Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2502
HOMEBREW Digest #2502 Tue 09 September 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Light medicine,starchy husks,kraeusen starter,acid wash ("David R. Burley")
Response to the other Charley(Burns') Burley-gram ("David R. Burley")
Stuck Stiut? (Greg Carroll)
Wort water (Christian O Miller)
3rd Annual KROC World Brewers Forum(tm) (John Adams)
Nutrasweet,Diastatic, priming etc (AlannnnT)
Rodenbach (Mike Uchima)
beer in NY and San Diego (Ross e Max)
Brewpubs in the Thousand Islands Area (Jonathan J Albrecht)
Re: BT PU Article typo?/40-60-70C mashing. (Steve Alexander)
Re: Kitchen experiments (Steve Alexander)
Malt modification and p-rests (pt1). (Steve Alexander)
Malt modification and p-rests (pt2) (Steve Alexander)
Chimay blue yeast (Miguel de Salas)
Re. Fermentap ??'s ("Charles L. Ehlers")
Malt Colour Units (Fredrik Staahl)
fridge won't get cold ("Keith Royster")
The Amazing Perma-Krausen (pat pend) (Samuel Mize)
Re: Yeast Culturing ("Larry F. Byard")
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery@realbeer.com
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
hbd.org /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
E-mail...
ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with
the word help for instructions.)
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:46:39 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Light medicine,starchy husks,kraeusen starter,acid wash
Brewsters:
Gerardo asks for help to remove a mediciney taste. =
Try two things:
1) Ferment below 70F
2) Do not pour hot wort through the air
Cool it first.
3) Ferment in the dark
- ------------------------------------------------------------------- =
I know you've read it in Charlie P's book that
the husks of barley, containing cellulose will
react with iodine. He's wrong.
There may be a red-mahogany reaction but
it is not blue-black as is starch. This is a
very specific reaction for starch. =
Try dipping a piece of *well-washed* =
(I.e. no starch sizing) cotton (100% celluose)
in iodine. Does it turn blue black?? Nope.
Blue black on the husks of barley is
because the husks have starch in them.
It is a question of practicality as AlK points out
and why I suggested you look at the liquid
you squeeze between two spoons =
after boiling a small sample of mash in
the microwave to get a true estimate
of the degree of completion.
Germans who decoct never had this problem
with the iodine test, but we infusion mashers
can be mislead. Boiling releases the starch
into solution where the reaction can take place quickly.
Not doing the test the way, I suggest,
may lead you to conclude that saccharification
is complete and this mash step may be terminated
too soon as Charlie P so often recommends.
Now you know why Charlie gets blue-black barley husks..
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
AlK also says:
>Dave has posted this procedure before and I've commented on it before.
>I know Dave's quite a bright guy, so perhaps I was unclear as to why
>I feel this is an unreliable and unrecommended procedure. I'll try
>again:
>If you make up a "starter" for your priming sugar and simply allow it
>to come to "high kraeusen," you cannot be sure if 10%, 20%... maybe
>even 50% of your priming sugar has fermented out during this "starting"
>period...........
>Simply letting the "starter" go for "about 12 hours" will result
>in variations in carbonation level. Put the starter in a warm place
>and use a particuarly vigorous yeast and you'll have only 10% of the
>priming sugar left after 12 hours!
AlK you are also a bright guy and I respect
your contributions tremendously. My basic
reason for using this technique with the
inherent dangers of batch to batch carbonation
variation you point out (and which I also recognize)
is that - it works. =
Far worse than a minor variation in carbonation
from batch to batch (which I do not experience)
is slow or no carbonation at all or wildly different
carbonation from bottle to bottle experienced when
using the commonly touted method of just adding
priming sugar and bottling. Perhaps if I bottled
while the fermentation was still somewhat active
or just finished ( say a pale ale with powdery yeast)
I would never have had these problems,
but I don't bottle yeasty/ cloudy beer, since I lager
in the secondary. Apparently others don't bottle
active yeast either as I see comments from
time-to-time about poor/slow carbonation.
The point here is that it is not exactly a starter
in the sense that large quantities of yeast =
are not present and secondly it has a fair quantity
of beer in it. The reason I suggest this form of
"kraeusen" starter ( with a little malt extract
to provide yeast nutrients) is that the yeast are
acclimated to the priming sugar and somewhat
to the beer at the same time ( remember these
dormant/flocced yeast came from the bottom
of the secondary). One way to minimize the
danger you are concerned about and still have
an active acclimated yeast is to only add a small
portion of the priming sugar to the starter and
add the remainder at bottling or kegging.
I just have never found it to be necessary.
- -----------------------------------------------------
AlK says about my modification of an acid wash for yeast:
>Of course you know that I'm going to point out that this will not kill
>*all* the lactobacillus and probably won't do anything to any wild yeast=
s
>you have in your yeast. Unless you live in Antartica or someother place=
>without regular FedEx deliveries, just get new yeast when you suspect
>an infection. $10 worth of incredients and 4 to 8 hours of my time
>are more valuable than a package of Wyeast or YCKC slant.
Well, most professional (micro-)brewers
would disagree with your approach, since it is common =
practice to acid wash their yeast after every
two or three times of recycling. Apparently
industry experience is that resident microbes,
like lactobacillus start causing funkiness after
about 5 recycles ( and may be the origin of the myth
that yeast "mutate" after 5 re-uses) . The acid wash
followed by a sterile water wash keeps these
bacteria under control. Adding the
metabisulfite at 50ppm just improves the
effectiveness of this technique.
I never made the claim that this method killed all
the lactobacillus nor reduced the wild yeast.
Wild yeast are very unlikely and will soon be
swamped by the major strain unless slant
yeast ranching ( where infection potential from =
bacteria and wild yeast is very high) is a
common practice.
Like you I also start with a large quantity of yeast
prepared professionally, I just save $4-5 on each
batch of beer in which I recycle the yeast.
I have never had a problem with a funky batch
because I quality control the yeast by tasting the beer from the starter=
=2E =
- ------------------------------------------------------ =
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 12:46:33 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Response to the other Charley(Burns') Burley-gram
Brewsters:
I responded to Charley privately, since he sent me an advance copy of his=
HBD submission. Here is a copy of my reply which may be of interest sinc=
e
he submitted it to the HBD.
> Quoting Charles Rich in hbd#2499:
> [DB says his 10% wheat beer using short holds at 122F and 135 has a goo=
d
> head]
All my beers have a good head! I was just making
the point that the 100% wheat beer allowed to sit
overnight was obviously a screwup and could in
no way be used to forward any argument except
don't leave it in the 122F region too long - like
several hours, whereas my 10% wheat with a
brief hold at 122F was fine.
> =
> Dave Sapsis and I discussed this briefly offline (I've discussed with
> others too) and everyone is pretty much agreed that the studyguide need=
s
> a little updating. Not only to bring it up to date with current malts,
> but also to expand on its brevity (a little information can hurt more
> than no information).
Actually, I'm not sure anything should be done. =
I believe every statement I read and could
understand was correct.
It may be that brewers are buying more highly =
modified malts and the volume of these malts
has increased, but 50% modified malt still
has the same properties as it has for centuries. =
The trick is to find out if the maltsters are changing
their names of Pilsner. I don't think so, based
on my cursory examination of about a dozen malts =
in a HB store. All the Pils/lager types were hard as nails
and the Pale Ale were soft and mealy.
> Steve Alexander and I also discussed the BJCP recommendations and his
> comments about 122/132f rests. I was confused about something he said
> that sounded like he conflicted within his own statements (he didn't, I=
> was just assuming a few things). All of this had to do with "degree of
> modification" which Dave B also questioned in the BJCP guideline
> statement (50-75%).
> =
> Here's my current understanding of what's going on with base malts:
> The facts are that when base malts are being created, a couple of major=
> things are happening. First, degree of acrospire growth and then
> temperature and time during kilning. This is very oversimplified, but
> serves (i think) the purpose of breaking the definition of
> "modification" into two pieces (thanks to Steve A). =
> =
> The germination may determine how much starch/protein is created,
Nope. the barley strain does that ( 2row vs 6-row for example
and more refined strain designations for the various growing regions)
but
> the kilning temperature and length will determine how much of what kind=
> of enzymes (protein)
Nope. Enzymes may be made up of a form of protein,
but don't confuse the terms. Protein that sticks
around after fermentation, has surfactant properties
and is a water soluble protein with no enzymatic activity
is what we mean when we talk of heading protein.
> are left in the malt. And this is critical to what
> temps are used in the mash. The higher temp and longer time of Pale Ale=
> (vs 2row, lager, pale or pilsner) malt kilning gives us more starch,
Wrong. Starch content is independent of the kiln
for the pale and pale ale malts. The higher kilning
temperature of PA wipes out the protease enzymes
( so no need to hold at 122F or 135F or this hold is
not so dangerous) and reduces the beta amylase.
Very highly roasted malts do have a reduced
amount of starch available for saccharification
> less protein (and less enzymes of course). Using the lower temp rests
> (122f or 132F) will further reduce the mmwp and lmwp in this Pale Ale
> malt (ie provide less head retention and less body).
Yes long holds can be dangerous if a little protease is still around.
The Pale Ale malt
> however, is itself a confusing term because continental and american
> pale ale are (supposedly) less "modified" than malts from the UK. This
> leads me to decide that I should never rest the UK malts less than 135f=
> and never for more than 15 minutes.
These malts are made to be infusion mashed
at one temperature in most cases
=2E> Armed with this knowledge, we can do experiments like C Rich did to
> confirm what we'll get at various temps with the malt we end up with
well not really his experiment was with a wort
not a beer. Some relationship but not really that strong.
> And where can I get a copy of the BT Market Guide?
BT sells it.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Carroll <grecar@pinn.net>
Subject: Stuck Stiut?
I have been homebrewing for about a year now and lurking on the HBD
for about as long. I believe I am finally having my first dreaded stuck
fermentation. I am trying to brewing a sweet style coffee flavored stout.
My O.G. was 1.068, my initial fermentation was quite vigorous and the
activity has slowed to an air bubble about once a minute. I am using Yeast
Labs Irish Ale (A05) Liquid yeast, I used a 16oz starter. My recipe for 5
gal is as follows:
6.6 lbs Light Malt Extract Syrup (EXTRACT)
1 lbs 2-Row Klages (MASH)
12 oz Roast Barley (MASH)
8 oz Crystal 60L (MASH)
1 lbs Honey (EXTRACT)
8 oz Malto-Dextrine Powder (EXTRACT)
1.5 oz Northern Brewer 8.4% BOIL 60 minutes
1 oz Kent-Goldings 5% BOIL 15 minutes
0.5 oz Kent-Goldings 5% BOIL 5 minutes
2 tsp Gypsum (in MASH)
0.5 c Lavazza Espresso Coffee (Prepared)
This recipe represents a few firsts for me. My first attempt to brew a
stout, use this strain of yeast, use Malto-Dextrine powder or use coffee in
a recipe. After 12 days in the primary I racked it to a secondary, there was
less than one inch of sediment and I had a S.G. of 1.028. The flavor is
very good, not noticeably sweet and a nice coffee aftertaste. The
temperature during this fermentation was between 76-80 degree F.
My initial thought is that the temp during fermentation may be a little
high. Will this amount of Malto-Dextrine cause the beer to finish with this
high a S.G.? Any suggestions out there would be appreciated. I am planning
to bottle once I think this beer is finished doing its thing. I don't want
to experience my first exploding bottles!
Greg in Hampton Roads (Where's that? I can't find it on a map), VA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 23:33:04 EDT
From: comiller@juno.com (Christian O Miller)
Subject: Wort water
I just brewed an IPA and was kind of rushed - an 11-week-old daughter
will do that for you. Anyway, I boiled about three gallons of wort like I
normally do and added two gallons of cold water. What I did differently,
though, is I filled up two previously rinsed milk gallon jugs with water
and dumped them into the fermenter after the boil. I soon started
worrying about contamination. I know I should have thought of this
before, but... What are my chances for success? Private e-mail ok.
Christian "Bing" Miller
comiller@juno.com
Brewin' in Durham
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 1997 21:22:05 -0600
From: John Adams <jadams@pipeline.cnd.hp.com>
Subject: 3rd Annual KROC World Brewers Forum(tm)
_________________________________________________________________
Third Annual KROC World Brewers Forum (tm)
_________________________________________________________________
For the third time in as many years, Colorado's most outgoing homebrew
club, The Keg Ran Out Club (KROC), in conjunction with The American
Homebrewers Association(r) and The BIRKO Corporation, are very
excited to again bring two world-renown brewmasters to the Denver area
for the third annual KROC World Brewers Forum(tm).
Fal Allen
Brewmaster at Pike Brewing Company, Seattle WA
Author of "Barley Wines" (coming soon from Brewers Publications)
Sean Franklin
Head brewer and Owner of Roosters Brewery and Outlaw Brewing Co.,
Yorkshire England.
Continuing with the tradition, this year's event is open to all
interested brewers and beer lovers. Admission will be free, door
prizes (visit our home page and play the easter egg contest) will
be raffled, and beer will be provided! Seating is limited to the
first 100 beer lovers so please RSVP to reserve your seat ASAP.
______________________________________________________________________
When: 7pm Tuesday, September 30, 1997
Where: Adam's Mark Hotel
1550 Court Pl, Denver, (303) 893-3333
RSVP: (303) 460-1776 (Homebrew Hut) or j_adams@fc.hp.com
Web: http://www.henge.com/~mmather/kroc/
______________________________________________________________________
The KROC World Brewers Forum(tm) is brought to you by:
The Keg Ran Out Club (KROC)
The American Homebrewers Association
Birko Corporation
The Homebrew Hut
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 00:45:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: AlannnnT@aol.com
Subject: Nutrasweet,Diastatic, priming etc
Lou asks; On another note, I am curious if anybody has used nutrasweet as an
adjunct, maybe for an ESB. Is it fermentable? What is the affect of
other stuff in the little blue packets?
If you could use Sweet and Low [in the pink packets] instead you have a
proven ingredient. David Line's book, Brewing Beers like Those You Buy,
mentions saccharin as an ingredient over and over. The winning recipe in a
contest locally was an ESB with saccharin. I tasted that beer in the finals
and I must say it was excellent. I don't think it is fermentable, which is
sort of the reason to use it. The residual sweetness is pleasant in small
quanities in the right recipe.
Adding to Al's note;
The only two extracts that I know of that have
diastatic power (i.e. the enzymes to convert starch to dextrins and
sugars) are Edme Diastatic Malt Syrup (often called DMS) and Munton's
makes one syrup that is diastatic, but it is labeled as such..
Also, John Bull [from England] has a diastatic malt extract available in the
US.
***
Greg writes (regarding bottling a few and kegging the rest):
>Is it best to put a three-pack's (or six-pack's) worth of beer
>into a 'bottling bucket' and prime that together? or should I
>just prime each bottle (I don't want any grenades)? or should I do something
>else?
What I do when I mini keg some and bottle some of the same batch might work
for you too.
I prime the entire batch based on the amount of prime I would use if the
whole batch was to be kegged. You can add more but you can't take any away,
so start with this, the lesser amount.
Usually I use about 3 ounces per 5 gallons depending on style.
Then I fill the kegs.
Then to the remaining beer I add more priming sugar or malt which I've
preboiled in a small sauce pan as usual.
After a slow, gentle stir I fill the bottles with the reprimed beer.
-----> Example.
1. Prime 5 gallons with 3 ounces dextrose.
2.Fill 2 mini kegs.
3. To the remaining beer add one more ounce priming sugar.
4.Bottle twenty four 12 ounce bottles.
This primes the bottles at the rate of 5 ounces per 5 gallons.
Easy, yes?
While on the subject of mini kegs, I know they aren't very popular with many
HBDers but if you make alot of homebrew in mini kegs, you will get invited to
alot more parties. I always show up with one or more chilled minis, and I
always get invited back again.
Next question. I am experimenting with Christmas Beer recipes. I am looking
for something fun to recommend in my shop for intermediate brewers, both
extract and all grain. Any ideas for something "new and different". [Is that
possible?] I would be happy to name the recipe after the contributor.
Happy brewing
Alan Talman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 01:12:52 -0500
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@mcs.net>
Subject: Rodenbach
OK, this idea may seem a little strange... but bear with me.
Just yesterday, I was enjoying a glass of Rodenbach Belgian Red Ale, and
I got to wondering how I might brew something similar. The tough part
to emulate is the lactic fermentation, which results from aging the beer
for a year or more in oak vats (the lactic bacteria live in the walls of
the vats). What I'm wondering is, could a *yogurt* culture be used in
the secondary, to induce a similar sort of lactic fermentation? Yogurt
cultures are apparently a form of lactic bacteria, but I have no idea if
they are the same as (or similar to) the strain which gives beers like
Rodenbach their unique "tang".
My current plan is to make a starter, but innoculate it with a small
amount of yogurt, instead of yeast. This culture would then be added to
the beer at racking time. I'm assuming that a pretty long secondary --
i.e. months -- might be necessary.
So anyhow, the questions I'm trying to find answers to are:
- Will yogurt cultures ferment the residual malt sugars adequately, or
are they only capable of fermenting milk sugar (lactose)?
- Is alcohol (or hops) likely to inhibit yogurt cultures?
- What is the temperature range over which yogurt cultures will work? I
know that yogurt is typically fermented very warm, but yogurt is not
fermented for months -- more like days. Will the bacterial fermentation
continue (albeit more slowly) at "normal" ale fermentation temperatures?
- Assuming that I decide to give this a try, is it risky to use the same
equipment (racking canes/hoses, bottling bucket, bottle filler) that I
use for my other beers? *Intentionally* exposing my equipment to lactic
bacteria makes me a little bit uneasy... should I get a second set of
hoses (and a second bottling bucket) to use for this experiment?
- Is this whole idea totally nuts?
So... whaddya all think?
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@mcs.net ==
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 00:27:20 -0700
From: Ross e Max <rosamax@split.it>
Subject: beer in NY and San Diego
Hi!
I'm coming for my first time to US - I was tired waiting for you to
export to Italy all those IPA's and barley wine instead of Bud :^)
I know I'm a bit too late to ask, don't know if this post will come out
on time, but I'll try.
I'll be staying in New York from 11 to 13 september and in S.Diego till
18 september.
I do have many infos from the web, but having just some days to stay
there, it will be useful to me to know which are the *DON'T MISS*
regarding micro's, brewpubs +food, events, beer- and HB-shops. I'm also
interested in any classical craft beer.
If you find it difficult to answer in such a short time, don't worry, I
will not end drinking budmillcoors anyway :^)
TIA & cheers
Massimo
Massimo Faraggi - Genova - ITALY
rosamax@split.it <--new email address
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 19:47:37 -0400
From: albrecht@juno.com (Jonathan J Albrecht)
Subject: Brewpubs in the Thousand Islands Area
Hey,
I'm head to the Thousand Islands in upper New York in
October. Does anyone know of any good brewpubs,
micros, or water holes in that general area?
Thanks,
Jon Albrecht
albrecht@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 1997 23:06:55 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: BT PU Article typo?/40-60-70C mashing.
Charley Burns asks if the BT Pilsner Urquell article had a typo when
describing the mash steps.
> This [the 62C/143F] seems about 10 degrees[F] low to me.
Reading Marc de Jonge's decocton faq for triple decoction pils and Dave
Miller in the 'Continental Pils' style book we get ...
Triple decoction pils rest temps
35C/53C/62C/73C BT article, P.Ensminger PU rests
35C/52C/63C/72C my reading of M.de Jonges's triple decoct w/pils rests
35C/50C/65C/74C Dave Millers PU rests from the 'style' book.
The point is that a bohemian pils is usually dry, light to medium body,
so the low saccharification rest fits. PU is the exception in that the
attenuation is only moderate. You'll need to consider the yeast
characteristics and the mash regime to achieve the attenuation result.
Typical american taste tends toward sweeter fuller beer styles, but
these numbers for saccharifications 62-65C/72-74C = [143-149F/161-165F]
are certainly a legit range for PU and other bohemian pils beers.
>Is the 143F correct due to the fact that PU makes its own malt and
>does it in some way that makes 143F work right for them? If I was to
>make a pu clone this weekend using DWC Pilsner malt, I'd plan on using
>a 122-140-153F [50C-60C-67C] schedule. Comments?
PU does in fact make their own malt, as described in the BT article,
which is quite undermodified by modern standards, but this primarily
effects the protein rests, not the saccharification rests. My feelings
regarding the inadvisability of a 122F rest for any modern commercial
malt has already been logged. DWC just isn't comparable to PU malt.
My advice regarding saccharification of DWC pils malt is that the rests
above are fine, and the 60C/67C you suggests is also fine. The relative
amount of beta- vs alpha-amylase activity is the issue. You'll need to
adjust your rest times to match the temperature regime. Rests of
30'@62C and 30'@73C with DWC pils malt *might* be equivalent to a
15'@60C and 45'@67 (since the BA continues to act longer at 67C than at
73C) for example, but that will depend on the specific malt and mash
conditions. Experimentation is the only useful guide available.
The BT article does contain one point which is, I suspect, is in error.
The water to malt ratio is claimed to be 1.85L/kg or 0.88qt/lb - very
very thick mash !!! M&BS claims that a conventional light(color) beer
triple decoction has a 4.8-5.4L/kg(2.3-2.6 qt/lb), very thin. This
Something
is certainly very wrong with someone's numbers.
- --
Charlie Rich asks about the 40C rest in George Fix's mash schedule.
Acidification isn't the point - it's merely hydration. Consistency is
difficult to achieve in small scale brewing. By fully hydrating the
malt at a low temperature where the major enzymatic processes are very
slow you may be able to achieve more consistent results during the
temperature/time critical rests without simulataneously trying to juggle
pH, malt hydration & balling, strike temperature and rest time.
Different malts may also vary in their ability to hydrate, so this rest
also helps deal with this difference.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 00:44:54 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Kitchen experiments
Three cheers and a round on the house for Charles Rich and his kitchen
experiment. We could use more experimentation of this sort on HBD.
It's very easy to throw stones at the severe limitations and lack of
controls of kitchen science, but these sorts of tests are still quite
useful and educational IMO.
David Burley cited a number of problems and improvements with
Charles_R's experiment and I'm sorely tempted to add my own $0.02 worth
as well. After the 'Enzyme Wars' experience of 1996HBD tho' I feel that
the burden to perform more refined experiments MUST be borne by the
person objecting to the experimental method or result. One reason why
the offline enzyme discussion never proceeded to experiments was a
spiraling list of objections to methods that made the tests too costly
and time consuming to ever perform. I'm not casting stones here, some
of the objections were my own, and most if not all had some validity. A
modest experimental result like Charles', despite its limitations, will
tell us all a lot more than an elaborate experimental design which never
gets implemented. Since discovery is said to be 1% inspiration and 99%
perspiration, my advice to would-be experimenters is to limit the
inspiration to match the available perspiration supply.
all gratis experimental results gladly accepted for consideration,
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 04:31:59 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Malt modification and p-rests (pt1).
I a made a mistake. Mea culpa. The BJCP study guide was refering to the
ratio of the acrospire length versus grain length a modification. The
paragraph preceding the quote reads in part ...
"The ratio of the acrospire length to the length is the degree of
modification, expressed as a percent or ratio. A ratio of 1.0 is
indicative of fully-modified malt. ... "
So their statement regarding the relative degree of modification need to
be re-examined in light of this definition of modification.
I object to the above para on the following grounds. I have consulted 8
books on homebrewing and brewing science, 3 articles on malt evaluation,
3 journal papers on malt, and 7 malt data sheets to which I have
immediately access. None refers to the acrospire to length ratio as a
metric of modification. Of course length does relate to modification
and is used as a guide by maltsters, but it has no intrinsic meaning for
a brewer.
Considering that there are a good number of modification indices for
malt proteins and carbs which are either acknowledged industry standards
or standards of organizations such as IoB or EBC, the use of this
oddball metric for the BJCP studyguide strikes me as very odd.
Dave Burley says ...
>Perhaps we have a semantic problem in the area
> of malts modification. I submit that while the
Agreed - I hope I've resolved the semantic confusion that I helped
create.
> malt modification *use* profile may have changed
> in Germany as they moved away from decoction
> mashing to a hochkurzmaishen and other profiles,
> malts called Lager and Pilsner malts still are less
> modified than Pale Ale malts and require a protein
> related hold. I know of no good malt specification
> which provides such an indication as most are very
> insensitive to the protein profile. Degree of =
Several measures are standard and specific to proteins and other malt
nitrogen carriers including total malt protein(% of malt mass), soluable
protein(% malt mass), total and soluable nitrogen (% malt mass) and
Soluble (to total) Nitrogen ration(SNR %).
Soluble nitrogen ratio(SNR) would seem a reasonable measure of protein
degradation to me (and the folks at IoB). This is the fraction(%) of
the malt nitrogen which is solubilized by a mash. Greg Noonan's 'Malt
Analysis' article which appears in Zymurgy's 'Great Grain' special
issue, and in BTs market guide described this measure more fully. M&BS
does a better job yet. Noonan and M&BS agree that for traditional lager
malts figures like 34-36%SNR are appropriate. Figures of 36-42% are
appropriate (Noonan) for infusion mashing. Figures over 45% are
overmodified and will result in thin light body beer. Kolbach index is
comparable to SNR, the difference being minor changes in the lab
procedure mash schedule to the EBC mash.
> Also the
> hardness of the malt grain in the bite test is an
> indication of the degree of modification since the
> protein matrix provides the structure to the barley
> grain. Less high molecular weight protein provides
>
>a softer grain. Pale Ale malts are mealy,
> Pilsner malts are hard.
A more numerical version of the 'bite' test is called 'friability' (a
measure of 'crushability'). I agree that british pale ale malts are
more friable than US or continental 2-row lager malt - *BUT* this really
only tells us something about the amount of matrix proteins in place and
NOT a measure of the amount of protein which is soluble which is what we
are concerned with for yeast nutrition and head retention.
Since the british PA malts with friability listed range from 8.1%-9.4%
total protein content and the only Continental/US pils malt listing
friability [Weyermann Pils] lists total protein at 10.5-11.5% (which is
typical for these malts) it is clear that even at the same level of SNR%
modification, the german malt will have much more insoluble protein left
in the matrix adding to hardness and detracting from friability.
In other words, the British habit of selecting low protein barley to
malt (as clearly indicated in the BT market guide table) means that a US
or German malt, will at any reasonable level of modification have more
insoluable (matrix) protein adding to the structural hardness.
(more follows) ...
- --
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 04:33:56 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Malt modification and p-rests (pt2)
As for the evidence that malts are more modified today ...
SNR% or Kolbach expressed as % (from several sources)
Beeston Maris Otter PA 38-43%
Beeston Halcyon PA 36-42%
Crisp PA 45.5%
Crisp Maris Otter 42.5%
Munton Pale >38%
Breiss 2-row 44%
Schreier 2-row 43%
DWC Pils 45.6%, 44%
Durst Lager 44%
If there is any geographical/malt-type trend here I don't see it. None
of the malts listed above fall in the traditional lager modification
range suggested by Noonan. The only base malt in the BT market guide
that has an SNR below 36% is the Maltieres Franco-Belges Pale ale
malt!!!
- --
There is some danger of yeast producing off flavors in a wort either too
high or too low in amino acids through well understood mechanisms. The
british malts of all sorts have lower amounts of soluable proteins per
pound of malt, often as low as 60% of the US malt figure, but I haven't
read of anyone suggesting that british malts need a peptidase rest to
add FAN. SNR% seems likely to be reasonably independent of the total
protein% as a modification index - lacking contrary evidence. One might
reasonably expect that the protein size mix from identical mashes of
british and german/us malts with similar SNR% would have a similar mix
of protein sizes in solution, but the german/us mash would clearly have
a greater amount of protein in solution.
If you need more amino acids, the 122F rest favors peptidases, but
permits proteases to operate slowly. A 132-137F rest favors proteases
to the substantial detriment of peptidases. Proteases may well produce
some free amino acids and small peptides, but the effect shouldn't be
serious unless a protease rest is carried too far.
As DavidB has pointed out, medium weight proteins (MW 5000-12000, 40 to
120 amino acids roughly) are implicated in head formation, and these
same proteins/peptides survive the boil better than others. It should
be noted that proteins continue to be removed from wort throughout the
boil so excessively long boils can have a negative effect on beer
protein content as well as a positive effect on shelf life.
David B.
> malts called Lager and Pilsner malts still are less
> modified than Pale Ale malts and require a protein
> related hold.
I disagree. The % of proteins that are soluable is quite similar to or
even greater than british PA malts. The total protein% is higher. The
extra bite or hardness of pils malt is easily explained based on the
much larger amounts of insoluble (as well as soluble) protein in this
malt. If a pils/lager protein rest is needed, it is to help degrade
large proteins, not to add to the FAN. I'd be willing to modify this
view on the basis of a modern study of FAN levels in worts, but I don't
have one. Anyone got ?? Without additional evidence it seems likely
that worts from low protein british PA malts have *lower* FAN levels
than those from lager malts !!
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 18:49:06 +1000
From: Miguel de Salas <mm_de@postoffice.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Chimay blue yeast
I drunk a bottle of Chimay blue in the pub today, and as I was
finishing it I thought... wouldn't it be nice to brew to 9 % alcohol like
this and get so (relatively) few esters and phenolics... As I was in the
pub, holding an open, empty bottle and a glass of Chimay, the prospect of
taking it home and making a starter from the dregs was quite impossible, as
it was probably already contaminated.
So I capped the bottle with a bit of alfoil, walked to University
(which is closer than home), got into the mycology lab and poured myself
three PDA (Potato-dextrose agar) plates in the laminar flow cabinet and
plated the dregs. In a few days I will have some nice little round colonies
of yeast and probably a few contaminating bacteria. What I would like to
know is the following:
1.Does anybody know whether the yeast from Chimay is the original,
primary fermentation yeast, or is it refermented with a different strain
prior to bottling?
2.If the beer has been refermented, which is more likely, has anyone
tried to brew with the yeast used in refermentation, and are the results
close to the authentic Chimay blue? Please tell me really if the results
come close to Chimay, rather than if you liked the end product or not.
Thank you for any info. Private email is preferred.
Miguel.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 06:12:34 -0500
From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers@flinthills.com>
Subject: Re. Fermentap ??'s
>Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 11:41:46 -0400
>From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman@reefnet.com>
>Subject: Fermentap ??'s
>Just purchased a Fermentap device and was wondering if the collective
>has any opinions on a few things regarding it usage.
Capt Marc,
I use two fermentaps, almost exclusively for lagering. They work well
but they aren't as great, and the trub removal process isn't as "clean", as
the advertising makes it out to be. As the shoulders of the carboy aren't
conical, some of the trub will rest there (when the carboy is inverted)
rather than settle to the drain. So, just draining off the trub won't work
as well as racking to another fermenter as you don't get rid of all the
trub.
I've never tried the carboy-to-carboy hook up the instructions recommend
to eliminate exposure to O2. It's simply a little more trouble than I want
to go through.
IMHO, the best thing the fermentap has going for it is the ease of
transferring the brew from container to container, whether it's racking to
a
secondary or transferring to a bottling bucket.
Have fun!
Charles Ehlers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 13:55:33 +0100
From: fredriks@abel.math.umu.se (Fredrik Staahl)
Subject: Malt Colour Units
Fellow Brewers:
I've just started to go through a bunch of old Brewing Techniques, and
after reading Ray Daniels' nice articles on beer colour [1-3] a few
questions came to mind which I cannot find the answer to in my books.
1) Daniels mentions that the EBC unit and method of measuring was changed
"recently" (i.e. just before 1995). The new way of measuring uses the same
wavelength as the SRM method, but smaller cuvettes. Daniels gives the
following conversion formula [1,3]:
EBC = 1.97 SRM
Question: Does anybody know how widespread this new EBC method is, i.e. if
I buy a bag of german malt, which unit does the spec sheet use?
2) In an article in Zymurgy, Greg Noonan writes that there is another unit,
Institute of Brewing colour, that is sometimes used for English malt [4]. This
is equal to 80 percent of the EBC colour. How does one know which colour
is specified?
3) Here in Europe the malt specification sheet usually states the colour in
EBC units only. Daniels writes that the colour of a malt is determined by
a laboratory mash (but with distilled water and no boil) [1]. The usual
procedure if the colour value is given in SRM is to interpret this value
as Lovibond*(US gallons)/pounds, and to sum the colour contribution from
each malt accordingly. One then gets what Daniels calls "Malt Colour
Units" or MCU:s [3]. The MCU value is of course not a good estimate of the
colour of the beer, but it can be adjusted with the help of experience to
allow an estimate.
What I wonder about is how to interpret the malt colour value on the spec
sheet if it is given in EBC. I can think of three alternatives:
i) Use it as EBC*(US gallons)/pounds (which is a strange mix of units)
ii) Use it as EBC*liter/kg (doesn't fit, gives strange figures)
iii) The procedure of calculating MCU:s is faulty.
Maybe this is connected to how the malt colour is measured in the first
place. I can't find a reference telling me what the weight and volumes are
in the laboratory mash - i.e. what the SG is. Maybe the prediction
algorithm should be based on SG instead, as I think I've seen somewhere
(maybe Miller's book).
[1] Ray Daniels, "Beer Color Demystified - Part I: How to Measure Beer
Color in the Home and Microbrewery", Brewing Techniques 3 (4), 56-64 (1995)
[2] Ray Daniels, "Beer Color Demystified - Part II: The Science of Beer
Color", Brewing Techniques 3 (5), 60-63 (1995)
[3] Ray Daniels, "Beer Color Demystified - Part III: Controlling and
Predicting Beer Color", Brewing Techniques 3 (6), 56-63 (1995)
[4] Gregory J. Noonan, "Making Sense of a Malt Analysis", Zymurgy 18 (4),
15-16 (1995) (Excerpt from Gregory J Noonan, "New Brewing Lager Beer".)
Cheers!
/Fredrik
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrik St{\aa}hl Tel: int + 46 90 786 6027
Math. Dept. Fax: int + 46 90 786 5222
University of Ume{\aa} E-mail: fredriks@abel.math.umu.se
S-90187 Ume{\aa}, SWEDEN WWW: http://abel.math.umu.se/~fredriks
On tap: Old Pickled Hen
*** Nemo saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit ***
- --------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 08:08:49 +0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith@ays.net>
Subject: fridge won't get cold
I just bought a second used fridge for my garage so I can dedicate
one to fermenting temps and the other for serving homebrew from
kegs. My problem is that, after hooking it up and letting it run for
the entire weekend, it has only gotten down to 50dF. Does anyone
have any ideas on what might be involved to fix this? Do fridges
loose freon like cars and need recharging sometimes?
Thanks!
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina -
"Where if the kudzu don't gitcha, the Baptists will!"
email: keith@ays.net
http://www.ays.net/brewmasters -Carolina BrewMasters club page
http://www.ays.net/RIMS -My RIMS (rated COOL! by the Brewery)
http://www.ays.net/movingbrews -pumps and accessories for advanced homebrewers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 09:21:05 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: The Amazing Perma-Krausen (pat pend)
The net saved my beer!
You may recall I mentioned the trouble I had straining a beer with
chocolate added to the boil.
Well, it fermented for two weeks in opaque plastic, then I opened
the bucket. What a shock! There was about an inch of what appeared
to be some bizarre, ugly growth, the general appearance and texture
of cottage cheese. Mold?!?!??
I'd read several times on the net that, in case of mold, one should
taste the wort and see if the flavor is affected. Mold in beer, on its
own, supposedly isn't a health problem (but remove the mold itself).
This seemed an extreme case, but what the heck. I tasted it. It had
some kind of weird tang, but I wasn't sure if it was sour, or bad, or
just the jumble of flavors I'd started with. So I bottled it -- since
I was putting it into 2L PET bottles anyway, this wasn't a big effort.
The beer turned out fine! I later researched molded beer via Deja News,
and found that this was probably just crud left over from the krausen,
which is common if you have a lot of fermentables. In 5 gallons, I
had only 7 pounds of malt extract, 8 oz of molasses, and 8 oz of
baker's chocolate. Plus hops and spices. (A "kitchen sink" stout.)
That, by the way, was the weird tang: the not-yet-fused flavors from
the chocolate, spices and molasses. It has mellowed and blended quite
a bit, and is fairly drinkable as of even date, and getting better.
That inch-thick layer of cottage cheese wasn't a problem after all. I
skimmed away a couple of inches of beer for no reason. (OUCH!) But
my net-gained knowledge let me save about three gallons (YAY!).
There's a write-up on how to save molded beer that I read via Deja
News. I don't know if it's been on HBD. I'll check the archive,
and send a copy if it hasn't.
- ----
On another note, I just used my first "smack pack." Boy, when you-all
said there was less yeast in there, you wasn't just a-woofin! I got
less yeast out of that pack than I usually LEAVE in a dry packet.
I didn't allow enough time for a proper starter, either, so I'm
getting a slow start, even for a smack pack.
How odd it seems to not see joyous bubbling out the airlock 10 hours
after pitching! :-) Thanks to the net, though, I know not to worry
about it.
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
(personal net account)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:31:30 -0400
From: "Larry F. Byard" <lbyard@gwi.net>
Subject: Re: Yeast Culturing
After fermenting, I put the contents of the smack-pack into a small jelly
jar. From this source one can take about ten eye droppers and start
about a liter or so of wort in a 1 1/2 liter wine bottle with an air lock.
Admittedly, this under-pitching, but it works. From each wine bottle one
can make three 5 gallon batches. From each of these batches, one can
obtain enough slurry for three more batches. I store the slurry in jelly
jars. After brewing 12 batches this way, I go back to the orignal source
for ten more eye droppers. As as a final note, this procedure avoids
canned wort... Larry
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2502, 09/09/97
*************************************
-------
