Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2211
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/10/02 PDT
Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 2 October 1996 Number 2211
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
RE: High-pH Brewing Water (John Wilkinson)
Re:My First Taste of Lambic: WOW!! (John.E.Carsten@oklaosf.state.ok.us)
Re: Rye Beer (Steve Alexander)
CPBF/grains ("Bryan L. Gros")
Re: Roggen yeast choice ... (Steve Alexander)
Re: stretching yeast (Jeremy Bergsman)
Re: GABF PPBT (Kelly Jones)
malts - 6-row vs 2-row (Steve Alexander)
Steeping grains: something to ponder ((George De Piro))
reusing yeast, good web pages ("Taber, Bruce")
malts/protein rests (Steve Alexander)
Re: GABF Judging (Glenn Colon-Bonet)
Starter (Jorge Blasig - IQ)
Popcorn, NY (DC@carlsonco.com)
re: stretching yeast ((Bruce Eckert / x3388))
lambics/rye/DMS/protein rests/beer fridges/how NOT to sanitize air! (korz@xnet.com)
Kegs and Olympia (HuskerRed@aol.com)
re: Spigots and Enamel Pots (PVanslyke@aol.com)
DMS from malts... ("Pat Babcock")
re:Rye (The Holders)
Re: GABF (Jason Goldman)
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,
homebrew-digest-owner@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.
COPYRIGHT:
As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:37:53 -0500
Subject: RE: High-pH Brewing Water
In responding to Duffy Toler asking about dark beers and water pH, Ken Schwartz
said:
>A subtle point but one of perhaps some historical importance is essentially
>that the dark grains are used because of high-pH water, rather than the other
>way around as in Duffy's question.
That is certainly my understanding of the situation and to expand on it,
I hope correctly, isn't it the calcium in the high alkalinity water that
reacts with the darker grains to lower the pH? My brewing water is low pH
but very low in calcium so I would not expect darker grains to lower the pH
too much further. Is this correct?
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@imtn.dsccc.com
------------------------------
From: John.E.Carsten@oklaosf.state.ok.us
Date: 01 Oct 96 13:03:48 -0500
Subject: Re:My First Taste of Lambic: WOW!!
I'd like to thank Tom satterfield in advance for the firey discussion his post
on lambics is sure to inspire. While also a novice brewer interested in the
style, I am also a long-time lurker with no desire to hear the back-biting and
nasty bashing posts as one
homebrewer attempts to one-up the one before him/or her regarding the "best"
way to brew a lambic. Since there are sure to be several other topics we can
(AND SHOULD) address in this forum, it is my hope that someone can recommend a
few good reading resources on the lambic style, and we take this discussion off
line early.
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:07:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Rye Beer
Michael Jackson spends a page on Schierlinger Roggen in the Beer
companion - or whatever the title. MJ implies that Roggen is 60%
malted rye, and equal parts pale malt and crystal malt, w/ a small
addition of dark roasted (malted?) grain for color. Schierlinger uses
their hefe-weizen yeast on it, which makes Roggen acidic and phenolic,
tho' not nearly as phenolic as many weizen's I've tasted. The OG
according to MJ is 1.048, the color 45 EBC and the hops are perle in
two additions. I decoction mash is used, and Schierlinger has some
sort of CO2 pressure sparger to force the liquid thru the sticky rye
grainbed. MJ also notes a shallow grainbed, and the use of sparging
knives to cut the grainbed.
Ed Westemeier responded to Peter Ensminger's query for a 'Roggen' like
beer as:
>First, go ahead and do it -- most people really enjoy the taste.
Totally agree here.
>Second, use a small percentage of rye. It's MUCH, MUCH stickier than
>wheat, and you'll end up with a mash tun full of glue if you use too much.
I agree it's sticky, but MJ claims roggen is ~60% malted rye. I'd
suggest the addition of rice hulls if the mash is too sticky for your
sparger.
>I only use it in decoction mashes for this reason. I'd recommend staying
>under 10% rye malt, but you can go as high as 25% in a double decoction.
Agreed - the decoction boils substantially improve the spargability of
the rye mash.
>Third, the Schierlinger Roggenbier uses a weizen style yeast, so keep that
>in mind when you design your recipe.
Yes but with mild a mild phenolic flavor. Wy3787 fermented at 68F is
too strong IMO. I've also used Wy3944 and think it's too phenolic
also. Can anyone cite a mildly phenolic and crisply acid yeast to use
for this style ??
The Roggen bottle dregs can't be cultured - (I've tried twice and am
pretty experienced at this). They're probably toasted yeast added
after filtration.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 13:32:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: CPBF/grains
(This message got eaten from Monday's digest)
>>From: greg@chtree.com
>>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:13:43 -0700
>>Subject: Counter Pressure Bottle Filler
>>
>>My local brewstore sells a counter pressure bottle filler for $35. How do
>>these work? How well do they work? I'd rather build one than buy one,
>>so I'd love to hear any construction ideas. Thanks.
>
As I reported a couple weeks ago, I broke down and bought one from
Braukunst. It was about $40, seems quite well made, scored well in
the Zymurgy "road test", and worked great right out of the box! I
had seen a local brewer use one, so I knew what to do, but I was
still suprised at how easy it was first time.
I'd recommend this filler (although the needle valve could be replaced
if I was making one).
******
Charley Burns writes:
>(I wrote):
<<<<<<<Pale ale malt has lower protein, lower enzymes (diastatic power),
>and higher color. It will make a darker beer than the pils malt. It is
>good for single infusion mashes, however, due to the low protein.>>>>>
>
>So, does that mean that when mashing with Pale Ale malt we need to do the
>protein rest (132F) before boosting up to sacharification (152-158F) for
>conversion, and if we're mashing with Pale Malt (not ale) we can do the
>single temperature infusion (152F - 158F)?
I think you read it backwards. Since pale ale malt has less protein,
you don't need to do the protein rest. English ales have generally
been made with a single temperature infusion mash (I think).
Why do we need a protein rest? I think a protein rest will help
the sparge go better, reduce potential protein haze, create
more amino acids for the yeast, and/or provide smaller proteins
for head formation.
By the way, someone else asked the difference between lager malt
and pils malt. I believe these are basically the same thing.
As always, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
******
As for beer labeling, distribution, and sales, keep in mind that
most of these regulations are specific to states. In Texas, the
word "bock" is defined by law. In Tennessee, we don't need to
worry about malt liquor; Beers over 5% can't be sold here!
******
Congratulations Jethro.
- Bryan
grosbl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:55:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Roggen yeast choice ...
I just wrote ...
>Yes but with mild a mild phenolic flavor. Wy3787 fermented at 68F is
>too strong IMO. I've also used Wy3944 and think it's too phenolic
>also. Can anyone cite a mildly phenolic and crisply acid yeast to use
>for this style ??
I'm very confused. My written notes say Wy3787, but my recollection
is Wy3333. So until I check I don't know which of these I used, except
that it was too phenolic and very similar to 3944.
Stevea Alexander
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 11:06:59 -0800
Subject: Re: stretching yeast
Anton Schoenbacher asks about stretching his Wyeast packs
to more than one batch. There are a number of ways
to do this discussed in the yeast FAQ. See the
archives as mentioned in the header of this digest, or
go directly to:
http://realbeer.com/spencer/yeast.html
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
mailto:jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
From: Kelly Jones <kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 12:04:43 -0700
Subject: Re: GABF PPBT
Ed Westemier had some comments on the quality of the PPBT results. I'll
second his opinion. It seems the quality of this judging is going downhill,
especially in some of the more 'esoteric' styles (Belgians, German Wheats,
etc.). One of the problems I observed this year was a lack of emphasis on
complexity. The winning beers in some categories were simply the ones that
had the strongest flavor of 'X', where 'X' is some flavor descriptor which
_helps_ to define the style in question. This does not, IMO, define quality
judging. The winning wheat beers need not be the ones which taste most like
bananas, nor the winning fruit beers the ones which taste most like Kool-Aid.
It would be interesting to see some breakdown of PPBT tasters which showed
which ones were qualified judges, and which ones merely happened to be friends
of the organizers!
Kelly
Hillsboro, OR
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:07:12 -0400
Subject: malts - 6-row vs 2-row
Picking up last weeks thread on malts and maltsters ...
Regarding choice of malts, I've noticed that M&F makes (almost?) all
their malt, except the 2-row pale or lager malt from 6-row barley.
I also recently saw some screening data in Schreiers malts and based
on grain size distribution suspect that Schreier also uses 6-row for
all of their non-pale malts.
I have recently compared Munton&Fison crystal w/ Breiss and find than
I definitly prefer the M&F in ales. I don't know but suspect that M&F
crystal is 2-row.
Do any North American maltsters use 2-row for crystal ? Does it make a
difference ?
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:38:47 -0700
Subject: Steeping grains: something to ponder
Hi all!
There has been a fair amount of talk about steeping grains in extract
beers. There has been talk of steeping all sorts of grains, including
grains that require mashing. The instructions given are usually to
steep the crushed grain at 150-160F for 30-60 minutes.
I guess the idea is to convert the starch to sugar, but at the
extremely dilute enzyme concentrations that exist in this system, does
conversion happen that quickly, if at all? Proteins tend to be less
stable in more dilute solutions.
I really don't want to go back to the "how fast are enzymes denatured"
thread, but I don't want to see a lot of beginners making starchy
beer! (I've been there, it sucks)
On the other hand, I only ever made a few extract batches before going
on to mashing, so I'm no expert.
Just something to think about.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER@nrc.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 96 14:59:00 EDT
Subject: reusing yeast, good web pages
Anton Schoenbacher asked about how to reuse liquid yeast. This is a
question that is posted on a regular basis. For all those who don't use
liquid yeast because it is too expensive, reusing it is VERY easy. It can
be as easy as pouring the sludge from your secondary into a sterilized jar
and putting it the fridge for a month or so until you're ready to use it.
Take it out and let it warm up slowly. Pitch it in a small starter and
you're there. Simple.
There are a number of different methods. If you have internet access
you should read the yeast information at
http://alpha.rollanet.org/library/yeast-faq.html . As a mater of fact,
anyone not using liquid yeast should probably print out a copy of this info
and keep it for when they do want to try it in the future.
Also, for the few of you who may not realize it, there are some great
homebrewing web sites out there. Most have links to huge amounts of home
brewing information. Spencer's Beer Page, The Brewery, Beer Town to name
just a few. They are great sources of knowledge.
As a last comment, have you all checked out Michael Jackson's Beer
Hunter web page? It's pretty good and it is updated regularly. Check it
out.
Enough for now.... time to rack my Raspberry Brown.
Bruce Taber
taber@irc.lan.nrc.ca
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:53:49 -0400
Subject: malts/protein rests
In Mark Bayer's excellent answer to Duffy AToler's question ..
>1. What is the difference between lager malt and pale ale malt? Is a lager
>malt a generic name for Pils?
He skips over an aspect - traditional lager malts are less well
modified than english pale ale malts. That is the malster kilns the
lager barley at an earlier stage of development than the pale ale
malt. So the pale ale malt is more enzymatically degraded.
The lower kilned but less degraded lager malt has many more types of
enzymes intact.
When the pale ale malt is kilns at a higher temp, not only do we lose
a fraction of the alpha- and beta-amylase, but nearly all of the
phytase, very much of the peptidase and proteases, I suspect almost
all of the alpha-glucosidase. These are enzymes associated with the
acidification rest, protein rest, and alpha-glucosidase for enzymatic
starch granule degradation.
For this reason an acid rest with pale ale malt makes no sense, and a
protein rest for pale ale malt is nearly as pointless (and hopefully
unnecessary too). The lack of alpha-glucosidase means that starch
granule gelatinization by thermal means is desireable for high extract
efficiency in a pale ale. None of these thing apply to the lower
kilned 'lager' malts - where acid rests, protein rests and enzymic
starch degradation can be used.
Steve Alexander
BTW - many currently available lager malts are nearly as well modified
as pale ale malts, but are still kilned lower.
------------------------------
From: Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb@hpesgcb.fc.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:30:57 -0600
Subject: Re: GABF Judging
In HBD #2210, Ed Westemeier wrote:
> I'm much more concerned that the microbreweries and brewpubs aren't getting
> a fair shake at the GABF. They produce stunning beers, but I've tasted many
> of them (both at the source and at the GABF) and I've very often been
> appalled at the discrepancies I've noticed. Truly outstanding examples that
> fail to get a medal year after year, mediocre examples that win big, etc.
Rather than write off the judging as being inaccurate, consider that a lot
is involved in getting beers from around the country to Denver to be judged.
Some of the products may not travel well, or may not have been bottled in a
manner that they will stay fresh for the time before the judging begins. I
will try next year to reduce the time it takes me and my staff to process
beers so that we can present the beers in the freshest possible state.
> Based on what I've heard about the process from PPBT participants...
> (comments about judging process snipped)
The panel isn't just some random collection of beer people who "happen" to
work for a brewery/distributor/whatever. These people are asked to submit
a JUDGING resume and 3 letters of recommendation as to their JUDGING
qualifications from people in the industry. This information is reviewed
by the festival staff and the most qualified people are chosen. As far as the
process of side-by-side comparative evaluation of samples and selecting the
best, what is wrong with that process? All homebrew competitions use this
process for best of show judging. And, as far as a judging sheet is concerned,
you are right in that a full page isn't filled out for each beer and a
numerical score assigned. We do, however, fill out a 1/4 page form for each
beer by a minimum of 3 judges. The selection of the Gold, Silver and Bronze
winners is based not only on a top three position, but also the beers must
truly exemplify the style and be free of major flaws. A numerical score
simply states your "favorites" numerically rather than verbally. It is no
more accurate.
This process *IS* judging.
> And I know that many of the PPBT members are very well
> qualified to evaluate any beer. It's just that many of them aren't.
This is not true. There is *NO ONE* on the panel that is not qualified
to be there. All festival attendees were provided with a list of judges in
their program. If you feel someone on that list isn't qualified, I'd like
to know who and why you think so.
> In fact, I believe that last year was the first time that the "tasters"
> were even asked to fill out a comment card on the entries.
Not true. The comment cards have been a part of the judging process for at
least the last 4 years that I've been involved with the festival, and, I
believe, even before. In the past, I've had some trouble getting them out
in a timely fashion, but in the past 2 years, I've returned them within 2
weeks of the festival.
As far as the professionalism of the Great American Beer Festival is concerned,
I received many compliments from brewers, judges, and attendees about how well
the event is run. The comments I've received indicate that this is one of the
best run competitions in the world. I and my staff take pride in what we've
accomplished and strive to do better each year. If you have some feedback
on things that we can improve on, I'd be like to hear it.
Cheers,
Glenn Colon-Bonet (gcb@fc.hp.com)
Manager, Professional Panel Blind Tasting
Great American Beer Festival
------------------------------
From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb@elmer.fing.edu.uy>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:32:04 -0300 (UY)
Subject: Starter
Dear friends,
I am trying to start my first batch of mead. I think I have some problems
with the starter.
I added three big spoons of honey to a pint of water and 1 tsp of yeast
extract and boiled for 15 min. I put this wort in a 1 L bottle. When it
was at around 25C, I added 2 tsp of previously re-hydrated yeasts and
aereated it as much as possible and put the airlock to the bottle.
There has been lots of bubbling since then (started immediately after the
pitching) and during the last three days. However, the yeasts do not seem
to grow as I think I need. I have a 1 cm sediment since the beginning but
it does not seem to grow to 5 cm as I was suggested. I do not not whether
this is enough for pitching a 25 L carboy or not.
I need your opinions and suggestions.
Jorge Blasig in his first batch.
------------------------------
From: DC@carlsonco.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:42:03 +0000
Subject: Popcorn, NY
There is a brewpub in Madison that has an ale made with
unpopped pop corn. I'm not sure if it is pyschological or not, but
it does taste a bit like popcorn. Anyone ever try this before?
Can anyone think of a good reason why you'd want to?
Secondly, can anyone directly forward me any information on Lake
Placid, NY - Ski hills, drinking establishments....
Thanks in advance
dc@carlsonco.com
------------------------------
From: BPE@hoho.org (Bruce Eckert / x3388)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:01 UT
Subject: re: stretching yeast
Anton Schoenbacher on Mon, 30 Sep 96 asks about "stretching yeast":
> O.K. I have been brewing extract for about two years
> and am pretty good at it (give or take a batch). I was
> wondering if there is a relatively simple way I can
> get maybe 5-10 batches of yeast out of one $5.00 wyeast
> package. I have heard stuff about yeast culturing and
> some of it seems to be way out in left field for me.
>
>Does someone have simple instructions on how to do this.
>
> Also Instructions on how to 'revive' it.
I have been brewing just over a year, and I have tried three different things
to "stetch" yeast, two of which have been successful.
1) I tried "washing" (instructions in the Yeast FAQ) the yeast sediment from
a secondary ferment and repitching it directly. This failed miserably.
Perhaps I didn't wash it right or something, but my wort did not ferment.
2) I have siphoned a brand new batch of cooled wort onto the Yeast Cake (
crud) in the bottom of my fermenter, out of which I had *just* racked
another batch. This works great! The new batch takes off fermenting
immediately (just an hour or two) and I've had no infections or other
problems. I do believe that timing is critical -- I aim to rack off
the first batch to a secondary and then *immediately* siphon the new
batch into the primary. With this method, my new batch does end up
fermenting with the trub and other miscellaneous crud from the first
batch, but I haven't noticed any ill effects from this (the beer that I
think is the best I've made I did this way).
3) I made a small batch of beer (1/2 gal) into which I pitched a liquid
yeast culture, and allowed it to ferment out. I then (very carefully
and cleanly) bottled this "beer". Now, I use these "beers" as yeast
starters - pitching them into some sterile wort a few days ahead of
brewing. This, too, works fine.
I have even combined #2 and #3, so I used a home-made starter twice. This way
I can get 12 batches out of one liquid yeast culture. I'm not sure I'll go
that far, but I think I could!
Bruce Eckert
Holland Michigan
bpe@hoho.org
------------------------------
From: korz@xnet.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:39:10 -0500
Subject: lambics/rye/DMS/protein rests/beer fridges/how NOT to sanitize air!
Tom writes:
>I had my first bottle of lambic beer a few days ago; a Strawberry;
>WOW!! THIS IS GREAT STUFF!! I finally bought a bottle; at $4+ it was
Since "strawberry" was mentioned, I suspect that what you had
was DeTroch "lambic." DeTroch are syrupy, sweet, "soda-pop"
beers and do not resemble lambics any more than Bud resembles
Pilsner Urquell. Before you decide that you want to take 3 years
to make a beer in which the cultures will cost you as much as some
entire recipes, you had better taste Cantillon and/or Boon lambics.
Once you have tasted Cantillon and/or Boon, if you still think "THIS
IS GREAT STUFF," like I do, your first steps should be to get a copy
of J.X.Guinard's book "Lambic" from the Association of Brewers or
your local homebrew shop. The next thing would be to subscribe to
the Lambic Digest by sending email to lambic-request@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Please note that the administrator for this list is off-line this week
so subscriptions may take a week. If you hate the Boon and Cantillon,
then just brew some fruit beers. There is litle point to going through
all that effort just for a fruit beer if you don't like the acidity
and horsey/sweaty Brettanomyces character.
***
Ed writes (regarding rye beer):
>Second, use a small percentage of rye. It's MUCH, MUCH stickier than
>wheat, and you'll end up with a mash tun full of glue if you use too much.
>I only use it in decoction mashes for this reason. I'd recommend staying
>under 10% rye malt, but you can go as high as 25% in a double decoction.
I used 43% rye malt in a 150/158F two-step infusion and although the
runoff was slow (3 hours to get 6.5 gallons of runnings), it never
stopped trickling. My advice: patience!
***
Mark writes:
>also, the kilning of pale ale malt eliminates the precursors of dms, which
>is never detectable in an english pale ale. lager malts still have the
>compounds necessary for dms formation, which forms during slow wort cooling.
Kilning hotter and longer (as in the case of pale ale malts) *reduces* but
does not eliminate S-methyl-methionine (I think I've gotten the spelling
right, "SMM," nonetheless) in the malt. SMM is converted to DMS when the
wort is above 158F, but boils off if the wort is boiling. A good, rolling
boil with the lid ajar and quick cooling of the wort from boiling to below
158F (I've read 140F also, but most recently, I've read 158F) will reduce
DMS to below human threshold levels. If you boil covered you can easily
reach the threshold level of DMS even with pale ale malt.
Mark continues:
>as stated by bryan above, pale ale malt has lower protein levels compared
>with lager malt because of the varieties of barley used and the climate/soil
>they're raised in. this is one basis for the maritime vs. continental barley
>arguments. also, i _think_, the more exhaustive english malting
>procedure results in a higher soluble to insoluble protein ratio as compared
>to lager malt. this may have something to do with the barley varieties also,
>but i think it's mostly the malting that produces the soluble protein.
>with lager malt, it typically has more total protein, and if the malting
>method is not as complete as the english tradition, there will be higher
>levels of insoluble protein as a percentage of total. most lager malt
>has more insoluble protein than traditionally malted english pale ale malt.
Perhaps, but I think that the main reason you don't need a protein rest
for most pale ale malts (and most modern lager/pils malts too) is because
of higher modification. The higher the level of modification, the more
of the proteins in the barley will be convered to amino acids. Modern
malts are quite a bit more modified (even German lager/pils malts) than
they used to be and therefore most malts don't need a protein rest.
>so, because of the higher protein (and higher insoluble protein), a lager malt
>is typically the one you'd want to do the protein rest with, and the ale
>malt, if traditionally malted (english) from a low-protein barley strain,
>does not require one.
US grains are the highest in protein, really, especially US 6-row, but
protein levels have been climbing all over the world. Why? Fertilizers
are increasing the nitrogen available to the barley and therefore increasing
protein levels. Farmers and maltsters care more about their yield than
the brewers' so they use fertilizers. During a talk at the first Sprit
of Belgium, brewer Eric Toft reported that many brewers in Germany are
having to eliminate or shorten protein rests because their malt is too
well-modified.
>>if I don't do a protein rest with my Durst 2 row pilsner and just
>>do a simple infussion, will my beer tell me I should have done
>>it? What will it say ?
>
>it may have a hard time seeing you through the (chill) haze.
Chill haze would be one problem, but I feel a bigger problem is *tons*
of hot and cold break. Another problem is yield. The starch in the
malt is bound in a protein matrix. If the malt is indeed undermodified
and you don't use a protein rest, you will have a lot of trouble getting
out all the possible starch for conversion to sugar. The level of
modification is usually judged by the coarse/fine extract ratio. If the
ratio is big, you have lots of starch bound up in protein (low modific.).
If the ratio is small, the malt is well-modified. I don't have the
ranges here at work, but I know that there is an explanation of this
in the Great Grains Special Issue of Zymrugy and I believe it is
explained in George Fix's Principles of Brewing Science.
Personally, I try a small batch of beer with a new malt without a protein
rest. If 1/5 of the wort in the fermenter is hot and cold break, I
know to use a protein rest with this malt in the future.
***
Chuck writes:
>I'm trying to postpone the purchase of a beer fridge until 97. Has anyone
>out there in brewing land tried this?
Yes, but I failed miserably. I broke down and bought one in 1990 and
another in 1991.
But seriously... yes, your idea of cooling your fermenter by cycling
ice will work. You may want to consider using those Blue Ice packs
which you can re-freeze. They may also cool a little slower than pure
ice and give you a more even temp.
***
David wites:
>I am interested in using a bubblestone to oxygenate the wort of my next ale.
>I seem to recall there was a way to put a piece of cotton soaked with rubbing
>alcohol in the airline to act as a "bacteria trap" to keep the beasties from
This won't work David... wet cotton will block all the air. Dry cotton
might work, however.
Ed writes:
>I use an aquarium pump with an airstone in a setup that also includes
>a hydrogen peroxide trap.
<the rest of the post deleted -- it describes a system where the air
bubbles through hydrogen peroxide on it's way to the wort>
Sorry, but this is a very popular method that doesn't work. It has even
been published in a respected brewing magazine twice and it's still wrong.
Bubbling air through hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, iodophor, bleach, etc.,
will NOT sanitize it. The only place where the air touches the sanitizer
is at the walls of the bubble. You cannot make the bubbles small enough
to kill all the airbourn wild yeast and bacteria. When the bubbles pop
in the hydrogen peroxide, they release all the nasties into the headspace
of the jar and onward to the wort. Boy, this method has the tenacity (and
utility) of the Good Times virus!
Get yourself a submicron air filter (Brewer's Resource has one, as does
Heartland Hydroponics) and put that between the airpump and airstone.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
From: HuskerRed@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:29:13 -0400
Subject: Kegs and Olympia
Hello friends-
I'm starting to gather the parts for kegging. I recently
bought 2 korny kegs ($15 each:). They have three nipples (or
whatever that collar is called that the gas/liquid fittings
screw on to), the usuals gas and liquid nipples and one for a
level sensor. In the sensor's nipple, I could put a dip tube
in and a fitting on. There's four combo's, gas fitting/short
tube, gas/long, liquid/short, liquid/long. With two gas/
short's, I could have CO2/N2 for my stouts!
Don't laugh, but does anyone have a good use for a third nipple?
- -----
I just moved to Lacey Washington, a suburb of Olympia. Any
homebrew shop, brew pub, micro brewery, mega-swillery
info would sure be welcomed. Anyone in the area want to swap
a few cold homebrews? I guess I'm a Northern Brewer now.
Went to the Oly Brewery for the tour. The guide didn't know
what varieties of hops they used other than cascades. I
probably should have asked about the heart of the hop! He also
said "hops are the salt and pepper of beer", thinking of my 70
IBU IPA, I told my friend that in my brewery "hops are the
meat and potatoes of beer"! The guide (and no one else that
was working) wasn't a brewer and didn't know much about the
brewing process.
At the free beer part, I was talking with one of the servers.
He was asking about my homebrew process and I was explaining
how it was the basically the same as brewery. He wasn't
making the connection. I thought for a while that I was going
to have to explain the whole brewing process to him but he had
to give the next tour!
They make an Oly Dark that is thier basic Oly recipe with some
roasted malt. Kinda a no-frills lite porter (forgive me). I
was surprised how good it was (forgive me again). It seemed
like the tour group preferred it as well. It's funny that
their best beer is available in cans only at the brewery and
it served at a handful of locations on tap
Cheers,
Jason Henning
Big Red Alchemy and Brewing
"Hot water heater? Why would you want to heat hot water?"
Earl Kleen
------------------------------
From: PVanslyke@aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:08:19 -0400
Subject: re: Spigots and Enamel Pots
Hi All
On Tuesday's HBD, Jim Lanik asked about drilling an enamel pot.
This may be possible but some time ago I saw an enamel pot that was used for
steaming clams. The pot had a spigot installed (manufactured this way) so
that the broth could be drawn off. I have no idea where the pot can be
purchased.
Paul >>> brewing and relaxing in Deposit, NY
------------------------------
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:51:37 +0500
Subject: DMS from malts...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
In recent conversations regarding DMS production from pils malt due
to slow cooling, let us not forget that short boils leaves too much
S-methyl methionine (SMM) left unconverted by the vigor of the boil.
"OK, smarty-pants! Just what does this all mean," you ask. "Hmmmm?"
Ah! Elementary, my dear Gaston, er Watson! SMM converts to DMS at
temperatures around and above about 70'C (158'F). This occurs in
your mash when the temperatures are near or above this target
temperature, and occurs in butt-loads (Technical term. Sorry. I'll
drop the jargon.) during the very hot boil. The evolving steam of
the boil drives off the baby DMS that is born through this reaction.
Capice?
OK. Now, let's assume you truncate your boil, and cool s-l-o-w-l-y.
There's *gobs* of SMM left in the wort, and your cooling will pass
slowly from the boiling temperature to your pitching temperature. The
thermometer stops for drinks around the 90'C area, and gets so
plastered it just plain forgets to leave before its hosts throw him
out at, say, 65'C. Ol' Mr. Temp then staggers and meanders through
the thermophyllic bacteria ranges until he finally stumbles home at
the pitching temperature.
And his wife throws him out. True story.
While old Jack Calorie was partying in that 100 to 65'C range, he
thoughtlessly converted SMM to DMS. Since the whole works was losing
steam (stupid joke intended), the DMS parasails did not fill, DMS did
not waft away, and it remained to become a major flavor constituent
of your beloved brew..
No matter how fast you cool, however, if the SMM is there to be
converted, it will. Just that faster cooling minimizes it. Also, this
is one instance where an immersion chiller may have the edge over a
counterflow: The immersion immediately begins reduction of the
temperature of the entire batch. DMS production will slow and
eventually stop (assuming SMM is available for conversion) in the
entire batch. With a CF chiller, the entire batch (less some delta
batch in the chiller) pretty much sits at the temperature the boil
left it, less the effects of air cooling, until it passes through.
Granted, a CF is faster overall, but the wort is hotter longer. It is
left as an exercise for the reader to ponder which is superior in
this regard.
Sooooooo.....
A longer boil with slow cooling will produce less DMS than a short
boil and slow cooling. FAST cooling with a truncated boil STILL
sucks really bad. Thusly and therefor, I recommend a minimum 90
minute boil, and cooling as quickly as possible. So there. QED.
Back to the Pat cave...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock@oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Beer is my obsession and I'm late for therapy!
------------------------------
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 19:28:59 -0700
Subject: re:Rye
I've brewed two Rye ales, one of which is in the fermenter now. Its
destined for our club Octoberfest party (Hi everyone from LBH). You can
find the recipe here:
http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat/recipes/ale/ales/recipes/7.html
That's about it.
Wayne Holder
Long Beach CA
------------------------------
From: Jason Goldman <jason@purpur.bbn.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 96 10:20:17 MESZ
Subject: Re: GABF
I wanted to comment on Ed's concerns and comments about the PPBT
(Professional Panel Blind Tasting). I'm writing this based on my experience
as a volunteer for PPBT for the last several years, not from any official
position.
ed.westemeier@sdrc.com (Ed Westemeier) writes:
> I'm much more concerned that the microbreweries and brewpubs aren't getting
> a fair shake at the GABF. They produce stunning beers, but I've tasted many
> of them (both at the source and at the GABF) and I've very often been
> appalled at the discrepancies I've noticed. Truly outstanding examples that
> fail to get a medal year after year, mediocre examples that win big, etc.
>
This is very true. I think that there are at least two reasons why this is
the case. First of all, the beer to be judged (and it *is* judged) is
submitted separately from the beer at the festival and must be in bottles.
So if the beer is only available on tap, the beer must be bottled -- many
small breweries just fill a bottle from the tap and hope for the best.
This also means that the beer submitted to the judging might only have the
name in common with the beer served at the GABF (or at their brewery). I
also don't have to mention that the beer may not have been shipped in a
refrigerated truck (while the larger quantity for the fest usually is).
Second, there is a big time lag from when the beer must be received for
judging and when it is actually judged, due to organizing the entries.
While the beer is stored in a cooler, it's just not going to be as fresh as
the stuff at the brewery. Especially when you think about those tap-filled
bottles.
> While shaking my head in despair while reading the medal listings this year,
> it suddenly occurred to me: the GABF no longer even uses the word "judge"
> in any of their publicity. They refer to the competition as the Professional
> Panel Blind Tasting (PPBT).
>
> Based on what I've heard about the process from PPBT participants, I get the
> strong impression that instead of "judging" the entries in anything even
> remotely resembling the way an organized homebrew competition is run with
> BJCP beer judges, the PPBT is simply a group of people who are
"professionals,"
> that is, they happen to be in the industry (work for a brewer or distributor,
> write about beer, etc.). These "professionals" then engage in a "tasting"
> (NOT "judging") of a selection of beers in a category. Their _favorites_
> (what they call the "best" beers) are then awarded medals.
>
I disagree with this. As a participant, I have listened to the judges
dicuss the entries. They are conscientious in their assessment of the beer
according to the style, they generally have experience with the style, and
they generally have pretty good palates. I still disagree with them
sometimes based on tasting the same *bottles* that they do, but I respect
their abilities. Sometimes, too, there is quite a debate on whether to
judge the beer based on the written style description or the consensus of
what that style should *really* be. All in all, it's much like a homebrew
competition in this respect. Addtionally, each beer is judged by a panel of
at least 3 judges per round, with final rounds generally being judged by 6
judges.
I keep using the word "judge" intentionally. While most of these industry
professionals are not certified as judges by the BJCP, et al., they are
experienced in brewing, analyzing, and evaluating the beer according to
style.
> In fact, I believe that last year was the first time that the "tasters"
> were even asked to fill out a comment card on the entries.
>
This is also not true. There has been some form of comment card for each
beer for the last several years. In the last couple of years, the
organizers have been more insistent that they are filled out and that that
they are passed on to the brewers. Given that the goal is not so much to
provide feedback to the brewers (like in a homebrew competition), but rather
to pick the best, the judging procedure is much like a final round ranking
in a homebrew competition.
Jason Goldman
jason@fc.hp.com
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2211
****************************
