Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3049
HOMEBREW Digest #3049 Sat 05 June 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:
Domestic champaigne bottles - Recap (zemo)
re : if you watch and wait ("Alan McKay")
dextrins (Marc Sedam)
Lallemand's yeast offerings, salvation for a pilsner (Edward Seymour)
Lagering/Thanks (AJ)
Red Seal recipe request ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Dextrines ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
re: low carbonation ("Penn, John")
Adjunct Boiling and Carbonation (Dan Listermann)
Rogue Products in NC (Scot Thomas)
Re: help with carbonation (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <Brian_Dixon@ex.cv.hp.com>
retrogradation, (Dave Burley)
A digression... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
Lager Storage (Dennis Johnston)
Universal Beer Agar Source for Homebrewers (WayneM38)
Re:Cold conditioning (lagering) (Teutonic Brewer)
Nottinham yeast (Paul Mahoney)
A glimmer of hope... (Harlan Bauer)
* 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: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 23:45:29 -0500
From: zemo <zemo@ameritech.net>
Subject: Domestic champaigne bottles - Recap
In Hbd #3039ish , I lamented about obtaining domestic
champaigne (yeah I know, "sparkling wine") bottles
that could not be capped with domestic crowns. My
intention was to simulate Belgian bottling by corking
and crowning my saison. In subsequent digests, there
were suggestions for corking, and someone recommended
finding a shop to order 29-30mm crowns from Crosby &
Baker (the distributer). I was contacted by Nancy
Rigberg at Home Sweet Homebrew in Philadelphia, and
had two gross winging there way to me within days.
Then came the stunning reality that I had no way of
applying said new crowns to said bottles. I'd read
that some double-handled cappers "reverse" to fit the
larger crowns but the only one that I could find
locally is the monsterous Super Ultimate that's as big
as a bathtub madonna, but has adapters for 26 and 29mm
crowns AND corking! Now I can fool my friends and amaze
the whole family with my authentic-looking bottles of
saison.
Here's a subject:
Why do Belgians cork and cap?
Is it due to historcally faulty crowns or corks?
Discuss.
Na zdravi!
Zemo
O.A.B. C.B.S. U.K.G.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 07:40:31 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: re : if you watch and wait
Nathan Lansing writes :
In Brewing Techniques a few issues back there was the question,
"Is there any reason a homebrewer_must_use a portion of malt
in a cereal mash" There was some discussion here that this was
used to prevent retrogradation which someone explained to be
turning into a starchy lump, and since homebrewers don't pump
their cereal mash then it didn't matter.
Well I guess now it seems that it _may_ matter to maintain the
fermentability
after the boiling cereal cools to mash temperatures.
And I reply :
Well, since I'm the guy who kicked up such a fuss in the first
place with the BT editors and subsequently drafted a response
to the original BT article (based on input from Molson's
brewmasters here in Canada), I figure I am obligated to pipe up.
I've never boiled my rice or other adjunct with malt, and have
never had a problem with fermentability. Any given recipe
that I've ever added rice et al to, has had an increase in
SG exactly as expected. Ferments fine, starch conversion is
fine. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
I know lots of other guys with similar stories to tell.
I still say we're applying too many "big boy" techniques
to the little guy. They don't necessarily apply, unfortunately.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 08:43:00 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: dextrins
Hi Dave:
You are correct, dextrins are not retrograded starch. Dextrins are
unfermentable polysaccharides because they cannot be broken down by the
amylases in the mash. To be more specific, there are beta-limit
dextrins (alluded to in my original post) and alpha-limit dextrins, both
of which are lumped together as generic "dextrins". Here's the deal,
and forgive me for rehashing some content here...
Beta-amylase attacks a polysaccharide (chain of glucose molecules--can
be either "sugar" or "starch") from the end of the chain and cleaving
the 1-4 link, resulting in lots of sucrose molecules in its wake. Most
cereal grains as they appear in nature are primarily (~75%) amylopectin,
a highly branched polysaccharide. Beta-amylase hooks on to the end of a
starch molecule and cleaves off sucrose until it reaches a branching
point (a 1-6 linkage), then stops/uncouples from the starch molecule.
When all the available starch chains are cleaved by beta-amylase, you
are left with an unfermentable starch molecule--the beta-limit dextrin.
The same concept happens with alpha-amylase. As mentioned in my earlier
post, it requires a straight chain of seven glucose molecules to
activate, then randomly cleaves the chain via the same 1-4 link. If
there is a branch point in the way it will not be able to act either.
Once there are no more chains of appropriate length to activate the
alpha-amylase you get the theoretical alpha-limit dextrin.
Reality? Both of these things happen at the same time, resulting in
quite a few small sugar molecules (glucose and its di- and
tri-saccharides) and the resultant dextrins. You adjust this level by
changing the amount of time that beta-amylase's best reaction conditions
are held. Less time at the beta-rest means larger dextrins and more
unfermentables.
For completeness, dextrins can also be formed by subjecting starch to
high heat in the presence of (1) moisture, and (2) acid. Physical
hydrolysis of the starch molecule will result in dextrins...you simply
adjust the time spent in the reaction vessel to control the composition
of the dextrins. Dextrinization using this method also creates the
byproducts of Maillard reactions--good news for the specialty maltsters.
The main difference between resistant starch and dextrins is that, based
on physical composition of the molecule alone, the resistant starch
SHOULD be digested by the amylases. It is the physical shielding of the
molecule via retrogradation/crystallization that prevents the enzymatic
attack. However, both resistant starch and generic dextrins are
unfermentable.
Your concept of adding specialty grains towards the end of the mash
accomplishes the task of getting more unfermentables in the mash because
you don't provide the conditions necessary to degrade them even one
bit. Hence, you're left with larger polysaccharides in your wort.
I hope this clarifies the situation a bit.
Cheers!
Marc
- --
Marc Sedam
Technology Development Associate
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Office of Technology Development
308 Bynum Hall; CB# 4105
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-4105
919.966.3929 [phone]
919.962.0646 [fax]
[mailto:marc_sedam@unc.edu]
Interested in new technologies? Check out the "Inventions List" on our
website at [http://www.research.unc.edu/otd] to view a portion of UNC's
available technologies.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 05:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Edward Seymour <eseymour@yahoo.com>
Subject: Lallemand's yeast offerings, salvation for a pilsner
I did a quick search on dogpile (http://www.dogpile.com/) and
found the following link to Lallemand's home page.
(http://www.lallemand.com/brew/beer_yst.html). They give some
information in their product description, but it might not be as
technical as Jeff requested. There is a link for Technical help. I
hope this is of some help.
I'm new to brewing, having convinced my wife to buy a starter kit
for my graduation present. For the first batch I brewed a pale ale that
came out fantastic.
For the second batch I brewed a pilsner. I had it in the primary
for 5 days followed by 3 weeks in the secondary. The beer transferred
into the bottling bucket exceptionally clear. I had some left over
wort that I canned and plan on using instead of corn sugar for bottling
(an idea I got from Charlie P's book). The wort that I canned was clear
except for the some turb in the bottom of the jar. I thought that the
fine mesh strainer in the funnel would remove this when I poured it
into the bottling bucket.
I now have 50 bottles of beer that has 1/2 inch of gunk in the
bottom that quickly mixes with the beer when the bottle is slightly
moved. My question: can I pour all of the beers back into the
secondary, add some polyclar and let it settle for a couple of days
and try to re bottle?
I used a turkey baster with a hose attached and carefully sucked
some of the gunk out of one of the beers and it was good, but doing
this in front of company would definitely turn them off to home
brewing. Would you drink a beer that some sucked gunk out of? Any
ideas?
Ed Seymour
eseymour@snet.net
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 13:08:29 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Lagering/Thanks
Greg asked about what goes on during lagering. The answer is "lots of
things". I'll tic off the ones that come to mind and hope others will
fill in. Lagering is really a slow tertiary fermentation. To be
successful, it must be carried out over live yeast and providing a large
surface area for the yeast is important. It is the reason for "Beechwood
ageing" in which the lagering tanks are filled with strips of that wood
upon which the yeast settle out. It's the reason many home brewers, most
of whom lager in Corny kegs, place them on their sides during lagering.
As yeast settle out it is clear that one of the functions of lagering is
to allow the yeast to aggregate and settle. Equally important is that
during this time polyphenols (which can be at very high levels because
the grains have been boiled during decoctions) complex with proteins and
settle out. Elimination of polyphenols means a clear beer and a smoother
tasting one. Hazes form other sources (i.e. metal ion hazes and calcium
oxalate) also settle.
Many lager strains produce a lot of sulfide/sulfite as well as organic
volatiles whose combined effect is referred to as "Jungbukett" which is
often translated as "stench" though that really isn't what it means
("bouquet of youth" would be more like it). During lagering the CO2
evolved scrubs Jungbuket from the beer and, as lagering is usually done
under some pressure and cold, some CO2 stays in solution and conditions
the beer.
Flavor maturation is a term which encompasses many complex organic
reactions whic take place in the lagering tank. Some of them are
reasonably simple such as the uptake of diacetyl and 2,3 pentane dione.
Others are much more subtle and difficult to explain. In tasting terms
you could say that all the rough edges are smoothed and the flavors
meld. In my own brewing the thing I find most interesting is that the
beer sits in lager for about a month without changing very much and then
suddenly, over the course of a day or two, turns and is ready to drink.
Additional months of lager lead to more smoothness but the change with
time is not that dramatic.
One other thing that should be mentioned is that perceived hops
bitterness gradually decreases. This should be accounted for in
calculating the hopping level.
Modern commercial brewing loathes the idea of having to keep stock in
storage (big capital costs for the tanks, big operating costs for the
refrigeration) and so tries, with some success, to brew beers which
don't require lagering or extensive lagering. Thus yeast strains which
don't produce sulfur are employed, decoctions are not used, yeast are
operated at higher temperature, diacetyl rests are employed, etc. The
homebrewer in a hurry can use many of these same tricks. Triple
decoction mashed brews lagered for three months are a luxury that few of
us have the time to invest in but they are worth it!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I don't want to resurrect discussion of a recent matter which many feel
is best kept off line but I do want to thank all of those of you who
sent me messages of support either here or by e-mail. I've been out of
town for a couple of days so it will take me a while to respond to
everyone individually but I will do that.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:08:28 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Red Seal recipe request
They've quit bringing Red Seal into the city and I have a potential
customer that will start homebrewing if I come up with a clone recipe.
Any assistance will be appreciated. The last bottle I tasted was _badly_
oxidized and I couldn't make out any _normal_beer flavors. TIA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:08:31 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Dextrines
DB says in #3048
>>Dextrins are soluble, by definition, I think,
and are not <crystallized> into spirals.<<
I think dextrines, are by definition, what remains when the amylases have
worked
to the limits of their liquification.
>>I can't find a comparitive extract yield for
crystal versus pale malt, <<
In the neighborhood of 1036/lb for pale malt,
1026 for caramel malts.
>>Methinks dextrins can be attacked by beta
>>and alpha enzymes
No, see my first statement, they can't be further split and _that_
is why they are dextrins.
>> and this is why, if you
>>want to retain these dextrins in the wort, (say
>>in a simple mash scheme) these specialty malts
>>need to be added at the end of the mash.
After talking to three pro brewers in town (one a Seibel grad,
one a former British malster) the conclusion was;
caramel malts are added for flavor and color only.
The mash temperature profile is what determines
the dextrin content and final attenuation of the wort.
Caramel malts can add some dextrines to extract brews
by steeping, but this is a nice side benefit to their "design."
But with caramel additions of around 10% in a mash, the
majority of the sugars will come from the base malt, _if_ caramels
were 20% dextrins that would give you 2% dextrin increase
from adding the caramel. That doesn't seem to be much,
considering if you mash at 156+ you would get closer to
40% unfermentables (in my system anyway).
This is further bedeviled by the fact that what is not fermentable
is not always dextrins, and this will vary from lager to ale yeast
and from strain to strain.
Originally I think we were discussing "dextrin malt" though,
and per GDP's post, Carapils (r) is manipulated to produce
undegradable dextrins. Though it is properly called a caramel
(crystal) malt it was not meant to do anything but add dextrins.
Other caramels are used to add color and flavors, not dextrins.
As an aside, in talking to a chemist at a "grain processor" there
is a _large_difference between "dextrin" and "malto-dextrin".
We are talking about malto-dextrin. Dextrin is used to make
wallpaper paste. I understand we are just saving a few keystrokes
when we talk about "dextrins". Dextrin and malto-dextrin are typically
produced from corn, malto-dextrin doesn't have to come from malt.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:26:38 -0400
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn@jhuapl.edu>
Subject: re: low carbonation
I sent a personal email to Gradh but thought I'd post on the HBD for others
who are having low carbonation problems,
If you do a search on the HBD I posted some recommendations on carbonating
based on what I had learned by personal experience and on the hbd. If you
are getting geysers there are two major suspects.
1) If you don't stir the priming solution in the bottling bucket you will
get uneven carbonation with many beers flat and a couple extremely
overcarbonated.
2) If you don't allow at least two weeks for fermenation you may not be
completely fermented. It also helps if you know your particular yeast and
what your final gravity should be. I almost got burned recently by a
different yeast strain which took four weeks at least. It was a slow but
steady fermentation but it took much longer than the ale yeasts I usually
use. Fortunately when I tried to bottle it too early I noticed the high FG
and put it back in the carboy for a couple more weeks.
As for carbonation, not to be confused with head...
1) I found 3/4 cup of corn sugar was a mere 3oz+ when I weighed it. It can
settle tremendously!!! Shake it sometime and watch its volume change. I
ended up with almost 1 cup by volume to reach 4oz by weight which is
supposed to be the 3/4 cup recommendation. Realizing that kit beers come
with 5 oz of sugar I started weighing the sugar and increasing the amount.
For ales my wife and I like a pretty good carbonation so I tend to use 5oz.
For a belgian ale which is higher carbonated I use maybe 6oz or a little
more. And for heavier beers like stouts, etc. I may use only 4oz or
occasionally a little less.
2) Experiment with sugar amounts and I assume when you said corn sugar you
mean dry corn sugar. Honey is also good but use about 1/2 cup by volume not
the 1 cup Papazian recommends. Talk about fizzy soda! I made that mistake
once.
So in order of importance, weigh the sugar (try 4-5oz by weight), wait for
fermentation to be complete (actually make this #1), and stir your priming
sugar so that you don't have uneven carbonation. Doesn't sound like you
need more yeast, most yeasts should be fine after 3-4 weeks of fermentation
and then expect maybe 2 weeks to carbonate for an average beer and maybe 2
months for a high alcohol beer, say 8% abv. Adjust the sugar levels to what
you like in a beer. 3/4 cup corn sugar which is supposed to be 4 oz by
weight is a good starting point but is not going to please everyone or match
every style of beer. I'm also assuming around 65-75F for the 2 weeks to
carbonate. Colder is longer, warmer is quicker.
Good Luck,
Hope that helps.
John Penn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:51:01 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Adjunct Boiling and Carbonation
Nathaniel Lansing ( delbrew@compuserve.com) ask if using malt in the
boiling of adjuncts is necessary. The answer is no, but if you want to
retain your sanity you will use malt. I use about 25% of the grain bill
as
malt. If you don't, and I have, your adjuncts ( I used rice ) will form
a
column of gooy snot ( technical term) that , if it doesn't erupt out of
your kettle, will burn on the bottom. I suppose that you could just use
an
enormous amount of water to dilute the snot, but the malt works really
well
and you may not need to cool the mash before mixing in the rest of the
grist.
Graph O' Dunadaig ( odunadaig@hotmail.com) is looking for reasons that
his
beers aren't conditioning ( carbonating) as well as he wants. I don't
know
about his particular case, but I have found the most common reason for
under carbonation is tht the beer was stored at low temperatures when it
was supposed to be conditioning. The cure is to stop this. If your beer
is undercarbonated, just shake the bottles to resuspend the yeast and
store
in a warm place.
If you don't believe that temperature was the problem, take a look at
your
sanitizing procedures. There may be a rinse problem that is harming the
yeast.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:12:00 -0700
From: Scot Thomas <scot.thomas@adpmarshall.com>
Subject: Rogue Products in NC
Michael Tucker and all,
Right under your nose there is a great little beer store in
downtown
Raleigh. It is disguised as a trashy little convience store on
Peace
street named 7-even. They carry most of the Rogue line in 22 oz
and
some (if I remember correctly) in 12 oz. Just picked up a 6er of
Mackelson (sp?) XXX stout, which even my discerning spouse seems to
appreciate. Anyone have a recipe for this? You may also try
Wellspring Grocery, for I seem to remember them having a few
Rogues.
Thanks,
Scot
scot@pagesz.net
Wake Forest,NC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:50:53 -0700
From: "DIXON,BRIAN (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" <Brian_Dixon@ex.cv.hp.com>
Subject: Re: help with carbonation
> I am having a time with carbonation and would like to ask some questions. in
> every beer that I have brewed, save one, I have had less than favorable
> results, either malt geysers or a brew that looks at you as if you were
> expecting something when you pop the cap.
[brewing techniques snipped]
>From what I can see, nothing you mentioned would have a negative impact on
carbonation. One thing you didn't mention though was a) time in the primary,
and b) time in the secondary. Until your problem is kicked, I'd limit the total
primary plus secondary time to 3 weeks or less, e.g. 1 week in primary, 2 weeks
in secondary or less. If you always DO brew within these parameters, then
something else is the problem. You mention 'malt geysers' ... unless you
grossly over prime (more than about a cup of corn sugar) you shouldn't get
gushing unless you've got an infection of some type. If so, and most of your
brews are getting the same infection, it's possible that the food the yeast
needs is getting consumed by the infection rather than the yeast and this could
be the source of your problem. Notice any unusual flavors, unexpectedly low
final gravities, or unusually long fermentations? I just brewed a Scotch ale
that started out at 1.070, tasted fine going into the bottles, but now has a
Band-Aid "plus something else" flavor in it. I suspected an infection because
it had taken over 2 weeks for the fermentation to slow down and the final
gravity was 1.013 ... an 81% attenuation! I wasn't happy to see that because I
knew what it implied. I had another beer do that once and it didn't have any
funky flavors, but some bottles gushed and others didn't. Some formed a nice
head, and others fizzled to nothing, and the final gravity had gone too low on
that one also. In my case, it means it's time to replace all my plastic stuff
(hoses, wine thief, racking cane, bottle filler, etc.) ... funny, since I was
just thinking it had been awhile too. Too bad I lost a brew in the process.
Good luck and let us know what else you think of or figure out!
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 13:19:10 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: retrogradation,
Brewsters:
Nathaniel Lansing is trying to connect George
De Piro's and Marc Sedam's comments and a
BT use (correct?) of the word "retrogradation".
As far as I know, George'sand Marc's correct
use of the term involves starches which have
been gelatinized ( i.e. hydrated above
a certain temperature) and allowed to cool.
I believe however, this was referring to this in
the grain after heating to form a specialty malt
and not in a mash.
I do not believe retrogradation is the formation
of gummy balls in the cereal mash the BT article
was supposedly referring to.
In George's case, he was referrring to the spiralization
of the amylose chains during recrystallization.
It may be that this is a more stable crystalline state
and that the regelatinization of the starch does
not take place easily at normal mash temperatures.
Thus, these spirals of starch are unable to be
attacked as the alpha amylase needs a fair
length of straight chain to be effective in its attack.
This explains the extraction loss of specialty malts.
(On the order of 4 -5 %, I believe) but says nothing
about the conditions of the grist in the mash.
Typically about 80% of barley starch is branched
chain amylopectin, which is the gummy component
of starch in contrast to the 20% of amylose which
gives the familiar intense blue color with iodine,
Amylopectin does not color this intense blue with
iodine.
Amylopectin swells in hot water to give a paste.
After alpha and beta enzymolysis in water,
amylopectin gives about 80% maltose maximum
and 20% dextrins, so sayeth DeClerk p260, v1.
I always use malt in the cereal ( i.e. the adjuncts)
"goods" mash to keep the goods from turning into
oatmeal or worse. There is a reason the big
boys do it - to keep from making pot stickers.
I do it for the same reason.
For those who have yet to try a cereal adjunct,
remember, starch must be gelatininzed before
it can be efficiently attacked by amylase and
other enzymes. Cooking ( just like you do your
oatmeal) these cereals before the mash is an
important step in preparing them since, unlike
barley starch, they often require a higher
temperature to gelatinize than is seen during
the "saccharification" step of the mash itself.
I typically add the cereal to boiling water which
begins the gelatinization, but cools the mixture.
I cook it briefly until it becomes too gummy to stir.
I then add some cool water and about a pound
of crushed malt and hold in the high 150s and
stir with some occasional heat until the mixture
is free flowing. This is then added to the mash
liquor and the remainder of the malts added.
Nathaniel also makes the interesting point
that simply heating the adjunct to gelatinization
temperature and allowing it to cool back to
mash temperatures may cause the recrystallization
of the amylose and result in a loss of extract
efficiency. Possibly a good observation, I can't
say, but it certainly adds to the reason to add
malt during the goods mash.
Now is the time to try it what with a great CAP
in your future this summer. Be sure to use
Clusters hops with that corn adjunct.
I wonder if the spiralization of the starch
in the specialty malt can be dealt with by
doing a goods mash to gelatininze it??
Would this damage any dextrins?
- ------------------------------------
Gradh O'Dunadaig asks for assistance in
carbonation. I suggest you have a look in the
HBD archives for my method of preparing
a kraeusening starter. Some object to my
addition of the priming sugar at this point,
but this was done in the early days when I
only had sucrose available and I used the
invertase of the yeast to invert the sucrose
before it was added to beer, otherwise, the
inversion would be the slow step. If you use
corn sugar you may add the cooled and
boiled syrup after starter becomes active.
The use of a small quantity of malt extract
is to provide nutrients to this growing colony.
This will guarantee consistent carbonation
as an active yeast is added at bottling.
Yeasts vary in their ability to stay active in
beer depleted of nutrients in a alcoholic
environment, and in their flocculation rates.
These factors lead to inconsistent
carbonation by priming.
- -------------------------------------
Greg Remec asks about what is going on
during lagering and why it is done cold.
As you undoubtedly know, lagering
refers to cellaring of the beer cold
in the presence of lager yeast. This
strain of S. cerevisiae is capable of
continuing its biological activity at
much lower temperatures than other
strains. Also, in some cases it is capable
of chewing up some "dextrins" (others
disagree) , but most importantly it is
capable of chewing up by-products
of the warmer fermentation while not
forming any at the lower lagering
temperature. The result? a clean
lower aldehyde, lower ester ( from
the cool fermentation conditions) beer
in which malt and hops are more
evident in their contribution to the
overall flavor. MMMM am I thirsty.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 15:39:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: A digression...
Howdy,
The subject of brewing as science and/or art has come up again, albeit
tangentially, and I have some thoughts I'd like to share with The Collective.
Art is not the opposite of science. Religion is the opposite of
science. I'm not sure what art is, perhaps its an amalgam of science,
religion, and intuition, ie educated guessing. If you're brewing based on
your experience, doing things which you feel worked for you in the past and
changing those which you think haven't, then you are brewing empirically and
you are doing science. You might be doing it shoddily, you might be able to
do it in a more directed manner, but it's science.
When this debate comes up, I think what people are really talking
about are how rigorously and reproducibly they brew and how much they
incorporate the scientific literature related to yeasts, industrial brewing,
etc into their brewing. It's the Analists against the Overly Relaxed. To
each their own. I have met brewers from both sides, and both have their share
of crappy beers and excellent beers.
The reason we have a forum like this is to exchange ideas so we can
make our beers better. Most everyone would be skeptical about adopting what I
claim works in my system to their system. And rightly so: some brewers'
systems are more prone to HSA, people have different sensing thresholds, etc.,
and more importantly none of us knows all the variables we need to control,
much less do we have control over them. I am skeptical about the conclusions
I draw from "beer experiments", especially if I did the experiment myself.
That is why I always want to brew again, to test those conclusions. I would
extend this skepticism to "scientific literature," because I have read
scientific literature that is wrong. Wrong in the sense that what is claimed
as fact is not fact for my system, wrong in the sense that what is concluded
is not the only conclusion that could be drawn from the data, and wrong in the
sense that the data is wrong (though, I trust, not fraudulent). The situation
is much worse when we come to the popular literature interpretations of the
scientific literature. Even if this literature is interpreted by a scientist,
even if that person is a mathematician (the only true science), this does not
mean that it should be automatically accepted as true or relevant to us.
I digress. Every homebrewer is a scientist, every homebrewer could
learn something new about brewing, every homebrewer could use this new
knowledge to make better beer, and every homebrewer should have healthy
skepticism about what other brewers say, including (especially?) this brewer.
Now stop reading this digest and get back to the bench.
Mike Maceyka
Baltimore MD
Already stopping, dropping, and rolling...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:15:04 -0500
From: Dennis Johnston <djshark@earthlink.net>
Subject: Lager Storage
I have a few NewBoy questions. I have been brewing only a couple of
months and I am attempting a lager (from extract). When I bottle this,
should I then store the bottles in the the refrigerator at the same
temperature it has been lagering? How long should this take to carbonate
(approx.)?
I have been reading this forum for a few weeks. Some posts are very
informative, some are way over my head, and some are hilarious. Thanks
for the help and entertainment.
Dennis Johnston
djshark@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 18:36:36 EDT
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: Universal Beer Agar Source for Homebrewers
Lesson learned:
Close enough is not good enough when sanitation is involved...............
Just brewed a batch of my house ale that will not clear and tastes astringent.
I have brewed at least 60 gals of this recipe in the past years and never had
this problem. Checked over my brew notes/procedures. RIMS system is pretty
reliable.
My first suspicion is an infection of some sort.
Used a 'new' starter procedure using Malta Goya to feed starter (twice) in
2000 ml flask. Must have gotten sloppy along the way.
I would like to plate out a sample to see what is growing.
Anyone know of a source of Universal Beer Agar in homebrewer size amounts?
Someone have a better growth media (available to homebrewers) for identifying
bad beer bugs?
Thanks in advance.
Wayne
Big Fun Brewing
Milwaukee
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 16:46:08 -0600
From: Teutonic Brewer <claassen@swcp.com>
Subject: Re:Cold conditioning (lagering)
In reply to Greg Remec, lagering is done for a variety of reasons,
primarily taste and secondarily historical. If you're lagering (German for
"storing") beer for a long time, of course cold temperatures preserve the
beer the best, and leaving yeast in the tanks keeps the beer the freshest
and discourages takeover by bacterial nasties. To keep the yeast alive
during the lagering process, you must leave a little malt sugar in the beer
for the yeast to munch on which requires, of course, that the lagering
process start before the beer is finished fermenting. If you taste the
beer at the start of the lagering process, it'll be very green and rough;
the yeast will slowly clean up the beer by reabsorbing and metabolizing the
diacetyl, acetaldehyde, and so forth. The low temperatures slow the yeast
down -- hence the need for at least several weeks for the beer to be
cleaned up. Most ale yeasts quit way above 32F-36F, but lager yeasts not
only survive but keep working, albeit slowly, in the thirties.
The very low temperatures also cause the chill haze to come out fully.
This chill haze will slowly fall the bottom of the keg, leaving crystal
clear beer in a couple months. The first couple pints from the keg may
contain most of the chill haze, but it'll be clear after that.
Historically, Pilsener Urquell(tm) underwent a three month lagering that
left it virtually chill haze proof without filtering! Getting that chill
haze out also removes the part of the tannin that is bound up in the haze,
producing a smoother product.
The lagering may also cause a little complex malt sugar, mostly
maltotriose, to be left in solution for a subtle sweetness. This is mostly
done for the Munich styles. Watch out, this can be easily overdone --
syrupy beer sucks. Of course, in a commercial setting, leaving unfermented
sugar in the beer is a bad thing because it provides food for bad critters
to spoil the beer with.
There are two ale styles that are lagered, Altbier and Koelsch. Those
yeast strains may be more tolerant of cold temperatures, or they may be
lagered at a slightly higher temperature.
Try racking the green beer into a keg when there's one to one and a half
Balling of extract left in it, then then start a slow (2-3F/day) chill down
from fermentation temperature to the low to mid thirties so as not to shock
the yeast. The yeast will carbonate the keg with the remaining extract.
The yeast that's in suspension at the racking is all the yeast you need to
do the job.
On the other hand, there's no reason why you can't let the lager beer
ferment out completely, but you'll come out with a dry bodied beer -- this
works best for lighter styles like Pils and Export. It's just that a
bottle conditioned Doppelbock will lack the necessary big malty sweetness
- -- it may have malt flavor galore, but the sweetness will be missing.
Prost!
Paul Claassen a.k.a. Teutonic Brewer
Albuquerque, Chile Republic of New Mexico
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:29:14 -0400
From: Paul Mahoney <pmmaho@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Nottinham yeast
John Penn asks about attenuation of Nottingham yeast:
Anyone else having similar lower attenuations with Nottingham?
I recently ( May 2) brewed an attempt at a Bass Ale, 7#s Pale Ale
malt, .5# Carapils, .5 # Crystal (60L), and 1oz. Choc. malt. I had an
old smack pack of Wyeast 1028, but it did not swell up, so I pitched 2
packages of Nottingham.
My hydrometer read 1.042. I rehydrated, but seemed to have a very
slow ferment. It took 2 days before it really took off. Temp. was in
mid-60'F. On May 9 I racked to secondary to dry hop; hydrometer read
1.010.
I bottled/kegged on May 22; hydro. read 1.005.
Paul Mahoney
Star City Brewers Guild
Roanoke, Va.
Fill with mingled cream and amber,
I will drain that glass again.
Such hilarious visions clamber
Through the chamber of my brain -
Quaintest thoughts - queerest fancies
Come to life and fade away;
What care I how time advances?
I am drinking ale today.
(Poe, 1848)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 20:03:40 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab@midwest.net>
Subject: A glimmer of hope...
Amidst all the acrimony of the past several days, a few bright spots
have largely eluded our collective scrutiny: first, the Siebel Institute
has shown itself to be the world-class act many of us have believed it
to be, and second, our own Jethro Gump, aka Rob Moline, has been elected
to the AHA Board of Advisors. Congradulations Rob!
I bring this up because Rob was at least in part responsible for the
presence of the Siebel staff here at the Homebrew Digest. And now he is
a member of the AHA advisory board. Most of us have spent a considerable
amount of energy denouncing this or trashing that, while a few others
have gone to considerable effort to quietly promote and maintain the
free flow of ideas to the devotees of this hobby. Being only the most
recent example, Rob can serve to illustrate my point--as a self
regulating
collective, what kind of "buzz" have we created concerning Rob's
membership on the AHA advisory board? Ask this in the context of the
amount of "press" we have given to AHA-bashing. We all agree that the
AHA messed up big-time in it's handling of the HBD. Pat Babcock and Karl
Lutzen assumed the responsability for the entire mailing list and
they've not
only made it fly, they've made it soar! But since then, people like
Brian Rezac and now Rob Moline (to name only two) have taken it upon
themselves to change the way the AHA functions. And there are others.
Isn't it incumbent upon us as a collective to give equal time to those
who are actively advancing our intrests and a little less time dashing
off one of those ...there oughtta be a law...letters?
Take a moment to think about where this wonderful place that we all hang
out at comes from. Those of us who write in to the HBD perform the easy
part, but there are a small group of dedicated individuals who make it
happen for all of us. Let's try to give them our support. To this end,
I'd like to thank the following people (and this list is by no means
exhaustive):
1. The staff of the Siebel Institute for sharing their vast knowlege
base with us. Most of us will never have the opportunity to attend
classes at Siebel, but the past week has been like a private tutorial
with its instructors.
2. Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen--without the tireless work of these two
individuals, the HBD would not exist. We rarely get a chance to say
anything about these two fine gentlemen because they never seem to screw
up--every day, the digest shows up like clockwork. EVERY DAY!
3. AJ deLange for his tremendous contributions to the HBD in general
and for tirelessly answering my questions about purchasing a pH meter
(most of which was done via private email). Not all of our resident
experts have been nearly so generous with their knowlege...
4. Rob Moline for selflessly representing our interests at the AHA, and
maybe more importantly for injecting a sober perspective with his Jethro
Gump Report. I can only hope that his report will not be a thing of the
past because it will be sadly missed; besides, that report would be the
perfect vehicle to disseminate goings on at the AHA (nudge, nudge).
In a previous post, Rob had said,
>But, supporting me is not needed...I am too bloody stupid
>to be worth it anyway.
This is not true, and everyone seems to know it except Rob. Rob has
helped me more than I can ever repay and I know I am not alone. He
embodies all that is great about this hobby and this profession. Rob's
election should be a point of pride for all of us, yet there has been
little mention or discussion of it here. If we want to change the face
of the AHA, we now have a representative who is one of us.
5. And finally, for Steve Perry. After Rob's eulogy, we should all carry
him with us in our hearts, and try to do for the living what we were
unable to do for him.
Harlan.
...No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the
Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea,
Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a
Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any man's death diminishes
me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know
for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
--John Donne (1624)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3049, 06/05/99
*************************************
-------
