Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3041
HOMEBREW Digest #3041 Thu 27 May 1999
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:
Siebel appeal (Radzan1000)
Siebel answer to joe rolfe - subject: immobilized yeast fermentation (Radzan1000)
Siebel answer to biergiek - subject: MWP's and chill haze (Radzan1000)
Siebel answer to arnold j neitzke - subect: mash thickness (Radzan1000)
Siebel answer to william frazier - subject: low alcohol beer (Radzan1000)
Yeast autolysis ("WILLIAM R. SIEBEL")
Siebel answer to llom - subject: potatoes as adjuncts (Radzan1000)
Siebel answer to paul shick - subject: bottle conditioning (Radzan1000)
Siebel answer to david l houseman - subject: mash and body (Radzan1000)
sour cherries (Jim Liddil)
Siebel answer to mark a bauer - subject: cold break, etc (Radzan1000)
Siebel: Infusion vs. Step mashing vs. RIMS/HERMS (Dean Fikar)
moldy polyclar? (Kurt Congdon)
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
Siebel: Sorry I spelled your name wrong\hop freshness ("Frederick L. Pauly")
Carboys are dangerous (Nathan Kanous)
HSA in homebrew (Nathan Kanous)
Thanks/phytin/RO (AJ)
Siebel-malt flavor/modification (Jim Liddil)
Siebel Question ("Tim Martin")
New Brewery & Foam (Dan Listermann)
RE: malt liquor? ("Kelly")
Bavarian Lager Malt Bills (Biergiek)
alcoholism (ensmingr)
Seibel: Fermentation temps (hope I'm not too late) (Lou.Heavner)
Siebel; hot side aeration/oxidation ("Stephen Alexander")
Siebel amswer to t d hamann - subject: grist to liquor (Radzan1000)
Re: ale yeast for fake lagers? (Jeremy Bergsman)
Mickey's (ensmingr)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99
(http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html); Buzz-Off!
Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:28:24 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel appeal
Response to our appearance on the Home Brewers Digest has been high. We are
trying to address all questions. Now we have been deluged with a large
volume of direct e-mail, by-passing the Digest. We cannot promise that we
will answer these. The questions addressed through the Digest will take
precedence and if we answer any more of the e-mail, it will be through the
Digest. Thank you for your interest.
Dave Radzanowski
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:28:27 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to joe rolfe - subject: immobilized yeast fermentation
We have done a lot of tasting on immobilized yeast fermenting beer. Over the
years the process has been improved quite a bit going from producing horrible
beers to beers which are almost commercially acceptable. As far as I know,
the only beers being produced commercially using the immobilized yeast are
beers where immobilized yeast is used only for a rapid maturation of the beer
and for a very short fermentation used to produce low or non-alcoholic
products. These applications have been very successful in Europe. I have
tasted both types of beer and like them very much. As a matter of fact, if
anybody still makes immobilization on a small scale available, I would
recommend this method to produce a low/non-alcoholic product - see question
from William Frazier. There is still a bit of room for improvement. Maybe
if you get back to brewing in the future an acceptable system for producing
regular beers will be available.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:28:23 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to biergiek - subject: MWP's and chill haze
I think too much has been made of the molecular weight of proteins as regards
chill haze production. The research I have seen found two different sizes of
protein implicated in chill haze, one rather large and one rather small. Of
course, large and small are relative terms. Most proteins in beer are rather
small compared to the range of proteins found in all of nature. I think the
real reason proteins have been characterized by molecular weight is that
separation based on molecular weight is relatively easy to do with available
techniques - not that it means anything in particular. Current thinking
leans more toward other properties of chill haze proteins especially high
content of the unusual amino acid proline and of negatively charged amino
acids as explaining their high reactivity with tannins to form chill haze.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:28:16 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to arnold j neitzke - subect: mash thickness
In the absence of any other data on the brews such as final volume, the most
likely explanation is that boiling was different and that the thicker brew
had been boiled down to a slightly smaller, more concentrated volume.
Differences in lautering efficiency due to slight differences in run-off
procedures are another likely source of variability.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:48:38 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to william frazier - subject: low alcohol beer
The German Malz beers have been made in the past as Malta beverages are
today. Dark wort is filtered and carbonated then bottled and Pasteurized at
least ten times as much as regular beers. There is no fermentation to
produce alcohol. One problem with non-fermented or partially fermented worts
is that they taste sweet. You can balance the sweetness to some extent with
hop bitterness. Traditional Germean Ludwig's beer going back to the
nineteenth century was made by fermenting wort with Ludwig's yeast - today
called Saccharomycodes ludwigii. This yeast cannot ferment maltose, the main
fermentable sugar in wort, so it produces low levels of alcohol. For a 10 to
12 Plato wort the alcohol would be a little under 2% by weight. Beers
fermented by this yeast taste pretty good. Thet are sweet, but you can
balance sweetness with hop bitterness and acidity; From what you say you
don't seem to mind some sweetness. Preservation would be a big problem.
Most preservatives work best at a lower pH than typical beer, like 3 in wines
and soft drinks. Probably your best bet for preservation is very thorough
Pasteurization, say 160F for 15 min., or making certain that the beer is kept
very cold.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:20:09 -0500
From: "WILLIAM R. SIEBEL" <SIEBELINSTITUTE@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Yeast autolysis
Hi Jason Gorman,
In response to your question on yeast autolysis:
Yes, I often describe the process of yeast autolysis as "the yeast
spilling it's guts into the beer". Yeast autolysis is the process
whereby the yeast basically "digests" itself, when it runs out of
nutrients. This process is obviously accelerated by elevated
temperatures. The internal contents of the yeast is then released into
the beer. Some of the "stuff" that is released into the beer would
naturally be present, but at lower levels,ie. compounds that are either
excreted or leak out of the yeast. However, other compounds that are not
usually present in beer will also be released when the cells die. Many
of the compounds that occur as a result of yeast autolysis can be used
by the yeast as nutrients, eg vitamins, fatty acids, amino acids, etc.
However, some of the compounds are not used by yeast as nutrients eg
proteins, various sulfur compounds. SO if you transfer to secondary and
add some DME (I assume this means Dried Malt Extract) and also added
some fresh yeast you may expect a certain reduction in the Yeast
autolysis flavors, but it is very unlikely that you will rid yourself
entirely of the rubbery autolysis taste and smell as part of this is
coming from compounds released during autolysis that are not
remetabolized by the yeast. I am suggesting that you would need to add
fresh yeast, as the yeast that is left in the beer is obviously not in
very good shape if it is leading to autolysis flavors. This yeast may
well not be capable of fermenting the DME that you are adding.
Hope this answers your question.
Cheers,
Lyn Kruger
SIEBEL INSTITUTE
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:23:26 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to llom - subject: potatoes as adjuncts
It sounds like you are interested in production of Hohenheim style beer,
formerly produced in this small town, now swallowed up as a suburb of
Stuttgart. A description of production of Hohenheim malt-potato beer was
given by Professor K. Siemens published in Professor Julius Thausing"s book
"Preparation of Malt and Fabrication of Beer" as translated by Anton Schwarz,
one of the founders of our present day school, in 1882. Potatoes were ground
to a pulp and put through a sieve to separate skins and unground pieces. The
pulp was placed on a cloth laid on top of the lauter tub screens and the
"fruit sap" is removed since it gives a disagreeable taste to the beer. Hot
water is then passed over the pulp until the water runs clear and the pulp
does not pick up color when it is allowed to stand. This process takes about
24 hours and the potatoes are prepared for brewing. Mash water is heated to
122F and potato pulp and half the malt are mixed in. The mash is slowly
heated to 140F over the course of an hour. The other half of the malt was
mixed with cold water the night before, and the liquid is removed from the
cold malt mix on the brewing day and saved. The rest of the cold mash is
mixed with the potato-malt mash and kept between 140 and 158F for one hour to
saccharify. The mash is then boiled until the liquid portion appears clear.
The clearest portion of the reserved cold mash liquid is then added to the
boiled mash, sufficient to reduce the temperature to about 158F. The
remiaining solids from the cold water are mixed into the mash as lautering is
about to start. Professor Siemens reports that potato beer clarifies well
after fermentation and has a light color and rather vinous flavor. 600 to
650 pounds of wet potato pulp or starch were used with 300 to 350 pounds of
malt, about 1/3 potato to 2/3 malt on a dry basis. Dry potato starch and
potato flour was also used in Hohenheim. Mashing the starch with hot water
(somewhat like cooking) before addition to the malt mash was recommended.
Professor Siemens reported that lautering difficulties were commonly
encountered when potato starch was used.
>From the description of this long, drawn out process I think you can see why
Hohenheim style beers are no longer being produced.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:23:28 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to paul shick - subject: bottle conditioning
Some hard data on bottle conditioned beers has been published from the
Louvain in Belgium. Oxygen dissolved in the beer up to quite a high level of
2 ppm disappears within a few hours and does not have much chance to harm the
beer. Oxygen in the headspace cannot be removed by yeast in the beer unless
it diffuses into the beer. Agitation during shipping might help get rid of
oxygen by shaking it into the beer where the yeast can use it. In their
experiments only 30% of the headspace oxygen was removed. The rest
contributed to deterioration of the beer flavor. The time for deterioration
at high but not ridiculously high levels of oxygen was 6 to 9 months. For
short periods of time for beers packaged with poor air control the conclusion
from the research done would be that bottle conditioning shows a significant
advantage over pressure filled beers. Of course you have to be sure that you
do not introduce beer spoiling organisms into the beer along with the yeast
for bottle conditioning. This seems to be the most difficult part of the
process.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:23:27 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to david l houseman - subject: mash and body
I think you are reaching the point of splitting hairs on mash-out
temperatures. At temperatures in the range of 158 to 170F, beta amylase will
be inactivated rather quickly, within 15 minutes, and some but not all alpha
amylase will remain. A mash out at 170F will not stop all enzyme activity
and you don't want to stop all activity. Some alpha amylase should be
present during lautering to digest any starch released late in the process.
The general rule is that mash-out should never exceed about 175F or too much
alpha amylase will be inactivated. Experience with North American malts is
that a temperature of 158F for saccharification still gives a lot of
fermentable sugar, about 65 to 68% wort fermentability, and that you have to
go quickly to saccharification at about 165F to get a significant increase in
non-fermentable sugars. Higher mash-out temperatures decrease the viscosity
of the wort and therefore allow more efficient separation of wort and grain
during run-off. A mash-off temperature of 168-170F is pretty commonly used
today as a compromise to get low viscosity and still allow a little alpha
amylase activity to digest any remaining starch. Tannins such as tannic acid
are commercially extracted at a temperature of 185F. The worry about tannin
extraction from malt is another reason not to exceed 175F. On the other
hand, decoction mashin where some of the malt is boiled has been
traditionally practiced to make good beers for a long time. Maybe there
shouldn't be too much emphisis on tannin extraction. But never inactivate
all of the enzymes before the wort reaches the kettle.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:30:05 -0400
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: sour cherries
the two varieties that Dr. Iezzoni just released and suggested to me are:
Ballaton and Danube
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:17:43 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel answer to mark a bauer - subject: cold break, etc
Cold break
Cold break particles are very small, about 1 micron in diameter, and very
difficult to remove by any type of filtration. They can be coagulated and
removed by the use of Irish Moss. I think this is the most effective method
for removal if you wish to remove cold break. In Germany floatation is also
used to reduce cold break. To use this method, overaerate the cold wort so
that a fairly thick layer of foam forms. You could whip in air with a high
speed mixer or bubble in air through a diffusion stone. Let the wort stand
for several hours. Then carefully remove the wort, leaving a little foam
behind. Cold break particles will attach themselves to the foam bubbles and
be left behind. Whichever method you use, be careful not to remove all of
the cold break. The presence of some cold break particles helps fermentation
by helping to release carbon dioxide gas from solution.
Protein rests
Rests at lower temperatures are not just protein rests; they are more
properly a period of continued malt modification. I prefer the term
modification rest. While some protein is made soluble during the rest, it
seems more effective at increasing levels of small nitrogen compounds
important for yeast nutrition - free amino nitrogen. For all malt beers
there is usually adequate nitrogen present in the wort without using a low
temperature rest. If a modification rest is eliminated, though, you will
have more beta glucans in the wort, you will obtain a slightly lower amount
of extract from the malt used and for a weizen beer there will be less
phenolic flavor precursor. Our attitude is that you shouldn't follow any
blind recommendations. Look at factors like, do you want to sterile fill the
beer?, are you making a weizen type beer?, is it worth your time to save a
little money on malt purchases? and then make up your own mind. We did some
calculations on a 20 hl all malt brew recently and concluded you could use
about $3 worth less malt per brew by doing a "protein rest." If the $3 per
brew was applied to a year end bonus to you for using the "protein rest," I
would advise you to incorporate one.
Saccharification
My critique to the statement "I saccarify all my beers at 158F to promote
more body, mouthfeel and sweetness" would be "You're wasting your time"
(assuming you're using North American Malt). You will need a higher
temperature than that to get a significant increase in unfermentable body, as
high as 165F. See the response to David Houseman for a more complete
discussion.
Joe Power
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:28:18 -0500
From: Dean Fikar <dfikar@flash.net>
Subject: Siebel: Infusion vs. Step mashing vs. RIMS/HERMS
Do you believe that there is any advantage in the finished beer, at the
homebrew level, to step mashing or RIMS/ HERMS over simple infusion
mashing for styles not traditionally decocted? I know that you might
get better extraction rates and might have an easier sparge with the
more complicated methods but I don't know if I see much of an advantage
in the finished product over and above what you can achieve by infusion
mashing modern malts.
I do mostly single infusion no-sparge or low-sparge brewing so I don't
really care what my extraction rates are. I've never had a stuck mash
(I mash and lauter in a 10 gal. Gott cooler with a slotted copper
manifold) and I don't get much haze in my beer, probably since I tend to
cold age them at temps < 40F. I would consider investing in a more
complicated setup if I thought it might make any positive difference in
the final product. I have a real desire to make the best beer possible
in a homebrewery setting, particularly since I like to enter my best
beers in competitions. What should I do?
Thanks,
Dean Fikar - Ft. Worth, TX
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:52:29 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kurt Congdon <kcongdon@enteract.com>
Subject: moldy polyclar?
I've got a very strange question, is it possible for mold to grow in
polyclar? I purchased a new package several weeks ago, and I went to use
it for the first time tonight and found grayish pockets of what I think
might be mold. Is this possible or is it something else? Is it just
coloration of the polyclar?
Curios,
Kurt Congdon
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 23:29:31 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
The Jethro Gump Report
It is obvious that many mis-understood my last post to the HBD...but this
has also had many unintended benefits, as I can vouch for....as a result of
scores of e-mails from brewers throughout the world.....
I do intend to pull back for a bit....I am still sickened.....
My thoughts @ that time were focused on a lack of appreciation for a certain
group of craftsmen....folks like Steve Perry...that do the job they have
'cos they love the job...certainly not because they are making thousands of
dollars from it....'cos they aren't....
And there are more of them, like Steve, than you may know.....
I know Steve....though I have never met him...and have many phone
conversations to remember....some as recently as last week, that haunt me
with his fire, humour...and passion for the brotherhood of brewers that he
served.....
My fury is directed to the generally sorry state of our industry, that to
this date, continues to allow brewers to be lured with promises of 5.25
dollars an hour...(it is a real occurrance).... and with the understanding
that they are no more valued than the next dishwasher......
Yes, as some have suggested, I am depressed....depressed that our craft is
not valued by many.....most of all our employers....
In an industry, just speaking of brewpubs....the correspondence I get speaks
of tawdry co-existence, and disdain......"Christ, I can get anyone to brew!
Just turn that valve, and follow this recipe...."
Brewing is a lot of process...no doubt....but the art is what no one
appreciates....that thing that separated the CRAFT from the hourly
employee....and that, my friends, is what separates the great from the
mundane.....Thankfully, this is not universal....and hopefully, one day I
will be a part of the former....
Steve did it....he gave of himself for the pursuit of what he believed
in....our industry.....as anyone who has worked in a similar position would
vouch for.....certainly not for the money......the money wasn't there...the
fire was....
I am further depressed that I cannot just make it better for Mrs. Perry by
doing something....anything.....
THAT was my big prob....I can't feel like I can make a difference......
But I am buoyed by the work of folks like Dave Edgar of the IBS....that has
set up a Trust Fund for Steve's daughter....
http://www.beertown.org/temp/steve.htm
I include a post, without permission, I don't think it matters @ this point,
from Dave Edgar....to the IBS Forum....
From: David Edgar <david@aob.org>
Subject: Stephen Perry
On Thursday, May 20, the same day of the arrival of his first child, a
baby girl named Caroline Anne (6 lb., 2 oz.), Steve Perry was admitted
to Boulder Community Hospital for complications believed to be caused by
Wilson's disease, a hereditary disease that prevents the body from being
able to process copper, causing an acute liver ailment due to the
buildup of copper in the liver--requiring a liver transplant.
A helicopter flew Steve to a Denver hospital on Saturday in an attempt
to get the transplant--but he did not live long enough. It is with
deepest sadness and regret that I must inform you that Steve Perry
passed away Saturday evening. We at IBS and AOB are still in a state of
shock over the sudden news of Steve's passing, as he was a valued
employee, friend and a great guy who was very excited about becoming a
new dad--in addition to being a dynamite moderator of the IBS Brewers
Forum.
Later this week we hope to post a page on our website in tribute and
memorial to Steve, who was just 30 years old, with an opportunity for
those who knew him to share their good memories of Steve. The page will
also provide information about a fund being set up by the Association of
Brewers for his daughter, Caroline Anne Perry, where interested
individuals may send contributions in Steve's memory.
<SNIP>
- --
David S. Edgar
Director
Institute for Brewing Studies
http://beertown.org (web)
So, my friends, I am sorry to annoy you with my anger....and my grief.....I
do really appreciate the words of support I have been given in the last 24
hours...and the phone calls too....But, supporting me is not needed...I am
too bloody stupid to be worth it anyway.....
What I really want you to do is write a check.....I don't care if it is only
5 bucks....and send it to the fund that Dave has set up @ the AOB.....
We need to help this time......One of our own has gone.....This is how we
can make a difference....
And we need to do better in the future.....
Rob Moline
brewer@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 05:58:19 -0400
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m@unix.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: Siebel: Sorry I spelled your name wrong\hop freshness
I posted in the May 24 digest #3038 asking how to know if my hops
were fresh and or how to get great hop flavor like in a fresh
Anchor Liberty Ale.
Rick Pauly
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 07:38:28 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Carboys are dangerous
Todd Larson had an accident. Sorry to hear about it and I hope you're able
to walk just fine after recovery. I ALWAYS carry my carboys in a milk
crate. It doesn't necessarily prevent me from dropping them, but I've got
a better hold on it and if I do drop it, hopefully most of the pieces will
stay in the crate. I dropped one once...while cleaning....damn soap.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 07:43:11 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: HSA in homebrew
Sorry, but I disagree. I had a batch of special bitter that I brewed last
September. I had a foul up in my drain hose from the mash tun....lots of
air got into the line as I was sparging. Three weeks later (after
fermentation and packaging) the beer was terrible....tasted like the
cardboard carrier you buy beer in.
Is HSA a huge problem in homebrewing? I don't think it's as big as some
have made it out to be, but by no means is it non-existent / benign.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:08:10 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Thanks/phytin/RO
First off, thanks to Joe Power for taking time to answer my question. As
you can see from Alan Meeker's post (and what follows) this is
currently the subject of intense discussion.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Phytin/Phytate/Phytase etc. Once again the bulk of the discussion is
going on off line and once again I'll offer to copy anyone who is
interested (though I think we are winding down - I believe I'm beginning
to understand this)
Just to be clear up a couple of points WRT Alans post:
->I now have 3 refernces that seem to agree that "phytin" means the
mixed calcium/magnezium salt of phytic acid. Most of the phytic acid in
barley (and other seeds) is in the form of this salt.
->When I said that only ruminant animals produce phytase I was referring
to phytase in the gut and never meant to imply that other animals are
phytin/phytase free. Myo - inositols and phosphoinositides play many
important roles in the biochemistry of all (should never say all, I
suppose) living things. Monogastric animals that eat plant products
containing phytin (most of which, in particular seeds) do, do not
absorb calcium/magnesium/iron etc as well as and excrete more phosphate
than do ruminants who, having evolved eating these foods, produce
gastric phytase in at least one of their stomach chambers. This has led
to problems both with nutrution of monogastric farm animals and with
phosphates in their manure leading to eutrophication in water bodies
which receive runoff exposed to it. Phytase is now commercially
available to add to feeds for these reason.
->WRT the equation: In textbooks it is written
H2O
Phytate -----> myo-inositol + Pi
phytase
where Pi is the symbol for inorganic phosphate. This (i.e. use of the
generic Pi) is done intentionally to avoid having to deal with the
issues of the degree of protonation of either the phytic acid or the
phophphate species (depend on the pK's and pH). When one solves
numerical problems dealing with things like how much calcium phosphate
precipitates given a specific set of circumstances one must take all
this into consideration. The usual approach is to write equations (one
for each de-protonation) which simultaneously satisfy the equilibrium
conditions, electrical neutrality and proton condition (all protons must
be accounted for) and solve them (usually through the agency of pH as
the "master variable"). Not wanting to get into any of this here I
tried to simplify by writing balanced equation which communicates
essentially what is happening. As written it is clearly only applicable
where pH is substantially less than 1 because that is the only condition
under which you would find all phosphate fully protonated (H3PO4) and
probably the only one under which phytic acid would be fully protonated
as well (=CH-OPO3H2 at each corner.
->When Alan does the phosphate buffer experiment he gets no pH drop even
though there is a precipitate and asks for an explanation. I can't give
one. If precipitate forms with a phosphate buffer and phosphate
coalesces with the calcium and falls out then the equilibrium between
the phosphate species is upset. The relative quantities of the remaining
phosphates must change to restore the equilibrium. Changing the
phosphates quantities involves the shedding of protons and an
accompanying pH change. Perhaps a clue lies in the phrase "in which the
phosphate was buffered". If this means that some phosphate was placed in
another buffer, e.g. tris + HCl, (though most buffers I'm aware of
around pH 7 contain phosphate) then the explanation is that the protons
released were absorbed by the buffer. Whenever I do this with a
phosphate buffer I see a pH drop, even when the precipitate is so
minimal that I can't see it.
-> My recommendation that people only worry about the alkalinity of the
sparge water, not its pH, assumes that the phytin/phytase reaction is
over. It rests on the principal that if the mash, with all the acid it
is ever going to produce, has a titratatble (to pH 6) acidity greater
than the alkalinity (to pH 6) of the water then the water alkalinit
cannot raise the mash pH above 6. Thus it has nothing to do with
calcium. If calcium can still react with mash phosphate to lower pH
further, then that's gravy.
I never intended to imply (though I gotta say I have a much clearer
picture now than I did when this thread started) that the phytase
reaction lowers pH by itself. It does do this indirectly by converting
some of whatever phytin does dissolve to myo-inositol thus releasing
organic phosphate which coalesces with calcium releasing protons. This
upsets the equilibrium (removing the product of a reaction allows the
reaction to procede in the product direction) so that more phytin can
dissolve and so on. There is also a second mechanism, i.e. the one that
is predominant in ale brewing (where phytase is pretty much inactivated
by the more intense kilning of ale malts) where calcium is chelated by
solubilized phytin directly, i.e. without release of Pi. This also
releases hydrogen ions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nathan Kanous askes about why RO processors can remove lots of things
(like chloride ions) but not chlorine gas. What RO membranes can remove
and not remove is mostly a function of the size of the ions/molecules
involved. Some things are removed more effectively than others. The
issue with elemental chlorine is not its size but the fact that it
poisons the most commonly used membrane material - I don't know the
details. For this reason, RO units that use this type of membrane always
include an activated carbon filter (which removes the clorine) before
the RO cartridge and it is very important that this filter be serviced
frequently. Treat a RO membrane well (avoid chlorine poisoning) and it
will serve for years.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:07:17 -0400
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@vms.arizona.edu>
Subject: Siebel-malt flavor/modification
christopher bird wrote:
> Subject: malt flavor
>
> Malt flavor is a bit abstract. Not much is known (very little technical
> papers deal with malt flavor). If you are trying to match the malt
> flavor found in German lagers, however, I feel that this characteristic
> is acheived by the use of an undermodified base malt (less well modified
> than North American varieties)
Can you comment on what you mean by "undermodified"? A review of various
web sites (wyermann etc.) indicates that German malts look every bit as
"modified" as North American malt from Briess, etc. Additional comments
would be welcome as this has been debated extensively on this forum.
Jim Liddil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:06:57 -0400
From: "Tim Martin" <TimMartin@southwest.cc.nc.us>
Subject: Siebel Question
Hey Neighbors,
Hope this is not too late. Thank you Mr. Siebel for this service.
I brew the lazy way...simple one step infusion and I have always enjoyed
my beer. When and why should I change to multi-step, protein rest or
decoction?
Thank you,
Tim Martin
Cullowhee, NC
Buzzards Roost Home brewery
"with that strong predatory taste"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:38:35 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: New Brewery & Foam
Carm Salvatore (carmen.salvatore@lmco.com) says that he is building a
brewery in the basement of his new house. I suggest that he get his
priorities straight. He is allowing his wife to build a house on top of
his brewery.
Dave Radzanowski ( radzan1000@aol.com) of Siebel is open to suggestions
regarding a verb to describe the collapsing of foam. May I suggest
"defobulation."
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:43:31 -0500
From: "Kelly" <kgrigg@diamonddata.com>
Subject: RE: malt liquor?
Here in the States, if beer is over a certain percentage of alcohol (forgot
what that is)....it can't be referred to as beer. It has to be labeled malt
liquor. Basically anything I brew would have that label.....
At least, that's my understanding......
HTH,
Kelly
Original message-------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:47:49 +0930
From: "Thomas D. Hamann" <tdhamann@senet.com.au>
Subject: malt liquor?
Have just drunk a funny shaped screw top bottle
of "Mickey's Malt Liquor", what is it? We don't
use that terminology in Australia and Michael
Jackson says its not malty and it aint liquor
and contains lots of cheap sugar. The bottle
also doesn't tell me how much zumba it contains,
how alco. are these beers?
tdh
"Life is what happens....
....While you're out making other plans"
John Lennon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:04:44 EDT
From: Biergiek@aol.com
Subject: Bavarian Lager Malt Bills
Stephen says,
>I'd be willing to wager a significant sum that Kyle, like most brewers, even
tho'
>quite familiar with components hops flavors, cannot reliably identify hops
>used two or three at a time in beer. Even such a simple decomposition is
>really quite difficult.
What are the odds? Anyway, I can't distinguish between different hop strains
worth a hoot. The best I can do is bitter or aromatic. I can't distinguish
between Ultra, Liberty, or Crystal, for example. This is why I don't
purchase imported hops. Why spend the extra money on something I can't
appreciate?
>You want malty flavor, but not the sort of flavor found in a bag of malt.
>You state a contradiction to my way of thinking. "Malty" *IS* the flavor
>and aroma of malt - not of some other substitute.
I have tasted the "malt shop" malty flavor (or flavour if you live in Oz) in
Paulaner Oktoberfest and Spaten Oktoberfest. Sometimes its there, sometimes
not. It could be the condition of my senses on the particular day, could be
the beer. I think the malty taste you reference is more like the taste of
Munich malt.
>Since you reject what I write, and also fail to mention what style of
>Bavarian beer you seek to brew, may I suggest you get a copy of Kunze and
>follow the malt bill guidelines for your chosen style there (pp 164) using
>good quality continental malts.
Oktoberfest, Munchner (dunkel), and Bock. I am not going to spend $100+ for
a book where all I want are the recipes. Would you, or someone else who has
the book, please post a few of the malt bills, thanks.
I think the most interesting and poignant comment was given in the Siebel
answer where he suggests undermodified malts may produce better malt shop
flavors (notice how he described the malty flavor as 'malted milk balls', he
seems to know what I mean). By undermodified, I assume he is referencing
carbohydrate modification and not proteolytic modification.
>Witty sarcasm is clearly your long suite Kyle, try hunting about for the
>page-down key sometime.
Come on now Steve, don't take this beer thing so seriously. Get out of the
lab and have a few laughs once in a while. I know a group of guys who
exchange halarious emails on a daily basis, I can ask them to cc you if you
like.
Kyle
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:34:09 -0500
From: ensmingr@npac.syr.edu
Subject: alcoholism
FYI, the recent issue (May 26, 1999) of *Journal of the American Medical
Association* has an interesting article (sort of a mini-review) entitled
"New Findings in the Genetics of Alcoholism" [see:
http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/journals/most/recent/issues/jama/jct90005.htm
]. There is discussion of alcohol metabolizing enzymes (ADH, ALDH); the
level of response to alcohol; phenotypes of interest; and implications
for treatment.
Among the conclusions, the authors state "A number of combined genetic
factors appear to explain approximately half of the alcoholism risk, and
the search for genes that have an effect on (not definitively cause)
risk has important implications. The range of potential causes seen in
genetic studies implies that there might not be a single definitive
treatment that will work for everyone. Prevention and treatment will
probably require a variety of interventions. Regarding prevention, the
genetic data reinforce the wisdom of teaching children of alcoholics
that they carry a heightened vulnerability toward a serious disorder,
which can be avoided by abstinence or diminished by adhering to limited
levels of alcohol intake."
Cheers!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:23:18 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: Seibel: Fermentation temps (hope I'm not too late)
To: Seibel folk,
I have a pretty good handle on how to control temperatures when
fermenting conventional ales and lagers. What I'd like have never
seen is time and temperature regimen for those colder fermented
continental ales like alts and koelsches. Specifically, how long and
at what temps would you recommend fermenting, lagering, bottling,
conditioning. As a side note, I don't keg, only bottle condition and
of course I don't filter. I usually use Wyeast strains which have
been stepped up at least once for ales and at least twice for lagers.
I typically transfer the beer to a secondary/lagering vessel for
lagers, but bottle straight from the primary fermenter with ales. I
usually prime with corn sugar and rarely if ever add fresh yeast at
bottling. Carbonation seems to take quite a while in my lagers, but
finally does happen, but I suspect that is related to the quantity and
age of the yeast and temperature during bottle conditioning. Any
suggestions/recommendations are appreciated.
Regards,
Lou Heavner - Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:56:42 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Siebel; hot side aeration/oxidation
Open follow-up question to Dave Radzanowski of Siebel
I'm very appreciative of the wonderful flow of knowledge from Siebel staff
to HBD, and I feel somehow like I'm challenging the Oracle of Delphi but ...
>This one is easy. No, I do not believe that "hot side aeration" is a
factor
>at the homebrewing scale. When you are required to ship large quantities
for
>great distance and need to have very long shelf stability under conditions
>over which you have no control, then it becomes a factor.
Homebrew practices often entails transfer of mash to a separate lauter tun
and then recirculation (vorlauf) of about 50% of the mash liquor volume to
get adequate clarity. Both transfers are often accomplished manually with a
'scoop' of roughly 1/2 gallon volume and (hopefully) gentle pouring. The
mash and boiler depths are typically about 15 inches - so the surface area
per volume of wort is quite high in our small batches. These seem like
great potential sources for oxygen contact and HSA.
Because of the lack of finish filtration (and often slower fermentation),
homebrewed beer in my experience is seldom in prime drinking shape in less
than one month and often requires 2-3 months before it hits it's peak for
clarity and flavor. A quick review of some modest gravity homebrewed ales
winning national prizes shows an age range of 3 to 9 months. During this
period temperature control may be spotty.
These contest entry beer are often bottled with concern, but less control
over entrapped headspace air than in commercial practice. They are then
shipped cross-country with little or no temperature control.
Best homebrew practice improves on above methods, but the methods above are
not uncommon. We have hot-side air contact, substantial aging and
temperature control problems, bottling air inclusion, long distance shipping
and heat/storage issues.
Many homebrewers have experienced flavor declines consistent with oxidation
damage after a beer has been in good drinkable shape for weeks or months.
The off-flavors and decline often appear and advance quite quickly. I can
only speculate as to whether HSA, other oxidation or something else is
responsible for the deterioration. Changes to brewing and handling methods
appear to improve the situation - tho' I know of no good controlled tests.
Flavor deterioration problems of all sorts are rarely reported in bottle
conditioned homebrew, but are not uncommon for kegged homebrew.
In consideration of a 3-9 month useful "shelf-life", the potential for
greater hot-side air/wort contact per unit volume and limited storage
temperature control, do you remain convinced that HSA can be ignored in
homebrew ?
still sleeping uneasily,
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:29:41 EDT
From: Radzan1000@aol.com
Subject: Siebel amswer to t d hamann - subject: grist to liquor
Gee, I've been around the industry for over 37 years and I didn't know that
there was only one way to do anything in brewing. I've found that what works
best for a given system and what works best to produce the best product is
what you do. Gurus that state that there is only one way are self proclaimed
and should not be worshipped.
As a matter of practicallity, the breweries that I worked for always
introduced an amount of water into the mash vessel before the introduction of
the grain. This was to the height of the bottom half of the mixer blades and
the mixer was then placed in motion and the grain was then started into the
vessel. The grain addition is then somewhat rapid in the same time frame as
the run in of the rest of the doughing in water. This became very important
once we realized the advanages of low shear mixing and lowered the speed and
changed the design of our mixers. In the major breweries, extract is of the
utmost importance and dry grains clinging to the bottom of the vessel and dry
lumps contribute no extract. The major German manufacturers of new brewhouse
equipment, recocnizing this need, now incorporate massive foremasher or
premasher systems in their newest installations.
Use the method that works best for you and your brew.
Dave Radzanowski
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:51:33 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: ale yeast for fake lagers?
> Is there any good yeast choice for making an acceptable lager tasting
> beer while fermenting at, say, 62 or so?
Yes. I'm happy to say that my homebrewing club, the Worts of Wisdom, has
recently completed a yeast experiment. We fermented 22 samples of wort
donated by our local brewpub (the Tied House) with a large number of yeast
strains. We did all the Wyeast ale strains except the Belgian and the wheat
(second plug: donated by Wyeast and Fermentation Frenzy). We also threw in
a few White Labs strains and a few from our own yeast bank. The complete
details will be on our website soon, but for now I'll summarize:
We did the ferment at uncontrolled temperature due to the large number of
fermenters. This ended up being 60-62F average. Most of the ale yeasts
were very clean tasting with few differences of any significance between
them. However, we did use an alt yeast obtained from the now defunct Head
Start. I have usedthis in the past for alts and always found it too
lager-like, even in the upper 50s. Well, even in the very low 60s it is
very lager like. Other than a bit of sulfur I can't really say why it seems
more lager-like than the ale yeasts when they are at their cleanest, but it
does.
Anyway I'm happy to give this to Bryan the next time I see him, but how
about everyone else? Maybe the YCKC can get permission to distribute this
from Brian Nummer. Or maybe they don't need to?
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:07:21 -0500
From: ensmingr@npac.syr.edu
Subject: Mickey's
Thomas D. Hamann asked about Mickey's in HBD 3040. Mickey's is made by
Heileman Brewery in LaCrosse WI. It is 5.8% ABV; 158 cals/12 oz; OG
1.049, FG 1.006. This info used to be available at
http://beertown.org/GABF/97breweries/brewerylist.htm , but this site is
now closed. For alcohol and calories of this and other beers, see:
http://www.npac.syr.edu/users/ensmingr/beer/beerdata.html .
Cheerio!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3041, 05/27/99
*************************************
-------
