Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2635
HOMEBREW Digest #2635 Thu 12 February 1998
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:
More on Chlorphenolics (AJ)
Mort O'Sullivan (Andy Walsh)
Modification, fining, mashout temps ("Steve Alexander")
re: Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher (Pvrozanski)
BrewCraft / Omega PID / milling moistened grain ("Keith Royster")
Capillaries,Kunze ("David R. Burley")
Cheers to Jethro dePiro ("Dave Draper")
re:protein rests and chill haze (Tidmarsh Major)
Re:Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher (Jack Schmidling)
Re: More chlorphenolics (George_De_Piro)
Weissbier with clove character (Samuel Mize)
BW Yeasts / Pale Ale Experiment / Beer Nuts (KennyEddy)
Belgian malt question ("Kevin W. Aylor")
Re: Kitchen Malting (Clifton Moore)
Pale Ale Expt ("Bryan L. Gros")
Getting rid of chlorine (Donovan)
Re: anthocyanogen-free barley ("Mort O'Sullivan")
Long term yeast storage in distilled H2O (Troy Hager)
Home malting and gibberellic acid (George_De_Piro)
Yeast info, brewing lagers (Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi)
yeast suspension ("Spies, James")
Re: First wort hopping ("Shawn Andrews")
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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@hbd.org
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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, 10 Feb 1998 23:48:10 -0400
From: ajdel@mindspring.com (AJ)
Subject: More on Chlorphenolics
George DePiro asks whether I have ever tasted o-chlorophenol. I haven't.
The closest I've come recently is p-dichlorobenzene which has no
resemblence to free chlorine odor to me but has, rather, the kind of smell
I associate with chlorinated aromatics: phenol-like but not quite so sweet
(it's been years since I've smelled straight phenol) and somewhat harsh and
medicinal. I've never tasted it and don't intend to! Anyway, I don't doubt
that o-chlorophenol is suggestive of bleach so I asked myself "Did I
remember this wrong? Have I been writing 'chlorphenolic' when I smell
plastic when I should have been reporting something else?" So back to the
books I went and this is what I found (don't claim this was an exhaustive
search) for chlorphenolics:
HBS&Y Vol II, p 765: "medicinal flavors"
ASBC Methods of Analysis Sensory Analysis -12 (Uses the widely known system
pioneered by Meilgaard): 0504 Chlorphenolic: "Trichlorophenol,
hospital-like".
Dave Miller, "The Complete Book of Homebrewing", "horrible medicinal
flavors". He suggests that one can experience chlorphenolics by making
sun-tea with chlorinated water. That sounds like a very interesting
experiment!
Johnson, Lee W. "Brew Chem 101", "Plasticlike taste".
Papazian, Charlie "Evaluating Beer" in "Evaluating Beer" "...harsh
chlorphenolic (plasticlike) aroma and flavor...", "Aroma is unique but
similar to plasticlike phenolic."
Palamand, Raoul "Training Ourselves in Flavor Perception and Tasting" in
"Evaluating Beer", "Medicinal"
Shelton, Ilsa, "Flavor Profiles" in "Evaluating Beer", "..reminiscent of
bleach and disinfecting chemicals."
So, I thought, I'm not losing it after all. There's a couple of votes for
me and one for George. But how to explain this discrepancy? There are
certainly more than one chlorphenolic and they may have widely different
flavor and odor profiles. Sure enough, a look at Moll's chapter in
"Handbook of Brewing" refers to o-chlorophenol and chloro-o-cresols
(methylated phenols). Nothing is said about the flavors/aromas but it is
noted that chloro-o-cresols have flavor thresholds (0.2 - 1 ppb!) less than
o-chlorophenol (2-3 ppb). Anyway, this is confirmation that more than one
chlorphenolic is found in beer and there have got to be dozens more. There
are certainly dozens of phenols (see Steve Alexanders excellent article in
the latest BT if you haven't already) and each phenolic ring invites
passing chlorine radicals to feast on the electron slabs which cover them.
Now here's where I change from boy amateur chemist into Hercule Poirot and
George, if he's reading this, probably knows where I'm headed already. Ilsa
Shelton is (or was) vice president of Laboratory Services at Siebel where
one of her major duties is training students in sensory evaluation of beer.
It's not surprising, therfore, that her description and George's experience
match and this, I assume, is related to the choice of o-chlorophenol for
training at Siebel. Suppose the ASBC's recommendation, trichlorophenol
(TCP) had been used instead or chloro-o-cresol? What do they smell/taste
like. Presumably TCP smells like a hospital but I suspect that the
hospitallike smell described is a carryover from the days when a major
hospital disinfectant was carbolic acid - otherwise known as phenol. We
have all recently become sensitized to the fact that words may have
multiple meanings. When Shelton writes "disinfecting chemicals" does she
mean carbolic acid?
A couple of other things I picked up while researching this:
- Even though some chlorphenolics can be sensed at sub ppb levels some
people do not smell or taste them at all.
- Phenols extracted from barley and hops are not the only sources of
phenolics in beer. Phenolics from decayed vegetable matter in the water
supply (especially certain algae) can be a source. These are hard to remove
from the supply and oxidation by permanganate, ozone or chlorine dioxide...
followed by activated carbon filtration may be required. The important
point here is that if the water contains chlorphenolics activated carbon
filtration may not remove them. This may be the case for the gentleman who
posted recently that he had plasticlike flavors even though he was using an
activated carbon filter.
- The water supply may be contaminated by industrial wastes containing phenols.
- Boiler feed is sometimes treated with phenols and if steam from such a
boiler is injected into a mash tun, for example, reaction with chlorine
(presumably chloramine) in the water can result.
- The similarity of the odor to "plastic" is related to the fact that many
plastics are polymers which contain phenol. The single largest use of
phenol in the US is in the manufacture of phenol-formaldehyde resins (the
earliest of which was Bakelite). Some of these resins apparently find their
way into the brewery in the plasticware used by homebrewers and as tank
linings in commercial breweries. Contact with chloramine bearing water
would presumably lead to chlorphenolic formation.
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:33:45 -0800
From: Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au>
Subject: Mort O'Sullivan
Psst, hey everyone,
I just thought I should let you know there is a spy in our midst. Mort
O'Sullivan comes from the blue with 2 very high quality posts not seen
for a long time in this region.
His sig gives a clue: ICBD Edinburgh. This can only mean the
International Centre for Brewing and Distilling at Heriot Watt
University. This is one of the major centres of brewing science research
(and education) in the world, and as such Mort must be a legend to be
associated with such a place.
So, Mort O'Sullivan, what brings you to these far off places?
Come clean, Mort O'Sullivan, or you're a dead Irishman!
Andy Walsh in Sydney.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:36:50 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Modification, fining, mashout temps
My friend, Dave Burley, incorrectly interpreted a remark that I made
here - I was undoubtedly unclear. When I stated that the protein
content and modification varies with variety, I was considering
different 2-row barley varieties, and not the differences between
2-row and 6-row. As George Fix stated here back in 1994, and has
since reiterated ...
>BTW Alexis is a hybrid from Triumph (I believe it called Trumpf on
>the continent) and wild barley. Triumph made some great malt in its
>day, but now appears to be on the way out. It never displayed a
>tendency to protein overmodification, and many feel this property in
>the new varieties (all Triumph hybrids) may be coming from genetic
>material in the wild barley.
> George Fix
In other words, modern continental malts tend toward overmodification as
compared with those of a decade ago. Old rules of thumb regarding the
mashing of continental malts need to be re-examined. Everyone please
open your pre-1993 brewing books(Miller, Noonan, M&BS), and scratch
out the bits about protein rests and modification regarding
continental malts.
===
Charles Burns writes on Fining Agents - what they are good for
>There has been some discussion about fining agents lately (gelatin,
>polyclar, bentonite) and people attempting to use them to remove
>starch haze and protein hazes.
Gelatin, a protein, and polyclar, an articifial protein analog, do reduce
polyphenol levels and *may* so prevent, not cure, protein haze,
permanent and/or chill.
=====
Scott (smurman@best.com) writes re mashout and efficiency
>It's no coincidence that the recommended mashout temp. is the maximum
>before tannoid extraction becomes a problem.
If you have a source on this I'd really like to see it. I've searched
high and low and have yet to find any critical temperature for phenol
extraction. As a rule, increasing mash temps will permit more phenol
extraction and better solubility of some of the naughtier phenols.
Yet I still have no reference that indicates why a mashout temp of say
76C is more than a slight improvement over an 80C mashout. It'd be
interesting to understand why.
Steve Alexander
War makes bad music and bad logic sound good - F.Nietzsche
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:30:29 -0600
From: Pvrozanski@ra.rockwell.com
Subject: re: Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher
I've had someof the problems Danny described but never to his extent. I
also agree with his point that the tiny spigot that comes supplied with
the EZmasher is grossly inadequate. Personally I think this is probably
the only drawback to the EZmasher. With this in mind, I replaced the
tiny spigot with a ball valve. The ball valve gives you infinate control
over the sparge rate and seems less likely to allow a stuck sparge to
occur. I've used the ball valve converted EZmasher for around 10 batches
and I haven't had any problems with stuck sparges.
Draining wort to the carboy is another thing. I got extreemly aggrivated
when I used the out of the box EZmasher for straining trub. I came up
with a type of strainer for this application. I don't feel like beeating
a dead horse here so if you want to read more about it there's a current
discussion going on on rec.crafts.brewing. The thread subject is "SS
woven hose results".
Good luck and welcome back to the fold,
ALEman
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:37:14 +0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith@ays.net>
Subject: BrewCraft / Omega PID / milling moistened grain
Does anyone know the status of Kerry Hauptli at BrewCraft, Ltd? I
have had a number of people tell me that they don't get a response
from his email. I've also tried calling a number of times but always
get a "Circuits are busy" recording. If he's gone out of business I
need to remove his links from my RIMS web page.
- -----------------------------------------------
Speaking of RIMS, I'm looking for some feedback from people who have
also used the Omega PID (Part #CN8590-DC1) for their RIMS. I've had
some difficulty with mine and was wondering if this is just an
isolated occurrance. I should also point out that I am still very
satisfied with Omega because they have always repaired or replaced
it free. I just want to know if others have also had to return theirs
for repair.
- -----------------------------------------------
Finally, I remember reading/hearing somewhere that moistening your
grain prior to milling it makes for a better crush and also keeps the
dust down. I think the reasoning is that the softened husk is less
brittle. Does anyone else out there do this, or is it not worth the
trouble? If so, do you have any tricks for evenly moistening the
grain, such as a misting bottle? Any water/grain ratio
recommendations?
Thanks!
(The Carolina BrewMasters will be hosting the 1998 U.S.Open
homebrewing competition this April 25th! You can download the entire
entry packet in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format online at
http://www.ays.net/brewmasters/. So now you have no excuse for not
entering!)
Keith Royster - Mooresville/Charlotte, North Carolina
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: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:19:40 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Capillaries,Kunze
Brewsters:
I really enjoyed Rob Moline's great description of some electron
photomicrographs he saw at Siebel. It was fun to read and
not unlike I had imagined but never seen. Thanks Rob!
He also commented on the discussion on capillaries in
grain beds and said he had not seen these in the
photomicrograph, just eaten out shells of starch granules
which had contained the starch. Did Siebel comment if these
"shells" were made from structural proteins and glucans?
When I have used the term "capillary" I was referring to the
macroscopic scale not the electron microscopic scale.
Obviously, I was not clear enough even though based on
his last post, Jeff Renner thinks it is intuitively obvious {8^). =
After the grain bed is drained of the bulk wort, wort remains
behind in the bed, as we all know. I attribute this to capillary
action. If you have capillary action you must have capillaries.
Pretty simple, huh? In my imagination, I think of these as the
spaces between chunks of grain, cracks in the grain, husks,
etc. perhaps on the order of hundredths or thousandths of a
millimeter to a millimeter or two.
It is in these size ranges that the viscosity of the fluid
becomes measurably important to us as contrasted with
distances of a centimeter and larger. Viscosity is traditionally
measured using a capillary viscosimeter in which the flow rate
of fluid through a glass capillary on the order of tenths of mm is
measured as an indication of the relative viscosity. In the
case of paints and very viscous fluids a "bucket with a hole in it"
is used to evaluate the paint viscosity for spraying, for example.
- -----------------------------------------------------------
George De Piro included some great stuff from the Kunze
textbook - thanks! He says:
> 11. "Hop addition not too early-malt polyphenols should react"
=
Does this suggest that, FWH, first wort hopping, may
increase haze formation relative to traditional hopping
if these malt polyphenols ( like anthocyanins, for example)
are not reacted first?
- ----------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:30:04 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Cheers to Jethro dePiro
Dear Friends,
Just wanted to say a quick thanks here in public to George de Piro
and Rob Moline (aka Jethro Gump) for their HBD contributions during
and after their stint at Seibel. As if their insights weren't
already valuable! I really appreciate hearing not only some of the
most pointy-headed of details, but the quick, experience-based
approaches that simply work. I know how much effort it can be to
summarize lots of information and you guys are doing a great job.
Cheers, Dave in Dallas
- ---
*****************************************************************************
Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
ddraper@utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
...I drink cool ale... ---Kirk Fleming
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:42:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu>
Subject: re:protein rests and chill haze
In today's HBD, George De Piro comments on protein rests and chill haze
and notes an unclear point in his edition of Kunze's Technology Malting
and Brewing:
> 11. "Hop addition not too early-malt polyphenols should react"
Does anyone have the original German edition available?
Perhaps a look at the source would help. I know a little bit of German
(probably just enough to add to the confusion) but perhaps our collegue
Herr Hanghofer from Austria (and any other continental contributors to the
digest) could help us out.
Also, while I'm still not convinced that protein rests are necessary, I
will quibble with George's interpretation of Kunze that all protein rests
are detrimental. Each of the quotations he posts mentions a long rest.
What does long mean: 15, 30, 60 mins? Does Kunze clarify this anywhere, or
is that up to the reader to know? He seems to me to imply that long
protein rests are detrimental while not addressing the issue of short
rests (at least in these passages). Does he mention short protein rests
elsewhere?
Tidmarsh Major
tmajor@parallel.park.uga.edu
Athens, Georgia (soon to be Birmingham, Alabama)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:36:41 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Re:Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher
First of all, someone chewed me out for using parts of the header to
identify the poster I was responding to. He went away mad because
I did not understand what he was complaining about. Does this cause
anyone else grief?
From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach@nctm.org>
" And my Brinkmann burner didn't give fineness of temperature control.
Maintaining temp during mash is an art and requires a flame that
whispers, not roars. You simply can not use a heavy duty burner
for the job.
" I opened the itty-bitty spigot on my EM all the way,
and watched it trickle away.
The size of the spigot has nothing to do with the flow rate, at
least not the rate you are dealing with. Assuming you have
sufficient head (a two foot hose pointed down will do), a
too slow rate is a result of the screen being clogged and the
only reason it gets clogged is a lack of patience. If you wait
10 minutes from the last time you stirred the mash, it will flow
at a nominal rate that can get you out of there in less than
an hour which is about right for a 5 gallon batch.
If you try "helping" it by scraping the strainer with a spoon,
you are doomed. In the unlikely event of a clogged screen, blow
gently on the end of the hose to clear it.
Keep in mind that the purpose of the strainer is to keep the
"itty-bitty" spigot from getting clogged with the first rush.
The grain does the filtering, not the strainer. Although I
have never tried it (bad for business) I suspect if one was
careful, one could sparge without out the strainer.
"4. I hopped lightly: two ounces of pellets in the boil, one
ounce leaf as finish (in two steps).....
Did you by any chance forget to mention Irish moss? It turns
to glue and will clog the strainer for sure.
Other than that, the same no stir rule applies. You must let
the wort settle for reasonable time before you try to draw it
off. Folks who use immersion chillers have the wait built in.
If you use an inline chiller, you still have to wait so there
is not much benefit to using one.
" Problem: the EM outlet is high enough on the kettle wall that
LOTS of wort and hop goo gets left in the kettle. I gently dumped
this goo in a cheesecloth--sieve--funnel contraption and
put that in the fermenter without chilling.
It's a lot simpler to just pour it into a bucket and let it sit
overnight. In the morning, you can pour off the clear wort and
bring it to a boil for a minute and dump it into the fermenter
when it cools. I used to do that but found its a lot less trouble
to make an extra quart and forget about the dregs.
"Two main questions: 1. should I re-engineer the outflow on my EM (and
how--I'm not a tinkerer!)
Don't mean to sound harsh but I suspect you would have had a much
easier time if you read the instructions that came with the EM.
js
- --
Visit our WEB pages:
Beer Stuff......... http://ays.net/jsp
Astronomy....... http://user.mc.net/arf
ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:13:30 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Re: More chlorphenolics
Hi all,
AJ posted a nice survey of the common aromas of some chlorophenolic
compounds. Together with my short list it is quite a useful bit of
info.
The one problem with some of AJ's descriptions is that he is relying
on somebody else's perceptions of those phenolic compounds. We are
all different, and can perceive the same compounds quite differently.
As AJ pointed out, some people can't even detect phenolic compounds at
"normal" levels!
This same problem greatly limits my idea of using individual
perceptions of phenols to determine their cause, though. You can't
always use MY perceptions of phenols to elucidate problems that YOU
are perceiving. The best thing to do would be to spike beer with many
different phenols and note the aroma/taste of each.
Something else I noted at Siebel was that the *concentration* of a
compound can completely change the way it is perceived. At relatively
low levels DMS has a pleasant, sweet-corn aroma. At higher levels it
takes on the unpleasant smell of overcooked vegetables.
Phenol, to me, is the same way. When I used it to spike beer samples
in a class I taught, at low levels it was smoky (to me). One person
in the class was numb to phenols, so I kept adding more and more until
he could perceive a difference. By the time he was saying, "Yes, I
smell it a bit now," I was practically choking on the
medicinal/plastic aroma!
Monsieur Poirot is absolutely correct about Ilse Shelton being the
lead taste panel instructor at Siebel. It is a shame she did not
include some other chlorophenols in the panel that we were subjected
to.
I guess the take home message of our posts is this:
My statement that the source of the problem may be elucidated by the
aroma of the phenol is correct only a small part of the time. Many
different phenols can be perceived as medicianl and or plastic, even
if they are chlorinated. Because of the differences in perception
from person to person, my statement is even less useful. So much for
an easy way to track that problem!
Still, spicy and smoky phenols (like those found in true
Bavarian-style wheat beers) are often formed by yeast, so if that is
what you perceive in your beer, look to a yeast problem as the cause.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:30:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Weissbier with clove character
Greetings,
I had a homebrewed Bavarian Weizen (wheat), and greatly enjoyed the strong
clove (phenolic) character. I'm trying to make my own, with wheat malt
extract and Wyeast Weihenstephan (3068) yeast. My first try didn't have
much clove character, but got a little after sitting in the fridge. My
next try will use a cooler fermentation temperature.
Three questions:
Is there anything else I should be doing to encourage this character?
Does serving temperature significantly affect perception of this?
What commercial wheat beers have this character? My Michael Jackson book
(I don't recall the title, one of the coffee-table sized ones) says that
clove aroma is characteristic for Weizens, but every specific brand he
discusses says it has less clove than average. Al K in Homebrewing vI
recommends Tucher Weizen, but I found almost no clove/spice character in
the bottle I tried. It might have come out more if warmer -- I'll try
it again. Meantime, any other suggestions?
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
Personal net account - die gedanken sind frei
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:48:02 EST
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: BW Yeasts / Pale Ale Experiment / Beer Nuts
Sorry for the delayed responses but I was away for a week.
*****
Jon Bovard asked about several yeast's performance in Big Beers. I can't
comment on those but I do have a datpoint on a barleywine I made with Danstar
Nottingham Dry yeast:
OG = 1.092
FG = 1.017
This is 82% apparent attenuation, pretty dang high. Now, one big factor here
was my total ineptitude in acheiving a respectable mash temperature; I hovered
right around 150F which resulted in a very fermentable wort. Still, the
product is pretty decent (the 96 IBU sharpens this baby up into quite a
mouthful) and I suspect "Ol' Nott" would give a hearty performance in a BW of
almost any composition. I pitched onto a yeastcake but if you use fresh
yeast, try two packets.
*****
John Varaday suggests an HBD-wide "pale ale experiement". Here's my $0.02 on
a similar experiment a friend and I did a couple years ago (search archives
for "same thing only different" for all the gory details). It was an
extract/steep-grains batch, so mashing variables were not relevent. We bought
all the ingredients together -- I mean, we bought the hops and literally split
the same bag -- and it turned out that we unknowingly brewed within a half-
hour of each other (eliminating phase of the moon as a significant variable)
but we used our own usual techniques. The end products were similar but
discernable. Our techniques were similar and differed in mostly subtle ways.
Hop utilization was slightly but noticbly different. I used 100% El Paso Tap
Water (bleccchhh) while my friend diluted with a healthy dose of RO. We
analyzed the results and decided the water was the biggest factor; in fact,
this is what led me to be the RO-water-treating fool I am today.
So I submit that a "looser" experiment among x members of the collective would
result in x similar but discernable brews.
*****
Same Mize mused:
>> a GM that is not only a homebrewer, but also has "Beernut" on his
>> personalized license plates!
>
>Is that the nut on the fermenter that you tighten to control alcohol
>content? You know: the stronger the beer, the tighter the beernut...
No, according to George Carlin, Beer Nuts is the dread final stage of Cotton
Balls (or was it the other way around...?).
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:01:59 -0500
From: "Kevin W. Aylor" <kwa2r@removeavery.med.virginia.edu>
Subject: Belgian malt question
I am making a Belgian white using a partial mash, single step infusion. I
have used English 2-row in the past and have been pleased with the results.
This time I thought I would try Dewolf-Cosyns Belgian pale ale malt. My
question is; will this malt perform well with a single step infusion mash
or is a protein rest in order. I was just curious if the Belgian malt
would have simular enzyme to english 2-row.
Thanks
Kevin
- --
Remove "remove" from address to reply.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:59:12 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore@gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: Re: Kitchen Malting
> I read recently that the Pilsner Urquell brewery malts its own grain,
> and uses it directly without kilning off. The practice of kilning down
> to <5% moisture is only to improve storability. An advantage to not
> kilning is that one can use fairly undermodified malt (good protein) and
> still have sufficient enzymes for conversion. Otherwise the kilning
> wrecks them.
>
Charles,
Very interesting, but I have to think that drying is for storage and
that
kilning is to impart flavors. I suspect that Pilsner Urquell brewery
may mash with only a small portion of thier grain in the green stage.
If they were to
germinate for maximum enzyme content, would this not allow them to use
other unmalted
grain. Just a thought as to why they might do this.
My notes record the Zymergy offering as "Malting Your Own" V8 #4 1985.
I have never been able to find this, but I am still searching.
Mort O'Sullivan made a very informative reply to my
thread in HBD 2633 making some clarifications to the gibberellic acid
question as it relates to germination.
It was a level of contribution I always look forward to reading in HBD.
Clifton Moore
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:02:01 -0800
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Pale Ale Expt
John wrote:
>May I suggest the following slightly modified recipe:
>
>*********************************************************************
>Name: Pale Alexperiment O.G.: 1.054
>Style: Oregon Pale Ale I.B.U.: 41.0
>Volume: 5.0 Gallons A.B.V.: 5.2%
>
>Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU Oz Min
>Pale, American 8.20 Columbus 15.0 0.55 75
>Crystal 40, American 1.00 Columbus 15.0 0.55 30
>Munich, American 0.80 Cascade 6.6 0.80 15
> Cascade 6.6 0.80 0
>
>Yeast: American Ale Wyeast 1056 Irish Moss 1.00 Tsp @ 30 mins.
>Mash @ 154F for 60 mins.
>********************************************************************
...
>So far I have had 5 people express interest in the experiment. To make this
>even across the boards, I would be willing to buy all the malt and hops and
>ship to each contestant. I would crush all the grain on my mill, weight it
>on my postal scale and ship. This would guarantee that we are all starting
>from an equal basis.
One thing. Should we all use the same grain bill and hop additions?
Or should we all shoot for the same OG and IBUs? i.e., should we
modify your recipe to suit our efficiencies?
One more thing. What do we do with the results? Do we send two
bottles to each of the other 11 people? Have your local beer judge
score each of the 12 beers?
- Bryan
Bryan Gros gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:39:32 -0600
From: Donovan <dlambright@socketis.net>
Subject: Getting rid of chlorine
Rick wrote:
>BTW, I still use chlorine bleach for sanitization but rinse like the devil!<
I have always used chlorine bleach for sanitation and rinse with hot tap
water. Just about everyone I've heard/read says to do this, so I do. In
the back of my mind, however, I can't help but wonder why this practice
doesn't create a risk of infection.
Can anyone clarify that for me?
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:24:58 -0000
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater@brew-master.com>
Subject: Re: anthocyanogen-free barley
George De Piro offers:
> 2. Use anthocyanogen-free barleys with low oxalate content
> (anthocyanogens bind with the protein degradation products to
form
> haze.) I have no idea what varieties meet this criteria.
Somebody
> else jump in here!
Well, I'd have to advise against using anthocyanogen-free barley--even
if you could get your hands on some, which you probably can't. In the
1970s researchers at Carlsberg developed some anthocyanogen-free
barley but it was a failure commercially. Farmer's wouldn't grow it
because its yield was less than half that of traditional malting
varieties and it was very susceptible to disease (presumably, the
polyphenols that the researchers bred out of the barley conferred some
sort of disease resistance). Furthermore, French researchers who used
the barley on a pilot scale claimed that the resulting beer was
lacking in body and insipid (polyphenols obviously have a positive
contribution to mouthfeel).
If you really want to reduce polyphenol levels through choice of
barley variety, then choose either Galant or Dramant. Galant has 1/10
the anthocyanogen content of average malt, and a total phenol content
about 1/2 that of normal malt ("normal" is considered to be 140-150
ppm). Unfortunately, Galant malts very poorly and has a natural
deficiency in endo-B-nucleases so you'll likely end up with a very
viscous wort that could cause a stuck run-off and/or filtration
problems. Dramant has a slightly higher phenol content, but seems to
produce malt with fewer B-glucan problems.
Regarding oxalate: I'm not sure which barleys are naturally low in
oxalate, but it can cause haze problems. I know of two ways to rid
your final beer of oxalic acid: (i) if you mash with excess calcium,
you will remove oxalic acid as the insoluble calcium oxalate (if this
continues during the fermentation it will form beer stone); (ii) add
oxalate decarboxalase to the mash to convert oxalic acid to formic
acid + CO2. I personally would choose (i) over (ii).
- --------------------------
Cheers,
Mort O'Sullivan
ICBD (Edinburgh, Scotland)
tarwater@brew-master.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:38:12 -0700
From: Troy Hager <thager@bsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Long term yeast storage in distilled H2O
Brewers,
Recently reread the article in BT by Michael Graham about long term yeast
storage in distilled H2O. Sounds great, seems easy enough, he seems to know
what he is talking about... but
Are other people doing this? I reread Fix last night and he mentions
nothing about this technique. I have also never heard it mentioned here in
the last 6 months that I have been reading HBD. Are you all using slants
and plates to store your yeast? If so, why not switch to the distilled
water method suggested by Graham? - seems better to me. Am I missing
something here?
Private email is great!
Troy A. Hager
2385 Trousdale Drive.
Burlingame, CA 94010
259-3850
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:31:43 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Home malting and gibberellic acid
Hi all,
I've never tried home malting, although I've read about it and talked
with people that have done it. I was just perusing some notes about
malting and noticed that gibberellic acid should be applied to malt at
the rate of 0.03-0.08g/metric TON of barley.
I suppose that this could be a misprint, but if it's true (and I think
it is; the instructions for prepping the solution make sense), I'd say
you'll have a tough time using it at home on a couple of kilos of
grain!
The advantages of gibberellic acid are listed as:
1. shortening of germination time by two days
2. increased product yield by ~1.0%
3. increase in extract yield by ~1.0%
4. shortened dormancy of the barley
Overdosing with gibberellic acid can cause the proteolytic enzymes to
develop faster than the amylotic and cytolitic enzymes, yielding malt
with reduced diastatic power and too much potential for protein
over-cleavage.
I am always wary of advice to use such chemicals at home. It seems
unnatural and unnecessary, and in this case can cause some harm. If I
someday try home malting, I think I would try to control germination
rates and eveness by keeping the grain at the low end of the allowable
temperature range (~50F). If the germination is a bit uneven, c'est
la vie! Dammit, I'm a brewer, not a maltster!
If anybody knows for sure that the rate of use I have is a misprint,
please chime in.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:53:54 -0800
From: Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi <rosamax@split.it>
Subject: Yeast info, brewing lagers
Hi!
I am making my first lager (a Helles Bock) and have some questions for
the HDBers.
1) I got Whitelabs Pilsner yeast; just out of curiosity, does anybody
know if it is the same as any of Wyeast strains (2124, 2206, 2278...)?
And which of the above is Weihenstephen 3470 and which is Pilsener
Urquell (if they are not the same)?
2) Is 46F-48F too low for fermentation with this yeast?
3) I plan to lager at a lower Temp for some weeks then bottle. Can I
bottle condition in the usual way (just priming) or should I add further
yeast (krausening ecc.)?
4) More generally speaking, I have never tasted bottle conditioned
lager, is it an out-of-style procedure? Do you suggest an alternative
approach?
Sorry if maybe 3)and 4) could have already been debated, but as I was
posting anyway...next time I'll be less lazy and check better the
archive.
TIA and cheers
Massimo - Genova - Italy
http://www.split.it/users/rosamax/ Max Beer Page
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:19:04 -0500
From: "Spies, James" <Jams@mlis.state.md.us>
Subject: yeast suspension
Here's one for you --
(Hold on, this gets messy . . . )
I recently acquired about a gallon of yeast slurry (a Belgian strain
which this particular pub uses to make a fantastic dubbel), and split
the slurry in half into 2 sterile containers. I made 2 *identical*
batches (same grain bill, hop additions, mash schedule, everything) 1
week apart. I pitched half the yeast the first week and reserved the
other half in the fridge until the second week. Batch #1 was active
within *20 minutes* of pitching, and I had high kraeusen within two
hours. Activity was, shall we say, volcanic. Thank god for blow-off
tubes! The activity ceased in the airlock after 5 days. Thinking of
the explosive fermentation, I just racked the beer, and *then* took a
hydrometer reading. 1.040. Oops. Airlock still dead after 6 hours.
Double Oops. So, this being 1 day before batch #2, I simply waited a
day, and pitched some of the leftover yeast from batch #2 into fermenter
#1. Voila, activity began again. (Batch #1 OG 1.085 and is still
fermenting now - 1 bubble every ~20 secs., coming up on 3 weeks in the
fermenter :-/ ) What's the problem, you ask? Well, here it is:
Batch #2 started off just as hot and heavy as batch #1, finished down to
1.019 within 10 days . . . but . . . the yeast in batch #2 won't
flocculate at all. Batch #1 is clear, even after cloudy and heavy
renewed fermentation **with the same yeast**. What gives. The airlock
on batch #2 is *dead*, there is no foam, and the airlock is not leaking.
I want to rack batch #2 off, but it looks like a weizen. Batch #1 is
clear and dark, but is still going. What can I add to batch #2 to clear
out the yeast? Should I add something to take the yeast out, wait until
batch # 1 finishes, and then dose them both with something new (I'm
thinking Wyeast 1214) to bottle condition? I don't trust this yeast to
carbonate well in the bottle. Any thoughts on the performance of this
(un)controlled experiment? Input from the collective would be
appreciated because I'm at a loss, and I'd like to salvage both batches.
Sorry for the convoluted story, and the lengthy post, but this was
tricky to explain.
As always, TIA
Jay Spies
Wisful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore. MD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:24:39 -0600
From: "Shawn Andrews" <sabrewer@fgi.net>
Subject: Re: First wort hopping
Well Dave, Here goes... George Fix quotes de Clerck as saying "that =
late or finish hopping
is at best wasteful, and possibly harmful to flavor." I guess I'll but =
that, despite several of my
favorite commercial beers being heavily late hopped, Sierra Nevada comes =
to mind. I'm willing
to try first wort hopping, anyway. My question is if it's okay to late =
hop/ dry hop as well. Oh no,
sir, I'm not a hophead or anything! I have an IPA in mind for this with =
lots of malt to back up
the hops. Anyone tried this doing all 3 hop additions? Private e-mail =
ok.
Thanks, Shawn Andrews
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2635, 02/12/98
*************************************
-------
