Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2509
HOMEBREW Digest #2509 Thu 18 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:
EBC units (Fredrik Staahl)
Boiling iodine samples (korz)
Brewery Redesign (Dana Edgell)
AHA stuff ("Louis K. Bonham")
Last 122F,Wyeast Kolsch ("David R. Burley")
HEPA Flter source ("David R. Burley")
Kegging Answer Summary ("Ernst, Joseph G.")
raw wheat Wit + goods mash = NOT (Mark E. Lubben)
Pectic enzyme (korz)
Beer for dinner? ("MICHAEL L. TEED")
re:Cloudy Wort (mash under sparge water) (Charles Burns)
mash thickness and enzyme activity (korz)
Re: AHA "guidelines" ("Jeff")
Iodine testing for starch (Michael W Bardallis)
Re: Barleywine recipe (Hamish Gregor)
re: AHA "Guidelines" (Dick Dunn)
Brewfest? (Stephen Jordan)
Wyeast 1968 (Dave Whitman)
LABCO, AHA Guidelines ("David Johnson")
LABC Barleywine Bitterness ("Brian Wurst")
Pre/Post boil SG ("Alan McKay")
BJCP Exam ("Houseman, David L")
AHA Guidlines ("Alan McKay")
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: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:12:45 +0100
From: Fredrik.Stahl@abel.math.umu.se (Fredrik Staahl)
Subject: EBC units
Last week I posted a question about the new EBC colour measuring procedure,
which is carried out at the same wavelength as SRM. I got some answers on
the Swedish brewing list from a homebrewer, Robert Bush, who is setting up
his own malting business here in Sweden. I thought that some of you might
be interested, so I hope he doesn't mind me posting some of the info here.
There are four standard methods for analysing barley, malts, hops,
adjuncts, worts and beers:
1. Institute of Brewing Recommended Methods of Analysis 1991
2. Analytica - EBC, Fourth Edition, 1987
3. American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC)
4. Middle European Brewing Analysis Commission (MEBAK)
ASBC is used in the US and Mexico, middle European countries use both EBC
and MEBAK, northern Europe (like Sweden) use EBC and Great Britain use both
EBC and IOB.
On spec sheets from the UK the colour figures are usually given in EBC,
even if the IOB method is used. The difference in procedure is that the IOB
use an infusion mash and EBC a step mash. There are also other minor
differences in mash procedure.
The EBC method use the same wavelength (430 nm) as SRM, and this should be
the method used for some years, since the latest issue of Analytica-EBC is
from 1987.
So provided your spec sheet is newer than 1987 (which should be the case
unless you are brewing some kind of fossil beer), the formula EBC = 1,97 x
SRM should be adequate.
Hope this helps someone.
/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: Fredrik.Stahl@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: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:40:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Boiling iodine samples
Dave writes:
>On that same subject AlK says:
>
>>So, if you are doing an infusion mash, but boiling your samples for
>>the iodine test.............. can liberate starch that you simply can't
>>get at in the mashtun. Why would you want to boil the sample
>>anyway? Don't you simply want to know if the starch that was =
>>released to the liquor was converted or is there still some in solution?=
>
>
>Well for one thing, the majority of the
> malt starch is not gelatinized and is not
> "released to the liquor" since it is very poorly
> soluble.
I disagree most strongly. If this were the case, then infusion mashing
would not have any starch to convert to sugars. No, malted barley starch
gelatinizes at 64-67C (147-152.5F) according to MBS ed.2 p.225 (which,
incidentally is why long rests at 140F will not result in a lot of beta
amylase activity... not much for it to work on).
> The whole point of boiling the =
> sample is to gelatinize the starch and get it
> into solution where it can react with the iodine.
> I find the application of the iodine test to
> infusion mashes to be inconclusive =
> and often incorrect.
I believe that what you are thinking of is not gelatinization, but rather
the bursting of starch granules in the steely tips of the malt. Undermodified
malt has a significant amount of starch trapped at the tip (the end opposite
where the acrospire grows) and this is why 50 years ago Germans and Bohemians
*had* to use decoction mashing (which includes boiling parts of the grist) to
get reasonable yield. Fully modified malt (which most modern malts are)
still have small amounts of this starch that is trapped in the tip. There
is no point in boiling your sample to extract this inaccessable starch
***UNLESS*** you are going to boil your mash too.
Even in decoction mashing it is foolish to boil the sample because what you
care about is the soluble starch in the mash *not* the trapped starch.
Test for whatever starch was released by your decoctions -- DON'T extract
*additional* starch which is not available to the enzymes in your main mash!
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:46:03 -0500
From: Dana Edgell <edgell@quantum-net.com>
Subject: Brewery Redesign
I have a few more questions for the HBD collective as my homebrewery is
undergoing a complete redesign in equipment and methodology. I apologize for
the number and if they seem basic but I am questioning many of my previous
methods in an attempt to increase my efficiency and quality of beer at the
same time.
Grain Grinding:
1) I was given a Corona mill for Christmas many years ago (before all these
roller mills were available) and still wish to use it (for now). Does anyone
have a convenient design for a mount/cover for the corona which will collect
the grain without a mess and with minimum grain dust in the air?
The Hot Liquor Tank (HLT):
1) Is there any reason not to fill the HLT with water out of the Hot tap?
Will the hot water pick up significally more metals/gunk from the pipes or
hot water heater than the cold water?
2) Has anyone ever used a garden hose to fill their HLT? I wish to move my
brewing out of the kitchen to my balcony but I will have to run a hose out
there to deliver my water. Will a "drinking quality" hose give any plastic
flavor to the water? What if hot tap water is used?
3) Should I boil the HLT water first then let it cool back down to the
desired temperature? If free chlorine leaves water just left to sit out a
couple of days, will heating the water up to 168F drive off the free
chlorine without boiling? Should I leave the HLT uncovered to facilitate
this? Should I still boil to get rid of carbonates? My carbonate levels
aren't that bad and unless you have a second tank to siphon into won't the
carbonate residue redissolve when you add acid to adjust the sparge water
pH? Finally, is de-oxidating the water a good enough reason to boil first?
4)When delivering the hot water from the HLT to the Mash/Lauter-Tun does one
need to worry about about HSA? We have heard much about the evils of HSA
when mashing (especially with a RIMS) and yet I often see drawings of sparge
arms which spray the water down upon the grains from on high, undoubtably
spashing, causing bubbles and dissolving oxygen?
Mash/Lauter-Tun:
I originally wanted plenty of room for big batches but I currently do 5 gal
batches and probably won't do large batches for a while (I can't use my big
gas burner). My current mash-tun is a huge 60qt cooler. This results in a
quite shallow grain bed. I collect the wort with a very long rolled s.s.
screen (large easymasher-type) which goes the whole length of the cooler. I
suspect that my geometry leaves a lot of grain in dead zones where there is
not a lot of water flow.
1) Is there any reason the s.s. rolled sreen shouldn't run the entire length
of the cooler. The offcial EasyMasher(TM) is quite small.
2) Is my very shallow grain bed a problem? I am thinking of switching to the
more common round beverage coolers. Any specific sugestions on sizes and
makes would be appreciated.
3) Would a small volume pump (not RIMS throughput) be of use recirculating
to help even out the mash bed temperature and clarify the wort?
That's enough questions for now.
TIA,
Dana
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell edgell@quantum-net.com
Edge Ale Brewery http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale
San Diego home of the Water Treatment Workpage
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:06:09 -0500
From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: AHA stuff
I've been purposely keeping the bulk of my AHA comments
out of the HBD (check the r.c.b. archives if you're
interested in some of the more recent developments),
but a couple of recent posts here bear comment.
Regarding Dr. Fix's "dumbing down" of his Koelsch recipes
to accommodate the AHA style guidelines, Dave adroitly
observes:
> If GEORGE FIX has to dumb down a recipe to meet an AHA
> guideline, something is very, very wrong, and I say it
> sure as hell ain't George's concept of what constitutes
> Koelsch!
That ain't half the problem. What does it say about the
AHA when it *fires* Dr. Fix from its Board of Advisors
after he criticises some of Karen Barela's actions? What
does it say about the AHA when Dr. Fix has now "washed
his hands" (his words) of that organization?
I've known George for years, and, like Dave, George has
been decidedly apolitical when it comes to the various
controversies surrounding the AHA. (I'm sure George gets
more than enough political BS in his administrative duties
at the university.) If things at the AHA have gotten so
bad that even Dr. Fix -- who has worked closely with the
AHA for years and has donated huge amounts of his time
and effort -- is now ditching that organization, then
it should be very clear that the AHA has major problems.
Finally, Jim Liddil asks whether anyone has seen the AOB's
1996 Form 990. Given that the AOB has, once again, refused
requests for copies (both mine and Jim's), I guess one of
us will have to do another FOIA request. (So much for the
"New, More Responsive" AHA. Of course, if my sources are
correct and Charlie's 1996 AOB salary went up by over 50%
(reportedly up to "between $150,000 and $200,000"), I'm
not surprised that Charlie wants to make it as hard as
possible to investigate this matter.)
As for alternatives to the AHA, on style guidelines we
already have an excellent one: the BJCP. A growing number
of competitions are opting to BJCP categories and style
guides rather than the AHA's, and I encourage all competition
organizers to consider doing so. As for alternatives to
other aspects of the AHA, stay tuned . . . .
Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham@phoenix.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:57:58 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Last 122F,Wyeast Kolsch
Brewsters:
Thanks to Charles Rich for succinctly
summarizing the 122F hold issue.
There are times when this hold is necessary
and others when it is not and even detrimental
if carried on for a long time as he indicated.
Head production is not the only thing to worry
about when developing a temperature hold =
scheme and the scheme is grist dependent.
Do not discount the 122F hold out of hand.
- -------------------------------------
Nathan Moore asks if Kolsch yeast from
Wyeast does the part. I can answer yes,
as I have tasted Kolsch in Cologne (Koln)
and related brews in Dusseldorf. This yeast
produces a beer which is light and fruity when
young and tastes like I remember it one
summer there by the cathedral in Koln
as I ate my eisbein. It also lagers nicely
and reminds me more of Dusseldorf. =
But these are just observations based on
a few visits to a few brewpubs
( dating back a few centuries )
- unlike the German bus driver I met in Koln
whose hobby was drinking beer -
and the tally marks on his paper coaster
showed he was an avid hobbyist. =
After finishing work, he would spend
one evening a week in Koln and another
in Dusseldorf - just drinking the local beer.
He said his wife of one year didn't mind.
I use Saaz hops predominantly and just
finished a batch with Hallertauer Mittelfruh
which is lagering and which I have yet to taste.
I like this yeast since it is tolerant of higher =
summer fermenting temperatures for "lager" =
style pale malt beers, being a yeast which appears to
have both top fermenting and bottom
fermenting properties to some extent in
that it does leave a yeast cap on top and
cleans up upon cool lagering..
You should try some batches with 10% wheat =
malt as part of the pale malt grist and others
without wheat to get some idea of the range
of this style of beer. George Fix recommended =
first wort hopping (FWH) , which I have yet to try.
- --------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:57:49 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: HEPA Flter source
Brewsters:
Ken Schwartz wants to build a laminar flow
hood for his yeast ranch and needs a cheap =
source of HEPA filters.
Try the vacuum cleaner store. =
HEPA filters are a big item these days =
and you can take your pick of designs.
- ----------------------------------
Scott Murman writes:
"Al" =3D=3D Al Korzonas <korz@XNET.COM> writes:
with respect to PBW film formation:
Al> If you use an acid-based sanitizer (like one of the Iodophors
Al> *with* phosphoric acid -- no, not all have the phosphoric acid
Al> added -- or peracetic acid) you can soak for weeks... the acid
Al> will take the calcium carbonate off in a flash.
I'm confused by the extract of Al's comments
and wonder about the comment "soak for weeks"
Actually calcium phosphate is very insoluble.
It may work for thin films of calcium carbonate
by replacing the carbonate and forming a
loose insoluble powder.
For heavy coatings, I recommend =
hydrochloric acid (dilute muriatic acid - =
glasses and gloves please!) or hot acetic acid
( not peracetic) acid for removing
calcium carbonate.
- -----------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:16:40 -0500
From: "Ernst, Joseph G." <ernstjg@Maritz.com>
Subject: Kegging Answer Summary
HBD readers,
Last week I asked some questions about kegging. Thanks to all for your
help - especially Al, Jim, JG (who added a nice Hendrix reference: Hey
Joe, (Whatcha doin' with that beer in your hand?!)) Jason and Spencer.
Thought I'd summarize the email responses.
1. Best products/methods for keg cleaning/sanitizing
Survey Said (Ala Richard Dawson):
Clean with TSP or B-Brite, sanitize w/ Iodophor - rinsing optional, one
vote for boiling water sanitizing, NEVER use chlorine of course.
Joe did: B-Brite, Iodophor, quick hot (not boiling) rinse. I left
iodophor solution in dispensing hose and let the first yeasty beer rinse
it out.
2. Tips on using the keg as the secondary to avoid double racking
Survey Said: Only issue is possibility of sediment. A yeasty beer or
two was tolerable to some, not others. Simplest advice - rack when
primary is clear, make sure to leave sediment behind - i.e. don't get
greedy for that last bit of green beer out of the primary and end up
getting sludge!
Joe did: Racked into keg when primary was clear/done percolating. First
beer was a little yeasty, but since then they've been fine.
3. Kegging procedures - e.g. do keggers generally fill the keg with
CO2 via the liquid out tube to force O2 out of the keg before racking or
is this not worth the trouble?
Survey Said: Don't fill w/ CO2 first, rack quietly (no splashing),
always purge headspace.
Joe did: I dumped CO2 in first, but only because of my environment. I
did not want to disturb the primary, so I had a less than preferred
siphoning arrangement which left my hose 20" short of the bottom of the
keg. I ran the green beer down the side of the keg and figured putting
CO2 into the keg first would reduce O2 problems with any splashing.
Purged headspace.
4. Pressurization - am I better off force carbonating or priming
this first keg attempt
Survey Said: Force carbonate. In short, everyone was saying: There's no
brew like a homebrew, no homebrew like a fresh homebrew and no fresh
homebrew like a fresh homebrew right now.
Joe Did: Force carbonated 70 F beer with 28 psi, slightly agitating for
15 minutes.
5. I have heard that keeping the CO2 tank in the fridge is a bad
idea, as it may liquefy and/or throw off the pressure in the keg -
what's your consensus?
Survey Said: CO2 is liquid at room temperature. Cooling the tank is
not a problem. Condensation in/on/amongst the regulator is the problem,
as it can cause damage such as rust.
Joe Did: Left the CO2 outside the fridge. For now, I just connect the
gas line when drawing a pint. I will get brave one day and drill holes
in my fridge for the gas and liquid out lines. Any suggestions on how
to pick a good spot to drill into a fridge so you don't hit something
vital? (it is a 10 cu ft sanyo - got a floor model for about $250 and it
has room for 2 kegs + supplies :-) Happy happy happy!)
Results: I am enjoying my first kegged homebrew. The raspberry wheat
is tasty - a little sweet, a little too raspberry and definitely
underhopped, but I went with the straight kit, and that I can adjust. I
am dispensing 40F beer at 11 PSI and the head is perfect - about an inch
or inch & 1/4 after the pour. The dog really likes the way the picnic
tap drips a bit after the pour! The brew is hazy, though. Isn't it
common for wheat beers to be hazy/cloudy or am I just remembering my
last Boulevard Unfiltered Wheat? Is chill haze more prevalent in wheat
beers? Oh rats!...I wonder how much it has to do with the fact that I
forget to put irish moss in the boil...Doh!
Thanks again for everyone's assistance!
Joseph G. Ernst
~ G. A. Sullivan ~
Ext: 7-4936
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:20:00 -0400
From: mel@genrad.com (Mark E. Lubben)
Subject: raw wheat Wit + goods mash = NOT
I tried a wit last weekend. In my attempts to be fairly authentically
I used 45% raw white wheat + 5% oatmeal. I got nervous about gelatanizing
it with just a step infusion 122F/152F and running out of amylase.
I decided to do a US "goods" mash like the megabrewers do for rice and corn.
I had good result in the past for both. I mashed at 1 quart per pound
with 20% of my malted barley. I originally planned to do 105F/125F/160F.
The stuff resembled a mix of wallpaper paste and farina with a handful of
barley thrown in! Trying to stir 3 gallons of that in a 4 gallon pot
without sloshing it on the burner or burning my hand was hilarious (NOT).
I only charred half the bottom of the pot and gave up at 125F.
The glue encapsulated the burnt smell, so I quick recalced my
infusion temps and ended up with the combined mash doing:
70 minutes at 126F (while I heated my step-mash water - poor planning)
100 minutes at 148F (no more room for 185F water)
The good news is it converted and the glucans seemed to be tamed so
it sparged easily! Bad news - the unboiled wort was "read through it"
clear. My cultured Hoegarden yeast seems to have taken off though.
It will either turn out wonderful or headless with all that craziness.
I have new respect for Martin Lodahl who reported in the HBD (+CM3)
of doing a triple decoction wit!
Moral - Don't try a goods mash with a high % of raw wheat.
It is too sticky and prone to scorch without ALL your malt.
Keep It Simple Stupid - do a 122F/152F step infusion
with 50% of the wheat malted.
Even easier is Rajotte's recipe using flour and wheat malt.
Mark Lubben
By the way, I may be getting old Celis here in the NE,
but I think the Hoegarden beer has a nicer complex yeast character.
The conditioning yeast seems to be the original, so my 4 bottles
cost me about $3 if I deduct the cost of a yeast pack. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:40:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Pectic enzyme
Eric asks about pectic enzyme.
What you propose sounds good, but you must be careful to keep the whole
lot rather cool. Pectic enzyme breaks down quite quickly even at room
temperature, so to get it to do its business before it denatures, don't
buy it unless it is refrigerated, keep it refrigerated, don't add it to
hot wort/fruit, and try to keep the fermenter in a cool place. My
*guess* would be to keep it between 60 and 65F.
As for amylase, somewhere in my memory I faintly recall that "amylase
enzyme" was only one of the two, but can't recall which.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:30:36 -0500
From: "MICHAEL L. TEED" <MS08653@msbg.med.ge.com>
Subject: Beer for dinner?
.int homebrew@hbd.org
Greetings from a lurker...
Our homebrew club LAHGER of Oconomowoc WI is considering throwing a beer dinner
and we are seeking advice and/or recipes from people who may have done so
in the past. Any advice would be greatly appreciated by a bunch of newbies.
Mike Teed
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 13:41 PDT
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: re:Cloudy Wort (mash under sparge water)
An inch of water above the grainbed will not cause cloudy wort. It will
actually keep a little weight on the grain to keep the bed from being
disturbed. The cloudy wort was starch that never got converted (most likely).
What was the grain bill?
I have the same setup as you. The equipment set up this way really has at
least 2 major problems with it.
1) Depth of grainbed. When doing 5 gallon batches with 10-12 lbs of grain,
you are right, the grain bed rarely exceeds 4 inches in depth. This is about
half of what a grain bed should be for proper sparging. The only thing you
can do to alleviate this (without equipment changes) is to recirculate a
couple of gallons to clear up the wort (of bits and pieces of husk and other
grain stuff). I know, everyone writes about recirculating a couple of quarts
but I've always had to do a lot more. Alternatively increase the grainbill
by 40% and do a no-sparge brew.
2) Spaces between and around the copper manifold. This is not a false bottom
so the grain gets down in between. If you do a protein rest at 135F or
thereabouts and then raise the temp by infusing or decoction, there is a lot
of grain down on the bottom of the mashtun between the pipes that may never
get the temperature raised. Heat rises and its damn hard to stir the grain
on top enough to get good temperature dispersion, nearly impossible to get
the stuff on the bottom stirred up into the upper layers. If you're not
careful to work hard to get that stuff stirred up, you won't get it into
saccarification range and you end up with starchy goo at the bottom. If this
happens, the first 2 gallons of wort will come out looking like milk. Take
this wort back into the mashtun without adding any sparge water and gently
mix it up into the grain bed. Cross your fingers and wait 20-30 minutes to
see if you get conversion before starting the real sparge. It works for me.
One of these days I'm gonna improve my equipment so I can apply heat
directly to the mashtun.
Charley (watching my first pilsner in the son of ferm. chiller) in N. Cal
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:49:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: mash thickness and enzyme activity
A few days ago, there were two posts about mash thickness and enzyme
activity. I believe that the authors were partly right, having omitted
an important factor.
Mash Enzymes 101 (if you already know this, skip to "Back to the Subject"):
The reason that we can change the amino acid/protein balance and
fermentability in our beer is because there are several enzymes at work
in producing wort and they all have varying amounts of sensitivity to
heat. As the temperature increases, the more heat-labile (heat sensitive)
enzymes denature (are destroyed) faster than the more heat-stable ones.
First, the enzymes have to make it to the mash tun. Some are denatured
during malting. I suspect that not only that 50 years ago malts were
less modified (germination was interrupted by kilning *sooner*) than
in modern malts, but also modern malts have some enzymes that appear to
have been denatured (for all practical purposes) during malting. More
on this later.
Next, we have to understand that inside the malt there is a mixture of
proteins and carbohydrates of various sizes and complexities. Most of
the carbohydrates are starch. In well-modified (or fully modified) malts
(ones in which the germination has been allowed to go pretty far before
kilning), a lot of the large proteins have been broken down into amino
acids (which are important for yeast nutrition, but can cause off flavours
if there are excessive amounts of them in the wort), peptides ("small
proteins") and medium-sized proteins. It is the peptides and medium-sized
proteins that give beer much of its body and most of its head retention.
The purpose of mashing is to break the starch into fermentable sugars
(such as maltose, hexose, and sucrose, for example) and unfermentable
dextrins (of varying sizes), and to break big (long, actually) proteins
(which cause haze and break material) into amino acids, peptides, and
medium-sized proteins, *if necessary* (i.e. if it has not already been
done by the maltster). Incidentally, most malts these days benefit very
little from protein rests. I use them for the malts that give me excessive
hot and cold break. It's not so much that the break is bad, but rather:
1. I lose a lot of wort trapped in the break (both in the kettle and
in the fermenter: choosing to leave behind the break during racking), and
2. I would rather have these proteins give my beer head retention and body
(in most styles). (With careful choices of malts and mash temperatures,
I've been able to make a 1.035 Dark Mild that only has about 3.2% ABV but
tastes like it's a 1.045 OG beer!)
There are primarily two groups of proteolytic (protein "cutting") enzymes
in the mash: peptidases and proteases. Peptidases are more heat-labile
than proteases and therefore a protein rest around 135 or 140F will
denature most of the peptidases rather quickly and most of the proteolysis
will be done by the proteases. When you have a protein rest in the range
of 113 to 122F, both peptidases and proteases are in action. Peptidases
cut amino acids off the ends of longer proteins, therefore they create more
of these small "pieces." Proteases simply chop big proteins in the middle
and therefore create some small proteins, but mostly they make more
medium-sized proteins.
Similarly, we have the same effect going on with alpha and beta amylase.
There are primarily two diastatic enzymes in the mash: alpha-amylase and
beta-amylase. Beta-amylase is more heat-labile than alpha-amylase and
therefore a rest around 158 or 160F will denature most of the beta-amylase
rather quickly and most of the starch breakdown will be done by the
alpha-amylase. When you have a rest in the range of 147 to 152F, both
alpha- and beta-amylases are in action for some time. Beta-amylases
cut maltose molecules off the ends of starches and dextrins, therefore they
create a more fermentable wort. Alpha-amylase simply chops starches and
dextrins in the middle and therefore creates some fermentable sugars, but
mostly they make dextrins which are not fermentable.
Back to the Subject:
Both DeClerck and Malting and Brewing Science (MBS) say that more heat-labile
enzymes are protected from being denatured by stiffer (thicker, i.e. less
water more malt) mashes. Although neither book says this explicitly, I read
this as: stiffer mashes favour the more heat-stable enzymes over the more
heat-labile ones. In other words, peptidases would be favoured over proteases
and beta-amylase over alpha-amylase. Mind you, I don't expect there to be
massive differences, but rather I *suspect* that a thinner mash at 124F
may result in a simimar protein profile as a stiffer mash at 128F. To phrase
it a different way: I believe that stiffer mashes *benefit* the more
heat-labile enzymes *more* than they benefit the more heat-stable ones.
Before you go and apply this same process to alpha- and beta-amylase (as I
did in two private emails), there is another process (which actually has
a stronger influence) in effect: the concentration of sugars has an
inhibitory effect on the amylases [MBS ed.2 p.290]. Subsequently, since
liquifaction (what alpha-amylase does) and saccharification (what beta-
amylase does) take longer, the heat-lability of the beta-amylase now becomes
a bigger factor again and the beta-amylase denatures before the wort becomes
as fermentable as it could. Therefore, the most fermentable worts are made
from slightly less than the thickest mashes [MBS ed.2 p.287].
Regarding the differences in malts between now and 50 years ago (note that
although the English translation of DeClerck's Textbook of Brewing was
printed in 1958, most of the research was done between 1935 and 1950 and
a good deal of MBS's data comes from research done in the 1950's and 60's...
furthermore, MBS has a decided "British slant" which means higher-kilned
British malts) I theorized earlier that enzyme levels have changed too.
Besides the fact that agricultural techniques and fertilizers have improved
and the fact that better control of kilning equipment must be available now,
I gather this primarily from DeClerck's statement: "Kolbach has shown that
it impossible to diminish the amount of high-molecular weight nitrogen
[protein] in wort by a prolonged protein rest at 45-50C [113-122F], since
in proportion as low-molecular nitrogenous compounds are formed at the
expense of more complex bodies, which have already passed into solution,
new complex nitrogenous matter is taken up from the undissolved residue
in the malt. [ToB p.265]" He also says: "Petidases are more thermo-labile
than proteinases [proteases] and they are almost entirely destroyed at
kilning. [ToB p.264]" Both of these statements are counter to what I
have experienced (even with malt labeled "Pale Ale" (DeWolf-Cosyns)) and
what has been posted in the HBD [Bliss, et al.].
I'm convinced that most of the malts labeled "Pilsner" or "Lager" and at
least some of the malts labeled "Pale Ale" have plenty of peptidase...
certainly enough to make a difference in the protein makeup of our worts
when we include protein rests.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:02:55 -0400
From: "Jeff" <spamjwalls@redrose.net>
Subject: Re: AHA "guidelines"
> This is not the first example that has been noted about problems
>with the AHA guidelines. I don't much care about the political
>contentiousness that has arisen regarding the AHA, but when it comes
>to the nuts and bolts of beer in this way, it makes me think enough
>is enough. An alternative is called for. Who's with me
I am. But where to start?
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:56:08 EDT
From: dbgrowler@juno.com (Michael W Bardallis)
Subject: Iodine testing for starch
Hey, folks,
Dave Burley, in his post on iodine testing, is missing Al K's point about
boiling the sample under test, which is: If you gotta boil the sample to
liberate the starch, that starch is not going to come into solution under
normal infusion mash conditions; thus its existence is irrelevant.
[>On that same subject AlK says:
[>So, if you are doing an infusion mash, but boiling your samples for
[>the iodine test.............. can liberate starch that you simply can't
[>get at in the mashtun. Why would you want to boil the sample
[>anyway? Don't you simply want to know if the starch that was =
[>released to the liquor was converted or is there still some in
solution?=
[Well for one thing, the majority of the
[ malt starch is not gelatinized and is not
[ "released to the liquor" since it is very poorly
[ soluble. The whole point of boiling the =
[sample is to gelatinize the starch and get it
[ into solution where it can react with the iodine.
[ I find the application of the iodine test to
[ infusion mashes to be inconclusive =
[and often incorrect.
[As you indicated, you are happy with your
[ intuition and experience to tell you when to
[ terminate the saccharification and therefore
[ never do the iodine test anymore. Perhaps =
[the inconclusiveness of this test applied to
[ an infusion mash was a contributing factor.
[ I suggest you give my method a try and you
[ will find that with a properly milled sample, =
[held long enough, =
[you will not get a positive starch test
Cheers,
Mike Bardallis
"How I wish I was in Sherbrooke now!"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:43:17 +1000
From: Hamish Gregor <hgregor@hermes.net.au>
Subject: Re: Barleywine recipe
Whatever the merits of Mr Loub's position, it is hard to see any need for
him to resort to downright rudeness in clarifying it.
Hamish Gregor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hgregor@hermes.net.au
Hamish Gregor
Hazelbrook, NSW, Australia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 97 23:54:46 MDT (Tue)
From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: AHA "Guidelines"
nathan_l_kanous_ii@ferris.edu wrote:
> Dave Draper brings up the issue of the AHA Kolsh "guidelines" and their
> apparent inaccuracy based upon George Fix's attempts at duplicating real
> examples of this style. I would like to second the motion and highlight
> similar discrepancies between the AHA guidelines for Alt beer and the
> analysis of commercially available Alt beers in Germany...
I'll grant you these, no problem...but if you think the AHA guidelines for
these beer styles are strange, some time take a look at the categories for
cider. They're downright goofy.
Just to illustrate - the categories are still, sparkling, New England, and
specialty. New England has nothing to separate it from the other
categories. There's no English farmhouse, which is about the most obvious
standout you can find. Adjuncts are allowed in all styles, in spite of the
most obvious concept that cider is *fermented*apple*juice*, period. But
there are limitations on alcohol content which could be exceeded by ciders
without adjuncts. And so it goes...if any AHA competitions find good
ciders, it is certainly due to the valiant efforts of the judges and not
to the guidance of the guidelines.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd, domain talisman.com Boulder County, Colorado USA
...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:13:49 -0400
From: Stephen Jordan <komusubi@together.net>
Subject: Brewfest?
Does anyone have any info on the Fall Brewers Festival to be held at
Strawberry Banke in Portsmouth NH.?
I looking for any info such as times, what type of things will be going
on there, etc. etc.
Thanks
Private E-mail ok.
SRJ
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:27:50 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: Wyeast 1968
In HBD#2508, Paul Henning asks about Wyeast #1968:
>It is easy to see that the yeast is highly flocculant from my first
>starter. I'm uncertain how to handle this during fermentation. Do I
>gently stir the yeast back into suspension with an appropriately
>sanitized device? I do my primaries in a 6.5g carboy. Is this a
>candidate for dropping?
While #1968 is definitely flocculant, I've had good luck without extra
aeration. I just swirl the fermenter to bring it up into suspension a few
times. If you're doing a 5 gallon batch in your 6.5 gallon carboy, it
should swirl readily.
By the way, I love this yeast; my previous bitters were mostly made with
1056 (TOO clean) and 1028 (just didn't like the flavor profile).
In the same issue, Ian Wilson opines about food irradiation:
>Actually, the microwaves are not radiation as in atomic radication. They
>are radiation as in radio waves, etc. The small size of the wavelength
>allows the wave energy to penetrate the food and excite the small water
>molecules within the fodd. This excitation or vibration is what causes the
>heat rise because of friction.
>
>Iradiating food to sterilize it uses radioactive soucres to bombard the
>food with atomic radiation. The radiation kills the "wee nasties" in much
>the same way as the victims of the atomic bomb.
>
This is all true, but perhaps misleading. Food is irradiated with
cobalt-60 sources, which produce gamma rays. While "nuclear" in source,
gamma rays are just electromagnetic radiation ("light") as are microwaves,
albeit of MUCH shorter wavelength. Other forms of "atomic radiation" are
energetic particles emitted by the radiation source.
As Ian states, microwaves work by exciting water molecules in food. The
energy of the microwave is tuned to match the rotational energy of water,
for efficient energy transfer.
Gamma radiation works by knocking electrons out of chemical bonds,
shattering molecules. It's much less descriminating than microwaves or
conventional heating. While the hysteria around food irradiation is
largely misplaced, there are valid reasons to test for safety each type of
food to be irradiated. The indescriminate nature of gamma radiation could
CONCEIVABLY form toxic byproducts through high energy chemical processes.
I know of no documented cases of this, but I personally would recommend
standard food safety testing of any new material being irradiated.
Similar irradiation is used to sterilize disposable surgical garments.
There are some pretty funky aromas generated in the sealed garment packages
after irradiation, that I definitely wouldn't want in my beer. <grin>
- ---
Dave Whitman dwhitman@rohmhaas.com
"Opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Company"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:32:07 -0500
From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj@inwave.com>
Subject: LABCO, AHA Guidelines
Fellow brewers,
I had intended to stay out of the non-brewing dialog about LABCO. But the
corporate response has inspired me to break my silence. (I've never been
very good at that anyway). First let us say that our friend is out of there
and I presume safely. Although I am not a lawyer, I would guess that the
law favors the employer as it does on most issues of intellectual property.
In any event, further discussion (which might be construed as SLANDER), is
likely to harm our friend and not help him. We are obviously dealing with a
situation where there is a considerable amount of acrimony. We do not want
to stir up someone who has the attitude of LABCO's GM. Remember, he
probably can't get back at us but he can find Rob and I don't know how much
he might try to do to him. I know from personal experience that unfounded
legal actions can be just as painful (and expensive) as any other. I don't
believe we know this man well enough to say he won't go after our friend.
Please let this die!
I like the suggestion that we have a HBD rendezvous. Perhaps this could be
wherever Rob sets up shop. I think that we could promise at least one night
of full attendance on site. We could arrange for some of our more learned
members to give small talks. This might be able to be reported in the local
press and generate some free publicity for Rob. A copy of any article
should be forwarded to LABCO's GM.
On a brewing related note, I'm glad to see that Brian is reading our
discussion about style guidelines. I would think that the AHA probably has
a task force to review the style guidelines and these would be updated
periodically. I, personally, would like to see more in-depth descriptions
of the styles. When trying to develope a recipe, I usually turn to Tim
Dawson's Beer styles guidelines at:
http:/www.mv.com/ipusers/strange/styles.html
It is more helpful than the AHA guidelines but might not help win any
awards since most contests use the AHA guidelines. I understand that
changing the guidelines with any frequency would make it more difficult to
keep the judges up-to-date, but I feel that the judges have already shown
their diligence by becoming certified and would be willing to be
responsible for keeping up.
Dave Johnson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:07:53 -0500
From: "Brian Wurst" <brian@catamaran.netwave.net>
Subject: LABC Barleywine Bitterness
Thanks to Mike Bell for posting the LABC owner's flame! I always suspected
I was a pickle-minded idealist geek without a life, but its always nice to
have some realist confirm it. As customer-oriented as he professes to be,
it is hard for my idealist brain to fathom his less-than-diplomatic
response. Ideally, everyone's a potential customer. Realistically, I
doubt I will ever be one of his after that.
I was thinking about printing out his diatribe and using it in place of
hops to bitter a barleywine...would my beer be ruined by the extreme
bitterness?
Way too freaky for even me,
Brian Wurst (brian@netwave.net) Lombard, Illinois
"Nature has formed you, desire has trained you, fortune has preserved you
for this insanity." -Cicero
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:22:05 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: Pre/Post boil SG
I do this regularly. If you know your volume and SG before the boil,
it's just
a simple formula to predict post-boil gravity.
For me, before the boil I have 26 litres. After the boil I have 19
litres.
So you have
SG(post) = SG(pre) * 26 / 19
If you have 7.5 gallons before hand, and 5 afterwards, then it's :
SG(post) = SG(pre) * 7.5 / 5
There will be some loss in your kettle, and soaked up by hops. So you
can expect the realy SG(post) to be .001 to .002 below what you
calculate here. But it certainly puts you right in the ballpark.
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:42:12 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: BJCP Exam
For those of you living in the PA, NJ, or NY areas who would like to
take the BJCP exam, retake the exam or know of anyone who would like to
take the exam (please pass this along in that case), there will be a
BJCP Exam given on November 1st at 5:30pm at Hop and Vine in Morristown,
NJ. If you are interested, contact Julianne Targan, (201)993-3191 at
Hop and Vine. Julianne has space for 12 examinees for this exam.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:52:09 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: AHA Guidlines
Hmmm, it seems to me that if the AHA guidelines don't properly describe
the
majority of beers brewed in Cologne (regardless of whether or not any of
them
are imported into North America), then there would most certainly be
something
wrong with the guidelines.
I'm with you Dave, for what it's worth ...
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2509, 09/18/97
*************************************
-------
