Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2099
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/07/09 PDT
Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 10 July 1996 Number 2099
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
distilled water? (brewshop@coffey.com (Jeff Sturman))
Qouth AlK / Plastic Carboys / BS in the BA / Virgin's Stout (KennyEddy@aol.com)
Re: Boil-over cleanup. (stafford@newport26.hac.com (Jack Stafford))
Re: 158F mashing ("Tracy Aquilla")
Re: White film in bottled beer...yuck or yum?! (WineNBrew@aol.com)
A WWW page! (Mark Wallace/CAM/Lotus)
re: Mashing Time - another point of view. (Steve Alexander)
thermal contraction problem? ("Ray Robert")
Fermentability (John Chang)
Re: hi temp mash-source of sweetness? ("Tracy Aquilla")
Re: Al & Dave's little tiff ("Tracy Aquilla")
OOPS! A quick add-on re: cleaning (WineNBrew@aol.com)
Mash temperature experiment (stafford@newport26.hac.com (Jack Stafford))
Bug killers didest #2098 (blades@airtime.co.uk (Liz Blades))
RE: HYPERBOLE (Carl Hattenburg)
Yeast and ITBR? ("Craig Rode")
Beer in Spaaace ("Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM")
Skunked Beer (Jeff Hewit)
Burley vs. Korzonas (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
and include only subscribe or unsubscribe in the body of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info@aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: brewshop@coffey.com (Jeff Sturman)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:49:59 -0600
Subject: distilled water?
Last weekend I had some minor pH problems with my mash and out of curiosity
I checked the pH of the distilled water I use. My tap water sucks, so I
mix it about 50/50 with distilled water when I brew. Two different brands
of pH papers and a digital pH meter all calculated the pH of the distilled
water at about 5.5! Isn't distilled water supposed to be pH 7.0? The
manufacturer of the water told me that distilled water, pH 7.0, is
corrosive because it acts like a sponge, trying to suck up anything it
contacts. That's why their distilled water has a lower pH. Are they
pulling my racking cane?
jeff
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:03:27 -0400
Subject: Qouth AlK / Plastic Carboys / BS in the BA / Virgin's Stout
AlK Suggests:
<<
Before, I go on, I'd like to ask that we all try to not use all 80 columns
in our posts. It makes it that much harder to quote and insert the ">" at
the beginning without wrapping. I try to never use the 80th column in any
post for fear that the HBD engine will reject the post.
>>
Maybe a different "quoting" technique, such as the one illustrated here, is a
better approach than trying to get your CR's in the right spot when writing
and rewriting a post. I'll test drive it here --
**********
Duff Hickman asked:
<<
Has anyone tried using the plastic water bottle jugs (the ones used
in office dispensers) for fermentation? They are the same shape and have a
>>
When I started brewing, I used one of these (in fact, I still have it). My
earlier brews were pretty uninspiring, for a number of reasons, but I don't
think using the plastic as a primary fermenter was the main culprit. Problem
is, I changed a buch of things in my brewing process to improve my product
(which it did); I can't say what the difference was with respect to the
plastic bottle.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the limited time that a beer is in primary
(maybe a week) should present a minimal oxidation hazard; in fact, while the
yeast are active, they can consume some of what does get in (significant
amount? I dunno). If you stick to simple so-called "quick ales" (a week in
primary then right into bottles) or use a glass secondary, I wouldn't sweat
it.
By the way, you'll also need a larger stopper than the glass carboys; I think
it's a #9 or #9-1/2 but I may be wrong.
**********
Jim Thomas' brown ale has him puzzled:
<<
Sort of watery, but I wouldn't call it thin. Don't know if this is
how this mild brown is supposed to taste. I'm wondering if the
brown sugar is the culprit. Don't think it's the yeast, although
I've not used this strain before.
>>
I haven't used brown sugar very often but a friend of mine does, and it tends
to be pretty coarse until it ages a while. Not sure "watery" comes to mind,
but it definitely needs aging if there's a significant amount of BS in there.
***********
Mike Kidulich is going for a Classic on his virgin AG session:
<<
Guinness Alike
8 lb. British Pale malt
1 lb. roasted barley
1 lb. flaked barley
bittering hops (haven't decided what to use yet)
Wyeast Irish (1084) from starter
>>
My wife just brewed and bottled almost this same recipe (7 lb pale malt;
1-1/2 lb FB I believe) and this simple recipe (a' la Lewis' "Irish Draught
Stout") was QUITE reminiscent of draught Guiness when we popped one open on
her birthday (after the requisite fourteen-day waiting period).
Brewing Details: Delia used a 154F single-temperature mash for a bit over an
hour. For bittering she used Kent Golding plugs to the tune of 40 - 45 IBU's
(2 oz @ ~5% I think, for 60 minutes after a 30-min wort pre-boil). Wyeast
Irish was also used. Fermented at 68F. One week primary, one week
secondary. Primed with 1/2 cup corn sugar and bottled -- the carbonation is
just about right at that level.
The water was fairly soft, RO with enough baking soda (2g per 5 gal) and
chalk (0.25g) to boost the alkalinity to about 75 ppm, and deriving most of
the calcium for mashing from CaCl2 (3.5g). She used a pinch of epsom salt
(0.5g) to bring the sulphate to about 10 ppm. Mash pH was 5.2 with this
formulation. If you use your regular brewing water, have some chalk handy to
adjust the pH since the roasted barley may drive the pH below 5.0, depending
on your water makeup.
It's a surprise to many to learn that draft Guiness is a relatively
light-gravity beer (something like 1.038 OG); its robust flavor and aroma can
give the impression of a much stronger brew. Delia stepped up the Lewis
recipe from 1.038 to about 1.045; I think it's perfect at that level (but
then again I like math too). The above recipe will result in an OG somewhere
at or above 1.050 -- give it some thought.
Best luck o' the Irish to ye, son.
***********
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: stafford@newport26.hac.com (Jack Stafford)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 11:16:52 PDT
Subject: Re: Boil-over cleanup.
Sun, 7 Jul 1996, Mike Foster <mfoster1@voyager.net> wrote:
>My second batch boiled over two days ago, and now I have carbonized wort
>stuck to my wife's enameled white stove. How can I get this stuff off
>without ruining the finish of the stove?
Oven cleaner should do the trick.
Hang in there, it looks gnarley but don't
let a little boilover scare you off. :)
Jack
Costa Mesa, CA
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 14:25:12 CDT
Subject: Re: 158F mashing
In Digest #2097:
<korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com> Al K. wrote:
>Dave writes:
>>The nerve of that AlK telling me to admit that I'm wrong and in public!. Well
>>I never......
>
>I felt it important to point out that you have
>been posting misinformation numerous times on this topic.
Please be specific here, Al. Exactly which information was incorrect?
>>Does George DePiro's comment, a couple of HBD's ago, that one would get a
>>"barely fementable wort" by saccharifying at 158 F, mean anything to you?
>
>It means that (Gold Medal Winner) George has the concept right, but perhaps
>exaggerated a bit regarding the unfermentability of the resultant wort.
More than a bit, IMO. "Barely fermentable" misses the mark entirely. David
has made a valid observation here.
>>I gave an example of a
>>recent brew of mine which clearly showed that George's comments were off
base.
>>My brew had a reasonable FG ( 1.015 - which is what I wanted) and good
>>fermentability ( OG of 1.060 - 1.015) and a calculated efficiency of
>>extraction of 89%. Frankly, I am surprized at the continued reaction I get
>>to what I thought was an innocent comment during a diatribe on a different
>>subject.
>
>Your 75% apparent attenuation could be explained in a variety of ways. Your
>[snip]...There are a lot of other possibilities, but it's time to move on.
Hold on there, I'm not ready to move on just yet. I have mashed many beers
at 157, 158, and even 159F using a single infusion. This is how I usually
make scotch ales. I use multiple, carefully calibrated thermometers, have no
infections, and do single infusions of hot water. Every time I've done it
this way, the beer attenuated to at least 65% (AA), depending on the malt,
yeast, etc. There is a difference between fermentability (which is fixed for
a given mash) and apparent attenuation, which can vary for a particular
wort, depending on the yeast strain, pitching rate, physiological state,
fermentation temperature, wort O2 levels, etc. Maybe David is one of those
brewers who pitches the yeast at the optimal rate while at high kraeusen! It
works for me.
>beta amylase
>gets denatured quickly at 158F (and less quickly at 157F, and even less
>quickly at 156F) and results in a less fermentable (more dextrinous) wort.
I'm not sure if David even made this point, but I doubt the BA is completely
denatured as rapidly as many seem to believe. The stuff doesn't just
disappear all at once in an instant you know. In any case, a reasonably
fermentable wort can be made by doing a single rest at 158F.
[snip chart]
>Note that these are for well-modified malt, but since virtually all
>malt these days is well-modified, I'd say it is pretty applicable to
>the discussion.
I think malt quality varies more than you imply here. Brit pale ale malts
are clearly more modified than typical continental pils malts (I've mashed a
couple hundred pounds of each over the last 11 months and it's obvious).
Munich malt also has a higher percentage of alpha 1-6 glycosidic bonds than
other types of malt, making it inherently less fermentable than other malts,
no matter how it's mashed. The point is, wort fermentability is dependent
not only on the mash program but the choice of malt as well. (...and stop
posting all this misinformation!) ;-)
>Let's see if we can't summarize our two positions here, just for
>clarity and put this discussion to rest:
>Dave says that to increase fermentability, you need to mash longer
>at 158F.
I'll let David speak for himself here, but I'm not sure that's exactly how
he put it.
>I claim that he's wrong in this statement and that mashing
>longer at 158F will not increase fermentability because after a very
>short time at 158F the beta amylase in the wort will be denatured.
Well, I can't help it, I just have to respond to this. I think you missed
the point. Here's my interpretation of what David meant: IF you usually do a
step mash with a short beta rest and a longer alpha rest (eg. 15 min@149
then 30 min@158) AND you're not satisfied with your FG (i.e. too high), you
might TRY increasing the time of the mash, particularly by extending the
length of the alpha rest (otherwise you might increase fermentability TOO
much, if you increased the beta rest time). This should help decrease the FG
some. I think the point was more that longer rests are likely to resolve
this minor problem in many cases. I agree. Many texts recommend mash times
that are too short, IMO.
>I further claim that the wort will be no more fermentable after 2 hours
>at 158F than it will be after only 1 hour at 158F.
Maybe. That probably depends a lot on the quality of the malt, crush
quality, etc., but I agree, if things go well, conversion of most mashes
should be complete within about an hour. If not, longer rests will probably
help!
Tracy
------------------------------
From: WineNBrew@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 14:52:21 -0400
Subject: Re: White film in bottled beer...yuck or yum?!
Dear Todd W Roat,
Over the years there have been many of our customers who DID have the white
film in their beer bottles.
More than likely its just acetobacter flowers.....the beginnings of vinegar.
Where'd it come from? Well, perhaps bottles that weren't 100% clean, a syphon
hose or filler not quite clean, or the same with a draining faucet not taken
apart and scrubbed, etc. etc.
None of our customers has this problem anymore. Not for at least 20 years.
Why?
Because we don't use chlorine bleach anymore, nor any of the newfangled
iodophors etc. Never have, never will!
WHAT? ARE WE CRAZY? EVERYBODY USES THESE....EVERYBODY!
Not us and not our customers (& we have a lot of 'em).
OK! What do we do if we think we're such smartie-pants?
We keep it fast, easy, fun, straightforward and simple.
Scrub everything with lots of Arm & Hammer baking soda and warm water.....not
soap of any kind. Then, after rinsing with lots of clear water.....Rinse with
a stock solution of sodium metabisulfite. Let sit for 2-3 minutes. Rinse with
lots more clear water.
TA! DA! No problems. Period! Ever!....and no danger from splashed bleach
on you or your clothes etc.
Now, what can you do with THIS particular batch??? Easy! Give each bottle a
quick twist back and forth. The film will break up, and settle to the bottom
of your bottle.
Don't age for a real long time. Pour slowly & enjoy this batch while slightly
young.
In the future use our measures and it won't happen again.
Cheers! :) We've been in biz 24 years.
Sandra & Craig
Wine & Brew By You, Inc.
Miami, Florida
P.S. As a bribe, if you do follow our "best-ever" method, we'll send you a
free copy of our malt-extract recipe to imitate the original New York
Ballentine's XXX IPA. Just send us your snail-mail address. OK? OK!
------------------------------
From: Mark Wallace/CAM/Lotus <Mark_Wallace/CAM/Lotus.NOTES@crd.lotus.com>
Date: 9 Jul 96 14:59:56 EDT
Subject: A WWW page!
Category:
Comments:
Use doclink to get to the actual WWW page
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 15:01:05 -0400
Subject: re: Mashing Time - another point of view.
David R. Burley writes ...
>A wort held at a certain temperature in the saccharification range FOR LONG
>ENOUGH TIME will naturally come to a certain, repeatable (assuming the same
>malt
>and water composition) composition because the alpha amylase will chew up all
>the starch and the beta amylase will chew up all the intermediate starchy
>residues, provided by the alpha amylase, it can, before it disappears. I think
>we would all agree on this as a simplified, but adequate explanation of what
>happens during the saccharification step. The variability of the composition
of
Assuming that there is any or enough AA and BA left to "chew up all the
starch". I think that this is the only real point of contention with
your 70C rest suggestion.
>the wort is temperature dependent because the beta amylase is denatured at
>temperatures in the so-called saccharification range (typically identified as
>149 to 158 F). So while the beta amylase is producing fementable sugar during
>the saccharification rest, it also is disappearing by an independent reaction.
This isn't the 'typically identified' saccharification range from any
source I've seen. Most often it's 60C(140F) to 70C(158) and around
149F(65C) is the middle value where several important optima occur,
decidely NOT the low end. I can't recall seeing a commercial mash
shedule that saccharifies outside 62C to 68C unless fungal source
amylases are used.
>It is a race to see whether the chopped up starch gets fully converted to
sugar
>before the beta amylase disappears or not. Since the beta amylase disappears
at
>the lower temperature more slowly, more of the starch intermediates get turned
Have you examined the RATE of disappearance of BA (and AA) versus
temperature and compared this with the rate of increased activity. I
suspect not. Typically the rates of inactivation for enzymes increase by
10X to 100X per 10C increase, from memory the rates for grain amylases
are around 20-30X per 10C. If you overshoot the temp by 2C, you'll
get roughly 1/2 the total activity - assuming you mash till
inactivation is nearly complete, which seems very likely @70C.
>into fermentable sugars than at high temperatures. As a result, the lower
>saccharification temperatures produce the more fermentable wort IF it is held
>at this temperature for LONG ENOUGH TIME..
True, and the other way of describing this situation, that you seem to
be ignoring, is that if you mash at a HIGH ENOUGH TEMPERATURE, you will
lack amylases before you adaquately hydrolyse your starches. As I've
mentioned the effect of mashing 10C lower is roughly a 2X increase
in time. The effect of mashing 10C higher is say a 25X decrease in
enzymes availability once you are in the enzyme limited case.
>My comments have ever ONLY related to those brewers who use Papazian's and
>others' advice to use short sacharification times of 10 to 30 minutes or at
>least less than an hour. Using short times will increase the likelihood of not
>allowing the beta amylase to complete its job.
As using high temperatures increases the likelyhood of preventing the
BA from completing its job.
> This is particularly true at
>higher saccharification temperatures where the beta amylase is at a lower
>concentration at any given time into the the saccharification rest. Being
lower
>in concentration ( even though the forward rate of saccharification is faster)
>the OVERALL observed rate at the higher tempereature can be lower, DEPENDING
>UPON 1) the type of malt and 2) the composition of the brewing water (liquor)
>3)
>The thickness of the mash.
I'm not in favor of short sacch. times either, but it's quite likely
that you won't see a significant amount of additional beta-amylase
activity after the first 30' at 70C. Initial enzyme concentration
counts, Calcium counts, thickness and particularly substrate
concentrations count, lack of destabilizing metal ions count, but it's
very hard argue that these can overcome the effects of the enzyme
deactiviation vs temperature.
>The type of malt is important since it controls the original concentration of
>the enzymes. A highly converted malt like the British malts start out at a
much
>lower enzyme concentration than American or continental malts. American six
row
British pale ale malts have less diastatic power because of the
kilning schedule (finals at 100C to 105C) not because of the degree of
modification. Almost all malts today are highly modified including
the diastatically powerful ones which kiln out around 85C.
>different for different types of malt. The use of adjuncts will affect the
>concentration of enzymes by simple dilution effects etc., etc. Because of the
Wrong - another HB book momily. Grain adjuncts typically contribute
substantially to the available beta-amylase content. All of the
beta-amylase is present in a grain seed, unlike alpha-amylase which is
synthesized during germination. Some BA is immediately available in
ungerminated seed(~40%), some is immobilised and less active, but NOT
inactive. The immobilized BA is released by the action of
SH-proteinase enzyme. Immobilized BA can be released from unmalted
adjuncts by either a protein rest with malted barley, assuming the
proteinase is intact or by addition of artificial enzymes
(e.g.papain). Both techniques have been used commercially.
>The composition of the water is important since enzyme stability is dependent
>upon calcium content as well as other ions. Generally pH and Calcium ions in
>the
>mash exhibit control over the rate of all the hydrolysis reactions and
>apparently the rate of denaturization of the various enzymes, and importantly
>the beta amylase.
I would say 'importantly ALPHA-AMYLASE', not beta- !!
Altho calcium improves the stability of beta-amylase to a point, the
bigger effect is on stabilizing and increasing the activity level
of Alpha-amylase. At 70C barley AA is quite unstable in low Ca+
environment. Further the activity of AA irreversibly lost when used
in suboptimal Ca concentrations even at 60C. AA is actually classed
as a metallo-enzyme because of the calcium requirement.
> The thickness of the mash is important since the enzymes in question are more
>stable in thicker mashes and also importantly, more stable in the mash than in
>pure solutions on which many results have been reported. Also, the sugars
>produced slow down the rate of conversion as the concentration goes up during
>saccharification.
A thick mash is supposed to have two positive effects. First it is
said to act as a thermal buffer - or some such language. I think that
this is from M&B Sci among other sources, but I don't really know what
they are trying to say. It's obviously harder to get a consistent
temperature in a thick mash, but that means both hot spots and cool
spots. Perhaps they are trying to say that the intra-granular
temperature won't rise as fast. I'm not sure. Anyone care to
explain ?
The second effect is substrate complex stabilisation. When the
enzymes and substrate join or complex, then the enzyme may be more
stable. This is the case for amyases - *BUT* - this is probably a
small effect when it comes to normal mashes. BA and AA are both
decidely much less stable in 'test' mash conditions which are often
involve 10:1 water to grist ratios. I strongly suspect that the
difference in stability between a 1qt/# (67% water) mash and 1.6qt/#
(76% water) mash is a secondary effect. Useful, but not critical.
Note that a thick mash only helps stability if it is full of
substrate. If there are few 1-4 linked non-reducing ends for the BA
to attack (for example if the mash is beginning and full of long
amyloses & amylopectins) then there is less substrate to form
stable enzyme+substrate complexes from.
> In my original comment, I felt that because of the complexities outlined
above
>that it was far easier to hold longer at the chosen (by the HBDer)
>saccharification temperature as a first step to solving a high OG problem than
>to mess around with temperature and wort composition as some contributors
>suggested.
>
>That's it. If confusion reigns now, let it!
I don't deny that is is possible to mash at 70C, only that is is
difficult, requires extra care and normally results in a high FG beer.
I also admit that even with a 70C single infusion in cooler the
effects of BA should be substantial.
Since David Burley reports 75% apparent attenuation of a 70C mash (few
mash details given) while more common experience indicates that a 68C
mash can result in something around a 66% apparent attenuation, I
think there is something here that requires explanation. Too bad the
home gluco-spectrum test hasn't been invented yet to analyse David's
wort. How about posting the mash details David ? pH, water chemistry,
thickness. Method of temp control, measurement, mashing apparatus,
malts details ... yield ... even yeast ... ? BTW - when was the last
time you calibrated your thermometer ? (yes, I am still sceptical).
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: "Ray Robert" <Ray_Robert@bah.com>
Date: 9 Jul 1996 15:07:46 U
Subject: thermal contraction problem?
Good Day Collective,
I have one quick question:
Do I risk permanent damage to my new brew kettle, a converted SS Keg (Thanks
Wallie!), if I were to immerse it in an ice bath after a full boil? I did
this with my enamel on steel pot without any visible damage. Would this hold
true with the SS? John Palmer are you out there? I usually do the ice bath
in conjunction an immersion chiller.
Thanks,
Robert
ray_robert@bah.com
------------------------------
From: John Chang <75411.142@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 09 Jul 96 15:29:42 EDT
Subject: Fermentability
Greetings,
I just finished bottling a batch of pale ale brewed from a high-kilned English
malt. Because I used 3 more pounds of malt than any previous batch (11 lbs
total), I expected to get a higher OG than I got. OG:1042, FG:1010. (Sparge
inefficiency?)
I mashed at the higher end (158F) than my normal 150F with the expectation of
creating a less fermentable (and hence, sweeter) wort (despite the latest HBD
duiscussions on gelatinization at 140F). I adjusted my hops blindly, given an
expected change in sweetness due to the new total amount of malt used and the
higher mash temp. (apprx 12 AAU's for 5 gal)
Question: In addition to mash temp, assuming complete conversion is achieved,
what other variables can one use to control sweetness/maltiness? More malt?
Yeast attenuation?
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------------------------------
This last batch was also pitched with a starter stepped up from yeast cultured
from a bottle of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. I would like to produce a clone using
a yeast culture from a bottle of Chimay Belgian Ale, which I just got the
pleasure to try last week. What an outstanding product!!!
Would it be best to use the Dewolf-Cosyn's Belgian malt, English malt, or
something else?
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------------------------
Last question:
Having only used the English pale malt in all of my five batches (went all
grain
right off the bat), what can I expect from American malt, Klages, etc. With
respect to different types of malt, are there general guidelines to use in
determining expected extract/efficiency?
Thanks for the bandwidth and any responses. This hobby is one of the few I have
undertaken that I find myself studying/reading/tinking about daily. Private
email ok.
TIA,
John
For those with experience in cloning this beer
Question: do I ha
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 15:48:06 CDT
Subject: Re: hi temp mash-source of sweetness?
In Digest #2098:
George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro) wrote:
>Yes, Al was right in saying that I exaggerated when I said that
>mashing at 158F for any length of time would yield a "barely
>fermentable wort." I'm prone to hyperbole! It would yield a pretty
>sweet beer, though.
Maybe, but not necessarily. I hope you don't curse me George for continuing
this thread based on your comment, but this brings up another issue that's
bothered me for some time now. I agree with George that beers mashed at 158F
tend to taste relatively sweet, depending on how they're handled during
fermentation, but I don't think that dextrins contribute any flavor per se,
and I'm not convinced that every beer mashed at 158 will necessarily taste
sweet. Polysaccharides composed of greater than three (or is it four?)
monosaccharide units have no flavor; they certainly aren't sweet. Sweetness
is determined by residual sugars (i.e. small molecules), not dextrins or
starches (NOTE: some proteins taste sweet too). Dextrins contribute to body
and only indirectly influence flavor by altering texture. I'd be quite
interested in any references indicating that dextrins taste sweet (I've been
wrong before!). I think whether or not a beer tastes sweet depends more on
wort composition, original gravity, the choice of yeast, and fermentation
conditions than on the mash schedule itself, as the level of residual sugar
is generally dependent on OG and the degree of attenuation, which is mainly
dependent on the yeast strain and the conditions of the fermentation. Maybe
now we can transform this one into a 'source of sweetness' thread?
Tracy
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 16:30:49 CDT
Subject: Re: Al & Dave's little tiff
In Digest #2098:
korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com wrote:
>What do you want me to do? Should I get a sound byte from Pierre Celis
>or Jean-Pierre Van Roy on this and put it on a Web page?
This petty attitude is pretty annoying. I've experienced the same garbage
myself recently and don't appreciate such a lack of personal respect. People
other than relatively famous professional brewers ARE capable of making
legitimate observations you know. For some reason, certain folks around here
will only accept information as being legitimate if it comes directly from
one of the so-called brewing 'gurus' (unless it's Greg Noonan). Problem is,
even the gurus make mistakes (lots of them too!). Sorry Al, but training as
a professional brewer does not a biochemist make.
>What do you need to believe that mash temperature and not time determine
>fermentability?
We need facts based on data that can be examined by all. Lacking that,
sometimes anecdotal evidence is all we have to go on. Most brewers I know
agree that wort fermentability is a function of time and temperature, as
well as the choice of malt. A one second mash at ANY temperature just don't
work, Al! Time is a critical parameter. I'm bowing out of this thread now
but I felt like David got a bum rap here and he deserves better treatment
(everyone does). I believe this misunderstanding resulted from people
misquoting David. If you must correct someone else's post, one would be wise
to make certain to quote the source accurately.
Tracy
------------------------------
From: WineNBrew@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:33:21 -0400
Subject: OOPS! A quick add-on re: cleaning
OOPS!
Our previous post re: cleaning with baking soda & sodium metabisulfite was
exactly right for all your plastic equipment, but we left off the easiest way
to clean really dirty beer bottles, glass carboys and wine bottles.
Just put your bottles in a large waste basket or garbage can with lots of
ammonia and water. Let 'em soak for a few hours.
Look closely at them. Use a good bottle brush to scrub off heavy dirt
particles. Then rinse well.
Now use your baking soda and sodium metabisulfite solution as described in
our last post.
Voila!
Finished.
Now, your beer & wine bottles don't need to be cleaned each and every time,
as long as you rinse them thoroughly right after pouring a glass. Store them
upside down in a carton and the next time you fill 'em all you need do is
give 'em a quick water rinse and fill.
All done! Works perfectly!
Guaranteed!
Sandra & Craig
Wine & Brew By You, Inc.
Miami, Florida
------------------------------
From: stafford@newport26.hac.com (Jack Stafford)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 13:59:48 PDT
Subject: Mash temperature experiment
With all the discourse on mash temperature and enzymes lately, I decided to try
something differant first hand. Everything went very well except for spills
and a sticky kitchen floor, then a stuck lauter that somehow got itself
unstuck.
This was a single step mash (80 min) in a zap-pap plastic bucket system.
10lb klagus malt, 1lb rice, 1lb corn, 1/2lb crystal 60L.
This time around I did two things differant:
I mashed at 150*F instead of 155*F.
I made a very thick mash compared to my usual.
The result was an OG of 1.064 in comparison to the customary 1.045 or so.
On the third day of fermentation I took a gravity reading and it was 1.014 wow.
It's in the secondary fermenter and the yeast is starting to flocculate.
I could not believe it - 1.064 that's my highest gravity from all-grain to
date.
A lower mash temperature and a proper consistancy in the mash seemed to give a
higher OG and it fermented quicker than the dickens. I'm not sure if this one
was a fluke or not, I'll have to try it again.
Thanks, you folks give me lots of tips and help me make better beer.
Jack
Costa Mesa, CA
------------------------------
From: blades@airtime.co.uk (Liz Blades)
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 21:28:48 BST
Subject: Bug killers didest #2098
Hi,
I've been following this thread with interest.The standard procedure here in
the UK was to spray with good old fashioned washing up liquid.
But since we're now part of the EU (or whatever it's called these days) It
is now unlawful to use it as a bug killer!!!! and what I've just said is an
offence.
Incidentally it's unlawful because it got missed off a list of proscribed
detterants.I've been using it for years and I'm not dead yet.....the same
cannot be said for the aphids.
Cheers
Liz Blades
Liz Blades
Proprietor of Blades Home Brewery
http://www.dmatters.co.uk/Blades/blades.html
------------------------------
From: Carl Hattenburg <CHattenburg@Perstorp-us.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:34:55 -0400
Subject: RE: HYPERBOLE
>> George wrote:
>>Subject: HYPERBOLE, watery mild brown ale
>>like calibrate my thermometer (how anal, yeah go ahead and laugh...).
Hmmm...and I've been using an ORAL thermometer!
- - Carl H. (w)301.680.7276, (x)301.236.0134, (h) 301.942.3756, (e)
CHattenburg@Perstorp-us.com
------------------------------
From: "Craig Rode" <craig.rode@sdrc.com>
Date: 9 Jul 1996 16:49:56 -0600
Subject: Yeast and ITBR?
Subject: Time: 3:48 PM
OFFICE MEMO Yeast and ITBR? Date: 7/9/96
Thanks for all the responses about re-using yeast. Upon re-reading my own
post, I realized that I wasn't being quite clear. What many of you thought I
was asking was 'Can I recycle the yeast from my carboy?' When what I meant to
ask was "Can I recycle the yeast from my bottle?'. In other words, suppose
that when it's time to get my starter going, instead of using a smack-pack, I
open 3-4 bottles of existing homebrew...pour that into a couple of beer
glasses, and dump the dregs (which I normally swig) into the starter? How
much am I risking infection?
"Is Their Beer Ruined" or "There Oughta Be a Law"...Yesterday I was in a
microbrewery that shall remain un-named. (You know who you are!) I was handed
a 'new' beer they were trying out. Im my opinion, it was the best beer they
had ever made, and I bought 2 six packs on the spot. Then the brewer tells me
"This wasn't what the owner had in mind. We dumped 300 gallons of it into the
sewer." AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! See what rigorous attention to styles
makes people do?
Craig
------------------------------
From: "Goodale, Daniel CPT 4ID DISCOM" <GoodaleD@HOOD-EMH3.ARMY.MIL>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:20:00 -0500
Subject: Beer in Spaaace
Al writes:
>Check the diffusion rates through semi-permiable membranes and the rate
>of production of CO2 during fermentation. I am quite sure that they
>would be at least an order of magnitude off, maybe two or three.
Probably so. Might be able to increase the efficiency by a negative
pressure on one end. A better way is to radically alter the carboy
design
to increase surface area of the membrane and decrease the distance
the CO2 has to travel. The logical conclusion; lung shaped carboys.
They say that the surface area of the human lungs can cover a tennis
court. If our semipermeable membrane had that or greater surface area
it may be able to handle the CO2 production of fermentation. This would
also eliminates the chance that a huge bubble of CO2 would sit in the
middle
of the carboy and not come in contact with the membrane.
Does anybody know if CO2 bubbles produced in fermentation have
a charge (or be given one)? Perhaps we could draw them out
electostatically?
Daniel Goodale (yes that is my real name)
The Biohazard Brewing Company
I like to think of myself as a chemical super-freak.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Hewit <jhewit@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 19:19:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Skunked Beer
I recently brewed a fairly highly hopped ale - IBU's from 59 to 66,
depending on whose method you use. I bottled the batch in brown bottles, as
usual, except for one clear Corona bottle. I put this on the window sill of
my kitchen, which gets a decent amount of sun, plus is under a florescent
light that is on 24 hours a day. After about three weeks, I opened the
clear bottle along with a brown one. What a difference! Up until now, I
wasn't really sure what skunked beer was supposed to be like. I have had
experience with skunks, but couldn't quite translate that experience to
drinking beer. The skunk was definitely in this beer. However, it was
quite drinkable - not good, but drinkable. And, the smell and taste
reminded me of Heineken. As others have recently noted here, Heineken has a
skunky smell. To my previously untrained senses, the smell of Heineken was
not strong enough to evoke an immediate recollection of brining my dog home
after an altercation with one of those black and white critters. Now
Heineken, which is often the best available, will never taste the same. I
have heard others mention beer that was so skunked that it was undrinkable.
Anyone know how long this takes? I could do another experiment with my next
batch, but I really hate to sacrifice good homebrew, even in the name of
science.
Brew On!
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 19:17:31 CDT
Subject: Burley vs. Korzonas
David writes:
>AlK - Please stop paraphrasing me and what other people have written
>paraphrasing me. I think this adds to the confusion, because I think that's
all
>this is. A misinterpretation of my comments. Go back and read all of my
>comments on this subject for yourself. I have said from the beginning that
high
>temperature saccharifications give higher FG worts etc. I have even said on
>more
>than one occasion that we all agree on the basics.
In the beginning, you said (not paraphrasing):
>Reading Domenick Venezia's trials (and tribulations) on using oxidation to try
>get to lower FG is in line with some other recent comments I have read here
>from
>brewers who are unhappy with high FG brews. In some cases it may simply be
>that
>they started with a high OG wort and if this were diluted to the 1.05 region,
>would deliver a "normal" FG in the 1.01 range.
>
>However, Domenick and some of the other brewers are probably experiencing
>either a poorly attentative yeast - a genetic trait, in most cases, and
>unchangeable OR most likely, in the case of all grain brews, they are holding
>at
>a high a temperature ( say 158-160) for too SHORT a time during the
>saccarification stage.
This is your initial statement and it is wrong. Increasing the time at
158-160F will not decrease the FG. This is what started this whole, long,
very tiring thread.
Back to your recent post:
>PROPERLY CARRIED OUT, saccharifications at higher temperatures will produce a
>less fermentable wort than at lower temperatures. That was never the problem.
>The problem is when one gets HIGHER THAN EXPECTED FG, one may increase the
hold
>time during the saccharification step to make sure the beta amylase has done
>all
>it can do. This is easier to do than changing mash schedules and mash
>compositions.
>Short saccharification times can lead to higher than expected FG's since the
>beta A is not given the chance to convert all the product from the alpha
>amylase, particularly at the higher temperatures where the beta amylase
>concentration (at any time t) is lower than at the same time t at a lower
>temperature and the OVERALL rate of sugar production is lower. The alpha
>amylase
>products arise faster, because the rate is greater at the higher temperature.
>Conceivably, under certain circumstances of mash composition and temperature
>schedules all of the starch could be converted, but not all of the
>intermediates
>converted to sugar at the same time the starch disappears, particularly if the
>beta amylase content is low..
This again is wrong. Steve Alexander, weeks ago, posted that alpha amylase
is isolated (i.e. beta amylase is compleatly denatured) within 15 minutes
at 158F. At no time beyond 15 minutes is there any more beta amylase
activity. No, to change fermentability, if you are mashing at the high-end
of the amylase range, it is not possible to decrease the FG without lowering
the mash temperature on a subsequent batch.
>Thanks for the tip on 80 cols vs say 60. Maybe this explains why people don't
>clip me and choose to paraphrase me.
No, I believe that people paraphrase you because your posts are so long.
More is not always better.
I was going to go on and comment point-by-point on the rest of your post,
but it serves little purpose. Jeff Renner's post started me thinking about
the length of my own posts. In trying to find your original post, I started
around issue 2084 and started working backwards. I was shocked at the
amount of bandwidth wasted on this topic and was irritated by the gobs of
text I had to plough through.
Then this thought struck me... other readers are probably just as irritated
by my long posts as I was having to sift through yours. It's as if this is
the Al and Dave Digest and not the Homebrewer's Digest.
I pledge to try to keep my paraphrasing, quoting and posts to a minimum and
I think that the HBD would be well-served if you did the same too, Dave.
If we ever get onto a thread like this again, we should take the blasted
topic off-line, work it out and post a summary!
I also "shoot from the hip" all too often. Dave, you know you do too. Let's
all try to verify our info before we post? It will save a lot of correcting
by ourselves and others in subsequent posts...
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2099
****************************
