Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3038
HOMEBREW Digest #3038 Mon 24 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:
Re: aluminum ("Dana H. Edgell")
Siebel: Mash degradation of dextrins from dextrin malts (Dave Humes)
Re: Wort Chiller Efficiency ("Dana H. Edgell")
Siebel (WayneM38)
Siebel-Low Alcohol Beer (William Frazier)
New Product Announcement... EASYMASHER 3, almost (Jack Schmidling)
Re: Improved my siphoning... ("Brian Dixon")
Siebel: Foam Twice Proteins? ("Dr. Pivo")
Flexible tubing? ("Frank J. Russo")
Sieble:hop freshness,flavor,aroma/bitter-sweet flavor ("Frederick L. Pauly")
post-carbonation Polyclar? (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
Re: Weyermann Munich (Paul Shick)
Re: phosphate (Matthew Comstock)
Malty Comments (Biergiek)
Water (AJ)
Re: Weyermann Munich (Matthew Arnold)
Siebel: Yeast respiration? ("Dr. Pivo")
Hop-ectomy (Matthew Arnold)
Re: Malt Flavor (Jeff Renner)
Re: Hop ID (Jeff Renner)
HOP ID ("Bob Scott")
Siebel: Final word on Aluminum? (Dan Cole)
SureScreens and Rye mashes (Jason Henning)
Using a Sanke keg to sterilize wort (Harlan Bauer)
Judging Forms (Djhbrew)
Primetab (Ted McIrvine)
Rye Beer (Ted McIrvine)
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: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:50:03 -0700
From: "Dana H. Edgell" <edgell@cari.net>
Subject: Re: aluminum
Alan McKay says,
>Anyone who says aluminum will give a mettalic taste has
>obviously never used it, and is operating on hear-say. Get
>used to it, because there is a great deal of hear-say which
>gets retransmitted in brewing circles (yes, including this
>one, though admittedly it's got a lot less than most).
Well, here is one data point which is not built on hear-say.
About a yearago I built a jockey-box using coils of aluminum tubing. When I
first used the beer was tainted with a strong metallic taste. I got rid of
the taste by running several gallons of PBW&water through the coils.
Evidently I needed to remove something from the coils (oxide?,
manufacturing residue?) or perhaps I needed to build up a protecting oxide
layer.
The fact that I got rid of the taste indicates that aluminum is not a
problem at least for the short contact times of my jockey box. However,
that fact that it existed initially might indicate that some aluminum oxide
or processing residue is the source of the metallic flavor myth.
P.S. Alan, as a Canadian, shouldn't you be spelling it aluminium? :)
Dana
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell edgell@cari.net
2939 Cowley Way #G http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale
San Diego, CA 92117 (619) 276-7644
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 17:55:07 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net>
Subject: Siebel: Mash degradation of dextrins from dextrin malts
Greetings Siebel Staff!
I have wondered how dextrin malts achieve an increase in body and
mouth feel. The idea that dextrin malts added to the mash results in
dextrins which carry over into the beer seems to be problematic. Why
would the dextrins not be degraded into simpler sugars and B-limit
dextrins by the mash enzymes? It would seem that if you want a more
dextrinous wort it is better to make an appropriate choice of mash
temperatures rather than adding dextrin malts. A few suggestions
have been offered here on the HBD, but I would be very interested in
your answer.
Thank you.
Dave Humes >>humesdg1@earthlink.net<<
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:32:55 -0700
From: "Dana H. Edgell" <edgell@cari.net>
Subject: Re: Wort Chiller Efficiency
Brett A. Spivy wrote...
>It seems what you really need is colder water running through the
>"jacket". I have just completed a counterflow chiller based on fitting
>I got from The Beerslayer and tested it. It works great for normal fall
>/ winter / most of spring tap water temperaturs, but in the hot
>Louisiana summers the water table heats up considerably. I have (after
>testing with boing water and a Testo precision thermometer) decided to
>add a three coil, 1" OD, copper "pre-cooler". hose goes from the tap
>into the sink (where the coil is laying under an opened bag of ice),
>then to the chiller jacket, through the jacket to the outlet hose which
>leads back to the sink to the drain.
I think it would be more efficient to use the ice to chill the wort rather
than the much larger volume of water. The wort leaving the counterflow
chiller could be run through a second coil immersed in cold water/ice.
Drawbacks:
-a second coil that needs to be sanitized
-with too much ice/too long of a second coil/too slow of flow the wort
could be over-chilled (not a problem for lagers). This could be eliminated
with increased pump flow.
-not as easily applicable to a immersion chiller as chilling the water.
I have been thinking of using a pump and my old immersion chiller in this
manner to decrease my counter-flow wort chilling time. However, I am
hesitant because I don't know what sort of condition the interior of my old
immersion coil is in. I would have to pump a vinegar/PBW solutions through
it (separately and for many minutes each) a few times before chancing it.
Dana
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell edgell@cari.net
2939 Cowley Way #G http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale
San Diego, CA 92117 (619) 276-7644
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 19:09:28 EDT
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: Siebel
First item to cover...
Thanks to Bill Siebel for offering staff time to answer questions.
Bill: Hope you can make it to Milwaukee for our Oktoberfest/ Beer Museum
display at Mitchell Park Domes.
Questions to the Pilot Brewery Staff:
I had the opportunity to visit and tour Siebels a few months ago.
The wall mounted pilot brewery certainly caught my attention.
The glycol wort chiller is an impressive little piece of hardware.
Makes my home made RIMS system look like a science fair project...
My questions are about the performance of your Pilot Brewery.
What is the typical efficiency of that system (with or without mashout)?
What are the times used for sparging?
How do you treat (our great) Lake Michigan water for use in that system?
There are three popular hop utilization formulas used in homebrewing (Rager,
Garetz, Tinseth). Which of these three methods are closest to your actual
final measured BU values for your system?
Without naming Vendors, can you comment on the purity/contamination of liquid
yeast cultures available to the homebrewing community?
Wayne
Big Fun Brewing
Milwaukee
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 03:24:25 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Siebel-Low Alcohol Beer
I have to reduce my alcohol consumption for health reasons but I still love
to brew and drink beer. I, and several others, have considered alcohol
removal but this seems too difficult at the homebrew level. It's either
O'Douls, with an occasional real beer, or low alcohol homebrew.
I would like Siebel's suggestion for a low alcohol (ie. 2%), full mash,
all-grain beer recipe. Ideally the beer (ale or lager) would still have
some flavor/character and body. I actually had such a beer in Germany years
ago. It was called Malz Bier and was a dark, semi-sweet, full-bodied beer
with a great head. It had little or no alcohol. On a recent trip to
Europe, unfortunately, the Malz Bier was all like O'Douls.
These beers, because of their low alcohol content, may have a problem with
shelf life. Would you recommend adding some sulfite or sorbate before
bottling or kegging?
Thanks in advance.
Bill Frazier
Johnson County, Kansas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 21:06:58 -0700
From: Jack Schmidling <arf@mc.net>
Subject: New Product Announcement... EASYMASHER 3, almost
I am working on a still larger version of the EM for the serious,
heavy duty brewer. Not sure how far I am going to take it but
the part that seems in most demand is the screen; so for now, I
am just offering the screen for the serious do-it-yourselfer.
The EM3 screen is 1/2" i.d. and ten inches long. The mesh and
wire are heavier gage and will stand up to great abuse and might
even work with RIMS but I doubt it.
Price is a killer at $20 ppd but as usual, it's guaranteed for life.
js
- --
Visit our web site: http://user.mc.net/arf
ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK: http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:22:12 PDT
From: "Brian Dixon" <briandixon@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Improved my siphoning...
>So on Wednesday night I tried an experiment. I was doing a double
batch (5 gals
>each but different recipes) so I would have to siphon twice. The
first time I
>did my normal procedure; whirlpool, let settle (10 min.) and
siphon. This
>resulted in 41 min. The second time, whirlpool and siphon (but
continue to
>whirlpool). Time to complete was 14 min. I immediate notice the
flow rate
>through the siphon was much greater than the previous batch
(actually the
>greatest that I have ever had). There appears to be no visually
noticable
>degradation in the filtering of the wort.
Your siphoning sounds veeeeerrrrry slow and indicates that something
could use a little improvement (as you suspect). For example, in my
brewing situation, everything sounds just like yours ... 10-gallon
pot to be siphoned to a fermenter with the usual swirl and settling
that takes place first. My siphoning takes around 10 minutes or so.
Anyway, what I'm leading up to is that the weave in your mesh thing
might be too tight. I can't remember where I read it, but I remember
reading that openings smaller than about 1/8" will reduce water flow
due to a layer of static (non-flowing) water that clings to the
filter material. The boundary where the water (or wort) touches the
filter material (your mesh screen) results in water (wort) clinging
to surface states on the filter material. As you get further from
the filter material, the 'clinging' force is less and the liquid can
flow more freely. So even though the mesh may look open enough, it
may not be. A lot of people use Chore Boy copper pads tie-wrapped
onto the end of the racking cane, and this filters out the hops quite
nicely while not sacrificing flow. And the hops that get stuck on
the Chore Boy tend to filter out most of the trub. My personal
preference are these little stainless steel scrubbing pads (look like
a small Chore Boy) that have about the same openness as the Chore
Boy, but seem to hold together well and are easy to snap over the end
of the racking cane. The Chore Boy was more difficult to put on.
Additionally, the little stainless ones are small enough to compress
through the neck of a carboy, so people who prefer a 3/8" blow-off
tube (rather than a 1 1/4" tube) can use them to prevent hops and
crud from plugging up the blow-off tube (and causing an explosion.)
Brian
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 11:53:57 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv@wireworks.se>
Subject: Siebel: Foam Twice Proteins?
Since the subject has been broached of yeast's effect on head formation,
I'd like to mention a few anecdotal observations, my guesses at what is
going on, and invite your comments/corrections.
1)While visiting a traditional brewery that had recently been modernised
(including cyllindro-conical technology, new malt supplier, plus a whole
host of other newly introduced variables), I was lementing the
perceptable reduction in "body", and head quality that the product had
suffered as a result. The "brewmaster" there, was an old acquaintance
and friend, so I could speak frankly. As we talked about possible causes
for "body" and "head quality", and I showed him how "the new stuff"
could not hold a wooden match at attention (whereas the older product
did this quite easily) he cited the following:
In their old production, 50 litre barrels were given a 3 percent krauzen
before shipping. One of these got "lost", at the brewery, and didn't
get "found" until 13 months later. As reported, when they cracked that
keg, the head on the resultant beer was reported to be able to hold the
weight of a coin.
2) I have taken the same brew, and after primary fermentation split
into:
1: an artificially carbonated variant that has been "cleared" through
two tanks.
2: a traditonal lagered one, that is racked direct from primary
fermenter to lagering tank.
3: a batch that is cleared in the same manner as the "artificially
carbonated" one, but then a "krauzen" added before lagering.
I listed those in that order, because I think it is also the order of
increasing yeast load, and is also for me an order of perceptably better
head formation.
I have no better method of measuring this than my "eye-ball-ometer", but
I have played with adjusting carbonation up and down, and done my
"cheapy protein test" (blast a syringe half filled with air, half with
beer into a glass of same, then stick a wooden match into the reultant
head), but what seems to be the case, is that the head quality is better
with increased yeast loads during storage.
What's going on here? Am I imagining things? I seem to have repeated
this observation enough times (artificially carbonated pours like
"beer", krauzen lagered has a head that looks like "meringue") that it
makes me wonder.
My first speculation is that the yeast have some "exoproteases", and
are working on long polymers with time.
I would truly like to hear a "real" explanation for this phenomenon, or
if I'm just making this up, at least be pointed in the direction of more
correct observations.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 07:55:10 -0400
From: "Frank J. Russo" <FJRusso@coastalnet.com>
Subject: Flexible tubing?
- --Are there any downsides to silicone tubing?
- --Is there any big advantage to norprene?
I know for a fact the silicone will get you a longer more carefree service
than the norprene. (Or did you mean neoprene?) Silicone is less susceptible
to drying out and chemical attack. But I am surprised you find it cheaper.
Normally silicone is the more expensive than other rubber. Make sure it is
FDA approved SILICONE.
Frank
Havelock, NC
FJRusso@Coastalnet.com
ORBS homebrew Club.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 08:13:55 -0400
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m@unix.mail.virginia.edu>
Subject: Sieble:hop freshness,flavor,aroma/bitter-sweet flavor
First I want to thank you for volunteering to answer our
questions. It would be great to sit down and drink some beers (my
beers) with you folks.
Is there some way to know if my hops are really fresh? I'll never
forget a fresh keg of Anchor Liberty Ale I was lucky enough to
sample. The hop aroma and flavor were fantastic and I have never
come close to that type of intense yet balanced hop character.
Which leads to my second question, how to achieve that wonderful
hop bitterness and malt sweetness that you get in a beer like
Victory Hop Devil.
For the Hop aroma I've tried dry hopping and end up with grassy
flavors and aroma. For Hop flavor I've tried as much as 8 oz of
cascade and Centenial Hops in additions at 30,15 and 0 minutes in
a ten gallon batch.
I could go on forever with questions but I better keep it short.
Thanks again.
Rick Pauly
Charlottesville, VA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 06:18:08 -0600
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter@bitterroot.net>
Subject: post-carbonation Polyclar?
Has anyone successfully used Polyclar to clear chill haze in the keg
*after* the beer has been carbonated?
Typically I let my lagers clear without finings - my current pilsner batch
is no exception. As soon as I racked it from the secondary fermenter to the
keg, I added CO2. It is now fully carbonated and has been lagering in the
keg for 2 months at 35F but still has a persistent chill haze. Will it do
any good to add Polyclar at this point?
Dan Ritter <ritter@bitterroot.net>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 08:52:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Shick <SHICK@JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Re: Weyermann Munich
Hello all,
Steve Alexander asks about Weyermann Munich malts. L.D.
Carlson was importing this and other Weyermann malts, a year or
two back, so just about any homebrew shop should be able to order
it. I used a fair bit of it then, and it was quite good. Lately,
though, I've been using Weissheimer Munich, and I like it even
better. It has a lovely "deep" malty taste that's more pronounced
than the Weyermann. Very good stuff.
Paul Shick
Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 05:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: phosphate
Alan writes:
"The three pKa's for phosphate are 12.7, 6.7, and
approximately 1.0 so it will
be nigh on impossible for any "PO4---" to form as
indicated. At neutral pH
though there will be close to a 50-50 mix of
protonated and unprotonated
oxygen for the one with the 6.8 pKa and this is the
one we will be messing
around with in our mashing systems. The oxygen with
the pKa around 1.0 will
pretty much always be negatively charged and almost
never get protonated."
My chemgeek reply:
Note that these numerical values for the triprotic
acid H3PO4 describe equilibrium conditions.
Equilibria are not static. The values listed describe
a balance between forward and reverse reactions. For
example between HPO4-- <-> PO4---. At neutral pH,
perhaps there will be minute amounts of PO4--- in
solution, but there will be some! This may or may not
be enough to approach the levels of maximum solubility
of Ca3(PO4)2. If enough PO4--- is floating around
Ca3(PO4)2 will precipitate (also, there are other
insoluble calcium phosphates that can ppt as well.
Ca3(PO4)2 is just be the eventual PO4 sink). THIS
precipitation reaction upsets the equilibria described
above. Therefore the pKa's you list are correct but
they are not static. There are many competing
equilibria that will upset the equilibria we are
discussing. In other words the pKa values accurately
describe equilibrium concentrations of PO4--- in a
solution containing JUST H3PO4 related ions. However,
with other ions present, i.e. Ca++, these are other
reactions we need to consider. Namely pKs of various
Cax(PO4)y.
To further hammer the dynamic behavior of equilibria:
"The oxygen with the pKa around 1.0 will
pretty much always be negatively charged and almost
never get protonated."
Is is always getting protonated, it is just that the
protonated species does not exist in high
concentrations at equilibrium.
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 10:04:03 EDT
From: Biergiek@aol.com
Subject: Malty Comments
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Malt Flavor
>If this flavor is confusing then you need to eat some chocolate malt balls
...
>>Wrong - you don't want to confuse the flavor aspect
I have a special talent where I can simultaneously differentiate bewteen
multiple flavors within the same bite. Call it an ambidexterous pallette...
>2) Using imported German Munich malt as the base malt, and adding
>Melanoidin malt.
>>This would be my first suggestion.
How much, what kind, mashing regimen, etc.
>it won't produce the slap in the face flavor you seek.
I don't seek a 'slap in the face' malt flavor, but the subtle flavor of malty
sweetness than can often be found in German lagers (this flavor is not nutty,
or like fresh baked bread either, and it doesn't smell like a bag of malt).
>I don't seem to have problems matching the malt profile of Spaten or
>Paulaner (on a good day), but then again I don't perceive that these taste
>like chocolate malt balls either - OK maybe a little in the Marzen's.
OK smart guy, just how do you do this?
>>First off - I'm not at all convinced that you understand the flavor "malty".
Its pretty basic, really. Ever had a malt at the ice cream shop? Its the
same type of malt flavor, and yes, I can taste this same type of flavor in
Bavarian Lagers. Our palettes must be different or one of us has had a
deprived childhood.
>Where do malty flavors come from ?
Thanks for skipping the chemical diagrams.
>so G.Fix/L.Bonhams suggestion toward no-sparge brewing may well concentrate
>these flavors.
Paul Shick has already suggested this, thanks Paul.
Another good suggestion (forgot the name, Eric "the Sailor Boy" Fouch says it
was from him) was that oxidation was robbing me of malt flavors.
Out of the several emails that I did receive I think the comments regarding
oxidation are the most likely. Any other comments would be appreciated.
Kyle
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 14:59:26 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Water
Alan had some comments on my last post on water pH.
Yes, the reaction chain I tried to show did get badly mangled. I blame
Netscape for this and have just got the new version. Rather than even
attempt it again I'll try to say in words what happens as some of the
rest of Alan's remarks indicate that clarification is required. Alan
calles "phytin" the enzyme which mediates the release of phosphate. I
think he means "phytase" as he refers to it later. Phytin seems to be a
generic name for the calcium/magnesium salts of any of several myo
inositol phosphates which are found in plant matter and which play
important roles in subcellular biochemistry (animal and plant). I
believe the only animals capable of synthesis of phytases are ruminants
(which I suppose could be taken as evidence that the only form in which
we should consume grasses is as beer).
Phytic acid, myo inositol hexakisphosphate, is of great interest for a
variety of reasons but especially because it strongly binds calcium and
other minerals resulting in malabsorbtion of these essentials in
non-ruminant animals eating grain based feeds, and the excretion of
phosphate \. Alan in particular might be interested to know that adding
phytase to chicken feed is being tried in an attempt to reduce the
amount of phosphate reachng the Chesapeake Bay. This means that you can
buy phytase if you feel that your mash pH reduction is not proceding
sufficiently on its own (this is a joke).
When malted grains in which phytase survived the kilning (and all of
which contain phytin/phytic acid) are wetted inorganic phosphate is
released into solution. I do not fully, let's be honest, even
partially, understand the mechaninsms here and that's why I levied the
question I did at Siebel. I think the reaction, at each carbon,
catalyzed by phytase, is something like
\ \
C-PO3H2 + H2O ---> C OH + H3PO4
/ H / H
Thus the result is myo-inositol (good for yeast) itself and any proton
release would be from dissociation of the phosphoric acid to monobasic
phosphate which is the predominant species at mash pH.
Alan wondered whether calcium is a cofactor for phytase. Murthy, writing
in "Subcellular Biochemistry Vol 26 myo-inositol Phosphates,
Phosphoinositides nd Signal Transduction", Biswas and Biswas Ed..
Plenum, New York, 1996, mentions that calcium does have an effect on the
action of phytase in the interconversion of trisphosphate to
diphosphates and so on and that the effect is either inhibitory of or
ehancing depending on the source of the enzyme. I can offer no more on
this subject. It is apparently a very complex one.
Anyway, when inorganinc phosphate is released in the presence of
calcium, precipitation of "calcium phosphate" takes place through
mechanisms I have discussed extensively recently. Alan listed the pK's
for phosphate and noted that the third pK for phophate is very high
(12.7 - I have 12.44) such that at neutral pH there is very, very little
PO4-- (the ratio [PO4---]/[HPO4--] is in fact 10^(pH-pK3) or 10^-5.7 if
the solution pH is 7) but pKs for apatite/calcium phosphate is much
higher than pK3 so that conversion to this form and precipitation do
occur. Persons who don't believe this, even though it is discussed in
most brewing texts, are encouraged to try the experiment I posted a few
days ago: make a phosphate buffer at about pH 7 (equimolar amounts of
dibasic and monbasic salts) and add drops of some calcium salt solution.
The pH will drop and precipittion will occur (though you may not see the
precipitate with the naked eye if the buffer is too weak - 0.1M is more
than strong enough).
When Alan says "alkaline" he means pH > 7. OK, so be it. In the brewing
industry, "alkalinity", as applied to the liquor, means the bicarbonate
buffering capacity of the liquor (we hope that there are no other
buffers present in appreciable quantity!). Same in the water treatment
industry. The point is that it doesn't really matter what the pH of the
water is (within the bounds of what the EPA says your supplier can send
you), what matters is its buffering capacity. My water has a pH of about
6.5 and an alkalinity of about 80. It's the fact that there is enough
alkali in my "acid" water to overwhelm 1.6 milliequivalents per liter of
grist acid that I have to worry about - not what the pH is. So when
planning brews, worry about alkalinity, not pH. I know it sounds funny
but if I take my water and boil it, the pH goes from 6.5 up to 8.3 but
the water becomes less alkaline (because CaCO3 precipitates - same
mechanism as with the phosphate though the pK and pKs are different).
I'm better off sparging with this boiled water because it neutralizes
less mash acid thus allowing the mash pH to stay lower longer into the
sparge.
When I advise that it may not be necessary to acidify sparge water Alan
asks, quite reasonably, whether the acids won't eventually be washed out
of the grains. Yes, they will. What you hope for is that the sugar will
be washed out first i.e. that you will be down to a couple degrees
runoff gravity and still have a pH below 6. The desire here is to
minimize tannin extraction. I personally don't worry about this because
the majority of my beers are decoction mashed and I figure I'm
extracting a lot more tanin by boiling the husks for 40 min (though,
granted, it's at a pH in the 5's) than sparging for a few minutes at
170F at pH near 6. My beers run 90 - 400 mg/L on the polyphenols
depending on the style. If polyphenols are troubling then acidfy by all
means or don't sparge at all (See Louis Bonham's BT article of last
fall).
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:36:14 GMT
From: marnold@ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Re: Weyermann Munich
On Sat, 22 May 1999 00:13:00 -0400, you wrote:
>Now my question: Who sells Weyermann Munich in sacks and ships to Ohio ?
>(preferably close by). Anyone have an opinion on this malt ?
Any homebrew store that uses Crosby and Baker can get Weyermann products. I've
used quite a bit of Weyermann Munich, Dark Munich, and Melanoidin in Alts,
Dunkels, and a Bock. I like their products quite a bit.
Some day I will replace the Weyermann Munich in a batch with Briess relatively
new two-row Munich ("Bonlander") and see how the two compare. I actually have
very little impetus to do so, though, because the Weyermann is not
substantially more expensive for me.
Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org info@rackers.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 17:37:15 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv@wireworks.se>
Subject: Siebel: Yeast respiration?
I just posted a question which mentioned a 3 percent krauzened barrel,
which reminded me of another I have long puzzled over.
As you are probably aware, adding the 3 percent krauzen at barreling
time, is an "old" technique, to guard against the development of "old
barrel" flavours. This was probably particularly important considering
the not insignificant ammount of air introduced in the old "barrel and
bung" technique.
I am going to make 2 assumptions:
1) at the best of times, beer yeast are still pretty crummy respirers.
2) under normal beer conditions they never do it.
Now I'm going to play with some numbers: The beers I've seen this "mini
krauzening" done with were typically 12 Plato. Of those 12, I'm
reckoning about 9 points are fermentables. At high krauzen, there are
typically about one third of those used up. This means your krauzen is
"about" equivalent to 6 percent Glucose w/w.
Now if you dilute that to 3 percent with a beer with "no" fermentables
left, that would give you an equivalent 0.18 percent glucose solution...
well below the number reported for the crabtree effect.
What my question is, is it not possible that using this "mini krauzen"
technique, with some sloppy barreling, one was actually inducing the
yeast to respire?
Why I think this is of more than just academic interest, is that most
beer flavour components are not direct metabolic end products of major
metabolism, but rather spill over side products. If one teases the
yeast into such a radically different metabolism (respiration), would we
not also expect another panorama of flavours?
It occurs to me, that this old barreling technique presented a fairly
characteristic "fresh", living" flavour, that set it apart.
I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments on this, as I've stewed about
this for some time, and never bumped into anyone who could answer it.
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:47:41 GMT
From: marnold@ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Hop-ectomy
I made a big mistake the other day. I was checking on my hop bines and noticed
that one of them was not wrapping itself around the twine. In an attempt to
encourage it I started to wrap it around and it snapped off at the top. I think
it was probably too cold. Am I right in assuming that this bine will not grow
any higher (it's only about 4' tall). Should I just hack it off at the base and
let another one grow up?
This really disappoints me because it was growing like crazy with our recent
bout of wet, humid weather here in Northern Wisconsin. Fortunately I was
letting three bines grow up on each of the two mounds I have so all is not
lost. As a side question, could I plant part of that bine and expect it to
grow?
Thanks,
Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org info@rackers.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 11:27:36 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Malt Flavor
"Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If that doesn't do it for you then try the malted oatmeal recipe (I think
>Jeff Renner suggested this a while back).
Nope, someone else. I would suggest using wheat malt for this so you don't
get those annoying husks.
>I suspect that the volatile nature of some of the compounds also means that
>they fade as the malt ages, certainly true for crystal. It would be very
>interesting to make some munich at home to see what happens to the flavor
>over time. Maybe some one has done this and can report.
I agree. I think that really fresh malt makes a difference. I malted my
own 6-row feed barley a few years ago and got a wonderful maltiness that
carried over into the CAP I made with it - no decoction or anything else
except for the cereal mash/boil, which I don't think contributed. I think
it was the very fresh malt. It was really wonderful - made me think that
this is the way it should always be.
Interestingly, I have tasted this same light maltiness in two other
unlikely places - a single six-pack of Coors while on vacation in
Massachusetts (friends had bought it, weeks earlier - and had kept it in
their fridge), and in some Dixie beer my sister brought back from New
Orleans a few years ago. No other time have I tasted it in either. I
tried - I bought another sixer of Coors from the same shop as the first had
come from, and I had draft Dixie last fall in N.O. If either could
reliably keep this flavor/aroma, I would worship at the altar of high rice
adjunct American beer. Well, maybe not, but it was great. Here I think
that the very delicate nature of the rest of the flavor profile allowed the
malt to come through. With Coors great quality control, you'd think this
would come through all the time if it did once. Dixie's brewing is much
more hit or miss, I think. Did these both come from exceptionally fresh
malt?
>I once spoke to a raver who insisted that
>he really loved whiskeys because it was the only was he could get the
>concentrated malt flavor he craved. Bull___, whiskeys taste is more from
>the barrel than the grain - malt flavors are left behind at the still.
I don't think I agree, although my whisk(e)y education is just starting.
There certainly is none of that aromatic maltiness in whisky, but there are
grain components. Just look to the rye whiskies that we have shared
together recently, Steve, to see how different they are from bourbons that
are made virtually the same after the mash. Even with new charred oak
barrels, the grain bill comes through. With Scotch whisky, using 100% malt
and used barrels, which have far less influence, the malt surely does make
a contribution. There are also aged Scotch *grain* (unmalted grains such
as wheat and even corn) whiskies, mostly used for blending with malts for
Scotch blended whisky, but occasionally bottled straight. I think they
must tste different from 100% malt, even ignoring peated malt. I don't
have M. Jackson's whisky guide here, but I remember he suggests Glen
Deveron as tasting of unobscured malt. No peat, no sherry barrels. He
says that a newcomer to Scotch whisky wanting to familiarize himself with
the flavor of malt could do worse than spend a week with a bottle of Glen
Deveron. I've been meaning to do this myself.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 11:57:52 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Hop ID
Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com> wrote:
>A customer gave me a rhizome that he found growing wild in area of town
>that may have grown hops commercially in the last century. It is about
>10
>feet high at this time and I am looking for ways to identify its variety.
At the MCAB conference this February, HopUnion's Ralph Olson said that
virtually every "wild hop" that they have been sent and identified proved
to be Cluster of one sort or another. Ralph seemed to be a very friendly
and approachable guy. I suggest contacting him. The web site
http://www.hopunion.com has contact information, as well as a pictoral
guide to hop cones, which, of course, you'd have to wait to use. There is
also a really big pictoral guide to hop varieties that is published by one
of the other hop companies, I think. Glenn Tinseth's Hop Page
http://realbeer.com/hops/ might be a good place to start.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 09:19:37 -0700
From: "Bob Scott" <rrscott@jps.net>
Subject: HOP ID
Dan Listermann asked about identifying an unknown variety of hops. This
site has drawings which might help:
http://www.john-i-haas.com/variety.htm
Bob Scott
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 17:16:14 -0400
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Siebel: Final word on Aluminum?
The suitability of aluminum as homebrewer equipment has been heatedly
debated in this forum and others. Can we get your school's learned opinion
on the matter, taking into account that homebreweries don't have all the
same considerations as commercial breweries (resistance to caustic
chemicals for example)?
If aluminum is suited for homebrewery use, is this under any special
circumstances (maintenance of oxide layer on the equipment) or only for
given uses (eg: OK for boil kettle, but not for mash tun)? If aluminum is
not suited, why not (taste of product, health of consumer (or yeast), etc.)?
Thanks,
Dan Cole
Roanoke, VA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 07:32:04 GMT
From: huskers@voyager.net (Jason Henning)
Subject: SureScreens and Rye mashes
Hello Friends,
** This post has been censored by Scott Abene for your protection **
I hardly ever use pellets. I had to in the HBD Pale Ale Experiment. They
clogged my SureScreen threes times. I can easily clear the screen
because I use a ss racking can instead of kettle drain. I shut the
siphon off, pull out the cane, give it a quick blast with the hose. Back
in the wort and back in business. So sometimes the unrefined is better.
I laugh at you guys with kettle valves. Ha Ha Ha
As far as mashing rye, I did a 72% rye malt beer once. It sucked, all
body and no flavor. I mashed in at 104F for an hour, then raised to
150ish for an hour and a half. Then mashed out at 167F and sparged at
167F. I didn't use rice or oat hulls or anything to aid run off. It ran
off like a champ. My advice, break down the beta glucans and keep the
run off hot.
This stuff had the most amazing texture and viscosity, even after
fermentation. I thought it was going to set up like jell-o after cooling
it. Tons of break too.
Cheers,
Jason Henning
Big Red Alchemy and Brewing
Clawson, MI - I'm going to be (0,0) Rennerian Tuesday or Wednesday night
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 12:21:43 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab@midwest.net>
Subject: Using a Sanke keg to sterilize wort
Jon Sandlin emailed me about a reference I'd made in a previous post
about using
a sanke keg as an autoclave. Here's what it is and how I do it.
The idea is simple: put 10-12 gallons of wort into a sanke keg; bring to
a boil, release air in headspace and then hold at 15-psi for
~30-minutes.
WARNING! DO THIS RIGHT--OTHERWISE IT CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS!!
You need two pieces of special equipment: first, a Micromatic
keg-washing head; second, a device to measure pressure and release
steam.
A keg-washing head is a modified tavern head with ball valves on the gas
IN and liquid OUT sides. Also, and this is important to note--the check
valves normally present in a tavern head have been removed. These things
cost $100. The shutoff valves are ~$35 a piece, and you'd need two, so
there isn't much savings in attempting to make your own. I am a serious
tinkerer, and think this item should be bought new for safety reasons.
Now, the pressure measuring device. You need a way to measure the
pressure inside the keg, and the simplest way to do this is to attach a
second shutoff valve and a pressure guage on the GAS IN side of the keg
washing head. Here's how I built mine:
1. Start with a CO2 regulator stem with RIGHT HAND threads (most have
left-hand). Slide a wing-type beer nut onto it, and, using a beer nut
washer, attach this to the GAS side of the keg washer. You will notice
that the regulator stem is difficult to center in the beer nut--this can
be fixed by soldering a shim made from a 1/4-in slice of 1/2-in copper
pipe, and sliding it onto the shaft of the regulator stem and pressing
it against the shoulder of the flange. Now, a stepped shoulder has been
created, and the shaft of the regulator stem fits snugly inside the beer
nut. BTW, that copper shim will have to be carefully filed on the inside
to get it to fit--it's ID is ever-so-slightly too small.
2. The rest is easy. The regulator stem has a 3/8-in MPT (male pipe
thread), so get a brass 3/8-in female TEE and screw it on using teflon
tape. Then screw on a short brass nipple and a 3/8-in ball valve. (see
drawing below)
3. Finally, screw on a reliable pressure guage that is DESIGNED to
handle this kind of heat and pressure. I took mine from a pressure
cooker. MAKE SURE THE GUAGE CAN WITHSTAND THESE TEMPERATURES!
Pressure Guage
____| |____
||--|-----XX------| |-----------|-----|___
||1 | 2 XX 3 4 5 6 \
|| | XX ___/
||--|-----XX------|___________|-----------|-----|
\
\This is the flange of the regulator stem
1. Location of the copper shoulder ring
2. Shaft of regulator stem
3. Brass TEE
4. Brass nipple
5. Ball valve
6. 1/4-in male flare fitting
XX Wing-type beer nut
OK, here's how it works:
1. fill keg with wort--don't overfill: leave some headspace
2. attach kegwashing head to keg. Be certain the two valves are CLOSED
3. attach pressure guage assembly to the GAS side of the keg washer
4. engage keg washer to keg.
5. OPEN the 2 valves on the GAS side of the keg washer
WARNING--Do Not open the liquid valve for ANY reason--tape it shut so
you don't forget. If you open it, you will have the geyser from
hell...The ONLY time this valve is opened is after everything has cooled
and you are drawing out some sterile wort.
6. Place keg on burner and fire it up.
7. When wort has come to a steady boil, continue to allow steam to
escape for 5-10 minutes. I'm talking about 5-10 minutes of a steady
stream of steam. The object is to purge the headspace of anything but
pure steam.
8. Shut down Ball Valve #5 in drawing above, and turn down heat slightly
and allow pressure to build. As the pressure approaches 15-psi, regulate
the heat to maintain a steady pressure of 15-psi for 30-40 minutes.
That's it. Turn off the burner and CLOSE the valve on the keg washing
head to avoid damaging the guage as a vacuum is created as the keg
cools. Allow to cool over night.
By using a sterile gas, you can tap wort whenever you want--be appraised
that CO2 will carbonate the wort...Nitrogen may be a better alternative,
but I don't have any.
Oh, yeah, sanke kegs are rated at 60-psi
Comments?
Harlan.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 18:43:59 EDT
From: Djhbrew@aol.com
Subject: Judging Forms
My club is in desperate need of the latest and greatest AHA BJCP Judging
forms. I judged at a competition and noticed the form was different then the
one the club uses. If anyone can e-mail my or tell me where I can get one.
While I'm in the asking mood does anyone have a clone for Red Hook ESB. My
brother is coming to visit and he is a big fan of it.
Darryl Hickey
Miami Area Society of Homebrewers
Brewing in the Tropics at 10 feet above sea level with bar stool correction!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 21:56:56 -0700
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Primetab
I use Primetab when I'm bottling a small quantity and don't want to
guess on volume. I would probably find it tedious to drop three tabs in
each bottle for bottling a complete batch, but for setting aside a few
six-packs of a beer that I'm kegging, it is unbeatable. I drop the tabs
in AFTER I've racked to the bottles. It seems to be a well manufactured
product as I haven't had any sanitization problems or gushing.
Cheers
Ted
Bobpreed@aol.com asked about Primetab:
> I've been thinking about using the Primetab corn sugar tablets for bottle
> conditioning, has anyone had any experience with Primetab, either good or bad?
>
> Thanks.
- --
McIrvine@Ix.Netcom.Com
College of Staten Island/CUNY
http://www.csi.cuny.edu/academia/programs/mus.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 22:19:21 -0700
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Rye Beer
Greg Remec <gremec@gsbalum.uchicago.edu> asked about Rye Beer in HBD
#3034. My personal favorite is Thurn und Taxis Roggenbier, which tastes
like a lager. If I were making a homebrewed equivalent, I'd use 3.5 lbs
of Munich malt, 3.5 lbs Pils Malt, and 1 Lb Chocolate Rye Malt
(Weyermann makes a tasty chocolate rye malt) and I'd hop it with 3 oz of
noble hops around 4 AA and ferment with lager yeast.
A few months ago I made an ale rye beer that had a rich coffee taste to
balance the astringency of the rye, using 1 lb of Rye Malt, 1 lb of
Chocolate Rye Malt, and 5 lbs of Pils (hopped with Stickelbracht and
East Kent Goldings, fermented with London Yeast.) It wasn't a real
German rye beer, but my GOBSI brewing friends liked it quite a bit.
Cheers
Ted
- --
McIrvine@Ix.Netcom.Com
College of Staten Island/CUNY
http://www.csi.cuny.edu/academia/programs/mus.html
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3038, 05/24/99
*************************************
-------
