So, Tim Cooper took me on a tour of his brewery .....
Posted: Monday Dec 11, 2006 3:17 pm
Hi All,
I was lucky enough to have Tim Cooper take me on a short tour of the Coopers brewery a few weeks ago. I was really impressed by his detailed knowledge of the whole process. He's a top bloke to boot
. Anyway, I spent a while picking his brains about how they make their beer. In particular, I asked about the use of sugar and how they mash their grain. In short, Tim said that coopers don't use any sugar in their beer except for priming the bottles.
Now, I know that many people suspect that Coopers do use sugar to make their beer. However, as far as I can tell, this is due to people measuring the final gravity of the Coopers beer at home and deciding that an FG that low just isn't possible when using malt only. For instance, in an "average beer" that has a stating gravity of ~1.040 and made from all malt, the FG is usually 1.012. Yet Coopers get their beers down to ~1.005 ish.
I think I may have stumbled on to a way that it may be possible to get the FG down this low. When I asked about the mash schedules, I was told that it's different for each beer (as expected) but that they all go through a protein rest (ie 50 degree C rest). I think this is the key but my analysis below involves a bit of guess work.....
It is very likely that the malt they use is highly modified and hence, as you AG's know, it doesn't need (and normally shouldn’t have) a protein rest. According to Palmer:
Finally, Coopers don’t filter their ales, but they do put it through a centrifuge to reduce the amount of yeast in the beer before bottling. This process will also remove some of the largest remaining proteins … though I’ve no idea how effective their centrifuge would be at this. In any case, this would also aid in reducing the FG
So, summing up my ramblings and assumptions, it may indeed be possible to use all malt and have a “low†FG. Thought it may not be possible to achieve this in a home brewing situation.
I admit that there’s a lot of guess work in my analysis above. I’d be keen to hear what others think about my deductions. Don’t hold back
Cheers,
Adam L
PS: Here’s a few facts about the new Coopers brewery:
I was lucky enough to have Tim Cooper take me on a short tour of the Coopers brewery a few weeks ago. I was really impressed by his detailed knowledge of the whole process. He's a top bloke to boot
. Anyway, I spent a while picking his brains about how they make their beer. In particular, I asked about the use of sugar and how they mash their grain. In short, Tim said that coopers don't use any sugar in their beer except for priming the bottles.Now, I know that many people suspect that Coopers do use sugar to make their beer. However, as far as I can tell, this is due to people measuring the final gravity of the Coopers beer at home and deciding that an FG that low just isn't possible when using malt only. For instance, in an "average beer" that has a stating gravity of ~1.040 and made from all malt, the FG is usually 1.012. Yet Coopers get their beers down to ~1.005 ish.
I think I may have stumbled on to a way that it may be possible to get the FG down this low. When I asked about the mash schedules, I was told that it's different for each beer (as expected) but that they all go through a protein rest (ie 50 degree C rest). I think this is the key but my analysis below involves a bit of guess work.....
It is very likely that the malt they use is highly modified and hence, as you AG's know, it doesn't need (and normally shouldn’t have) a protein rest. According to Palmer:
So, this may reduce the FG on its own due to the lack of large proteins in the beer. Further, I suspect they the saccharification temperature used is close to 60 degrees C. This will produce a dry, more fermentable beer. This is because of my own observation that the Coopers ales don’t have a strong malt character. Also, while the body certainly isn’t watery, it seems to have less body than some of my ales.Fully-modified malts have already made use of these enzymes and do not benefit from more time spent in the protein rest regime. In fact, using a protein rest on fully modified malts tends to remove most of the body of a beer, leaving it thin and watery. Most base malt in use in the world today is fully modified.
Finally, Coopers don’t filter their ales, but they do put it through a centrifuge to reduce the amount of yeast in the beer before bottling. This process will also remove some of the largest remaining proteins … though I’ve no idea how effective their centrifuge would be at this. In any case, this would also aid in reducing the FG
So, summing up my ramblings and assumptions, it may indeed be possible to use all malt and have a “low†FG. Thought it may not be possible to achieve this in a home brewing situation.
I admit that there’s a lot of guess work in my analysis above. I’d be keen to hear what others think about my deductions. Don’t hold back
Cheers,
Adam L
PS: Here’s a few facts about the new Coopers brewery:
- * They can make up to 500,000 stubbies per day
* They brew in 160,000 L batches
* They use up to 3,000,000 L of water per day
* They produce their own power with a gas turbine. They sell the excess power back to “the gridâ€.
* The exhaust from the gas turbine is used to produce steam which is used for heating in the plant. They can produce up to 21 tonnes per day of steam.
* Coopers Pale Ale was first sold in 1989!!! Before this it was called “Coopers light dinner aleâ€!
* They use a single yeast strain to produce the pale ale. They previously used 2 but they stopped doing this to help reduce batch-to-batch variations in the taste.
* They keep their yeast in use for about 6 months, using it many times over, 20+ times. They make a new batch when the viability drops.
* The spent malt grains from the mash are on sold to a variety of companies. If you have wheetbix for breakfast, you just may be eating them!
using US56. Have to check brewing notes to find out whats happening. They usually finish at about 1.012