Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2086
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/06/28 PDT
Homebrew Digest Friday, 28 June 1996 Number 2086
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
re: World Beer Cup winners (John Adams)
Kettle O2? (Charlie Scandrett)
Mash volume & brew books, HSA & hop strainers, stills, ect. (HuskerRed@aol.com)
DMS in Ales/Bitter Bitterness/sweetness != maltiness (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Barry's water/decoction/force carbonation/aldehydes (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Head on Real Ale/wort boil oxidation (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
>"Fri, 21 June"< (Martin Hunt)
Yeast Experiences? (DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932)
Hop variety identification (Ray Gaffield)
fermentability/enzymes/fatty acids vs DO/coolers/filtering/potato wine (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Hot O2 or not to O2? (Charlie Scandrett)
1996 Dixie Cup Homebrew Competition ("Sean Lamb")
mashing efficiency ("Bryan L. Gros")
my last ester post! (I promise) (awalsh@world.net (Andy Walsh))
Mash schedules, HSA in boiler (George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro))
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES
homebrew@aob.org (SUBMISSIONS only)
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org (for REQUESTS only)
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@aob.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-digest-request@aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending a
one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
This list service is now being provided by majordomo@aob.org, so some
of the commands may have changed. For technical problems send
e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org or visit
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web. Othere information is available by
e-mail from info@aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob.
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu.
Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the
password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.
AFS users can find it at /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.
If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail
using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about
this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with
the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message. Some
archives are available via majordomo@aob.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Adams <j_adams@hpfcla.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 16:54:07 -0600
Subject: re: World Beer Cup winners
Curt Speaker writes:
> I'd love to know a little more about this contest, who was permitted
> to enter, and how it differs from the GABF. And who judges these beers
> anyway? Taste is subjective, and all judges have their own criteria,
> but some of these winners leave a bad taste in my mouth (pun intended
> :-)
Have been on the WBC (and GABF) judging staff I feel I can answer some
of your questions and concerns (from the World Beer Cup International
Competition Handbook):
Who is allowed to enter?
Eligibility
- -----------
Any entry in the World Beer Cup must be:
* Commercially available
* A fermented malt beverage
Basically *any* beer commerically available is allowed (you cannot enter
a beer that is brewed only for the competition). As bad as you may feel
Wit or Miller Lite are, they are eligible at both the WBC and the GABF
competitions.
Who judges these beer?
Judge Selection
- ---------------
World Beer Cup judging managers select judges using a source list of
internationally recognized brewers, consultants and writers. These
individuals have been selected on the basis of: (1) industry and peer
recognition; (2) knowledge of beer styles and the brewing process; (3)
flavor perception; (4) prior judging or beer evaluation expeience; and
(5) judging demeanor. Interested judges wishing to be considered should
send a vita and three letters of recommendation to...
Many of the judges are brewers at both the micro/macro level and quite a
few have been involved with the GABF judging for many many years.
As far as Miller Lite is concerned, I personally do not care for the
entire American-Style Light Lager but it IS a *real* style. Judges
divorce themselves and review the beers based upon style guidelines and
not upon personal preference for/againest the style itself.
IMHO Celis is a much better beer than Wit but Wit *is* a good
Belgian-Style Wheat Beer. Having tasted the *actaul* entry of Wit at
the WBC I can state that it is was good. Maybe your sample at the
Planet Beer was not.
- --
John Adams
WBC PPBT Table Captain
------------------------------
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 08:57:10 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Kettle O2?
Bob Waterfall wrote,
>Before Charlie made these calculations, I had a gut tendency to agree that
>the steam from a rolling boil would protect the wort from HSA. Now I'm not
>so sure. His figures show that it's rising at only about 0.25 mph (0.4
>kph). <SNIP> it seems like it would take only a light breeze of a
>few mph to overwhelm that flow and mix some air into the headspace
I think what we may be missing here is that *at the air/wort interface*,
even if pure O2 is present at this surface, the steam wind would scrub it
out. Many texts refer to simple CO2 or N2 bubbling "scrubing O2 out". I must
check this out at the library.
Remember, modern kettles actually spray the wort over the surface from a jet
fountain, the fine spray passes 6 inches above the wort surface. They report
many beneficial effects, but report no increased HSA. They must have
absolutely no air in there.
>This is a fine reason for me to get
>going on that keg conversion so I'll have higher boiler walls to protect my
>wort. Of course then I'll probably just start making bigger batches.
You will! Beer increases in direct proportion to the exact volume available
to brew it in. Boilover and HSA will be regarded as unimportant on the day.
Inside every home nanobrewery, there is a megabrewery trying to get out!
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
From: HuskerRed@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:54:52 -0400
Subject: Mash volume & brew books, HSA & hop strainers, stills, ect.
Hello all-
I've been doing been doing all-grains for the last twelve batches. The
problem I've been running into with multiple temperture infusions is the
volume of mash after the saccriffion rest. I've have got up to seven
gallons of mash with a 122/140/150/158 temperture schedule (I think
without looking). Forget doughing out at 170F. I've started with 2/3 of
a quart per pound for the first rest, I'm infusing boiling water and still
get a lot of volume by the end. Should I just get a larger sparge vessel
or is there something else I should be doing?
I've done three decoction as well. My first shot was a triple. Not
thinking, I started this beast at 8:30pm, I pitched yeast and aerate to a
beautiful sunrise! I've done two doubles and am thinking about not doing
infusions anymore (except maybe for single temperate). If you liked
Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer", you'll love his "New Brewing Lager Beer".
It's very similar to the original with tons of detail added and a format
overhaul. These two books are my best brewing books, I'm think about Dr.
Fix's "Principles of Brewing Science". What other books would the
collective suggest.
- -----
On the topic of distilling, I've found (the process anyway) it isn't very
dangerous at all. I did a lot of distilling with methanol and petroleum
ether. I was using them to get extracts and using a still to recycle the
solvents. I've probably recycled close to 100 gallons of methanol and 50
gallons of pet ether, five to ten gallon batches at a time. Some counter-
flow chillers could be used as a 'still'. The two most important things
about the still is use electric heat (never a flame) and the the vapor
capture tube be large and vertical enough that condensed product doesn't
puddle in the tubing. I've never done distilling of ethanol for
consumption, but if you started with a high OG beer, it wouldn't have the
dangerous components in it, right?!?
- -----
Al K. was talking about HSA and to split a batch and pour the hot wort in
to a bucket to aerate. Add a strainer and you really get results! I built
a counter flow chiller and it worked great with boiling water. I started
the first batch though it and plugged it up with hops, so I poured the
wort through a large strainer in to my bottling bucket. Lots of yummy
HSA. I've got just a couple of bottles left from that batch, I never dump
a batch (but I should have a couple of times). So now I use copper
scouring pads but they fall a part after a while. Anyone got a better
solution for straining hops in the kettle?
- -----
I was in the RV shop the other day and ran across a fridge fan. It runs
on two 'D' cells and last about a month. I bought one for my lagering
fridge to stabilize temperture. It works great and helps cool down a warm
carboy faster. It was about $18.
- -----
I've seen some comments about the 'undigested' version of HBD. What's the
difference? How can I tell which one am I getting and why would I want
the other? The grass is truely greener on the other side of the fence!
Thanks and Cheers,
Jason Henning
Big Red Alchemy and Brewing
Some brew with knowledge and talent, I brew with superstition and fear!
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 13:12:52 CDT
Subject: DMS in Ales/Bitter Bitterness/sweetness != maltiness
This is another post from 6/24 I suspect was stomped. My apologies if it
shows up twice.
I wrote:
>On the other hand DMS in all ales and dark
>lagers is generally considered a flaw.
Well, I must correct myself... many of the best Koelsch biers have a
solid DMS nose and they are ales. This is one exception to the general
rule regarding DMS being considered a flaw in ales.
***
Jim writes:
>I agree there are few examples of this style in the US. Of the numerous
>commercial examples I've tasted in England, there was a considerable range
>of hop bitterness. Most of them were fairly well-balanced, so no, I don't
>agree that this is a style where hop bitterness clearly dominates. There are
>far too many counter-examples.
Two summers ago I spent three weeks in Britain traveling from Edinburgh down
through northern England, central England, then Wales, along the southern
coast, around through Kent and finally ending up in London, just in time
for the Great British Beer Festival (not coincidentally). In my travels,
I got the opportunity to taste well over 200 Bitters from all over Britain.
Steve Hamburg and I have disagreed about this topic (the balance of Bitters
in Britain) for quite some time. He feels that bitterness dominates strongly
in most Bitters, while some more evenly-balanced Bitters can be found.
My position is somewhere between what you are saying and what Steve asserts.
I believe that in all but a handful of Bitters in Britain the balance is
towards bitterness varying from "slightly more bitter than malty" to "very
much more bitter than malty." I found a slight regional correlation in
that the hop growing regions (like Kent) have more beers that are decidedly
bitter in balance. So, I stand by my original statement that bitterness
clearly dominates in the style as a whole although how far a beer leans to
the bitter side of evenly balanced can vary quite widely.
I helped quite a bit on Tim's guidelines and I feel that they are about
the best ones we currenlty have, but I don't agree with the wording of
the Ordinary Bitter description. Even one of his examples, Young's Bitter,
is quite decidedly more bitter than it is malty.
>Hop bitterness is a sharp flavor, high levels
>of hop bitterness will make the beer seem thinner. That is why hops are
>used to balance maltiness, wouldn't you agree Al?
I don't agree that bitterness makes a beer seem thinner. I feel that hop
bitterness is used to balance maltiness because otherwise the beer would
taste cloyingly sweet and not refreshing. You can balance sweetness with
sourness too -- just something to break up the monotony of sweetness. Don't
get me wrong... now and then I love a nice sweet stout, but you won't see
me drinking a sixpack of Mackeson's XXX while watching a Bulls game! Too
sweet to be consumed in quantity.
Jim continues, quoting me:
>>Esters primarily create aroma (usually fruity, but sometimes solventy).
>>I don't see how a fruity aroma could cause sharpness in a beer.
>
>In all my years as a judge, I've never encountered a beer that had esters
>in the aroma, but not in the taste. If the ester profile is sufficiently
>pronounced that you can smell them, then you should be able to taste them
>as well.
You cannot taste esters. Bottom line. Your tongue only senses sweet, salty,
sour and bitter (well, you can add astringency and the heat from alcohol, I
suppose). It cannot discern things like esters. If you had a cold and your
nose was clogged, you (nor I) could not tell the difference between an ale
and a lager that had the same OG, FG and were bittered with the same hops.
I should add that the tongue can sense the slickness of diacetyl and there
are some effects of flavour hopping that are sensed in the mouth, but I can't
seem to put them into words. You just learn to recognise flavour hops do
after making a few batches in which you add a lot of them. Two hops with
which I can associate some flavour characteristics are Cascades and East
Kent Goldings. Cascades, when used as flavour hops, have a sweet'n'sour,
mouthcoating character. Goldings, especially when overdone as a flavour
hop, lend a sugary/syrupy, mouthcoating sweetness that is often blamed on
adjuncts.
***
On the subject of sweetness and maltiness, may I suggest you taste
Westmalle Dubbel? This beer is very malty, yet dryish. While it is true
that perhaps the majority of malty beers have significant sweetness,
there are some, like this Dubbel, that are not sweet.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 13:10:56 CDT
Subject: Barry's water/decoction/force carbonation/aldehydes
Sorry if you get this twice, but I posted it back on 6/24 and have not
seen it. I suspect it was one of the stomped posts.
Regarding Barry's water, I pretty much agree with Ken's and Eric's responses.
What jumped out at me was:
> iron 3 [ppm]
If my memory serves correctly, this is three times the level which is said
to cause haze in beer. Luckily, you can reduce it quite easily. Make
yourself a sand filter, run a bunch of water through it to clean it out,
aerate your water and then run it through the sand filter. I believe you
want it below 1ppm in order to no not have problems with haze.
***
Ray writes:
>Had a question regarding the volume of water and grist boiled for the
>decoction. My brief review of the homebrew books did not give me any ideas.
>Should it be a quarter/third/half? Currently, I am only taking about a fifth
>of the grist and mostly water.
The first one or two (depending on whether you are doing a double or triple
decoction) decoctions should be mostly grain. The volume you need depends
on how much of a temperature rise you want and on how quickly you work.
Till you get it running smoothly, take about 60% of the thick part of the
mash (grains only). I use a sieve to leave all the liquid in the main mash
(it contains the enzymes... you don't want to boil it) and then add just
enough hot tapwater so the decoction doesn't scorch. For the final decoction
(the one taking you from amylase activity to mashout) should be all liquid
(no grains). This is so that you don't extract any starches. I have never
done mashout using a decoction so I don't know offhand how much of the liquid
you need to take, but see Noonan's Brewing Lager Beer or Noonan's article in
the Allgrain Special Issue of Zymurgy (which has the most consise description
of decoction mashing I've ever seen as well as several other very good
articles) or the decoction article in the Great Grains Special Issue of
Zymurgy.
***
John writes:
Based on the tables and techniques in Zymurgy's Special Kegging issue
of a year ago, I force carbonated a batch of Alt at room temp (78F).
Don't have the table in front of me, but I think it was around 28 psi
for that temp. Came back the next evening and repeated.
The following evening, I stuck the keg in a fridge ("normal" fridge
temp) for cooling overnight. The NEXT day I tapped the keg and out
came chilled flat Alt. Why was the beer flat?
There was no "Special Issue on Kegging" so don't go looking for one. There
was an article on kegging by Ed Westemeier (guessed... checked... I *did*
have the spelling right!) and I know that there was a table for pressures
and temperatures versus volumes of CO2, but I'm quite sure it didn't go
all the way up to 78F. I've carbonated beer many times like this and it
does work. You have to make sure you do two things:
1. saturate the beer with CO2 -- keep shaking until no more CO2 goes in
and then shake a little more to be sure -- you have to either keep the
keg under pressure during the shaking or pressurize, shake, pressurize,
shake...
2. make sure you have the pressure and temp right based upon the tables --
I believe that 28 psi at 78 F will give you far, far less than 2 volumes
of CO2 and you probably want between 1.8 and 2.0 for a Duesseldorfer Alt.
***
Jim writes (quoting me):
><The alcohols will be oxidized to aldehydes, but not acetaldehyde. I've never
><smelled the characteristic green apple aroma of acetaldehyde in a beer that
><has post-fermentation oxidation.
>
>Aeriation of still beer does increase acetaldehyde levels, but they
>can be reduced in storage. (admittedly the O2 levels in the following
>are very high...)
>
>>From Beers and Coolers, M. Moll 1991, page 214:
>
>"Sommer et al. (1977) who added 5-20 mg/L of dissolved oxygen during
>transfer have shown that the dissolved oxygen was absorbed after 2-8
>days. A lot of acetaldehyde was formed during storage but it was removed
>after storage for 32 days."
Thanks for the pointer, I'll look it up. Perhaps the levels need to be
that high for acetaldehyde to be produced by the yeast. However, my point
is that various aldehydes (most of which we would associate with "stale beer"
aroma) are formed via oxidation of alcohols, not the production of
acetaldehyde by the yeast. You can form aldehydes in beer even without
yeast present at all! I'm not sure, but I believe that acetaldehyde is not
one of those typically produced via oxidation and yeast would have to be
present. I'll investigate, but can't guarantee it will be soon or that I'll
remember to post my findings.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 15:37:03 CDT
Subject: Head on Real Ale/wort boil oxidation
Steve writes:
>Your average British pub patron - at least the real ale drinkers,
>not the lager louts :) - would be horrified to receive a pint of draft ale
>with a big head on it.
You're thinking of southern England. In the north, they put a device called
a "sparkler" on the handpumps which gives the beer a big creamy head.
***
Dave writes:
>We have a rolling boil which constantly exposes all of the volume of
>the wort to oxygen at the highest possible temperature, 212F or 100C for a
>period of an hour or more. I do not believe that all of the gas above our
>kettles is water vapor.
and:
>What fraction of the oxidation of the wort is from the boil and what fraction
>from the , so called HSA?
You are also forgetting that the solubility of oxygen in wort is quite low
at boiling. The bubbles that you see forming as water is just about to come
to a boil are all the dissolved gasses coming out of solution. Furthermore,
I have brewed beers in which I've done 2 hour rolling boils (1 hour uncovered
and 1 hour partially covered) and even after a year in the bottle there is
no indication of oxidation. While this is only possible if all other points
in your process protect the beer from oxidation (mash, lauter, chilling,
transfer, bottling), it does indicate that a rolling boil is not a source
of oxidation high enough to make a difference in the flavour or aroma of the
beer. Applebutter and spaghetti sauce notwithstanding, I still believe that
the evolving water vapour will protect the wort (enough, if you wish) from
oxidation during the boil.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: Martin Hunt <100613.442@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 28 Jun 96 06:34:08 EDT
Subject: >"Fri, 21 June"<
To Tim Martin,
Young Todd's head duly wetted! 'Spargy Todd the Brewer' sounds
better than 'Sweeny Todd the (Demon) Barber (of Fleet Street)'.
>"Fri, 21 June"<
I KNEW that resublimated thiotimolene as a grain adjunct would mess
things up.
Martin
------------------------------
From: DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932 <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@LILLY.COM>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:20:12 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Yeast Experiences?
I'm about to brew my first beer with the new
Wyeast "Thames Valley" yeast. I'd like to
hear from anyone who has used this, especially
regarding any unusual characteristics for handling.
IE, tendency to flocculate, O2 needs, etc.
Also, what was the main flavor characteristic?
A Digest post will summarize if warranted from
any private Email responses.
Dave in Indy
"The 3-D BBB"
------------------------------
From: Ray Gaffield <ray_gaffield@il.us.swissbank.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 96 11:18:43 -0500
Subject: Hop variety identification
Anybody know how to identify the variety of a hop plant or know of
a book or guide that does ?
A the local Farmer's market in Chicago, a farmer is selling hop
plants but he doesn't know what type they are. I would like to
identify them before purchasing any.
Thanx,
RAY
ray@swissbank.com
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 96 15:12:55 CDT
Subject: fermentability/enzymes/fatty acids vs DO/coolers/filtering/potato wine
David writes:
>If someone is having trouble with high FG and it is not due to stuck
>fermentation then the amylase is not completing the conversion. My point is
>at high temperatures ( e.g. 158F) the beta amylase is crippled by two factors
>- denaturization and slower rate of reaction at a given concentration. The
>classic method as Jim suggests is to lower the saccharification temperature
>and get a more complete conversion of the starch to femantable sugar, since
>the beta amylase will have a slower loss due to denaturation and wil be at
>a higher rate at this lower temperature. I suggested an alternative and that
>was to extend the saccharification time ( knowing that some people use S times
>as short as ten or fifteen minutes - as Jim comments). This time is definitely
>adequate to chew up the colloidal starch from any adjuncts and perhaps give a
>negative starch test, but depending on the type of malt being used, the yield
>will suffer more or less. I thought that an easy way to decrease the FG to
>some extent without any other major changes, while increasing the yield would
>be to extend the saccharification time. I was assuming that the writer was
>using a short S time.
Jim's not the only one disagreeing with you. Your proposal to increase
fermentability (decreasing FG) by increasing time at 158F WILL NOT WORK.
At 158F, increasing the time will only give alpha amylase more time to
act upon any remaining starch. Since alpha amylase cannot shorten many
dextrins that beta amylase can, two hours at 158F will not be any more
fermentable than 30 minutes at 158F. With an ideal crush and all other
factors being ideal, you may be able to complete starch conversion in
15 minutes, but I don't recommend it.
The only situation in which increasing time at 158F will improve your beer
is if you simply did not convert all the starch yet.
***
Steve writes (amidst some very interesting enzyme information):
>This relation falls out of the Michaelis-Menten kinetics model, and should
>appear in chapter one of any textbook.
I checked all my Electrical Engineering, Physics, Math and Software
Development textbooks and not only was there nothing about the M-M
kinetics model in chapter one, there wasn't even an entry in the index! ;^)
Could you suggest a few titles?
Regarding the inhibition of beta amylase by glucose and maltose, it sounds
as if there are two factors in competition here. While the initial
saccharification rate will be higher for a stiff (thick) mash, the inhibition
will also be higher as the reaction progresses. I would therefore assume
that there is a mash stiffness which is optimal, one in which the former
factor is maximized while minimizing the latter. Correct? Furthermore,
would it be fair to assume that the conversion rate may also be increased
by starting with a stiff mash and then diluting it as the conversion
progresses? Despite the loss of beta amylase from the heat, is it
possible that the water added in step infusions could not only be increasing
the temperture from say 148F up to 158F, but also helping increase beta
amylase conversion by diluting the mash and thereby decreasing the inhibitory
effect of high maltose/glucose concentrations?
>Specific activity does not typically drop with increasing temperature as
>some contributors suggest.
I don't recall anyone suggesting this. The bottom line to the brewer is the
important part:
* do most of your starch conversion at 148F and you'll get a
more fermentable wort (low FG), and
* do most of your starch conversion at 158F and you'll get a
less fermentable wort (high FG).
***
John writes (quoting Andy):
>>...the unsaturated fatty acids, linoleic (C18:2) and linolenic (C18:3) acids
>>cannot be synthesized by yeast and are derived largely from trub(3).
>It they can not be synthesized by the yeast, why are their levels higher in
>wort with higher oxygen levels? What is producing them?
You're thinking about it backwards, I believe. It's not a question of
more fatty acids being *produced* in the case of 8ppm DO (dissolved oxygen),
but rather more fatty acids being *used* in the case of 4ppm DO.
***
Tim writes:
>They carry two brands: Igloo
>(model number 4101; stock number 3ZC47 - $60) and Arctic (model number 610;
>stock number 5H534 - $71).
I don't know about the Arctic brand, but it has been discussed here before
that the Igloo brand is only made for keeping cold liquids cold and the
plastic will deform with repeated use as a mash tun. The Gott/Rubbermaid
is made for both hot and cold liquids and therefore will hold up much better.
Most Coleman coolers are also made only for cold liquids. Check the box.
***
Patrik writes:
>Is there any filter on the market that can handle to take away the (dont
>know the english word) thing on the bottom (huh? Hehe) that is yeast and
>such. An ordinary "Coffee filter" doesn't work?
I'm assuming that you want beer in bottles without yeast at the bottom.
Well, I'm sure you know that you can't filter the yeast out and then try
to naturally carbonate the beer. Therefore, you must fill the bottles
with already carbonated beer. If you don't mind a very slight amount of
yeast on the bottom of the bottles, you can get away without filtering
at all. You need a kegging system and a counter-pressure bottle filler.
After letting most of the yeast settle in the primary and/or secondary,
you transfer carefully to the keg, force carbonate and then let the yeast
settle again. Finally, you counter-pressure fill your bottles. There
will be a very slight dusting of yeast in the bottles, but you have to
look for it to notice.
If you really want to filter, there are a number of filters that can be
used for filtering beer. A place called "The Filter Store" (no affiliation,
see Zymurgy or Brewing Techniques for a phone #) is one example of a place
that would have these filters. For detailed instructions in addition to
anything your supplier will give you, there was an article by Steve Daniel
in the 1992 AHA Conference Proceedings (available from the AHA at 303-447-
0816, slight affiliation, am sort of a volunteer/employee) and another by
Ed Busch in the 1994 AHA Conference Proceedings. The article by Steve
was very "how to" whereas the article by Ed was more "technical" and
even covered the use of diatomaceous earth (DE). No, a coffee filter
won't work.
***
Michael writes:
>3 Quarts Fruit or Vegetable (Yes, even things like tomato, onions,
>potato, etc.)
>3 Gallons Water
>10 Pounds Sugar
>3 Sliced Lemons
>4 Pounds Raisins
>Champagne Yeast
There is little point to adding starchy vegetables in making a fermented
beverage unless you convert the starch to sugar. In the above recipe,
the addition of potatoes would be virtually equivalent to just the water,
sugar, lemons, raisins and yeast. Tomato is a fruit, so pressed tomatoes
would be like making a wine. As for starchy vegetables like potato, carrots,
etc., you can buy amylase enzymes and basically mash them. You will have
to use rice hulls or something like them to create a filter bed for
lautering, but with practice it should work smoothly.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 21:58:11 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Hot O2 or not to O2?
Al Korzonas writes,
>Consider that in most commercial lauter tuns the sparge water falls
>a good one to four feet. What keeps this water from picking up oxygen
>during the sprinkling? My intuition tells me it's the water vapour.
It would have to be the case in a closed container. The heated initial air
would rise out and be replaced by water vapour. I can think of no process
that would allow air in.
`
David Burley posted,
>Charlie Sandrett is going to do some work on HSA. Is there a t*st procedure
>available to t*st for HSA? Good luck Charlie we will look forward to your
>results.
I have it on good authority that he is not! Well, not intentionally. I think
he is trying to minimise it in a controlled, repeatable environment so that
he has a control beer with a constant redox potential (rH potential)
everytime he makes a batch. He will then get on with his dream of using new
technology to produce deoxygenated kegs with no yeast and <0.01 ppm O2 and
press gang some judges into drinking it every month for as long as it takes.
My prediction (based on Greg Organ's work on beers at 0.15 ppm O2) is 6-9
months aroma survival, 3 years without staling flavours! The very matured
pils should be a new taste sensation, never experienced before.
De Clerck gave up on simple electrometric methods of determining the redox
(oxidation-reduction = rH) potential of fresh beer in 1937. The first
accepted method was Grey and Stone (1939) who measured the time taken to
reduce 2,6-dichlorophenolindophenol (if you can still pronounce it after 5
beers, its not oxidized!) to 80% discolouration. This is called the
Indicator Time Test (ITT) and to be accurate, needs colour measuring
equipment like a spectrophotometer. Although labs have refined this test,
the in-process brewery floor control test in Australia goes something like
this.
*Everything is done at 20C*. A standardized daily batch of dyestuff is made
up in dioxine. 20ml of beer is added to 0.5 ml dye solution, stopwatch
started, and a bit transferred into a spectrophotometer cell. Another cell
has control beer in it. A plot of the optical density change against time is
made for light at 525nm wavelength. The constant density of the control beer
(~0.015)is added to the known density of 80% discoloured pure
2,6-dichloro..etc..etc.(= 0.220) to create a target optical density of
~0.235. The time taken to reach this 80% discolouration point is the ITT
value of the beer and correlates well with its shelf life. Shorter ITT =
longer shelf life. (*all other things being equal*) You are really measuring
the redox state of the polyphenols and mellanoids, this is a sort of HSA test.
In order to test the shelf life's dependancy on "other things", in
particular DO (dissolved oxygen) levels, I have to be able to control
temperature, excess lipid levels and the rH (minimum HSA) value of my test
beer. In this process I will discover the optimum techniques for doing this
on a small scale. Even if the above test method is useless for homebrewers,
the optimum flavour stability techniques should be of interest. (even for
HBD's "Keith, the Morovian swearing bear," who doesn't hold scientific
method in high regard. Australians will know who I mean...)
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
From: "Sean Lamb" <slamb@ghgcorp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 07:33:32 -0600
Subject: 1996 Dixie Cup Homebrew Competition
I have the great honor to announce that the
13th Dixie Cup Homebrew Competition
will be held in Houston, Texas on October 18th and 19th, 1996. THis
event is organized by The Houston Foam Rangers homebrew club.
The entry deadline will be 3 October. For those who wish to attend,
we will be having the usual activities: The Fred Eckhardt Epicurean
Extravaganza, Saturday morning milli-conference,and a pub crawl during
best-of show judging.
If you wish to participate in the "Lucky 13" version of the Dixie
Cup, send me e-mail, use the USPS at the following address:
1996 Dixie Cup
c\o DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supply
2415 Robinhood
Houston TX 77005
call DeFalco's at 1-800-216-BREW (2739)
or visit the Foam Rangers WWW site at
www.foamrangers.com
Entry info will be mailed out at the beginning of August, and will be
available on our web site at the same time. I'm working on an e-mail
version of the stuff, too.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sean Lamb One of the Happy Humanoids in Friendswood, TX
http://www.ghgcorp.com/slamb
------------------------------
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 08:10:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: mashing efficiency
David R. Burley writes:
>
>In summary, if it is OK for the big boys to have saccharification times
ranging
>from 11/2 hours to about 3 hours, it is probably OK for us. Be very sceptical
>of anyone ( even if his name is Charlie Papazian "The New Complete Joy of Home
>Brewing pp.298) who suggests that a saccharificatin time of twenty minutes is
>OK. Look at your saccharification schedule, and if it is very short, i.e. less
>than an hour, you can likely improve your extraction efficiency by a few
>percent by holding longer during saccharification.
I have one data point to back this up.
I had a brew session with my homebrew club and we made an extract batch and a
grain batch in parallel. Due to things not going quite as smooth as I thought
(I forgot how to make an extract beer!), I mashed for two hours instead
of my usual one hour.
Turns out I got 30.5 pts/lb/gal instead of my usual 28. I'll have to decide
if the
efficiency is worth the extra hour of my time though....
- Bryan
grosbl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
------------------------------
From: awalsh@world.net (Andy Walsh)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 23:33:30 +1000 (EST)
Subject: my last ester post! (I promise)
Isn't it always the way? You do as much research as you can and post it off,
only to find a significant new piece of information immediately after. I
felt I had better add this tidbit, but this is it, I promise!
I discussed this ester thing with some brewers I know (from Hahn here in
Sydney), and they told me "aeration produces esters". They have practical
first hand experience with this as when they repitch yeast from their yeast
propagator, the resulting batch is always very estery and needs to be
blended out with subsequent batches. (the yeast propagator is a
mini-cylindroconical, maybe about 1-2hL, which is continually aerated to
produce vast amounts of healthy yeast).
This was interesting by itself, but one of them gave me a recent Brauwelt to
read (no. 1 /96) p18, "Zymotechnical factors and beer quality" by S.
Donhauser and D. Wagner, from Weihenstephan. The Weihenstephan yeast bank
supply yeast to commercial breweries. They tested their most popular one
(strain 34/70 - maybe there is a Wyeast lager equivalent but I don't know
which one) and varied pitching rate, fermentation temperature and aeration.
They measured such things as attenuation, fermentation rate, fermentation
byproducts (including two esters, ethyl acetate and isopentyl acetate) and
also DLG sensorics. They made no attempt to explain possible theories, but
just give raw data.
Well guess what? Aeration 24 hours after pitching *increased* the measured
ester concs.
The figures are (mg/l)
max 1 ppm 9 ppm 9ppm
9ppm with yeast
w/o yeast w/o yeast w/o yeast with yeast
and second aeration
ethyl acetate 13.3 16.4 13.4 14.1
16.5
isopentyl acetate 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3
1.5
DLG score 30.2 31.4 33.2 35
32
max w/o yeast was wort aerated to saturation without the yeast present
during aeration
It is interesting that the wort with very little aeration had almost as much
esters as the one with the most aeration! It is also interesting that the
beer made from wort aerated to saturation without yeast present was the
least favoured by the taste panel!
Other parameters:
high pitching rate increased esters (opposite of what I said before)
temperature increased esters.
The authors conclude that
"Good oxygen supply to the yeast results in very rapid fermentation even
under cold fermentation conditions, yeast reproduction and thus formation of
young cells is promoted and above all, and this is the very crux of this
subject - very good beers are brewed. Aeration together with the yeast is
favourable in every respect. If secondary aeration which will again
accelerate fermentation is carried out, the point in time selected should
not be too late as this may adversely affect beer quality."
elsewhere they say,
"It is certainly better to carry out secondary aeration at an earlier point
in time ie. after 12 hours and not after 24 hours."
These figures are the opposite of evrything I have seen before. This is the
first study I have seen on lager beer. This suggests that the effect will be
dependent upon the yeast strain. The magnitude of the difference is lower
than from other studies. The head brewer from Hahn agrees that it is likely
to be strain dependent.
So, after all that, I guess I agree with Tracy when he says you cannot
really generalise on this issue. Yeasts will behave differently, and unless
you are very familiar with a particular strain, the affect of aeration on
ester production will be indeterminate. The only factor that all studies
agree on, is that an increase in temperature will increase ester production.
So, after all that, we're none the wiser!
Esterhead Walsh.
*************************************************************
Wohlgemuth Walsh from Sydney
email: awalsh@world.net (or awalsh@crl.com.au if you prefer)
I *am* from here. Wanna make sumthin of it?
*************************************************************
------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:44:30 -0700
Subject: Mash schedules, HSA in boiler
In HBD 2085 Dave writes more about resting for extended periods at
high temps to increase fermentability of the wort. I'm sorry I can't
include direct quotes, but it seems that cc:mail sucks (it won't let
me snip from the digest).
In short, as has been said before, you can rest at 158 till hell
freezes over and your wort still won't be very fermentable because you
are not only above beta-a's optimum temp, but you're also denaturing
it. If you want a more fermentable wort take a rest at a lower temp
for a while (149F), then step up to 158-160F to let the alpha-a
dextrinize what starch remains. This works particularly well when
decocting, because there is fresh, unconverted starch introduced into
the mash when the decoct is added back. If the rest temp after the
decoct is added back is 158-160, alpha-a will be the dominant enzyme
and provide dextrins that won't be broken down to fermentables.
Yes, Dave is right about the amylases being active well below 149F,
but starch isn't gelatinized till 149, so there isn't much for the
enzymes to do below 149. Try tasting your mash after a 30 min.
protein rest. It isn't much sweeter than when you started. Try
tasting it after 30 min at 149-158F. It'll be pretty sweet.
About HSA, especially in the boil and during sparge. First, I don't
worry about O2 pick-up in my sparge water because at 168F, the
solubility of O2 in H2O is pretty low, and the plain water is not
going to get oxidized.
I don't worry about it in the boil, either, because: 1.Low O2
solubility at 212F+ and 2.There's nothing I'm going to do to fix it,
short of designing and building a kettle that minimizes exposed
surface, etc. Too much hassle, too much money.
Does your beer taste good? Do others like it? Do you win contests?
Then why worry about HSA in the boiler. There are SO many other
things that will MUCH more dramatically affect your beer. Sometimes
we think too much. People have been doing this for THOUSANDS of
years. It doesn't have to be rocket science.
My brain hurts.
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2086
****************************
