Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2500
HOMEBREW Digest #2500 Fri 05 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:
WHY do I get this flavor. ("Gerardo Godoy")
Entire Butt ("Michel J. Brown")
ford brew II (Richard Byrnes)
Re: Propane burner in basement (Steve Scott)
Good Pubs in San Diego (Matt Koch)
Need a beer -- quick! (KROONEY)
Traveling (Spencer W Thomas)
BT PU Article typo? (Charles Burns)
Finally some data on 122F, ("David R. Burley")
Pumpkins and sanitizing (Greg Young)
Rest temperatures (Aaaarrrrggghhh!) and US vs. German Spalt (Matthew Arnold)
Lager Temps (OCaball299)
Re: Christmas beer (guym)
Dead mouse in Demijohn -- still OK? ("Alan McKay")
koelsch yeast (Lou Heavner)
re:Burley-gram (135F rest) / BJCP Poorly worded studyguide and "modification levels" (Charley Burns)
Electric heater elements (Dana Edgell)
FWH/diacetyl/Guinness/diastatic extracts/yellowing hops/Blue Moon (korz)
HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ("Aesoph, Mike")
sugars/end of conversion/isinglass vs. polyclar/kraeusening/yeast washing/IPA age/122F rest/bottle priming (korz)
122 Degree F Rest (Paul Niebergall)
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: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:38:08 -0400
From: "Gerardo Godoy" <panasurf@panama.phoenix.net>
Subject: WHY do I get this flavor.
I have been brewing only for 3 months and all my beers get this
"very light" medicin flavor...it is not THAT bad and if I really cool
the bottles it is hardly noticed.....is my beer getting infected all the
time??
I clean everything like a hospital before I start and I am using "BOTTLED"
water so I won't get any chlorine........Can anyone suggest something,
I am beginning to get frustrated and very angry.
Thanks
Gerardo
The Panama Jungle Brewery Ltd.
can mail directly to:
panasurf@panama.phoenix.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 03:37:59 -0700
From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade@spiritone.com>
Subject: Entire Butt
As a Porter affecianado, I brew one or two a month, and have read =
repeatedly that several author's refer to Porter as "Entire Butt" beer. =
Since we have been going over linguistics of late, I'm curious of what =
gives with this moniker. My latest batch of Brown Porter I've christened =
"Firkin Butt Porter" after my favorite beer engine (may Wat Dabney smile =
upon us all), so if anyone has a clue, please email me, or post to the =
HBD anything you know about "Entire Butt" beer. Hope this post doesn't =
come *too* anally ;^)
Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C.
Brewer, Physician, Patriot, and Scholar
Mad Monk Nano Brewery
------------------------------
Date: 04 Sep 1997 07:45:06 -0400
From: Richard Byrnes <rbyrnes2@ford.com>
Subject: ford brew II
Jason henning takes some shots at Ford,
Q: What does Ford REALLY stand for?
A: Everyone in Dearborn knows, First On Race Day! :-)
Yet over 145 members REALLY REALLY know (including the esteemed janitor,
Pat Babcock!)
Fermental
Order of
Renaissance
Draughtsmen
Michigans largest homebrew club so careful Jason!
Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr
B&AO Pre-Production F-Series Analyst \\\|///
phone #(313)323-2613, fax #390-4520_______o000_(.) (.)_000o
rbyrnes2.ford@e-mail.com (_)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 08:15:54 -0400
From: sscott@lightlink.com (Steve Scott)
Subject: Re: Propane burner in basement
>Would it be acceptable to use a propane burner in the basemen t
>if I have two large windows open in addition a large window fan
>removing any fumes and steam which may be created.
>
>I believe the general problem with propane is preventing a
>build up of propane gas on the bottom of the floor. If I have
>a fan constantly circulating the air and removing it out doors
>is using the burner in my basement acceptable.
Many people use propane appliances (furnaces, stoves, dryers).
Occasionally one of these houses goes up very quickly. Propane is
something to have an extremely healthy respect for. Much like having a
pan of gasoline in your basement tightly covered. Not a problem at all
as long as the fumes don't get out.
That said, sure, you can use it in your basement. I would recommend
checking the hose and all connections with soapy water in a spray bottle
every time you use it. Better yet, come up with a hard piped
arrangement that can stay put.
** The problem with the average family today is that it's=20
impossible to support it and the government on one income.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:36:21 -0400
From: Matt Koch <MKoch@STSSystems.com>
Subject: Good Pubs in San Diego
Greetings all
I will be in San Diego at the end of the month. Any suggestions on
where to find a good pint and a decent meal would be greatly
appreciated.
Matt Koch, Montreal
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 08:04:00 -0400
From: KROONEY@genre.com
Subject: Need a beer -- quick!
I am having a party 12 days after I return from vacation. Is there any way
I can brew a batch of homebrew when I return in time to serve at the party
or would I be wasting my time? I am considering buying a corny keg setup,
so I could force carbonate if that would help. If so, are there any
particular styles that finish more quickly?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 10:34:04 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Traveling
Will be in Princeton, NJ Sept 18-20. Would like to meet fellow
brewers and hoist a few.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 97 08:18 PDT
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: BT PU Article typo?
I finally got around to reading the latest BT article on the history of
Pilsner Urquell. On page 56 it describes their process (triple decoction)
and notes that the starch conversion temp is 143F. This seems about 10
degrees low to me.
Reading in Ray Daniels book, he lists 153F as the typical conversion temp
for a Bohemian Pilsner.
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
schedule. Comments?
Charley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:09:27 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Finally some data on 122F,
Brewsters:
Thanks to Charlie Rich we have some data
on which we can begin to understand the
effect of 122F hold on head formation and
chill haze clarification and the complexity
to doing the experiments. His point that
this is only one piece of data with a problem
with the standard are well taken, but
nevertheless appreciated. I like the idea
that this test may be developed into a
method of evaluating malts. My concern
is that this does not evaluate the heading
properties of beers with CO2 in the foam.
As he points out in his opening comments
- it may nevertheless provide a useful indication.
Why did you sparge the malt after the 100F hold??
This is not a normal procedure in wort preparation.
Maybe I don't understand the experiment,
but the way I read it you removed the grain
after a 100F hold and worked only with the liquids?
Minor comment from my own experience,
I do not hold at 100F except on rare occasions
and only with Lager/ Pilsner/six-row malts =
in concert with gummy malts or adjuncts
like rye,wheat or barley. My own experiences =
are for a mash in of 122F directly, 15 minute hold,
raise to 135F at 2 deg/min followed by a hold at 135F.
Like Charlie I believe it is important
to solubilize the enzymes before entering
into the saccharification step.
122F does that for me along with apparently
reducing some those nasty chill haze proteins
generated during malting.
Measuring heading capabilites has always
been a difficult thing, even with beers and
not unhopped worts ( which Charlie measured). =
Many pieces of equipment have been designed
and none too successfully to my understanding,
as "minor" surface properties (what kind of covering
did you use for the testubes when you shook them,
etc.) and components can affect this phenomenon =
greatly.
I'm not being critical of Charlie's technique,
just pointing out this experiment can be fraught
with inconsistencies due to apparently small things.
As Charlie noted even the carry over of trub
into his standard apparently produced a result
which theory cannot explain based solely on
the enzyme activity.
How much the other results were affected by
this kind of thing is unknown. More experience
will help clarify this issue.
At first I was tempted to suggest that another
similar experiment be carried out measuring
chill haze, but realized that this is a
hopless wort and not a beer so this kind of
examination would perhaps not be useful.
Is it possible to do a hopped wort (maybe hop
extract??) in which certain longer chain proteins
will be precipitated as the hop/protein complex =
and certain complexes also help in the
head formation as is known to occur?
- ----------------------------------------
The 40C hold (which I believe will do
no good with higher kilned malts like Pale Ale)
is apparently recommended for the =
reduction of the gums ( which will reduce haze
and the viscosity of the wort and improve the
recovery of sugars in fast sparge situations) =
in the mash, however, it also will allow for
acid formation from lactic bacteria and from
phosphatases in low-kilned malts.
Themorphilic bacteria like the lactobacillus
love this temperature range. Even though =
the optimum temperature for Phosphatases
is 37C, it is still active at 40C..
For my Czech style lager I use a ( low-kilned =
containing phosphatases) Pilsner malt and
RO water with no mineral salts added.
Being a less buffered situation, I do see a pH
drop over an hour hold at this low temperature =
contrary to Charlie's experience. Perhaps using
higher kilned malts (like pale ale) and mineral
containing water, Charlie has never seen this change.
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps we have a semantic problem in the area
of malts modification. I submit that while the
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 =
modification is indicated by the length of the acrospire =
( soak a piece of malt from each type and compare =
the freed acrospire to the grain length). 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. =
I suggest you go to the HB store and bite malts =
of various types and prove it to yourself. =
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Charlie also says that he didn't understand my
attempt to extract information from a table of =
protein MW content versus malt types and mashing
conditions. In a second table the generation of
short chain proteins and amino acids actually
went faster at 150F than at 120F for the first =
half hour of the mash - generating a higher
concentration of low Mw proteins at
mashing temperatures than at protein hold temperatures,
presumably because of the higher rate at 150F.
Eventually the denaturization of the peptidase at 150F
won out and the curve levelled off at 150F =
but kept climbing at 120F. These curves crossed
at about 1/2 hour or so.
Well it was not meant to be definitive as I pointed out,
but was an indication of the trends. I found it surprising =
that a 20 minute hold at 120F apparently provided less
LMW protein than the same hold at 150F. Modern =
analysis methods would make short order of this =
discussion. I keep hoping someone will provide real
data and not opinion as I do not have access to this
kind of data easliy.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Sounds like both Charlie and I want to find the truth
and no personal stuff. That's exactly what I want.
I believe I only respond negatively to what I perceive
are personal cracks not intended to elucidate anything.
I believe all HBDers are on the same team with the =
same interests with no need to lower the comment
level to degrading personal commentary.
I find that there is never a simple answer to anything,
(As Rob Moline or was that Jethro? says -
"the more I know about beer, =
the more I need to know." I agree.)
especially in brewing as there are many, many
interacting parameters ( and as humans it is lucky
if we can handle three - maybe four). Like others,
I am not perfect no matter how hard I try. HBD =
provides the opportunity to explore these many situations =
and understand them more fully by discussion,
point and counterpoint, in a mostly egoless environment
for which I am grateful. Now back to the regular programming.
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:24:29 -0400
From: Greg_Young@saunderscollege.com (Greg Young)
Subject: Pumpkins and sanitizing
Howdy brewers--
Just a few questions:
I'm about to do my 2nd pumpkin brew for the approaching autumn months, and I was
looking for some suggestions from the homebrewing collective on the best way to
incorporate the pumpkin into the beer. Last year I roasted 15 lbs. of fresh
pumpkin, scooped out the flesh and put it into the mash (can you say messy?).
The beer was great, but I didn't enough of the pumpkin flavor. I'm looking to
try something different this year, but I don't know what. First of all, I'm
going with the canned stuff this year (yes, I know: no preservatives). But,
Should I put it in the boil? Steep it at the end? Put it directly into the
primary? Secondary? Has anyone ever used a pumpkin extract, or know where to
order it from? Any suggestions or past experiences would be appreciated.
Also, on the sanitation note: If you have a five gallon bucket filled with a
sanitizing liquid (i.e. diluted bleach solution, iodophor solution, etc...),
will it "go bad" after a time? I'm just wondering if, instead of making a five-
gallon batch of sanitizing solution every time I brew, could I just have a
bucket of it on hand and use it again and again. Just wondering.....
giddie-yup
Greg Young
Greg_Young@saunderscollege.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 16:09:18 GMT
From: mra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Rest temperatures (Aaaarrrrggghhh!) and US vs. German Spalt
I the risk of being poked in the eye with a sharp stick, I would once again ask
the following question:
If I am mashing a pound or two of German or Belgian Munich malt for an Altbier
partial-mash recipe, what would be the most advantageous mash schedule (all
temps are in degrees Fahrenheit):
1) 122, 135, 155
2) 135, 155
3) 145, 158
4) 155 alone
5) Something else
Basically I am looking for the simplest mash schedule that will give the
Altbier the Munich "Germanic wonderfulness" I'm looking for without also giving
me a big glass of starch haze. I've read the 122 or not 122 posts with
interest, but I am having difficulty boiling down the discussion to determine
an answer to my question.
Also, does anyone know how favorable U.S.-grown Spalt hops compare to
German-grown Spalt? I've noticed that German-grown tends to be in the 2.5-3% AA
range, where as US-grown is closer to 5-6% AA. If I really want to use German
Spalt (at 2.5% AA) as my main hop for this (like the gents in Duesseldorf do)
would I be better off using a relatively neutral high alpha hop (a la Galena)
as well? I can't see buying a half pound of Spalt just to try and get it up to
decent bittering levels.
Safety glasses on!,
Matt
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:28:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: OCaball299@aol.com
Subject: Lager Temps
To the all knowing collective...
I'm sure this has come up in the past, but since I hadn't graduated to
Lagers, I probably just blew by it. I'm interested in brewing a Lager
SOON... It's my first and I am an Extract brewer. My question is how to
feasibly maintain the 50-60 degree fermentation temp? Any usable suggestions
is very much appreciated.
TIA
Omar Caballero
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 97 12:31:55 MDT
From: guym@Exabyte.COM
Subject: Re: Christmas beer
Jeffrey C Lawrence wrote:
> As my second year of brewing begins soon, I look forward to some of
> the specialty beers that I can brew from extracts. This time I am
> looking for a extract based Christmas beer.
Jeffery,
To put in a shameless plug, I have an old recipe in the Cat's Meow
called "Christmas in Ireland" that I brewed from extracts in 1991
(*my* second year of brewing). It was one of those that received some
barbs at the time because my comments were "I haven't tried it yet but
it smells great". Let me say now that it was wonderful the first year
(I brewed it in September), fantastic the second year, and beyond
description the third year - by far the best Christmas beer I've
tasted before or since IMHO (in its third year). It was stored cold
from the time it was carbonated until it was consumed (~40 F,
refrigerator temperature). I haven't brewed the exact recipe again
(I've since moved on to all grain) but this year's Christmas brew will
be an all grain shot at this very beer. I have built a cold box ala
Byron Burch around an upright freezer and will ferment this one at
around 65 - 68 F and condition it at 38 F. I will be doing 10 gallons
(the original was a 5 gallon batch), bottling half, and kegging half.
If you don't have access to the Cat's Meow, email me and I'll send you
a copy of the recipe. No, I didn't enter it in any competitions (I've
never - yet - entered a competition and it was bottled in Grolsch bottles
the first time) but I will be using plain brown bottles for half this year,
just in case.
--
Guy McConnell /// Huntersville, NC /// guym@exabyte.com
"There's damsels in distress out there and we've got all this beer..."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:40:29 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: Dead mouse in Demijohn -- still OK?
Hi folks,
A friend gave me a 55litre demijohn that had a couple of dead
mice in it. I've had the thing soaking in some pretty strong
bleach solution for the last 5 days, and am wondering if I
should use this for beer or not.
A couple of the mice were only skeletons -- one was freshly
dead.
My instinct is to not use it, but if someone out there is certain
I'll be fine, then maybe I will.
thanks,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:00:14 -0500
From: lheavner@tcmail.frco.com (Lou Heavner)
Subject: koelsch yeast
Greetings,
I am planning to reprise a koelsch that I made last year which was
very popular with friends and family. At that time, I didn't have a
fridge and so it fermented at the high end of the suggested temp range
(62 to 64 Deg F). Obviously, I didn't lager it either. WYeast 2565
is described as a hybrid yeast and I would like to try lagering it
this time. Would anybody care to share speculation or experience
regarding lagering temps with this yeast. I would like to lager for
about a month and then bottle without adding a bottling yeast and so I
am particularly interested in how well the yeast will condition after
lagering.
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? When should it be added? I
know, I should just experiment, but with 3 toddler sized brewing
assistants, running around, the spousal unit severly restricts my
brewing time.
Regards,
Lou
<lheavner@frmail.frco.com>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 10:50:00 -0700
From: Charley Burns <cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:Burley-gram (135F rest) / BJCP Poorly worded studyguide and "modification levels"
Quoting Charles Rich in hbd#2499:
[DB says his 10% wheat beer using short holds at 122F and 135 has a good
head]
No doubt 10% wheat has a good head, and would probably have better head
if you could skip the 122F rest. I'd also that swear this is the first
time you've endorsed a hold at 135 instead of breezing through it.
[me]
Last year when I was fooling around with decocting pale ale malt (a feat
which i will never again waste my time with) Dave recommended the 135F
rest prior / during decoction. After much discussion of MMWP and HMWP,
what goes on at the maltster and what we get to do in the mash, I
finally used the 135F rest in decocted porter (please don't sick the
beer police on me). Well, it worked. It was a nice porter, but certainly
not worth the effort of a decoction. Decent head, lots of body, used
English (HB) malt. So, Dave has recommended the rest before (and it
worked), but lets make sure when we talk about this stuff that we are
CLEARLY defining the grain bill involved (for the most part we are and
thats good).
Now, sticking my neck out a little farther on the subject of the BJCP
studyguide recommended mash rests.
Dave Sapsis and I discussed this briefly offline (I've discussed with
others too) and everyone is pretty much agreed that the studyguide needs
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).
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, but
the kilning temperature and length will determine how much of what kind
of enzymes (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,
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). 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. The decoction I did (described
above) mashed in at 135F and **immediately** pulled a 1/3 decoction
which was completed within 20 minutes (pretty much wasted effort wasn't
it).
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. I
say that somewhat with tongue-in-cheek becuase i'm fairly skeptical
about what lables are on the bags of grain that I buy. I think the
experiments might be a good idea for every bag of grain, regardless of
what it might be advertised as. For those brewers that have the HB store
crush the grains and only buy enough for 1 brew at a time, that will be
tougher. These people will have to pretty much rely on the HB shop to
get them good, accurate information (something I've had difficulty with
in several shops I've been in - at least consistently).
And where can I get a copy of the BT Market Guide? Does it have all the
specifications in it that would answer these questions regarding starch
and protein/enzyme content of malts available to homebrewers?
Charley (looking forward to 2nd half of Jim Busch's article in BT) in
N.Cal
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 12:34:24 -0500
From: Dana Edgell <edgell@quantum-net.com>
Subject: Electric heater elements
For HBD RIMS & Electric brewers:
1) Is the reason that tinned electric heating elements shouldn't be used for a
RIMS because of their high heating density or is the metal a factor?
2) Would theybe safe for a water only heater (Hot liquor tank heater)?
3) Would adjusting the pH of the sparge water in the HLT affect the use of
the above heater element?
4) I have an auto-timer module from an electric coffee maker. Unfortunately
it doesn't seem to be marked with a safe power rating. Is there an easy way
to determine this?
5) Does anyone know a good cheap source of electrically controlled valves or
should I try to canibalize old dishwashers?
Thanks,
Dana Edgell
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell
edgell@quantum-net.com
http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:00:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: FWH/diacetyl/Guinness/diastatic extracts/yellowing hops/Blue Moon
Well, I'm almost caught up in my reading HBD, and I've been queueing-up
topics and deleting them when they got answered, so hopefully you don't
mind my commenting on these rather old topics...
Hubert writes:
>First wort hoppings increase oxidation of hop oils and thus
>(see below) provide hop aroma. Only use the best aroma hops
>available to you.
Perhaps it is true that first wort hopping (FWH) increases the oxidation
of hop oils (I know that a measured amount of oxidation of hop oils
is desirable, especially in "Noble" hops), but my experience with
them has been that they add a small amount of hop aroma and a
*HUGE* amount of hop flavour. I made the mistake of making a
Bohemian Pilsner in which I put *all* the hops in as FWH and the
resulting beer had overwhelming hop flavour and just a touch of
hop aroma. It was also underbittered (tasted like about 30 IBUs
although I had hopped for 40 IBUs assuming 30% utilization).
***
John Penn writes:
> In HBD 2478, the question of dicetyl using 1728 Wyeast came up. I tried
>1728 and I even racked to a secondary deliberately dropping most of the batch
>in order to aerate and increase dicetyl. Fermentation was about 70-75F and
>the recipe was a scotch ale. The result was not much dicetyl. There were
>some previous suggestions to getting dicetyl in previous HBDs, you might try a
>search. But I don't think 1728 alone will do it. I think there is a London
>le yeast that might produce more dicetyl than 1728. AlK or some of you other
>more experienced brewers might have some good advice.
This is exactly what I wrote to the original poster in direct email, except
that I feel Wyeast #1084 (Irish Ale) is one of the strongest producers
of diacetyl in the Wyeast line. Aeration *during* fermentation (yes,
normally this is considered bad) will increase diacetyl production.
Also, crashing the yeast (by quickly chilling the beer) or filtering
shortly after fermentation, will remove most of the yeast from the
beer and prevent them from reabsorbing the diacetyl which they ususally
do (note that you need a yeast that doesn't make a lot of acetaldehyde
because this too will not be reabsorbed and the beer will taste like
green apples (like Budweiser)).
***
Jacques writes:
>According to Graham WHeeler's book " Brew classic European beers at home "
>Guinness Foreign Extra Stout ( FES ) has the following specifications:
>O.G. 1.073
>Alcohol content: 7.2% by volume
>Bitterness 65 EBU
>Color 200 EBC
Ahh... but not all bottled Guinness is alike. This sounds like the
Caribbean version. If memory serves, what we get in the US in bottles
is 1.050 OG and 50 IBUs.
***
Doug writes:
>I am using Munton's amber dry malt extract, which my homebrew supply
>owner *thinks* has very little diastatic power.
Your HB supply owner should know for sure. Munton's dry all have
nil diastatic power. 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... I
don't recall the exact name.
***
Jay writes:
>Leslie [some hop expert, I'm sorry, I cut that part of the post
>away] said that if the plant experiences periods of dry along
>with periods of wet, the older, lower leaves will turn yellow
>and drop (he didn't explain why that is - can anyone here?).
>He recommended that the best solution to this was to ensure
>that the plants receive water on a daily basis, but warned
>not to overwater. He said that a drip-irrigation system was
>ideal for this and easy to do, even for the hobby-grower.
This was not the case... I *had* set up a drip irrigation system
and had been giving each plant 6 gallons of water every morning.
The leaves began to turn yellow between the veins and started
dying off from the bottom. I added Epsom Salts. They stopped
turning yellow between the veins and dying off. A few weeks later,
again, the yellowing began, so I added more Epsom Salts. Again,
the plants stopped yellowing.
>Leslie also said that shade (or not enough sun) will cause the
>older, lower leaves to yellow in the same way. His explanation
>was that the plant senses a decrease in sunlight and "thinks"
>it does not need the leaves for photosynthesis, so it drops
><snip>
My hop plants were indeed in too-shady a place, but the lower
leaves were getting just as much light (if not more) than the
upper leaves.
>I mentioned the deal about adding magnesium-sulfate and he said
>that if the yellowing was due to a chemical imbalance in the
>soil, the entire plant would be affected, not just the lower,
>older leaves.
If I'm not mistaken, this phenomenon is not unique to hops and
I believe that my general-purpose gardening book has the yellowing
between the veins of the lower leaves as a symptom of insufficient
magnesium. Check your GP gardening books.
>I wonder if by applying the MgSO4 by the person that posted
>about it, that you didn't just happen to water them a little
>more thinking that it would get the MgSO4 into the ground
As I said before, I had set up a soaker hose system. It was on
a timer and the only variations could have been due to additional
water from rain.
Note also, that this same phenomenon was seen on my tomato and
cucumber plants this year. I sprinkled some Epsom salts and
the yellowing stopped. What yellowing had occured did not go
back to green, but the plants did not get worse. Perhaps next
year, I'll try to remember to put out some Epsom salts *early*
in the season and see if they yellow at all.
***
Graham posts email from Keith Villa, brewmaster of Blue Moon beers:
>I ensure that Blue Moon ales
>are made from only the highest quality 2-row malt, hops and spices.
Hopefully they use unmalted wheat in the Witbier also, because the style
calls for it.
>The only adjunct we use is the real honey in Honey Blonde Ale.
Honey is not an adjunct. "Adjuncts" are non-enzymatic starch sources,
like raw wheat, potatoes, rice, corn, etc.
>For example, Original Coors is an American
>lager (read the AHA or GABF guidelines), and has a GABF gold medal to
>prove that it is an excellent example of the style.
Winning a ribbon at the GABF is not *proof* that a beer is even an
average example of the style. Consider that a Samuel Adams product
won once as an Altbier. Since we judges are human, we are limited
by our senses and by the endurance of our tastebuds. No competition
ribbon should be considered proof of stylistic adherence. Winning
a competition simply means that a group of judges liked your beer
better on that particular day. A different set of judges or a different
day may have produced a different result. Competitions are crapshoots.
One thing I'd like to add, however... when you win Best of Show, I think
that's quite an acheivement. I've judged on quite a few BOS panels and
have tasted many, many BOS beers. I've never tasted a BOS winner that
was (in my opinion) anything short of *outstanding*. When you win BOS,
you can be quite certain that the beer is an excellent example of the
style.
Back to the topic... I don't think that anyone said "Blue Moon beers
are terrible." I believe that what was said was that the Blue Moon
Wit is a "light" version of the style and that Celis and Hoegaarden
versions (and Blanche de Brugge, and Blanche de Neige (sp?)...) are
*better* examples of the style. Every post (as I recall) was polite
except for one or two slamming people for saying something similar
to the second sentence of this paragraph.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:46:25 -0400
From: "Aesoph, Mike" <aesoph@osi.sylvania.com>
Subject: HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear All:
I am safely at my new job!!!!!! Email address is
aesoph@osi.sylvania.com
I'll write more later, but only after working hours - I am very busy -
and liking it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 17:09:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: sugars/end of conversion/isinglass vs. polyclar/kraeusening/yeast washing/IPA age/122F rest/bottle priming
Here are a few more, sorry for the tardiness...
Dave writes:
>Grapes typically have an SG in the region of 1.1. They are the highest
>sugar content fruit so expect other fruits to be less than this and more
>like half of this.
There is a table at The Brewery that gives the actual numbers, but bananas
and litchis have more sugar by weight than grapes (although grapes used
for Eiswein, which is not "ice brewed" but rather made from the grapes
that are left till the first frost, are probably even higher). Cherries,
actually, are not far from grapes. Check out the table... very useful.
Also:
>To really find the end of the conversion step, take a sample of the *bed*
>including the wort and grain particles and heat it to boiling in the
>microwave to free any starch. Do the iodine test on this liquid sample. =
Actually, the celulose in the husks will always react with the starch.
What I think Dave means is after heating, take a drop from the liquid
part of the sample and test that. However, you could get a positive
reaction from the liquid long after all of the *practically* available
starch in the mash has been converted. The reason that decoction mashing
is slightly more efficient (in terms of yield) than infusion mashing is
because the boiling of the decoctions releases trapped starch. If you
are doing an infusion mash, this starch simply isn't available to your
liquor or enzymes. Boiling the sample can make some starch that is
unavailable to your infusion mash react with the iodine, making you
mash forever (or until you get tired of positive reactions).
***
Marc writes:
>Just wondering if I could get some input in regards to the use of
>isinglass versus polyclar as a fining/clarifying agent. I just
>recently kegged 2 separate batches and used both as kind of test
>models. I used liquid isinglass (2 oz) in a German Lager and used
>polyclar powder (1 pack/approx 1 tbls) in a IPA. I read up on both
>of these agents in a number of reference books prior. According to
>Greg Noonan's New Lager Brewing I understood isinglass to be somewhat
>better in lager style beers, thus the choice in the above said keggings.
Isinglass is primarily used to get yeast to flocculate although it does
bring a few other things out of suspension (like some lipids). Polyclar
will also help bring the yeast out of suspension a *little* but their
purpose is really to remove polyphenols (aka tannins) from the beer.
Isinglass is traditionally used in cask-conditioned Real Ales. It may
be used in lagers, but it's certainly used much more in ales.
***
Dave writes:
>Tim Steffens asks what to do about no carbonation even when he has
>carbonated with a priming sugar starter. I assume you let the yeast
>pitched to that starter come to full "kraeusen" before bottling. I always=
>add a tablespoon or so of malt extract as an energizer and provider of
>nitrogen to this priming starter before I add the yeast and allow it to g=
>et
>fermenting in about 12 hours.
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. When professional brewers use kraeusen for priming, they
measure the SG of the "starter" they are adding to the finished beer
and *because they know the expected FG*, they can adjust the *volume*
of kraeusen they add so they get the proper amount of carbonation.
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!
If it works for you Dave, great, but the only way I could see this
working consistently is if you always use the *same* yeast strain,
always store this "starter" at the *same* temperature, and always
store it for pretty much the same amount of time. For the rest
of us, I believe that we should use *proper* kraeusening technique
(measuring the SG, knowing the FG, and adjusting the volume
accordingly) OR (as I do) use boiled corn sugar or force carbonate.
***
Dave also writes:
>More than likely your infection source is somewhere else. If you are
>reusing your yeast, wash it in a 1% Tartaric Acid (your HB store) and 50p=
>pm
>metabisulfite solution. Rinse it with sterile water and pitch to a
>starter. This should clean up any lactobacillus from the yeast - your mos=
>t
>likely source.
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 yeasts
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.
***
Martin writes:
>I tasted David's IPA a few years back at a judging in Corvallis
>Oregon. I found the beer too hoppy for the style. There was so much
>bitterness
>in it that you only wanted a small taste. Of course in a judging compared to
>other less hoppy IPA's it was the best - but try to choke down a pint is
>challenging! Now let the beer age for 9 months or longer (like the original
>IPA's did on their way to India) and it is probably good to great, but 100
>IBU's
>out of the fermenter is way too much!
According to Thom Tomlinson's articles on IPAs, the trip from England to
India was 3 months.
***
Charles writes (quoting Dave):
>> ... Stop for 15 -30 minutes
>> at 122F then heat up to 155F and finish
>> ...
>> The soluble protein formed at 122F will
>> provide the head you desire.
>
>It won't. This has been covered here before. The rest at 122F degrades
>the proteins that contribute to heading, body and mouthfeel into
>smaller, superfluous proteins that don't contribute. <snip>
Actually, it breaks proteins down to amino acids and peptides (the
building blocks of proteins). While it's true that they don't
contribute to head retention and mouthfeel, they *can* contribute
to flavour because beer made from wort that is excessive in amino
acids is often high in fusel alcohols [MBS 2nd ed. p.601].
This could all be a moot point, however, if the proteolytic enzymes
were denatured during malt production. Jim Busch has pointed this
out, and this is what I had read in several places regarding Pale
Ale malts, but then there was the poster who said that IBS has
found a 122F rest to help with clarity on Pale Ale malt-based beers.
***
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?
If you can sanitize the sugar and measure it accurately, you can safely
prime each bottle individually. If you can't you are better off "batch
priming" the six-pack's worth, although you have to measure more carefully
here again, because of the much smaller amount of priming sugar you will
be using. I've done the former making up 250 ml of priming sugar solution
of a known concentration, boiling it, and then distributing it into
sanitized bottles with a sanitized pipette (10ml into each bottle).
Worked perfectly.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 17:46:39 -0500
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: 122 Degree F Rest
HBD's,
I think I understand the disputed benefits of a rest at 122 degrees F (to
eliminate cloudy beer) for some malts, and I am not quite sure of the
benefits of resting at 135 degrees F. Either way I am still confused.
Recent discussion seems to be oriented toward the question of what
these rests may do to your beer. I would like to approach the problem
from the other side and find out what possible adverse effects my beer
may suffer by not doing these rests. In other words - what is the worst
that can happen if I do not rest at either 122 or 135 degrees F?
Please do not write me or post saying that a rest at 122 degrees F may
help reduce chill haze in some malt varieties. This is obvious from the
recent posts. I have been pondering protein rests for many years now
and suspect all home brewers struggle with this concept at some time or
another. Historically, I have tried just about everything I could do to
improve my beer, but now I am trying to simplify my brewing process and
have lately been in a minimalist brewing mode (KISS brewing).
Does this make sense? I used to say "I will try anything that might help,
no matter how insignificant the results, as long as there is a slight
improvement". Now I say "If I skip this step (process, ingredient, ect.),
will it really hurt my beer".
Any thoughts are appreciated,
TIA,
Paul Niebergall
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2500, 09/05/97
*************************************
-------
