Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2093
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/07/03 PDT
Homebrew Digest Thursday, 4 July 1996 Number 2093
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Aldehydes (originally was about ester production) (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Impressive feats/zero-gravity brewing (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
more on maltose syrup (Gregory King)
Freezer Temperature Controller (Mike_Bell@ccmail.va.grci.com)
Shameless self-promotion (George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro))
sitting on the trub (mcb@abrams.abrams.com (Mark C. Bellefeuille))
New Beer Formula Calculator (fusco@io.org (Carlo Fusco))
Note on Gelatinization (Steve Alexander)
Beta A at high Temp (again) plus other bits, etc. ("David R. Burley")
Yet another question RE: carboy comes to life after previous life... (Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation)
Re: Shameless self-promotion (shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele))
HSA-astringency (Charlie Scandrett)
re:skunked cans (kbuttrum@juno.com (Kevin E Buttrum))
Re: Yeast starters (saunderm@vt.edu (J. Matthew Saunders))
Re: Yeast starters (saunderm@vt.edu (J. Matthew Saunders))
DISTRIBUTION STATUS ("Postmaster")
The glucose/maltose thread (Mark Bridges)
HSAstringency, Sparge Temp,Maltose syrup, Mexican Beers ("David R. Burley")
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (un)subscribe requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
Send UNSUBSCRIBE requests 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
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
On the web the AHA's web site is http://www.aob.org/aob and "The Brewery"
including the "Cat's Meow" archives is at http://alpha.rollanet.org/.
Information is also available at info@aob.org by e-mail. For other "Cat's
Meow" information send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org.
ARCHIVES:
Archives are available via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu in the
directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer, at http://alpha.rollanet.org on
the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail. The ftp archives can also
be accessed by using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. Send
e-mail to ftpmail@gatekeepter.dec.com for more information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 11:02:28 CDT
Subject: Aldehydes (originally was about ester production)
Sorry about this being rather dated, but I wanted to make sure that
I got it all straight before posting and then had some communication
problems.
I wrote:
>Alcohols are not oxidized to acids. Esters are formed from alcohols and
>acids.
To which Tracy responded:
>Alcohols can be oxidized to either aldehydes or acids, depending on how far
>oxidation proceeds. This is elementary organic chemistry.
I've discussed this with Tracy off-line and here's what we've come up with.
First of all, I'm no chemist. I have never taken an organic chem class,
which is why sometimes I get something elementary wrong. I learn the
small part of the chemistry I need to solve a particular brewing problem
and then store that away for later. I don't see the "big picture" as
an someone with formal organic chem training would.
I was under the impression that alcohols were oxidized to aldehydes which
could then be oxidized to acids. When I asked Tracy about this off-line, he
said:
>Not really. Alcohols can be oxidized to acids; aldehydes aren't
>necessarily always an intermediate.
The reason I wanted to follow up on this is because I didn't want my main
point to get lost. The point of my post was regarding the production of
esters and the source of the acids. I asked Tracy whether he agreed that
most if not all acids in beer are created via bacterial or yeast metabolism
and not via the oxidation of alcohols as the original poster suggested:
Orig>>I understand that oxygen can (and is necesssary to) oxidize ( directly or
Orig>>through an enzyme catalysed reaction) an alcohol to an acid...
Tracy agreed that I was right regarding the source of acids.
So, while it is true that alcohols can be oxidized to acids, this is not
the usual source of the acids in beer and thus not the usual course of
the production of esters.
Oh, by the way, someone recently posted regarding their Tripel going from
very high in fusel alcohols to very high in esters. The process that causes
this is called esterification and I've read that yeast must be present for
this reaction where alcohols and acids are converted to esters, and yes it
does take a lot of time. Incidentally, one of my pLambics got significantly
less acid and significantly more fruity with age. I've also notice this
very clearly when comparing fresh (3-year old) and old (17-year-old) Cantillon
Gueuze and 2-year-old versus 5-year-old Drie Fonteinen Geuze (Flemish
spelling). Perhaps we should keep this in mind when judging pLambics?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 13:18:47 CDT
Subject: Impressive feats/zero-gravity brewing
Michael writes (regarding my trip through Britain):
>What I what to know is how did your travel the length of the country,
>drink 200 pints(?) of beer and arrive safe and intact. A most impressive feat.
Several things made this possible:
1. I always ordered half pints (which resulted in the publican eyeing me
up and down as if I was some "girlyman" until I said "I want to try them all!"
pointing to the six or eight handpumps... this received a nod and a smile).
2. Most Bitters are not that strong (well, not as strong as your average
Belgian Ales!) Two half pints at lunchtime still made it possible to drive
safely to the next town.
3. Perhaps 40 of those half pints were at the Great British Beer Festival to
which I took the underground or walked. I also had some help one day since
I met up with some of the members of the Durden Park Beer Circle (hi Geoff!)
and we would split a pint three or four ways.
4. Another 60 of them were at various pubs in Edinburgh or London (which we
stayed in for several days and traveled via public transport since they were
our starting and ending cities -- we let (rented) the car, effectively to
get from Edinburgh to London).
5. It was a two and a half week trip, so the remaining 100 beers were spread
out over 10 days.
The beer was not the difficult part of this trip -- the difficulty was the
travel between towns. I looked at the map and chose towns that appeared
to be 3 hours drive apart. By *motorway* they would have been... by B-roads
(country roads, basically) they were 4, 5 or sometimes 6 hours apart! It's
quite a big country you've got there and I must say I love every wonderful
square foot of it (except the inside of The Moon Under Water in Lxxxxxxxx
Square).
***
Brewing in zero gravity would be pretty impossible unless you were to
create an artificial gravity by using centrifical force. The bubbles
would form and "wouldn't know which way is up" so they would just sit
there amdist all the beer. Here on earth we rely on gravity to pull
the beer to the bottom of the fermenter so that the CO2 rises to the
top and comes out the airlock. Forget about an expanding fermenter --
too much CO2 is produced.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: Gregory King <GKING@ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 14:21:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: more on maltose syrup
In HBD #2091 Dr. Gillian Grafton <GRAFTONG@novell2.bham.ac.uk> responded
to my question about what maltose syrup is:
>Gregory King asked about maltose syrup. You can't buy the stuff but
>you can make it.
>
>800g glucose powder
>200g dextrin powder (NOT dextrose!)
>
>Mix the powders well. Make an 80% solution in water eg, take 800g of
>the mixed powder and add to water. Heat gently to dissolve. Make up
>to 1 litre with water. Boil to sanitise and store in the fridge. This
>doesn't have the consistency of syrup - the viscosity is quite low,
>but it works well as a very close substitute for commerical maltose
>syrup.
After more careful reading I found a description of maltose syrup in "Brew
Your Own Real Ales at Home" (whoops! Sometimes it is a good idea to read
those first few chapters!). Maltose syrup is derived from corn (maize).
Unlike glucose or sucrose, maltose syrup is not completely fermentable,
which is consistent with Dr. Grafton's description above. I think that corn
syrup may be the same as maltose syrup (or is at least a good substitute).
Greg King
gking@arserrc.gov
------------------------------
From: Mike_Bell@ccmail.va.grci.com
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:08:54 -0400
Subject: Freezer Temperature Controller
A while back there was a thread on Hunter Airstat temperature controllers.
I don't recall the outcome of the thread, but remember problems with the
controller sticking in the 'on' position and turning the beer into ice.
The same problem also occurred with homemade units.
A friend just gave me an old freezer, and I'm in the process of building a
bar with draft tower. I need to add a temperature controller, and found
some of the do-it-yourself controller plans through web pages. I'm not
against building my own temperature controller (in fact I would prefer to
do so), but the parts cost more than the Hunter units advertised in
Zymurgy. It's tough to justify building one when I can buy an assembled
unit for less money.
Does anyone have experience with the long term reliability of the Hunter
Airstat temperature controllers, and/or the homemade units? Any thoughts
on which route would be best?
Regards,
Mike Bell
------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:59:53 -0700
Subject: Shameless self-promotion
For those of you within radio range of New York City:
On Monday, July 8th, from 8 - 9 p.m.
**WRTN 93.5 FM**
will debut the Tri-State area's first radio talk-show
about our favorite topic:
***BEER!***
The guests for this show include homebrewer *George De Piro*,
winner of the 1996 AHA National Homebrew Competition
Gold Medal for Vienna/Marzen/Oktoberfest Category
They'll be taking phoned-in questions, so you can call in and ask
embarrassing stuff!
The other guests are three guys who are opening a brewpub in
White Plains, so it should be an interesting show!
*Please excuse this shameless self-promotion. I have no commercial
interest in this (I don't even get paid), I would just like to think that
somebody (other than the aliens that monitor our broadcasts) will be
listening!*
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
From: mcb@abrams.abrams.com (Mark C. Bellefeuille)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:39:50 -0700 (MST)
Subject: sitting on the trub
Troy said:
> I brewed a stout in mid-February and have not yet bottled.
> Is there any hope at all, or should I just dump and start over?
Don't do it! I brewed in Nov of last year. Kegged and force CO2 in Apr.
But it probably depends on how you treated it while it was on the trub.
Mine fermented at 67F for 3-4 weeks. Was cooled to 50F for 1month (this
was the 2nd carboy. The 1st 5gals were on tap). Then it was moved to the
garage for 3 months (while the newer beer was consumed). I then racked
into a keg being careful to not disturb the yeast cake. It still had
plenty of aroma (might have been the 1oz added at 0mins).
So before you dump it.
*Taste* it!
Good luck,
Mark
- -----------
mcb@abrams.com Beer! 'Cause Barley makes lousy bread!
------------------------------
From: fusco@io.org (Carlo Fusco)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:53:47 -0500
Subject: New Beer Formula Calculator
Hello Brewers,
Anyone who has used a spreadsheet to develop recipies will like this. I
have updated my Beer Formula Calculator and it is now available at:
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer/programs/
bfc21a.hqx or bfc21a.zip
I hope you like it. BTW, there is both a metric and imperial version
included in the package.
Cheers
Carlo
- ------------
Carlo Fusco
Aurora, Ontario, Canada
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:08:07 -0400
Subject: Note on Gelatinization
John Palmer writes in a response
>With the recent discussion of enzymes and beta amylase in particular, the
>question arose on how effective a 140F Beta Amylase Rest was in the Starches
>were not Gelitinized until 149F. [...]
>I had the same question when I was researching my book* last year and talked
>with Dr George Fix about it. He stated that 149F can be regarded as the
>temperature were Gelatinization is complete for all intents and purposes.
>(Though I am thinking that it may actually be a 90% complete mark, similar to
>other delineations for other reactions such as Martensitic Transformation in
>steels.) Anyway, George said that his experiences had borne this out, that
>gelatinization was occuring at lower temperatures as well and Beta was active
>between 130 and 155F, 140 approaching peak conditions.
A quick couple of points here,
Decoction heating obviates the gelatinization question. A rest at
140F(60C) after a decoction heating allows for a very stable
beta-amylase rest acting on completely gelatinized starch. If you
need full gelatinizatiuon, why not decoct ?
Infusion mashing has traditionally used more fully modified malts
which, because of the degree of modification and the extended malting
period have more degraded proteins (starch granules are after all
carbohydrate-protein complexes) and perhaps more importantly we should
expect much more degraded starch due to the extended action of
alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase in concert.
In a recent article pair of papers by Z.Sun and Cynthia Henson, one in
1990 Acta Biochem., the other in 'Plant Physiology' 1991 I believe
(sorry I don't have the papers under my nose) they have have created a
mathematical analysis of the four amylolytic enzymes actions on
starch, and examined barley starch granule degradation. As it turns
out alpha-amylase alone is vastly inferior to alpha-amylase plus a little
alpha-glucosidase. The synergistic effect can be as much as a factor
of ten. The alpha-glucosidase can cleave 1-4, 1-6, 1-2 and 1-1 bonds
which are known to be present in starch granules. This increases the
portion of the granule surface where alpha-amylase can act. ( BTW
Henson has authored and co-authored many papers on biochemistry
relevent to brewing - she does some great research. I think my
previous post re this point bounced.)
So what ? Some alpha-glucosidase survives kilning and even in texts as
old as M&B Sci it is noted that this is a malt quality factor, tho it
is often mentioned in the contect of beta-glucans degradation.
Barley alpha-glucosidase appears (based on incomplete info) to be just
a little more heat labile than beta-amylase. A 60C rest probably make
good sense as an enzymatic starch granule degradation rest.
I, and I'm sure others here, have performed entire mashes at sub-
149F(65C) temperatures without the obvious extraction loss you'd
expect from undegraded starch granules.
John Palmer, and by reference George Fix, are also undoubtedly right
that gelatinization is a progressive process with temperature, and there is
no fixed point of gelatinization. Don't discount enzymatic effects tho'.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 03 Jul 96 16:17:57 EDT
Subject: Beta A at high Temp (again) plus other bits, etc.
Brewsters:
The nerve of that AlK telling me to admit that I'm wrong and in public!. Well I
never......
Al, I understand that you think that my comments suggesting that the high
temperature saccharification time be extended, to people that believe that short
saccharification times are OK, somehow confuses the picture. 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? Is George's belief
typical of modern day readers of HB books and this HBD? 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.
Talk to Mama Nature, not to me. All the books that I read say that the OBSERVED
beta Amylase reaction, based on observing the rate of saccharification in a
wort, goes slower at the higher temperatures. (Remember the "bell shaped curve"
with the upper wing going *down* with temperature). I interpret that to mean
that to get all of the fermentables we can from the starch that has been chopped
up by the alpha-Amylase, we have to hold longer at the higher saccharification
temperatures than we do at the lower temperatures to get the same efficiency of
extraction. Where does my logic fail me? Is the fact that I routinely get
conversion efficiencies in the 90's and others, here in the HBD, report values
in the 70's indicative of anything?
Frankly, I, like everyone else, am tired of this subject for the moment. In the
absence of real data from brewers or *expert* texts, I suggest we drop it. I
would like to continue it if we have real data, though. Show us some of yours,
Al.
- ------------------------------------------------
Dean of Duckdog, echoing another reader's questions, asks how to avoid "that
homebrewed taste" in his homebrew. In all the old texts ( we're talking CJJ
Berry, and all the guys of that era), this used to be called "malt extract
tang". My homebrew, even with the extracts, improved remarkably when I avoided
Hot Side Areation (aka HSA, although I didn't have such a fancy name for it at
the time) , a much discussed subject here.
What I interpreted as "malt extract tang" or that "homebrewed taste"
disappeared when I began to pay attention to this factor. Someone ( sorry I
don't remember who) else in the HBD said a few weeks ago that in his opinion
this was the most important factor in that move up the ladder to making
excellent beer. I agree. I suggest that if you don't yet have the ability to
cool your wort before putting it in the fermenter, an improvement will come
about if you avoid straining your hops out and allowing the hot wort to go
into your fermenter through the air in droplets. (e.g. if you are using a
strainer as I used to do a long time ago). Siphon your hot wort into your
fermenter and avoid HSA as much as possible
If you are a beginner and don't have a lot of equipment to cool your wort or,
for the moment, want to avoid this commitment, I suggest you can get a
susbtantial improvement by using a pure copper, unsoaped Choreboy(R) scrubber
on the end of the siphon. I insert a copper tube (3/8") into the middle of the
Choreboy. I wrap a copper wire around this to hold it in place ( My siphon is a
copper tube on the hot wort end, attached to a plastic hose). Before starting
the siphon ( don't use your mouth!) fill the siphon with cool boiled ( i.e.
sterile) water, hold it in a "u" shape, seal off the plastic tubing by bending
it with your fingers and then immerse the end containing the Choreboy into the
hot wort. Put the hose end into the bottom of the fermenter, release the end to
start the siphon. Cool it by whatever method you use and avoid splashing until
the wort is cool. (70 or so degrees F).
The choreboy scrubber acts as a filter for the hops, and swirling the wort a
little (called whirlpooling) and allowing it to stand for a minute or two before
you put the siphon in, will cause the trub and the majority of the hops to
collect in the middle and never come into contact with the siphon, giving you a
faster siphon.
The other way to avoid HSA, without a lot of other cooling equipment, is to
leave the wort in the boiler, cover it and cool it by immersing it in icy cold
water, occasionally swirl the cooling water to speed up the heat transfer and
then either siphon it or strain it. Personally, I avoid too much splashing
around ( since I use an open fermenter), even with the cooled wort, but there
are many others here who would disagree.
The best way, of course, is to commit yourself and use either an immersion
cooler made up of several feet of copper tubing, coiled up to fit your vessel,
immersed in your wort, with cold water running through the tubing or a counter
current cooler ( which I use) in which a 3/8 copper tubing goes down the middle
of a garden hose and running water in the hose cools the wort before it goes
into the fermentation vessel. Versions of these exist in HB books and some other
examples have been offered here via the internet. Sorry I don't have the
references, perhaps those of you responsible for developing these will supply
the refs.. Fittings for these coolers may be available at your HB store.
You ask about yeasts and liquid yeasts. Dried yeasts should be dispersed in
cool, boiled water ( about 100F) and not put directly into the wort for two
reasons. 1) They generally clump up and don't disperse well and 2) the high
gravity of the wort may rupture the yeast cell walls. Liquid yeasts can be the
next step in your improvement. These help you to make authentic tasting brews.
Liquid yeasts are not difficult to use, but they require a little planning. I
smack the pack ( to cause the yeast and sterile wort in the pack to mix) about
four days before I plan to brew. The pack swells up in about 24 hours. I make up
a starter of an OG approximately that which I will be brewing with using
*hopped* malt extract (boiled and cooled to about 70 F) to avoid bacterial
infection as much as possible. I have seen sugggestions for OG's of 1.010 and
1.035 for the starter, but I''ve never had any trouble using my method. Allow it
to ferment out and settle. Pour off the majority of the starter liquid ( now a
beer I guess) and pitch the thick yeast dispersion at the bottom.
- ----------------------------------------------
Michael Evans inquires about using a pressure cooker to boil his wort. Besides
all of the other good reasons given in the last HBD not to do it, boiling wort
in a pressure cooker with all the foaming and co-agulation of the protein and
the hops, could cause plugging of the steam vent. You will have a messy ceiling,
could be covered with boiling wort , etc, when the pressure ( or it may be the
temperature of the steam ) rupture disk blows. Don't do it.
- ----------------------------------------------
Sue or Joe Rodriguez confirmed that old adage that " a watched pot will never
boil" in reverse and now asks how to clean off the burned on wort. After such
moments of inattention, I use Easy Off (R) oven cleaner or if your surface won't
stand such caustic material, try sodium carbonate (washing soda), high
concentration slurry in water on the warm surface. For those of you having
ceramic or glass surfaces, cleaners do exist and can be obtained from the
supplier of your range top . As in all such advice, test it first on a surface
that is not visible to make sure the visible surface won't be harmed should you
choose to use said cleaner.
Next time you could take Steve Robinson's advice from yesteday's HBD and put a
fan pointing at the surface of the boil to keep it from foaming over.
Personally, I'd still watch it though.
- ---------------------------------------------
Nicholas Dahl asks about the origin of the 1.060 OG value in my example of a few
days ago. It is the OG of the wort before pitching, corrected to 60 F. The
cooled, boiled wort was diluted to 5.5 gallons before the measurement. I brew
in a 6 gallon open fermenter, covered with a plastic sheet. I dilute to 5.5
gallons before fermentation, so that with racking losses and volume change due
to fermentation, I will end up with about 5 gallons when I transfer it to the
secondary carboy fermenter.
- ----------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
From: Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation <mmahler@shiva.com>
Date: 3 Jul 96 16:31:24 EDT
Subject: Yet another question RE: carboy comes to life after previous life...
A batch I have in a carboy has been idle for about 4 weeks (no blooks...). I
wanted to add a couple of pounds of strawberries to the batch that my wife
recently picked and were getting gooey so I boiled about 1/2 gallon of water
and tossed the berries in and shut off the heat and covered/sealed. Next
morning I went down and siphoned most of the liquid into the carboy (leaving
behind the pulp - oh, that's right, forgot to tell you I put the berries in a
blender before adding to boiling water).
So I intended to bottle today (2 days later) and there is a KRAUSEN!
Is the sugar in the berries fermentable?
This is Wyeast 1056...
------------------------------
From: shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:15:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Shameless self-promotion
> For those of you within radio range of New York City:
> On Monday, July 8th, from 8 - 9 p.m....
FYI: The AOB maintains a calendar of events (info@aob.org, subject:
calendar) If anyone has anything to add to the calendar, e-mail
calendar@aob.org to have it added. International events welcome too!
It helps if we hear about it before it happens :-)
- - shawn
Shawn Steele
webmaster@aob.org
------------------------------
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 09:24:13 +1000 (EST)
Subject: HSA-astringency
"Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com> posted,
>I recently received some feedback from Rodney Morris on my RIMS web
>page (see the URL below) and he said something that confused me. In
>my page I mention that astringency can come from the later stages of
>sparging when the wort has thinned and the pH has dropped. This drop
>in pH causes tannins to be extracted from the grain husks which is
>what causes the astringency. Rodney mentioned that Hot-Side Aeration
>(HSA) can also cause an astringent flavor, which is more of a concern
>for RIMS users if they are not carefull to not splash the returning
>wort.
The pH drop *and* the lower SG causes the less polar *oxidisable*
polyphenols to be extracted at this stage. The vast majority of phenols that
will end up in your beer(>90%) have already been extracted with the frirst
runnings.. When complex polyphenols become oxidized they become Tannoids,
i.e. they have tanning power as in leathermaking. Although real tanning
agents are usually gallic acid, these mild tannoids can leave an astringent
taste in your mouth, sort of metallic-dry. They are chemically trying to
turn your taste buds into leather! Hot break removes most of these tannoids,
particularily a minute or two boiling under pressure.
>I responded to Rodney that it was my understanding that HSA causes
>the same cardboardy / sherry / stale flavors in beer that
>post-fermentation aeration causes, and that I have never heard of
the flavor being described as astringent.
The classic "cardboardy" flavour is trans-2-nonenal, the final *oxidized*
product of the enzymic degradation of fatty acids. This is a slow staling
reaction not usually experienced by impatient, thirsty homebrewers.
> Dr. George Fix published an article on hot side aeration in the
> winter 1992 issue of Zymugry magazine. In that article, he stated
> "in packaged beer the (HSA) oxidized melanoidins can play the role
> of oxidezers by reacting with alcohols and producing staling
> aldehydes. The latter have an astringent character that sometimes
> takes on a metallic tone. ...it can occur even if there is little,
> or no air in the bottlesheadspace."
Some mellanoids (heterocyclines and cylic dipeptides? I must check.) have an
astringent flavour no matter what. Furtunately they are scorching products,
i.e. higher temperature products. The mellanoids in an oxidized state have
much the same effect as oxygen. I am unaware of which aldehydes he is
referring to, certainly not my friend trans-2-nonenal.
> Dr Fix also mentioned in his article: ...oxidized phenols, on the
> other hand bring their own flavoring to beer. The German word
> "herbstoffe" (which loosely translates to "grain astringent") is
> often used to describe their effect. Many regard these flavors as
> unpleasant as the staling aldehydes that arise from the oxidation
> of alcohols.
This is just the conversion of complex polyphenols into tannoids. Phenols
become polyphenols become complex polyphenols which complex with proteins
for chill haze or oxidise into astringent tannoids which even more readily
produce stable haze. On the other hand *reduced* polyphenols have been found
to contribute a "fresh" tatse to beer.
>Was I sleeping in class again?
I don't think so, people just gloss over this confusing phenol stuff by
referring to phenols (a very general term which includes even alpha acids),
polyphenols and tannins (actually "tannoids" or "tannogens", there is only
minute traces of gallic acid in beer) as "phenolics" as though they all had
the same function.
Each class of phenols, MONOPHENOLS (phenolic alcohols, acids and amines),
MONOMERIC POLYPHENOLS(Flavaonoids like anthocyanogens(these are part of the
last runnings problem)and catechins,Flavanols like quercetins), the
CONDENSED POLYPHENOLS (big complex "dimeric" ones, increased by decoction),
and TANNOIDS has a different effect in brewing.
Basically most of this knowledge can be ignored if you return to the old
mantra, "HSA=bad, two legs=good".
Don't get legless!
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
From: kbuttrum@juno.com (Kevin E Buttrum)
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 20:53:29 EDT
Subject: re:skunked cans
Someone once told me that heinnie added that scent to the cans and kegs
because people would drink the bottle version(why I don't know) and would
go into a bar and say that something was spoiled with the heinnie on tap.
I am not saying this is true but it might make sense in this case.
------------------------------
From: saunderm@vt.edu (J. Matthew Saunders)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:03:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Yeast starters
"Craig Rode" <craig.rode@sdrc.com> wrote:
>And while we are (or I am) on the subject, how many of you use the sediment
>from your last beer to create a starter for your next beer?
I took up this practice last year. I've found that with careful
harvesting, I can brew about 8 batches with no noticable decline in yeast
quality. You really need to feed those yeast beasties a solution which is
as close to your wort as possible. I generally make a "pseudo wort" from
DME and build my starter to about a gallon. With wort chilling and
pitching such a large starter, I've managed to have lag times as low as 2.5
hours before the beer is visably fermenting and 6 hours before a decent
krausen is going. The quality of my beer increased significantly after I
took up this practice.
Anybody else?
Cheers!
Matthew.
**********
"Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change."
H O M E P A G E
http://fbox.vt.edu:10021/S/saunderm/index.html/page_1.html
J. Matthew Saunders
saunderm@vt.edu
I N D E X P A G E
http://dogstar.bevd.blacksburg.va.us
**********
------------------------------
From: saunderm@vt.edu (J. Matthew Saunders)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 21:02:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Yeast starters
"Craig Rode" <craig.rode@sdrc.com> wrote:
>And while we are (or I am) on the subject, how many of you use the sediment
>from your last beer to create a starter for your next beer?
I took up this practice last year. I've found that with careful
harvesting, I can brew about 8 batches with no noticable decline in yeast
quality. You really need to feed those yeast beasties a solution which is
as close to your wort as possible. I generally make a "pseudo wort" from
DME and build my starter to about a gallon. With wort chilling and
pitching such a large starter, I've managed to have lag times as low as 2.5
hours before the beer is visably fermenting and 6 hours before a decent
krausen is going. The quality of my beer increased significantly after I
took up this practice.
Anybody else?
Cheers!
Matthew.
**********
"Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change."
H O M E P A G E
http://fbox.vt.edu:10021/S/saunderm/index.html/page_1.html
J. Matthew Saunders
saunderm@vt.edu
I N D E X P A G E
http://dogstar.bevd.blacksburg.va.us
**********
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Postmaster" <POSTMSTR@is.Arco.COM>
Date: 03 Jul 1996 19:16:19 CST
Subject: DISTRIBUTION STATUS
PLANO.HOMEBREW DISTRIBUTION STATUS INFORMATION 07/03/96 17:38:
0
=======================================================================
DISTRIBUTION ID: PLANO.HOMEBREW.8313
SUBJECT : Homebrew Digest #2092 (Wednesday, 3 July 199
DATE SENT : 07/03/96 TIME SENT: 15:58:00
=======================================================================
YOUR MAIL WAS NOT DELIVERED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:
SNADS STATUS : 0010
EXPLANATION : SNADS TEMPORARY SERVER ERROR
=======================================================================
RECIPIENT : NOTESMS.SSCHMID
LAST NAME : Schmidt
FIRST NAME : Scott
MIDDLE INITIAL : E
NATIVE NAME : Scott E. Schmidt@NDPAI01
COUNTRY :
ADMD :
PRMD :
ORGANIZATION : AIOG
ORG UNIT 1 : ARCO El-Djazair
ORG UNIT 2 :
ORG UNIT 3 :
ORG UNIT 4 :
DDA :
------------------------------
From: Mark Bridges <mbridges@coastnet.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:36:42 -0700
Subject: The glucose/maltose thread
FWIW on this thread.... I've seen 300kg drums of glucose in use at =
local BOP's. The trade names may vary, though on one label there was =
the quote "Hi-Maltose Brewers Adjunct".
These products are thicker than most malt extracts, and a real PITA if =
you spill !
>From a brewing perspective, use this sort of adjunct sparingly, if at =
all. I've sampled several recipes (all extract based) which had up to =
50% of the fermentable sugars provided by this stuff (yikes!). The =
resultant malt flavored beverage had a dominant cotton candy aroma =
which was inappropriate to say the least !
Beware the sticky sugar and covet the malted grains......
Mark Bridges
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 04 Jul 96 01:11:56 EDT
Subject: HSAstringency, Sparge Temp,Maltose syrup, Mexican Beers
Brewsters:
Keith Royster asks opinions on how to describe HSA induced flavors and compare
them with post fermentation oxidation-induced stale flavors in beer.
I'm sure this is a slip of the typing finger, Keith, but the danger toward the
end of the sparge is that the pH will go *up* ( i.e. get more alkaline) and
solubilize the phenolic substances in the husks which are acidic in nature.
These phenols ( tannins) or their oxidation products apparently have an
astringent taste.
The German word "Herb" according to my non-brewing dictionary translates with
the descriptors "acid, sharp, astringent, harsh, tart, unpleasant,
bitter,sullen
and austere," appending "stoffe" is simply adding the word "substance". No
mention is made of the word being related to grain, then again this is not a
technical nor brewing dictionary. In any event, these descriptors cover the
gamut of sharp unpleasant tastes. I have the sense that these words are not
trying to describe dull, cardboardy, old, stale sensations and therefore, I
conclude that HSA induced tastes are not the same as the post-fermentation
oxidation staling tastes.
Independent of this, I have described the HSA taste as metallic or iron-like. I
suppose one could imagine this taste to be astringent, since just sitting here
thinking about drinking iron loaded water makes me salivate - in a negative
sense- and my jaw muscles tighten. I have also heard the phenols from the husks
being described as astringent. It may be that the oxidation products are (also)
astringent. I believe HSA induced taste used to be called the "malt extract
tang" by authors like CJJ Berry and others in the early days of HB.
- -------------------------------------------
Ron LaBorde asks about mash-out and sparge water temperature.
Mash out should be carried out to bring the mash to 168F to stop further enzyme
action and to reduce the viscosity of the sugar solution in the grain column of
the sparger.
I don't have the data, and have never seen a comparison of the effect of
viscosity on sparge times, but a fellow HBDer involved in water movement
through
the ground ( sorry I don't know your name) has started us thinking about this
situation in these terms and may be able to answer this question with some
explanatory calculations. How about it? Any info on the impact of viscosity on
flow rate through agrain column? Using viscosity data vs temperature for
maltose solutions, what does this mean about the effect of sparge temperature
on
the rate of sparging? linear or exponential dependency?
Another potentially positive effect of a higher sparge temperature is on the
solubility of sugar. I am not sure that this is an important factor in
determining the sparge efficiency, since the sugars are very soluble and well
below saturation concentration.
Thirdly, movement of the sugar solution out of the capillaries in the grain
into
the moving sparge water should benefit from the lower viscosity as well.This
reservoir of sugar is the slowest to be washed off the column.
This is a long winded way to say, use the mash-out heat up to 168F to stabilize
your wort chemically and improve your sparge rate, and perhaps your efficiency
of sparging. Since the column is cooling off over the hour or so of the sparge,
it will be necessary to add water hotter than 168F to maintain the temperature.
I measure the temperature at both the top and bottom of the sparge column to
control this. The temperature of the exiting wort should be about 165F in my
case since I have about a pint of liquid below the grain column and it cools
off a little sitting around.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Carrick Legrismith has discovered the pleasures of open fermentation in the
primary step. Carrick racks from the boiling kettle to a carboy and then to an
open fementer to avoid the problems of a closed fermentation. Why bother
racking
to the carboy? A little cold break never hurt anyone, and can be beneficial. I
siphon directly from my boiler through the CCcooler to the open fementer. The
cold break will be racked off at the end of the primary fermentation.
- ---------------------------------------------------
Randy in Modesto is going to Monterrey ,Mexico and is looking for advice on
drinking beer. Of course, drink Carta Blanca and Dos Equis, since they are
available and refreshing and stay away from Corona, with or without the lime.
Most of the sophisticated beers like Modelo are supposed to be derived from
Viennese brewers who migrated to Mexico and learned how to use adjuncts. Modelo
Negro is purported to be the best beer in Mexico. So there is some history of
these beers with the old country and independent of the US.
Several years ago I had a Dos Equis that was the color of a lager and
delicious.
I drank lots of this Dos Equis Blonde in CanCun on one trip, but have never
been
able to find it again, even in Mexico City. Maybe it was a market trial to see
if the Yanquis would drink more of it than they did of Corona. I don't know.
Have a safe trip and don't let them put ice cubes in your beer!
- ----------------------------------------------------
Do you suppose maltose syrup could be malt extract? Makes sense to me.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2093
****************************
