1. FTEC
422
Lab
Report
1
Name:
John
Schnettler
Style
of
Brew:
Kölsch
Brew
Date:
2/11/15
Kegging
Date:
3/4/15
Sensory
Evaluation
Date:
3/11/15
Batch
Volume:
Target:
40.0
l
Original
Gravity:
Target=
12.140°
P
(Actual=
11.3°
P)
Final
Gravity:
Target=
2.912°
P
(Actual=
2.02°
P)
Material
Bill
Water
Additives:
Ingredient
Amount
Step
Time
Calcium
Chloride
18.40
g
Mash
60
minutes
Lactic
Acid
13.10
ml
Mash
60
minutes
Grist
Bill:
Malt
Amount
Color
(European
Brewing
Convention)
Breiss
Brewers
Malt
(2
Row)
US
7.00
kg
4.0
EBC
Munich
Malt
10L
0.83
kg
19.7
EBC
White
Wheat
Malt
0.68
kg
4.7
EBC
Boil
Ingredients:
Ingredient
Amount
Time
Merkur
(13.60%
alpha-­‐
acid):
Hop
addition
11.0
g
60
minutes
Sterling
2013
(6.70%
alpha-­‐
acid):
Hop
addition
57.0
g
15
minutes
Whirlfloc:
Clarification
1
Tablet
10
minutes
Sterling
2013
(6.70%
alpha-­‐
acid):
Hop
addition
39.0
g
5
minutes
Yeast:
German
Ale/Kölsch
(White
Labs
#WLP029)

2. Water
Treatment
Starting
Water:
Fort
Collins
Water
analysis:
1.
Hardness
=
100
ppm
2.
Alkalinity
=
80
ppm
3.
pH
=
6.9
4.
Ca
=
17.3
ppm
5.
Mg
=
1.6
ppm
6.
Cl
=
2.9
ppm
Criteria:
Produce
a
light
to
medium
light
bodied,
clean,
crisp,
clear,
mildly
sweet
and
low
ester
straw
to
gold
ale
with
low
hop
character.
We
decided
as
a
class
to
increase
the
hardness
of
the
beer
to
2:1
hardness
to
alkalinity
ratio
as
well
as
lower
the
mash
pH
of
the
water
to
increase
wort
fermentability
by
providing
the
optimum
saccharification
temperature.
Therefore,
we
aimed
for
a
water
profile
with
a
calcium
content
of
80
ppm
with
a
mash
pH
of
5.4.
Determination:
In
order
to
produce
the
desired
water
profile,
we
decided
as
a
class
to
utilize
calcium
chloride
and
lactic
acid
to
treat
80.0
l
of
water
(approximately
1/3
mash
tun
water
and
2/3
hot
liquor
tank
water).
Calcium
ions
are
important
in
stabilizing
mash
alpha
amylase
enzymes,
reducing
mash
pH
by
reacting
with
phosphates
to
create
insoluble
compounds
releasing
H+
ions,
aiding
the
formation
of
hot
break
by
enhancing
protein
coagulation,
and
increasing
clarity.
Chloride
ions
are
known
to
balance
the
flavor
profile
of
beer
and
also
influence
sweetness.
Therefore,
we
calculated
that
we
would
use
18.40g
of
calcium
chloride
in
order
to
contribute
these
benefits
of
each
ion
as
well
as
to
increase
permanent
hardness
and
remove
alkaline
water’s
buffering
capacity.
We
avoided
the
use
of
magnesium
due
to
the
fact
that
although
it
shares
many
impacts
on
beer
as
calcium,
it
is
much
less
effective
and
as
a
result
is
required
in
greater
amounts.
We
also
chose
to
add
permanent
hardness
in
the
form
of
chlorides
rather
than
sulfates
in
order
to
contribute
a
subtle
sweetness
rather
than
enhance
hop
bitterness,
which
is
not
characteristic
of
the
Kölsch
style.
Using
18.40g
calcium
chloride
brought
us
to
our
desired
hardness
to
alkalinity
ratio
and
80-­‐ppm
calcium
concentration;
however,
we
needed
to
further
reduce
the
mash
pH
and
therefore
turned
to
lactic
acid.
Our
classmate
Trent
calculated
13.10
ml
of
lactic
acid
would
effectively
bring
our
mash
pH
down
to
5.4.
Malt
Analysis
Malt
Extract
Methods
for
DBFG
and
DBCG:
First
we
tested
for
the
specific
gravity
(using
ASBC
Method
of
Analysis)
of
our
Breiss
Brewer’s
Malt
dry
basis
fine
and
coarse
grinds

3. using
a
laboratory
conducted
mash.
By
testing
for
the
malt’s
extract
potentials,
we
determined
the
Brewer’s
Malt
DBCG
to
have
a
specific
gravity
of
6.8°
P
and
the
Brewer’s
Malt
DBFG
to
have
a
specific
gravity
of
7.8°
P.
Although
DGCG
is
a
more
realistic
representation
of
the
actual
grist
used
in
brewing
due
to
the
need
of
a
certain
extent
of
coarseness
to
preserve
the
husk
and
promote
filtration,
DBFG
is
useful
in
determining
the
grain’s
ultimate
affinity
for
saccharification.
This
is
why
the
DBFG
specific
gravity
is
higher
than
the
DBCG.
Malt
Moisture
Content:
By
placing
roughly
10
grams
of
Brewer’s
Fine
into
the
Brainweight
moisture
content
analyzer
we
were
able
to
calculate
a
moisture
content
of
roughly
3.4%,
indicating
we
had
a
well
malted
barley
with
low
moisture
content.
Having
malt
with
low
moisture
content
is
essential
due
to
the
fact
that
it
greatly
reduces
the
likelihood
of
microbial
spoilage
or
flavor/aroma
loss
over
time.
Malt
Sieve
Analysis:
(Brewer’s
Malt
DBCG
Grist=
115g)
Sieve
Amount
Percentage
#10
64
grams
56.19%
#14
26.7
grams
23.44%
#18
9.4
grams
8.25%
#30
5.8
grams
5.09%
#60
4.4
grams
3.86%
#100
1.2
grams
1.05%
Pan
2.4
grams
2.11%
This
sieve
analysis
indicated
that
our
Brewer’s
Malt
DBCG
Grist
was
too
coarse
based
on
the
percentages
of
retained
kernels
on
the
#10
and
#14
sieves
which,
combined
were
higher
than
our
target
retention
of
55%.
Therefore,
we
adjusted
our
mill
0.38
to
0.34
in
order
to
slightly
decrease
the
coarseness
of
the
grain
for
the
proper
ratio
of
extractability
vs.
husk
friability
lending
to
its
ability
to
act
as
a
filtration
bed
following
saccharification.
Expected
SRM
of
Finished
Beer:
°L
=
EBC
/
1.97
Briess
Brewer’s
Malt=
4.0
EBC/1.97
=
2.03
°L
Munich
Malt=
19.7
EBC/1.97
=
10
°L
White
Wheat
Malt=
4.7
EBC/1.97
=
2.39°
L
SRM
=
(Malt
Color
°L
x
Malt
Weight
lbs)
/
Total
Kettle
Volume
Gallons
Briess
Brewer’s
Malt=
(2.03°
L
x
15.43lbs)/12
gallons
=
2.61
SRM
Munich
Malt=
(10°L
x
1.83
lbs)/12
gallons
=
1.53
SRM
White
Wheat
Malt=
(2.39°
L
x
1.38
lbs)/12
gallons
=
0.27
SRM
Total
SRM
=
4.41
SRM

4.
Malt
Bill
Characteristics:
• Briess
Brewer’s
Malt
(2-­‐Row)
was
chosen
as
our
base
malt
(82.2%
of
total
grist
bill).
Aside
from
lending
consistency
and
malty
flavors,
the
grain
had
high
potential
for
extract
(>81%)
based
on
its
kernel
plumpness
and
starch
content,
acceptable
protein
content
(11.63%),
high
diastatic
power
(154°
Lintner),
and
decent
friability.
Therefore,
this
malt
will
be
an
effective
base
malt
based
on
its
high
contribution
of
fermentable
sugars
based
on
high
starch
and
low
protein
content
as
well
as
will
act
as
an
effective
filtration
bed
based
on
its
low
total
and
soluble
protein
contents.
• Munich
Malt
10°L
was
chosen
to
add
further
malty
fullness
and
a
golden,
orange
color
to
the
beer.
The
malt
has
high
melanoidin
levels
as
a
result
of
Malliard
reactions,
which
will
contribute
to
its
color
and
flavor
enhancement.
The
malt
makes
up
a
small
portion
of
our
grist
(9.8%)
and
has
a
low
diastatic
power
(40°
Lintner)
that
is
still
capable
of
saccharification.
Ultimately,
the
grain
may
contribute
fermentable
sugar
but
its
primary
purpose
is
color
and
flavor
enhancement.
• White
Wheat
Malt
was
chosen
to
add
slightly
bready
malty
flavors
as
well
as
to
improve
head
retention
based
on
its
higher
protein
content.
The
malt
makes
up
a
small
portion
of
our
grist
(8%)
and
has
a
high
diastatic
power
(160°
Lintner).
This
malt
will
contribute
little
color
based
on
its
low
SRM.
Hypothesis
-­‐
Based
on
our
water
treatment
with
calcium
chloride
and
lactic
acid,
we
expect
a
final
product
with
a
2:1
alkalinity
ratio
and
a
slight
amount
of
body
and
sweetness
that
successfully
saccharified.
Furthermore,
based
on
our
aforementioned
malt
analyses
and
selections,
we
can
expect
a
sessionable
final
product
that
is
light
to
medium-­‐light
bodied,
straw
to
light
golden
colored,
with
bready
malty
flavors.
We
also
expect
a
beer
with
low
hop
character,
low
ester
profile,
and
absence
of
chill
haze.
Brew
Method
(Brew
Date:
2/11/15)
Mashing:
1. After
adding
approximately
6.13g
calcium
chloride
and
4.37ml
of
lactic
acid
to
our
mash
kettle
containing
25
liters
of
water
(and
approximately
12.27g
calcium
chloride
and
8.73ml
of
lactic
acid
to
the
hot
liquor
tank
containing
55
liters
of
water),
we
mashed
in
at
3:07pm.
2. Our
strike
water
was
added
to
our
8.51kg
of
grist
at
73°
C
producing
a
mash
temperature
of
62.5°C
(at
3:12pm)
which
was
quite
a
bit
lower
than
our
target
mash
temperature
of
66.7°C.
Therefore
we
re-­‐circulated
(rather
than
incorrectly
heating
the
mash
tun
with
the
burner
as
someone
suggested)
the
heat
and
eventually
achieved
a
mash
temperature
of
66.6°C
(at
3:36pm).
3. During
recirculation,
the
mash
pH
was
determined
to
be
5.8
at
3:25pm,
higher
than
our
expected
pH
of
5.4.
4. After
thirty
minutes
of
mash
resting,
an
iodine
test
was
performed
yielding
a
negative
result
at
3:37pm
and
began
vorlauf.
This
indicated
saccharification
had
successfully
occurred.

5.
Observations/Conclusions:
-­‐
The
initial
mash
temperature
was
too
long
which
has
a
negative
impact
on
the
enzymes’
ability
to
effectively
convert
starch
to
fermentable
sugars.
Inadequate
enzyme
activity
will
lead
to
inability
to
saccharify
or
lower
fermentability
and
resulting
lower
attenuation
and
higher
levels
of
residual
sugar.
However,
we
were
able
to
increase
the
temperature
of
our
mash
and
verified
that
saccharification
occurred
through
the
use
of
an
iodine
test.
In
the
future,
wind
and
cooler
conditions
(since
we
brew
outside
Gifford)
should
be
considered
based
on
their
ability
to
lower
mash
pH
and
action
should
be
taken
to
prevent
this
from
happening.
-­‐
Our
mash
temperature
of
66.6°C
incorporated
a
balance
of
both
alpha
amylase
and
beta
amylase
enzymes.
Alpha
amylase
favors
higher
temperatures
and
a
more
full-­‐bodied
beer
and
beta
amylase
favors
lower
temperatures
and
a
lighter
bodied,
drier
beer.
Since
a
majority
of
the
mash
rest
was
spent
at
lower
temperatures
before
being
brought
to
this
balanced
temperature,
the
final
product
should
be
more
light-­‐bodied.
-­‐
Our
higher
than
expected
mash
pH
of
5.8
indicated
that
we
probably
needed
to
add
more
lactic
acid
to
further
acidify
our
mash.
While
the
enzymes
still
seemed
to
function
properly
at
this
pH
given
the
successful
thirty
minute
saccharification,
it
must
be
later
considered
that
this
may
adversely
affect
our
final
product
based
on
inadequate
enzyme
activity.
Lautering/Sparging:
1. We
began
separating
our
wort
from
our
grain
bed
at
3:51pm.
2. We
sparged
with
36.0l
at
78.3°C
until
we
completed
lautering
at
4:30
pm.
Observations/Conclusions:
-­‐
Sparging
should
ideally
function
as
a
slow
rinsing
of
the
grains
with
warm
water
to
gather
any
residual
sugar
not
separated
by
the
original
draining
of
mash
rest
water.
However,
we
mistakenly
added
the
sparge
water
too
quickly
which
could
potentially
lead
to
lower
extraction
of
residual
sugars.
This
was
a
big
mistake
to
be
learned
from
and
not
made
again.
This
event
necessitated
the
need
to
keep
an
eye
out
for
a
lower
starting
gravity
than
expected.
-­‐
Our
change
in
mill
settings
previously
mentioned
didn’t
seem
to
negatively
impact
the
effectiveness
of
the
grain
husks
acting
as
a
filtration
bed,
there
were
no
problems
with
the
actual
separation
of
wort
from
grain
bed
process.
Boil:
1. At
4:33pm
we
reached
a
boil
with
a
pre-­‐boil
pH
of
5.6
and
gravity
of
9.7°
P.
As
the
boil
commenced,
we
added
11.0
grams
of
Merkur
hops
as
our
primary
bittering
hop
addition.
2. Forty-­‐five
minutes
later,
at
5:18pm,
we
performed
our
second
hop
addition
of
57.0
grams
of
Sterling
hops
contributing
both
bitterness
and
aroma.
3. At
5:23pm,
we
added
Whirlfloc
as
our
kettle
coagulant.
4. At
5:33pm,
another
39.0
grams
of
Sterling
hops
were
added
as
our
primary
aroma
hop
addition.
In
addition,
we
began
our
whirlpool
at
this
time
as
well
as
ended
our
boil.
At
the
end
of
boil
we
had
45
liters
of
boiled
wort
and
a
pH
of
5.59.
The
whirlpool
was
ended
at
5:43pm.

6.
Observations/Conclusions:
-­‐
As
previously
mentioned,
we
were
not
trying
to
produce
a
beer
with
a
prominent
hop
character
based
on
the
parameters
of
the
Kölsch
style.
However,
we
still
utilized
Merkur
hops,
whose
high
alpha
acid
content
(13.6%)
and
low
co-­‐humulone
content
contributed
mild
bitterness
via
isomerization
to
balance
the
light-­‐bodied
beer.
In
addition,
we
also
utilized
Sterling
hops,
which
lend
herbal,
spicy,
and
slightly
floral
and
citrusy
aromas
when
added
at
the
end
of
boil.
Not
only
were
we
attempting
to
correctly
match
the
Kölsch
style,
but
this
minimal
hop
character
beer
also
allowed
for
greater
focus
on
water
treatment
and
grain
analysis
and
selection,
the
major
topics
of
this
brew
in
particular.
-­‐
Whirlfloc
(an
Irish
moss/carrageenan
blend)
was
added
to
the
boil
in
order
to
assist
the
formation
of
hot
break
(in
addition
to
the
whirlpool)
by
precipitating
haze-­‐causing
proteins
and
beta-­‐glucans.
This
is
especially
desirable
in
a
Kölsch
where
clarity
is
an
important
parameter
of
the
style.
Knockout/Yeast
Pitch:
1. At
5:45pm
we
began
knockout
into
a
keg
at
14°C
using
oxygen
at
psi.
2. The
initial
gravity
of
our
wort
prior
to
fermentation
was
measured
to
be
11.3°
P.
We
decided
to
pitch
three
packages
of
German
Ale
Kölsch
Yeast
(WLP029)
due
to
the
fact
that
each
vial
of
yeast
contains
roughly
150
billion
cells
and
the
following
calculation,
1.5
million
cells
(lager
yeast)
x
45.4
l
x
11.3°
P
=
769,869,000,000
cells,
indicates
three
packages
is
close
enough
(450
billion
cells).
Observations/Conclusions:
-­‐
The
knockout
occurred
quickly
reducing
the
risk
of
aldehyde
and/or
dimethyl
sulfide
formation
in
the
wort.
-­‐
Our
initial
gravity
of
11.3°
P
(at
45.4
l)
was
lower
than
our
expected
gravity
of
12.140°
P
(at
40.0
l)
due
to
the
fact
that
our
actual
total
volume
was
also
higher
and
therefore
the
wort
and
its
fermentable
sugars
weren’t
as
condensed
as
expected.
In
addition,
our
accidental
rapid
sparging
also
may
have
contributed
to
this
lower
than
expected
initial
gravity.
-­‐
This
Kölsch
Ale
Yeast
was
ideal
for
our
beer
due
to
its
clean,
low-­‐ester
profile,
which
matched
our
quality
parameters
for
what
we
were
trying
to
brew.
The
yeast
strain
is
also
fittingly
attenuable
and
lends
to
the
fermentation
into
a
light-­‐bodied
beer.
Fermentation/Conditioning/Packaging:
Date:
Gravity:
Temperature
Step
2/11/15
11.3°P
14°C
Pitch
2/13/15
5.9°P
24°C
Fermentation
2/16/15
2.22°P
20°C
Fermentation
2/18/15
2.02°P
-­‐-­‐-­‐
Cold
Crash
2/27/15
2.02°P
-­‐-­‐-­‐
Racked
3/4/15
2.02°P
-­‐-­‐-­‐
Kegged

7.
Observations/Conclusions:
-­‐Fermentation
proceeded
rather
quickly,
which
came
as
a
bit
of
a
surprise
based
on
the
yeast
quantity
pitched.
Although
we
thought
three
packages
of
yeast
containing
a
total
of
450
billion
cells
(which
it
seemingly
was),
this
came
up
fairly
short
of
our
calculated
yeast
quantity
of
nearly
770
billion
cells
meaning
we
under
pitched.
This
could’ve
led
to
a
slow
or
even
uncompleted
fermentation
and
could’ve
also
stressed
the
yeast
leading
to
a
number
of
off
flavors
such
as
fusel
alcohols
and
undesirable
sulfurous
flavors.
Again,
although
it
seemed
fermentation
was
facilitated
with
ease
by
our
yeast
(based
on
time
and
our
actual
final
gravity
that
was
lower
than
our
theoretical
final
gravity)
at
this
point
we
still
out
to
be
mindful
of
potential
off
flavors
that
may
have
been
produced
during
this
fermentation.
-­‐
The
fermentation
temperature
fluctuated
quite
a
bit
likely
due
to
our
inability
to
temperature
control
the
brew
lab
during
winter
where
the
heat
was
being
turned
on
and
off.
Ideally
we
wanted
to
ferment
just
below
ale
temperatures
(roughly
14-­‐17°C),
but
we
ended
up
as
high
as
24°C.
While
this
shouldn’t
kill
off
the
yeast,
the
warmer
fermentation
may
lend
some
esters
to
our
beer
to
be
considered
when
sampling
our
final
product.
-­‐
We
kegged
this
beer
into
two
1/6
barrels
to
make
packaging
quicker
and
less
labor
intensive.
We
carbonated
it
in
the
cooler
for
6
days
at
16
psi
until
the
day
before
sensory
evaluation
in
which
we
increased
the
pressure
to
25
psi.
Sensory
Analysis
(Date:
3/11/15)
Visual:
• The
beer
was
light
yellow
as
a
result
of
the
light
(low
SRM)
malts
we
utilized.
• The
beer
was
slightly
opaque
indicating
slight
chill
haze
and
inadequate
reduction
of
proteins
or
beta-­‐glucans.
• The
beer
had
only
slight
head
retention,
which
comes
as
a
bit
of
surprise
based
on
our
use
of
high
alpha-­‐acid
hops
and
residual
protein
in
the
beer.
Perhaps
this
occurred
based
on
our
somewhat
low
protein
malt
bill
(white
wheat
malt
was
used
sparingly)
or
the
low
carbonation
of
the
beer.
• The
beer
also
had
decent
lacing
that
could’ve
been
affected
by
a
number
of
factors
such
as
hop
and
protein
content
or
the
cleanness
of
the
glass
being
sampled
from.
Aroma:
• The
beer
had
slight
fruit
esters
likely
due
to
fermentation
at
warmer
temperatures.
In
addition,
we
noted
a
pear,
apple
like
aroma,
which
is
indicative
of
acetaldehyde.
Normally,
the
presence
of
acetaldehyde
indicates
an
incomplete
fermentation,
but
this
seems
unlikely
due
to
the
high
attenuation
of
our
beer
and
resulting
lower
final
gravity
than
expected.
Perhaps
these
aromas
were
more
attributed
to
ester
production
during
fermentation.
• The
beer
had
slight
aromas
of
honey,
which
can
be
directly
attributed
to
our
use
of
Munich
malt.
There
were
also
some
bready
aromas
that
were
also
either
attributable
to
our
malt
selection
or
even
yeast.

8. • The
beer
had
some
slightly
floral
(geraniol)
and
grassy
hop
aromas,
which
can
be
directly
attributed
to
our
use
of
Sterling
aroma
hop
additions.
Flavor:
• The
beer
had
a
light
caramelly
maltiness,
which
can
be
attributed
to
our
use
of
Munich
malt.
• The
beer
also
had
slight
hop
bitterness
resulting
from
our
hop
additions,
especially
the
addition
of
Merkur.
• The
beer
had
a
slight
fruity
sweetness,
which
can
most
likely
be
attributed
to
ester
production
during
fermentation.
Perhaps
some
of
the
perception
of
sweetness
came
from
our
use
of
calcium
chloride.
Mouthfeel:
• The
beer
was
medium-­‐light
bodied
based
on
our
malt
selection,
attenuative
fermentation,
and
mash
temperature
choice
balancing
alpha
and
beta
amylase
enzymes.
Despite
a
slight
chill
haze,
there
was
low
overall
viscosity
due
to
low
protein
content
of
our
beer.
• The
beer
was
smooth,
coating,
clean,
and
balanced
based
on
our
water
treatment
with
calcium
chloride.
• The
beer
had
low
carbonation
thus
lacking
a
biting
bitterness,
which
ultimately
led
to
a
palatable
beer
with
greater
focus
on
flavor.
Overall:
• The
beer
met
BJCP
guidelines
to
a
tee
in
terms
of
appearance,
aroma,
flavor,
and
mouthfeel.
We
successfully
brewed
a
clean,
sessionable
Kölsch
that
was
medium-­‐
light
bodied,
had
low
esters,
low
hop
flavor,
and
slight
hop
bitterness.
Conclusion
-­‐
Based
on
our
water
treatment,
malt
analyses,
malt
selection,
and
other
brewing
parameters
aforementioned,
we
ultimately
came
pretty
close
to
completely
verifying
our
expectations
and
hypothesis.
We
produced
a
medium-­‐light
bodied
beer
based
on
our
use
of
calcium
chloride,
our
malt
selection,
and
mash
regimen.
The
beer
also
was
light
golden
in
color
and
had
bready
and
honey
malty
aromas
and
flavors,
all
of
which
can
be
directly
attributed
to
our
malt
selection.
In
addition,
the
beer
had
a
slight
sweetness
as
a
result
of
our
manipulation
of
body
and
use
of
calcium
chloride.
The
final
product
slightly
strayed
from
the
hypothesis
based
on
the
fact
that
esters
were
present
likely
as
a
result
of
warmer
fermentation
temperatures.
In
addition,
the
beer
had
a
slight
chill
haze
based
on
haze-­‐
forming
proteins
and
beta-­‐glucans,
which
wasn’t
expected
or
desired
based
on
Kölsch
style
guidelines.
Overall,
our
water
treatment
and
malt
selection
as
well
as
other,
less
emphasized
brewing
parameters,
contributed
to
an
ale
both
consistent
with
our
hypothesis
and
expectations
as
well
as
the
BJCP
guidelines.
The
brewing
of
this
beer
ultimately
proved
successful
despite
some
issues
(higher
mash
temperature,
too
quick
of
sparge,
non-­‐
temperature
controlled
fermentation)
based
on
the
fact
we
produced
a
drinkable,
sessionable
Kölsch
ale.