrifugal
motion.
After
ten
minutes
of
whirlpooling,
we
added
54.0g
of
Bravo
hops
and
54.0g
of
Cascade
hops
at
12:38pm.
-­‐The
purpose
of
the
whirlpool
is
to
collect
hop
residues
and
hot
break
(denatured
protein-­‐polyphenol
complexes)
at
the
center
and
bottom
of
the
kettle
via
centrifugal
motion.
This
helps
to
clarify
the
wort
and
make
it
easier
to
separate
from
the
trub
settled
at
the
bottom
of
the
kettle.
-­‐Bravo
and
Cascade
hops
are
used
as
flavoring
and
aroma
hops
during
the
whirlpool,
yet
still
impart
a
small
amount
of
bitterness
to
the
beer
due
to
the
fact
the
wort
is
still
at
high
enough
temperatures
to
isomerize
alpha-­‐acids.
Bravo
hops
contribute
fruity
and
floral
aromas
and
flavors

8. while
Cascade
hops
contribute
citrusy,
fruity,
floral,
and
spicy
aromas
and
flavors.
2. During
the
whirlpool,
we
prepared
for
knockout
(running
off
wort
into
the
fermenter)
by
connecting
the
hose
to
the
cold
water
inlet
of
the
sterilized
plate
chiller,
connecting
a
second
hose
to
the
warm
water
outlet,
and
connecting
the
oxygen
tank
(set
to
5
psi
but
not
yet
turned
on)
to
the
oxygen
inlet.
In
addition,
we
measured
the
post-­‐boil
gravity
to
be
16.8°
Brix,
the
post-­‐boil
pH
to
be
5.3,
and
the
post-­‐boil
volume
to
be
45
l.
-­‐Our
estimated
post-­‐boil
gravity
was
16.433°
Plato.
When
we
convert
or
actual
gravity
to
Plato,
we
get
a
value
of
16.154°
Plato,
which
is
pretty
close
to
our
estimated
gravity.
In
addition,
our
estimated
post
boil
volume
was
44.51
l,
which
was
also
very
close
to
our
actual
post-­‐boil
volume.
3. First,
we
connected
a
clean
and
sanitized
tri-­‐clamp
hose
from
the
kettle
to
the
plate
chiller
and
a
clean
and
sanitized
tri-­‐clamp
hose
form
the
plate
chiller
to
the
fermenter.
Next,
we
turned
on
the
water
supply
facilitating
cooling
of
the
wort
as
it
passed
through
the
chiller
into
the
fermenter.
In
addition,
we
opened
the
oxygen
tank
connected
to
the
chiller
to
facilitate
a
steady
bubbling
and
aeration
of
the
wort.
We
began
knockout
at
12:46pm
by
opening
the
kettle
and
allowing
the
wort
to
pass
through
the
chiller
system
and
into
the
fermenter.
This
process
occurred
at
a
temperature
of
23°C.
-­‐Cooling
the
wort
to
approximately
16°
C
is
absolutely
vital
in
order
to
provide
the
ale
yeast
we
were
using
the
proper
fermentation
environment
in
terms
of
temperature.
Both
ale
and
lager
yeast
will
not
survive
if
pitched
into
non-­‐cooled
wort.
The
wort
should
be
rapidly
cooled
in
order
to
avoid
oxidation,
formation
of
sulfur
compounds,
contamination,
and
also
in
order
to
form
the
cold
break
(trub
settled
out
after
cooling).
-­‐We
use
oxygen
to
aerate
the
wort
due
to
the
fact
that
yeast
need
oxygen
in
the
lag
and
growth
phase
in
order
to
produce
lipids
and
ultimately
grow
and
multiply.
This
ensures
a
healthy,
steady
fermentation.
-­‐Ideally,
we
want
to
cool
the
wort
to
16°
C,
however,
we
were
only
able
to
get
our
heat
exchanger
down
to
a
temperature
of
23°
C.
Therefore,
we
planned
on
placing
the
fermenter
in
the
cooler
following
the
end
of
knockout.
4. Midway
through
knockout,
at
12:54
pm,
we
added
27.0g
of
Columbus
hops
to
the
kettle.
-­‐This
hop
addition
was
once
again
an
aroma
hop
addition,
which
did
not
contribute
bitterness
due
to
the
fact
the
wort
was
cooling
and
isomerization
of
alpha
acids
did
not
occur.
Columbus
is
known
for
contributing
citrusy,
spicy,
and
resiny
aroma
and
flavor
characteristics.
5. At
1:07
pm,
we
finished
knockout
into
the
cylindroconical
fermenter.
The
rapid
chilling
of
the
wort
formed
a
cold
break
(trub
settled
out
after
cooling),
which
we
drained
into
a
slop
bucket
and
discarded.
As
we
rolled
the
fermenter
up
to
the
2nd
floor
Gifford
lab,
we
noticed
a
small
leak
in
the

9. cylindroconical
vessel.
In
response
cleaned
a
keg
style
fermenter
using
pronto
and
sanitized
a
keg-­‐style
fermenter,
which
we
then
transferred
our
cooled
wort
into.
-­‐Our
post
boil
volume,
as
previously
noted,
was
measured
at
approximately
45
l;
however,
after
transfer
and
cooling
we
measure
approximately
42
l
of
cool
wort.
This
discrepancy
likely
occurred
due
to
formation
of
cold
break
as
well
as
losses
from
the
leaking
cylindroconical
and/or
transferring
between
fermenters.
-­‐Our
fermenter
after
cooling
was
at
21°C
and
therefore
we
put
the
keg-­‐
style
fermenter
into
the
cooler
after
slightly
pressurizing
with
oxygen
and
brought
it
down
to
16°C,
our
desired
fermentation
temperature.
6. As
part
of
the
class
handled
transferring
between
fermenters,
we
also
began
cleaning
the
Sabco
Brew
Magic
System
and
its
components.
-­‐To
clean
the
brew
system,
we
first
emptied
the
mash
tun
into
buckets
that
we
dumped
into
Gifford’s
outdoor
compost.
In
addition,
we
drained
the
trub
from
the
boil
kettle
and
cleaned
manually
aka
cleaned
out
of
place
(COP).
-­‐Next,
we
cleaned
all
of
the
components
of
the
Brew
Magic
System
by
utilizing
the
system’s
CIP
(clean-­‐in-­‐place)
loop.
This
was
accomplished
by
first
connecting
a
tri-­‐clamp
hose
between
the
mash
tun
inlet
and
chill
wizard
outlet,
attaching
a
second
tri-­‐clamp
hose
to
the
chill-­‐wizard
outlet,
and
placing
the
open
end
of
the
second
tri-­‐clamp
hose
into
a
slop
bucket.
Next,
we
filled
the
hot
liquor
tank
with
Pronto
cleaner
and
used
the
Sabco
pump
to
propel
cleaning
solution
through
the
system
while
periodically
venting
oxygen
in
the
chill
wizard
to
be
cleaned
as
well.
After
the
water
runs
clear
into
slop
buckets
from
both
the
hot
liquor
tank
and
mash
tun,
we
emptied
any
remaining
water
in
both
vessels
into
the
slop
buckets.
-­‐Following
cleaning,
we
rinsed
the
system
by
filling
the
mash
tun
with
cold
water
and
circulating
throughout
the
system.
Finally,
we
drained
all
vessels
after
rinsing
and
brought
the
system
piece
by
piece
back
up
to
the
2nd
floor
Gifford
lab.
7. Once
our
fermenter
had
cooled
to
16°
C,
we
took
a
gravity
reading
using
a
hydrometer
and
measured
a
gravity
of
15.2°
Plato.
We
sanitized
the
opening
of
our
fermenter
containing
42
l
cooled
wort
and
poured
290
ml
of
Odell
house
yeast
slurry
into
the
fermenter
at
2:24pm
and
closed.
We
ran
a
blow
off
hose
from
the
fermenter
into
a
bucket
of
Iodophor.
-­‐We
calculated
the
volume
of
yeast
to
be
pitched
as
425.6
ml;
however,
we
only
had
290
ml
slurry
from
Odell.
-­‐As
previously
mentioned,
cleaning
and
sanitation
is
vital
post
boil
therefore
we
exercised
extreme
caution
when
handling
our
cooled
wort.
-­‐We
use
a
blow
off
hose
to
allow
carbon
dioxide,
a
product
of
fermentation,
to
escape
our
fermentation
vessel.
We
placed
the
blow
off
in
sanitizer
to
avoid
contamination
and
oxygen
from
entering
the
fermenter.
-­‐Our
estimated
batch
volume
was
40
l
according
to
Beersmith
whereas
our
actual
batch
volume
in
the
fermenter
was
42
l.
This
might
explain

10. why
our
actual
original
gravity
of
15.2°
Plato
was
less
than
our
estimated
original
gravity
of
16.433
Plato
because
our
actual
batch
volume
was
less
concentrated
than
our
estimated
batch
volume.
8. After
pitching
the
yeast,
we
stored
the
fermenter
at
room
temperature
until
it
was
time
to
cold
crash.
-­‐During
storage
at
room
temperature,
the
yeast
we
pitched
were
in
an
anaerobic
environment
which
facilitated
the
metabolism
of
sugars
(primarily
maltose
and
maltotriose)
by
yeast
creating
ethanol,
carbon
dioxide,
and
various
other
flavor
components/byproducts
in
a
process
known
as
fermentation.
9/19/2014
1. Jeff
Biegert
informed
us
in
class
that
our
beer
was
at
a
gravity
of
7.2°
Plato
and
therefore
we
hadn’t
finished
fermenting
based
on
our
estimated
final
gravity
of
3.569
Plato.
He
also
noticed
some
acetaldehyde
in
the
beer,
which
is
to
be
expected
during
fermentation
due
to
the
fact
it
is
a
fermentation
intermediate.
-­‐Jeff
mentioned
the
beer
should’ve
fully
fermented
in
about
five
days.
However,
the
beer
was
not
fully
fermented
likely
due
to
the
fact
that
our
volume
of
yeast
pitched
was
290
ml
instead
of
our
calculated
value
of
425.6
ml
and
therefore
there
weren’t
enough
yeast
to
successfully
metabolize
the
amount
of
fermentable
sugar
in
our
wort.
In
addition,
the
pitch
rate
could’ve
also
adversely
affected
our
speed
of
fermentation.
-­‐We
pushed
back
our
dry
hop
until
the
beer
had
further
fermented.
9/21/2014
1. We
measured
our
gravity
as
4.6°
Plato
and
continued
fermenting.
9/23/2014
1. We
cold
crashed
our
beer
at
this
time
and
also
added
a
sanitary
mesh
hop
bag
containing
54.0
g
of
Bravo
hops,
54.0
g
of
Columbus
hops,
and
54.0
g
of
Simcoe
hops
for
our
two
day
dry
hop.
These
processes
constitute
secondary
fermentation.
-­‐We
cold
crashed
our
beer
in
order
to
ultimately
clarify
our
beer.
This
occurs
due
to
the
fact
that
when
cold
crashed
at
near
freezing
temperatures,
yeast
and
other
sediments
undesirable
in
the
final
product
will
group
together
(flocculate)
and
fall
to
the
bottom
of
the
vessel.
-­‐Dry
hopping
solely
contributes
flavor
and
aroma
to
beer
due
to
the
fact
the
hops’
alpha
acids
are
not
being
isomerized
due
to
heat.
The
dry
hop
addition
added
a
variety
of
flavors
and
aromas
including
citrus,
pine,
fruit,
floral,
and
spicy
notes.
We
allowed
the
dry
hop
to
occur
for
two
days
in
order
to
effectively
obtain
flavor
and
aroma
characteristics
without
obtaining
the
grassy
flavors
commonly
associated
with
a
longer
dry
hop.
9/25/2014
1. We
ended
cold
crash
on
this
day.
New
Belgium
lab
analysis
from
9/22/14
indicated
a
back
calculated
original
gravity
(BCOG)
of
15.17°

11. Plato,
a
final
gravity
(FG)
of
3.67°
Plato,
19.3
EBC
(European
Brewing
Convention:
measure
of
color),
and
6.26%
ABV.
We
used
a
hydrometer
to
observe
a
final
gravity
3.8°
Plato.
-­‐The
lab
report
indicated
both
our
original
and
final
gravity
measurements
using
a
hydrometer
were
fairly
accurate.
2. We
cleaned
(using
Pronto)
and
sanitized
(using
Iodophor)
or
maturation
keg
where
we
would
be
transferring
our
green
beer,
or
non-­‐matured
fermented
beer.
3. We
racked
from
our
keg-­‐style
fermenter
into
our
clean
and
sanitized
maturation
keg
using
carbon
dioxide
to
transfer.
Once
we
had
racked
into
our
maturation
keg
we
returned
the
green
beer
to
the
cooler
to
be
further
matured
and
stabilized.
Packaging:
10/3/2014
1. Our
teaching
assistants
had
the
bottles
cleaned
and
sanitized
when
we
showed
up
to
class
and
we
also
tossed
our
crowns
(bottle
caps)
into
Iodophor
prior
to
bottling.
With
all
of
our
equipment
cleaned
and
sanitized
we
were
ready
to
bottle.
2. Next,
we
added
200g
of
corn
sugar
for
the
40
l
of
beer
we
had
collected
in
the
maturation
tank.
Jeff
Biegert
calculated
this
amount
of
corn
sugar
using
Beersmith,
which
he
mentioned
considered
a
wide
variety
of
aspects
of
the
beer.
-­‐We
used
corn
sugar
for
bottling
due
to
the
fact
that
it
is
a
simple
sugar
(dextrose),
which
will
be
metabolized
for
a
“mini”
fermentation
within
the
bottle.
This
mini
fermentation
will
contribute
an
insignificant
amount
of
ethanol
but
more
importantly
it
will
produce
carbon
dioxide,
thus
carbonating
our
beer.
-­‐We
carbonate
beer
because
carbonation
is
very
important
in
contributing
to
mouthfeel,
consistency
and
stability
of
the
foamy
head,
and
overall
flavor.
3. To
bottle,
we
connected
a
“beer
gun”
to
the
sankey
coupler
which
allows
for
transfer
of
beer
out
of
a
keg.
The
beer
gun
is
used
not
only
to
purge
the
air
out
of
each
and
every
empty
bottle
to
avoid
oxygen
ending
up
in
the
bottle
and
producing
off
flavors,
but
also
to
dispense
beer
filling
each
and
every
bottle.
The
beer
gun
displaces
the
amount
of
liquid
in
each
bottle
so
that
there’s
about
an
inch
of
air
between
the
liquid
and
the
crown.
4. As
the
bottles
were
being
rinsed
using
the
bottle
cleaner
that
attaches
to
the
sink
faucet
and
purged
and
filled
using
the
beer
gun,
we
simultaneously
began
capping
each
bottle
using
the
sanitized
crowns
and
a
bottle
capper.
5. Finally,
we
stored
yield
of
approximately
three
and
a
half
cases
of
beer
at
room
temperature
(a
favorable
temperature
for
residual
yeast)
and

12. allowed
carbonation
to
occur
via
fermentation.
We
tasted
our
first
sample
of
finished
beer
on
October
16,
2014.
Sensory
Evaluation
After
completing
tasting
and
a
BJCP
score
sheet
of
our
Study
Break
IPA
on
10/16/2014,
my
total
score
for
our
brew
was
35/50.
Here
was
the
breakdown:
Aroma
(8/12):
-­‐The
combination
of
end
of
boil,
whirlpool,
and
dry
hop
additions
of
Perle,
Bravo,
Cascade,
Columbus,
and
Simcoe
hops
provided
a
variety
of
pleasant
hop
aromas
including
citrus,
pine,
fruity,
floral,
and
slightly
spicy
notes.
There
were
also
malty
sweet,
caramel
aromas
that
could’ve
been
attributed
to
our
Munich
malt
or
perhaps
residual
priming
sugar
that
hadn’t
been
completely
metabolized
by
yeast
(the
beer
wasn’t
fully
carbonated).
There
were
slight
green-­‐apple
like
aromas
that
were
likely
a
result
of
acetaldehyde.
Although
the
acetaldehyde
aroma
was
slightly
off-­‐putting,
it
is
fairly
normal
those
aromas
would
be
present
due
to
the
fact
that
acetaldehyde
is
a
fermentation
intermediate
and
the
process
of
carbonation
is
in
essence
a
“mini”
fermentation.
Overall,
there
were
pleasant
hop
aromas
but
the
sweet
malt
and
acetaldehyde
aromas
were
slightly
off
putting.
Appearance
(2.5/3):
-­‐The
beer
had
a
nice
golden-­‐orange
and
slightly
copper
color
as
a
result
of
the
combination
of
2-­‐row
malt
with
Vienna
and
Munich,
both
known
for
contributing
an
orange
color
to
the
beer.
In
addition,
the
beer
had
pretty
good
clarity,
which
can
be
attributed
to
the
use
of
Whirlfloc,
whirlpooling,
formation
and
separation
of
cold
break,
and
cold
crashing.
The
beer
had
a
nice
thin,
lasting
head
with
good
lacing.
Overall,
the
finished
beer
had
a
great
appearance
but
could’ve
benefited
from
further
clarity.
Flavor
(14/20):
-­‐Again,
the
culmination
of
hop
additions
added
some
great
flavors.
Early
Columbus
additions
contributed
a
decent,
lasting
bitterness
and
the
numerous
aroma
additions
during
the
boil,
whirlpool,
and
dry
hop
contributed
mostly
citrus
and
pine
notes
with
some
slight
spiciness.
The
malt
character
was
fairly
sweet
and
had
hints
of
caramel
and
biscuit.
The
aftertaste
was
bitter
with
malt
sweetness.
Fermentation
didn’t
seem
to
add
any
distinguishable
flavor
characteristics.
Overall,
the
hop
flavor
and
bitterness
of
this
beer
are
enjoyable;
however,
the
malty
sweetness
seems
overpowering
and
takes
the
beer
out
of
balance.
Again,
this
malty
sweetness
is
subjective
to
my
palate
and
likely
a
result
of
either
Munich
malt
or
residual
priming
sugar.
Mouthfeel
(3.5/5):
The
beer
is
smooth
and
medium-­‐bodied.
The
beer
is
barely
astringent
and
may
just
be
a
result
of
hop
bitterness.
Although
the
beer
had
a
thin,
decent
head,
a

13. number
of
students
including
myself
perceived
it
as
slightly
flat.
Overall,
the
mouthfeel
is
decent
but
the
lack
of
full
carbonation
is
slightly
offputting.
Overall
Impression
(7/10)
-­‐As
evident
by
my
overall
impressions
of
aroma,
appearance,
flavor,
and
mouthfeel,
there
were
a
lot
of
enjoyable
characteristics
of
this
beer
including
hop
aroma
and
flavor,
the
color,
clarity,
and
overall
appearance,
and
the
smooth,
medium-­‐bodied
mouthfeel.
However,
the
malty
sweetness
of
the
beer
was
fairly
off
putting
in
terms
of
aroma
and
flavor.
The
acetaldehyde
aroma
was
also
undesirable
as
was
the
lack
of
full
carbonation.
The
beer
could
be
improved
with
more
time
for
bottle
conditioning
and
if
the
sweetness
doesn’t
mellow
out
perhaps
adjusting
the
grain
bill
to
have
less
residual
sweetness.
Overall,
our
first
attempt
at
the
Study
Break
IPA
was
a
decent
beer
but
not
outstanding.
Reflection
of
Results
Although
we
ran
into
a
few
problems
throughout
our
brewing
process,
we
ultimately
had
a
fairly
smooth
experience
brewing
the
Study
Break
IPA.
One
of
our
first
mistakes
was
spilling
about
a
handful
of
grain
during
the
milling
process,
which
we
replaced
with
roughly
the
same
amount.
In
addition,
as
previously
mentioned,
we
had
some
equipment
difficulties
such
as
a
faulty
kettle
burner
and
leaking
cylindroconical
fermenter.
We
dealt
with
these
issues
by
swapping
the
kettle
burner
with
the
mash
tun
burner
and
transferring
our
cooled
wort
in
the
cylindroconical
into
a
new,
keg-­‐style
fermenter.
We
also
experienced
a
longer
than
expected
fermentation
which
was
likely
a
result
of
having
too
small
a
volume
of
yeast
to
pitch.
Other
than
these
minor
issues
than
we
were
able
to
easily
resolve,
the
brewing
experience
went
well.
We
had
no
trouble
milling,
mashing,
sparging
or
boiling,
little
to
no
trouble
with
fermentation,
maturation,
or
packaging,
and
our
finished
beer
came
out
pretty
good.
Another
positive
aspect
of
our
brewing
experience
was
the
fact
that
our
Beersmith
estimated,
actual,
calculated,
and
New
Belgium
lab
tested
measurements
and
values
were
all
fairly
consistent.
Our
estimated
and
actual
pre-­‐boil
gravity
and
volumes,
post-­‐boil
gravity
and
volumes,
and
overall
batch
volume
and
gravity
were
all
fairly
consistent.
There
were
some
minor
discrepancies
between
estimated,
calculated,
and
actual
ABV
and
IBUs
but
these
were
likely
the
result
of
minor
differences
in
gravities
and
volumes
of
each
step.
Overall,
we
yielded
consistent
results
based
on
our
Beersmith
estimations
and
actual
results
indicating
that
we
were
efficient
in
our
brewing
processes.
As
mentioned
previously
in
the
sensory
evaluation,
our
beer
was
almost
spot
on
with
the
BJCP
style
guidelines
for
an
American
IPA.
We
produced
an
orange-­‐
gold,
smooth,
medium-­‐bodied
ale
which
had
great
hoppy
flavors
and
aromas
including
citrus,
fruit,
pine,
floral,
and
slightly
spicy
characteristics
with
a
lasting
bitterness.
The
only
changes
I
would
make
to
the
beer
next
time
would
be
to
adjust
the
overly
sweet
malt
backbone
which
I
believe
negatively
affects
the
balance
of
the
beer,
make
sure
the
beer
is
fully
carbonated
(some
class
members’
samples
were,
some
weren’t,
may
have
been
an
issue
of
fully
homogenizing
the
priming
sugar
in

14. the
maturation
keg),
and
allow
the
acetaldehyde
to
be
fully
converted
to
its
negligible
form.
In
conclusion,
we
had
a
great,
relatively
problem-­‐free
first
brewing
experience
brewing
the
Study
Break
IPA
in
which
we
learned
a
great
deal
and
ultimately
created
a
quality
final
product.