HOMEBREW Digest #2305 Thursday, January 9 1997

Digest #2304 Digest #2306
		(formerly Volume 02 : Number 025)


To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

  New product announcements
  Re: big heads; widmer
  Need address of inventive Aussie
  hops in wort
  Sparge Temperature - Why not lower?
  RIMS flow rate inquiry/high temperature tubing
  starter from dregs of boiling
  Flannel shirt as insulation
  Paranoid Brewer...
  158F and enzyme activity/husks and brewing/agar
  Immersion Chiller (Dave Hinkle)
  Big Head/Decoctions/Crystal
  twistoff caps
  mixed yeast culturing
  tannins from decoction
  Good Tannins/Bad Tannins (S.Alexander)
  Single Decoction Mash (S. Garrett)
  Welding Things
  Dry hopping experiement

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 12:40:22 -0500 From: DB <bq240 at apk.net> Subject: New product announcements How does one announce a new homebrew product ? Is posting a message here appropriate ? I certainly do not want to do so if it is not. I don't think it is appropriate to post ads on rec.crafts.brewing, so was wondering how to get the word out. Any advice apprciated. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:22:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Frane <jfrane at teleport.com> Subject: Re: big heads; widmer >From: smurman at best.com >Subject: Big Head Beer >> >I'm a fan of Belgian and wheat beers, and one characteristic these >brews share is a big head. I've been unable to replicate the >extreme carbonation that these types of bottle-conditioned brews >achieve, even by adding somewhat excessive amount of corn sugar >for priming (within safety limits). I'm wondering if anyone has >any secrets for getting that "I'm so happy to see you" foamy head. Two different approaches, two different beers. I've had excellent results in strong Belgian ales/abbey-syle beers by simply upping the quantity of priming sugar -- in conjunction with a goodly portion of sucrose in the kettle. I believe there is a direct connection between the use of sucrose and the "mousse" head in the Belgian beers. Note, as a cross-reference, the mousse head on a glass of Cooper's Ale, which also uses sucrose in the kettle. As for wheat beers, once again, raise the priming (whether sugar or wort) and make sure you have plenty of wheat in the grist. The big head takes care of itself. >From: eric fouch >Subject: Decoction Tannins/Widmer Starter >> >I have a nice starter going of yeast obtained from a sixer of Widmer Bros >Hefeweizen. They claim it's a secret yeast strian given them by a German >brewer. Supposedly, it stays pretty much in suspension. >Anybody know what it is? I plan on using it this weekend to make my own >version of fruited hefeweizen. > > Widmer uses a top-fermenting "altbier" strain they got from the Zum Uerige brewery in Dusseldorf (which is one of the very, very best alt breweries); it is not a weizen strain, per se, although that's what they use it for. You'll get the best results if you include a period of cold-conditioning after primary fermentation -- it will clear the yeast remarkably well, but if you leave it out, the stuff takes forever to clear. - --Jeff Frane Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:23:01 -0700 From: Ken Sullivan <kj at nts.gssc.com> Subject: Need address of inventive Aussie Hi all, I'm in need of the address of the inventive Aussie that came up with the idea of the RIMS unit using a hobby motor and a small propeller to recirculate the wort during the mash. I have some nifty ideas to discuss. I've been working on my own and have it mostly built. I've made quite a few changes, (not knowing the details of the original design), thus feel this is a similiar but different design. Could the poster (Aussie) put me in touch with the originator? or Someone who archives the HBD search for the word 'hobby' or 'propeller' and forward the poster's email address?? Thanks, abunch! KJ SUllivan Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:26:43 -0800 From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com> Subject: hops in wort On getting clear wort- Is there any non-anecdotal information that says that leaving trub in the wort affects flavor adversely? My beers always settle and are clear after fermentation so I curious if we need to care. For my first several batchs (and occasionally to this day) i would cool the wort to temp, usually in the bath tub, and then pour the whole thing, hops and all into the fermentor. pitch yeast, and bottle in two weeks. Worked like a charm, beer tasted great, nice mellow hop taste, very drinkable. I now rack the beer off the trub to a secondary, but i have been doing it like i said for over a year with no complaints. I am going to be trying all grain with an ezmasher soon, and we will see if its enough different after a few batches. just my $.02 worth Brander Roullett badger at nwlink.com www.nwlink.com/~badger/ Filled with mingled cream and amber I will drain that glass again. Such hilarious visions clamber Through the chambers of my brain --- Quaintest thoughts --- queerest fancies Come to life and fade away; Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. - Edgar Allan Poe Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:01:03 -0600 From: galley at ns.Sperry-Sun.COM Subject: Sparge Temperature - Why not lower? =20 A series of niggling problems, poor planning, and interruptions=20 resulted in my wasting enough time prior to sparging that my sparg= e=20 water temperature dropped to the high 150's. I raised it to the l= ow=20 160's by adding boiling water, but I ran out of preboiled brewing=20 water, and headroom. Since I use gravity feed, I didn't want to s= crew=20 around lowering 10.5 gallons of hot water and heating it back up, = so I=20 didn't worry and sparged away. I had already mashed out to 168=F8F= =2E =20 Over the course of a 2 hour sparge (22# grain bill in 10 gallon Go= tt),=20 the temperature of the sparge water dropped from about 162=F8 to a= bout=20 156=F8. Granted, I need to better insulate my reservoir. =20 =20 Extraction was a whopping 80% efficient compared to my expected 75= % or=20 so. I guess this was the result of continuing enzyme activity dur= ing=20 the sparge, although I ended up mashing for 2.5 hours, which was a= n=20 hour longer than planned. The wort tasted great and fermented out= =20 quickly in primary. The beer is drier than I hoped when transferr= ed=20 to secondary (1.010 SG), but still tastes great. It shouldn't hav= e=20 been more fermentable, though, since the temperature during sparge= was=20 higher than my 153=F8F mash temperature. =20 =20 So the question is: Why not sparge at these lower temperatures? =20 Seems less attention to ph would be necessary to prevent tannin=20 extraction. What difference does it make if the enzymes keep work= ing=20 a bit? Why was the wort apparently more fermentable than planned? =20 Thanks, =20 Tom Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 10:31:55 -0600 From: Daryl K Kalenchuk <dkk886 at mail.usask.ca> Subject: RIMS flow rate inquiry/high temperature tubing Could some RIMS users let me know what they expect their maximum flow rate is during the mash as I'm trying to size a pump that I'm _making_. I understand there are many factors that effect this so please speak from personal experience if necessary. I want to size the pump so that it is no larger than necessary. - --------- Lost the post where it was asked about high temp tubing but I've been looking a bit for myself lately and found some silicon tubing 1/4 id 3/8 od for $33.00/25ft. It is rated to 460 F and can be autoclaved to 'sterilize', they've got lots of other sizes and materials to chose from. You can check it out at http://www.coleparmer.com/ (NAFBBB). I plan on ordering some beginning of next week if someone is interested please let me know, it won't necessarily be the size mentioned. Daryl, Saskatoon, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:04:56 -0800 From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com> Subject: starter from dregs of boiling Subject: re:Clarity of Wort The wort mess you leave behind can be left to sit overnight in a cool place, like the patio. The next morning decant the wort into a 1 quart jar and put it in the refridgerator. Next time you brew, you've already got 32 oz of starter wort in the jar. Just reboil for a few minutes, pitch. No need to waste the left over wort. but what about the hops that are in the gunk left behind, aren't you hopping the wort this way? or is the flavor neglible? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:09:07 -0500 From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at ford.com> Subject: Flannel shirt as insulation Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... In HBD V2#022, Cliff Rones speaks of insulating his fermenter using a flannel shirt... Not a good idea, Cliffy! Most flannel shirts are plaid... ;-) See ya! Pat Babcock Canton, MI pbabcock at oeonline.com http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html Return to table of contents
Date: 9 Jan 97 15:37:40 EDT From: Bob Bessette/PicTel <Bob_Bessette at smtpnotes.pictel.com> Subject: Paranoid Brewer... Fellow Brewers, I am the formerly depressed brewer that told you of my saga of infections. For those of you who missed it, I have had approximately 7 out of my last 10 brews be somewhat infected. Not to the degree that they weren't undrinkable but pretty bad none the less. Anyway, I pretty much revamped my sanitation procedures and have brewed another batch. I went out and bought and am using iodophor, bought new hoses and a new spigot for my bottling bucket. I also have not introduced any unboiled well water into the beer after chillling. I am going to bottle this weekend and I am fairly confident that I have a winner here. I am still a little paranoid because I still have not bought a new bottling bucket. I have inspected this thing over and over and see no scratches. I plan on letting it sit overnight in iodophor and will use this same iodophor on bottling day as a bottle rinse. Is there any possiblity that there may be a scratch in the bottling bucket harboring bacteria that the iodohpr would not kill with an overnight soak? I would appreciate private email to bbessett at pictel.com. Cheers, Bob Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 15:11:55 -0600 From: "C. Robert Spangle" <rspangle at wf.net> Subject: Apology Fellow HBer's: Sorry if I advertised on the list. I was only trying to help other HBers with their water! I will be sending info to everyone who sent me requests! Rob Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:21:50 -0600 (CST) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: 158F and enzyme activity/husks and brewing/agar Charley writes: >in HBD 2-21, someone wrote: > >> Enzyme activity should not be a problem as long as you raise the temperature >> above 158F... <snip> > >I regularly mash at 158 and get plenty of sugar, enzymes will not stop at >that temperature. I've even gone as high as 165F, and still got some >conversion. When I want enzymes to stop, I go to 170F. > >PS - The 158F mash gives some wonderfully malty flavors on less alcohol due >to the dextrins created. Actually, this was a quote of a personal email from me. Part of the discussion was not posted, part was, so it's odd when you read it out-of- context. What I was referring to was JS's (no, a different one) concern that letting wort sit around between the laeuter and boil was not going to change the fermentability that much. If you mashed at the cool end then you presumably wanted lower dextrin levels and higher fermentability. Continued enzyme activity would not be problem here because it's what you *wanted* in the first place. If you mashed at the warm end, you presumably wanted higher dextrin levels and lower fermentability. Since all the beta amylase would be denatured (certainly by the end of the mash) having the wort sit around for a while would only have alpha amylase active and that would be making primarily dextrins, so again you don't care. An alternate method of controlling fermentability/dextrin balance is by mashing cool for time x and then mashing warm for time y. You change the balance by the amount of time at x and y (more time at x, means more fermentable, less dextrinous). But (and this is where my quote comes in), as long as you do go up to 158F or so sometime in the middle of the mash, the beta amylase will be denatured quickly and no amount of time at 158F (or even if the temperature drops back down to 148F) will change the fermentability ratio (assuming there was enough time for all the starch to be converted either to dextrins or fermentable sugars). This shows the dangers of posting pieces of private emails... you can get people confused when they miss part of the discussion. *** Bill writes: >A continuing thread over the past couple of years and something that you >are warned about in all grain brewing is the husk portion of the malt. >The husks have been blamed as being the major source of tannins in beer, >yet when beer is brewed with the husks being sieved off, the tannin is >about 91% of the tannin found in beer that is brewed with husks. Where >is all this tannin coming from? At least some of it is coming from the >hops. 33% according to Moll in Brewing Science (Vol. 3, I believe, "Collodal Stability in Beer" is the name of the chapter). >Husk material is rich in silica and you may want to limit the amount of >silica in you beer. Silica or silicates? I'd like to learn more about this, incidentally, so post sources, please! Moll also talks about anthocyanogens and the levels of them are listed in dozens of tables in the aforementioned chapter of Brewing Science, but in either Practial Brewing or Malting and Brewing Science, they say something like "the correlation of haze and anthocyanogens is unclear" (no pun intended ;^). I don't recall a clear correlation from reading Moll either and I don't believe that he comes out and specifically says anthocyanogens are related to colloidal haze potential. Comments? Where's Charlie Scandrett when you need him?!?! >Low extraction rates for all grain brewing is taken as the norm. The >answer is to add more malt to the mash tun to get the gravity. When you >add more malt to the grist to achieve the same result you are also adding >more husk material. More husk material equals more off flavors and beer >that is not in balance. This is counter to what Fix has found in his research and I trust his (and Laurie's) palate. >Lets take an extreme example. If you brew a beer with an original >gravity of 1.050 and you use 10 pounds of grain to brew that beer, then >you will have 36% more husk material then another brewer who can brew the >same beer with 7.35 pounds of malt. I feel that this is a good reason to >get your brewing efficiencies up to make better beer. This again goes against the whole parti-gyle system (in which you take the first runnings for one beer (the "best" beer) and then use the second and third runnings for some "lesser" beers. >The difference between brewing truly great beer and just drinkable beer >isn't that much. Balance of all the ingredients is essential. The >balance of the different malt fractions to each other. The balance of >the hops both in flavor and bitterness to the malt. The balance of the >yeast characters to both the malt and hops. Didn't someone once say something like: the difference between theory and practice is, in practice, much bigger than it is in theory? A lot of intuitively wrong things make some practically wonderful beer. Intuition tells us that break does not affect wort gravity readings, but I'm willing to bet any money that it does, because I've seen it work in practice. *** Michael writes: >Does anyone know a realitively inexpensive place to get Agar? Yes. Chineese grocery stores. Ask for "agar agar." Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: 09 Jan 1997 15:06:32 -0700 From: Dave Hinkle <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com> Subject: Immersion Chiller (Dave Hinkle) A few days ago, I posted my experience with a flat, or planar immersion chiller design. A few people have stepped forward to claim credit for the idea, but I thought I'd pass along this tidbit from HBD days past: >>Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1993 08:07:22 -0400 From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca> Subject: Re: Another immersion chiller Steven Smith mentioned his 'hang from the edge of the pot' chiller, which sounds pretty cool. I would like to toot my horn once more and promote the joys of the planispiral chiller. It's a flat coil (like an electric stove burner) of 25' of 1/4" OD copper tubing, the last (outer) coil descends to the bottom of the pot as a support, and the in/out tubes hang over the side also for support. The disc/coil is suspended an inch or two below the surface. The cooled wort drops to the bottom, warm wort rises up the sides. I've never had to stir my wort to get it to chill properly, the convection currents are sufficient. << Thanks for the idea, Ed, where ever you and the Pick & Fossil Picobrewery are! Gee, it only took me 3 years for the idea to sink in. Someone mentioned that they thought they read about the flat chiller design a few years ago in BT, but I don't have issues back that far. The last known address I can find for Ed is ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca, but that was from 8/95. Ed, you there? Dave Hinkle Phoenix, AZ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:22:32 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Big Head/Decoctions/Crystal Scott Murman asks about big headed wheat beers ... One secret of big head is raw wheat (not malted). Pierre Celis uses red winter wheat which I believe has more protien than average. Decoction schedule - I mash in at 1qt/# and pull decoctions with a kitchen sieve, add some additional water since I'll need to thin the mash anyway. I find it uneccesay to use complicated temp steps for the decoction. I slowly heat the decoction to ~175F over 15minutes or so, then turn up the heat to get the decoction boiling. Sinngle decoctions seem to me to give results that are close to or the same as double decoction. Triple decoctions are pointless IMO. George dePiro questions the practise of adding crystal late in the mash. A while back AlK posted stating that for Breiss dextrin malt specifically has glucose polymers that don't degrade in the mash. I suspect that he truth for normal crystal is that some enzymatic degradation takes place, but less than complete. I understand the logic of adding crystal late, tho' I've never done this, and like George I question this technique. I've never seen the late addition of crystal mentioned in the literature - does anyone have a reference ? Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 15:55:07 -0700 From: Vince <VJMitchell at asu.edu> Subject: Conversion...... I am looking for conversion factors for extract to all-grain and vis versa. I figure that one of you Brewing gurus should have this info memorized. Thanks! Vince Mitchell VJMitchell at asu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:33:03 -0800 From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com> Subject: twistoff caps >The crown caps that I bought actually had twistoff written on the side. I've never used caps labeled "twist-off" nor can I remember running into them at homebrewing competitions, so I can't help there. My first kit came with a huge bag of "old english 800" caps that had the immortal words "Twist Off" on them. These caps caused no end of amusing and sometimes painful situations when people tried to twist them off. i normally was able to tell people before they tried, but sometimes when i would bring a case or two to a party, i wasn't able to get them all. <G> some rather drunk (and not to mention stupid) people tore up there hands trying open them. I started calling them my drunk test. :) anyway, just a word of warning about twist off caps. get the blank ones, that way you can mark batch numbers, with having to label them all. Brander Roullett badger at nwlink.com www.nwlink.com/~badger/ Filled with mingled cream and amber I will drain that glass again. Such hilarious visions clamber Through the chambers of my brain --- Quaintest thoughts --- queerest fancies Come to life and fade away; Who cares how time advances? I am drinking ale today. - Edgar Allan Poe Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:20:34 -0800 From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com> Subject: mixed yeast culturing In this most recent run i made a super streangth wort, and split it into two carboys, and added water to 5 gallons. in one i pitched Edme Ale (no starter, just rehydrated), and in the other i pitched WYeast #1056 american Ale. (pre whacked) the Edme took off like a shot, and the Wyeast did nothing, after 24 hours i had some little white spots on the surface of my beer. I panicked, and tossed in a packet of Edme, (no rehydration, just tear and pour) and the fermentation took off (albiet a little slower, and less furious than the other) for new years i bottles the other one, and racked the mixed yeast one to a secondary. My question is about culturing the yeast off the bottom of the secondary with the mixed yeasts. 1) Is this a good idea? (in other words will this produce some new varient strain, or yeast mixture, or just be dangerous?) 2) Are there any commerical yeasts that are mixtures like this? 3) Why would the #1056 not take off like that? Brander Roullett badger at nwlink.com www.nwlink.com/~badger/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:41 -0600 From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com> Subject: tannins from decoction collective homebrew conscience: eric fouch wrote: ><snip> what do you suppose happens to all those >nasty tannins that get extracted during a decoction? Surely there must be >some?"<snip> Anybody else got any information on what tannins are extracted >during a decoction, and if any, what happens to them? Do they get reabsorbed >by other grain husks? If tannins mask the taste of melanoidins which are >supposedly extracted preferentially in the first runnings, it seems you would >be defeating the purpose of no-sparge brewing if you also used decoction. >Anyone?....anyone?.... let me volunteer a little information i got from none other than ajd a while back: >Boiling grains during decoction certainly does extract phenolics (tannins). >Some of these form complexes with protein and precipitate during the >decoction boil and are filtered out during the lauter. Some of the >remainder is precipitated in the kettle and left with the hot trub. The >rest precipitates (by complexing with protein) more gradually during >lagering. This is one of the reasons that lager beers are stored for so >long (3 months traditionally) at cold temperature. Miller discusses this in >his "Continental Pilsner" (p50) and Noonan in "Brewing Lager Beer" pp 129 >&163. there you have it. i would also add that i have no absolute proof, but i would be willing to bet that some of the world's maltiest beers are brewed using the decoction method, and there's probably some sparge water involved. does anyone kmow where i can get a cylindrical type of glass container, like a large hydrometer sample flask, that could hold around a gallon of liquid? also, does anyone have experience with a product mfgd by fermentap that's supposed to go on the end of a racking cane and help you siphon wort out of your kettle at the end of the boil, and hold back the trub? >Dave writes: >> Is there any non-anecdotal information that says that leaving trub >>in the wort affects flavor adversely? My beers always settle and are clear >>after fermentation so I curious if we need to care. this is not really the exact same topic, but it's related: i recently had a couple of batches of english bitter that were bottled before they had clarified well. the first batch, i forgot to use irish moss in, and didn't get a lot of break material in the kettle, at least, not as much as i am used to. so, after i bottled the cloudy brew, i checked about a week later to see if it was clearing in the bottle. to my dismay, i witnessed at least 3/4 of an inch of trub and yeast in the bottom of the bottles. the beer tasted fine for about 2 weeks after it had carbonated. it then almost immediately plunged to pretty bad, stale tasting beer. it's fairly bad now, but drinkable. it's a character builder. a motivator. the second batch scored a 39.3 average in the recent st louis brews happy holiday homebrew competition and just missed a ribbon. it was 2 weeks in the bottle at the competition. it also has some trub in the bottles (not as much as the first one), and it also has degraded rapidly since the first week of december, when it was judged. i believe the poor stability of these beers is due largely to the trub in the bottle. i just wanted to contribute this to encourage the rest of you to watch out for this. don't get in a hurry. let your beer clear sufficently before packaging if there's trub in the wort. i have seen some articles that claim that hot break is more detrimental than cold break, and some breweries make minimal effort to remove cold break. the articles were referring to flavors produced during fermentation. brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:52 -0600 From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com> Subject: clarification collective homebrew conscience: i misled you. dave burley wrote: >Mark Bayer asks: >1)> so my question is basically this: why can't i get wort as clear as the >>wort i racked straight out of the kettle by using the oversize fermentor and >>letting the wort sit for 6 to 10 hours? >There are two breaks - the hot and cold break. Presumably letting the wort sit >around for hours allowed both breaks to settle out giving you an ultimately >clearer wort in the fermenter. my original post above was supposed to convey that the wort i drew from the kettle after an hour of settling was clearer than my usual method of putting the wort through a strainer and letting it settle for 6 - 10 hours. that's what happened. my hypothesis was that putting the wort+trub through the strainer does something to the trub so as to not allow it to settle again as completely as it does in the kettle when left undisturbed after chilling. that's really not much clearer (pun), is it? brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:01:15 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Good Tannins/Bad Tannins (S.Alexander) Eric.Fouch and Bill Giffin ask about tannins, decoction and more .... I've been studying phenols, polyphenols and tannins lately (and from private email I understand that Charlie Scandrett has been too). Having read a great deal on the topic I must say that there is no entirely satisfying explanation of the lack of harsh phenolics in decoction brewed beers. It appears that every aspect of phenols in beers is contradictory - they taste good, they taste bad, they cause haze, they eliminate haze, high temps leach them from grist yet they are not a problem in decoction brewing. What could be more interesting ? Why decoction beers aren't horribly tannic .... One line of argument is that the polyphenols combine with protein (both soluable and immobile) in the decoction boil and you essentially get a hot break on this boil that makes the worst of the phenols inaccessible. If this is true, then a proteolysis rest and a 15+ minute decoction boil would be a good idea. Another line of argument is that decoction worts are known to contain a greater amount of oxidizable phenols and a lower fraction of oxidized phenols than infusion worts. This is an advantage for decoction since oxidizED phenols readily polymerise into nasty tasting compounds. OxidizABLE phenols are sensed as fresh tasting. The question comes up periodically about heating wort or decoctions in a microwave - several articles I've seen suggest that polymerization of phenols and denaturing of proteins are both likely in a microwave. This sounds bad. It would be interesting to see if this is true for worts. Tannins and husks .... Bill Giffin suggested that 15% of the husk mass (presumeable full of phenols) is released in the mash. Bill's later posts corrects the impression somewhat by noting that beer made w/o husks has 91% of the phenols as normal beer, but I think this too leaves a misimpression. There are three different things which are commonly referred to as "HUSK". First there is the true husk - the pallea and lemma. The true husk contains most of the cellulose in the grain. In fact the true husk is mostly cellulose with some protein, phenols, silicates and gums embedded in it. Next is the husk as produced by manual selection or decortication - since the true husk is fused to the tissue layer immediately beneath the husk (the pericarp) this is included. Most practical research in the husks include at least the pericarp since it is so difficult to separate. Husk and pericarp are around 10% of the mass of 2-row barley. The third definition of husk is really the 'husk fraction'. The husk fraction is everything that remains on a screen just small enough to hold most of the husk, but allow most of the grist to drop through. The husk fraction includes the true husk and pericarp, lodicules, testa, some nucellar tissue, alurone layer and fragments of the embryo, acrospire and endosperm. Only a modest portion of the "husk fraction", is true husk. The true husk probably contains only a small amount of soluabilizible phenols - but perhaps some of the worst tasting ones. Undoubtedly the majority of phenols from the husk fraction come from the pericarp and alurone layers. The experiment that Bill Giffin refers to, involving brewing with and without husks, is I believe the one from a table in M&BS and comes from an article in JIB from the 1960s. This experiment brewed with and without the "HUSK FRACTION". The no-husk-fraction beer ends up with about 90% of the total phenols as the husk-beer, but if you factor out the contribution from hops and phenol loss in production you'll find that the husk fraction contributes in the neighborhood of one third of the total phenols in the unhopped wort. In other words grist without husk fraction still contains two thirds or so of the soluabile phenols. The no-husk-beer contains only a very small portion of the total silicates as the husk-beer, and silicates cause harsh flavors too. So I agree with Bill that the husk fraction is not the sole contributor - BUT the 15% of so of the grist called the 'husk fraction' does contribute say 25% to 40% of the phenols. A major contribution. Furthermore I suspect that the important question is not "how much phenol", but which phenol compounds. Elsewhere in M&B Science there is a notation that experimental beers made with the HUSK FRACTION removed taste dull and insipid. Experimental beers made with an addition of husk fraction tasted harsh and astringent. Pretty clearly there are good and bad tasting components or precursors in the husk fraction. Phenols, whats happen here ? ...... Two well studies classes of polyphenols are anthocyanid and catechins. There are good reasons to think that these two should contribute to beer flavor and perhaps color but a variant strain of barley (Ant-13 var Foma) has only trace amounts and these and their precursors and yet this barley produces perfectly normal tasting beer with very little tendency to form haze. There are some methylated phenols (perhaps more properly called benzene compounds) which are likely to form bad flavors in the woody lignin portions of plants. There is some small amount of lignin in barley grain and a lot in the stem. Hops stems also contain lignin and are likely to be part of your hops load. Barley lignin may be the source of the oversparge=astringency problem - just a suspicion. Chlorine and phenols of course can easily form chlorinated phenols - which are totally nasty tasting. Yeast and infectious organisms can produce many phenols also. In fact the clovey 4VG in weizen beers is a phenol. Obviously this is very yeast strain dependent. How can phenols be reduced ? A maltster can perform an alkaline soak of barley before malting. This tends to leach phenols from the true husk. Similarly grain can be treated with formaldehyde which is presumed to act by linking some phenols to other grain constituents. Unfortunately formaldehyde also tastes nasty and is poisonous. Not practical for HBers. A while back Charlie Sandrett suggested separating the husk fraction and mashing with the husks in a grain bag, but removing the husks before mashout. There is still the problem of getting a good filterbed sparge going without the husks .... We all know the sparge pH vs phenol problem. Keep the sparge below pH 6.0 IMO. The phenol composition of wort declines the longer you boil. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but a 2 hour boil will reduce phenols significantly more than a 1 hour boil. Of course if you don't get a clean sparge you may have husk remnants in your boiler and be introducing phenols. Here is an interesting method - pale malt contains some small amount of peroxidase enzymes that should reduce phenols. They require hydrogen peroxide for the hydrolisation. Add hydrogen peroxide to your mash and perform a "phenol rest" !!! I don't have a good figure for the rest temperature but I suspect it's down around 35C. What if there isn't enough peroxidase present - horseradish is quite high in peroxidase and you just might make something that will stand up against those chili-pepper beers. Several plant materials, like potatoes and some gel compounds will absorb phenols - but the effect is weak. Add activated carbon(AC) to the mash tun and/or boiler to collect polyphenols. OK, I've actually tried this one for the past several brews because it is supposed to reduce haze. It does have an effect but I'm still experimenting with this. AC is available cheaply in aquarium supply places (if it's good enough for guppies ...). AC in the boiler should act to absorb hops phenols too. There's a lot more, but enough for today, Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 18:04:33 -0700 From: Vince <VJMitchell at asu.edu> Subject: Mackeson Does anyone have recipe for a stout that comes close to Mackeson XXX stout? It would be greatly appriciated! Vince Mitchell VJMitchell at asu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 19:54:02, -0500 From: STEVE GARRETT <sdginc at prodigy.com> Subject: Single Decoction Mash (S. Garrett) Many thanks to all who replied to my post asking for suggestions on my single decoction mashes of a Bock and a Czech Pils. I actually brewed Tuesday the 7th, a couple of days earlier than I expected. So some of the replies arrived after the fact. I wrote a review of the replies and my rationale for what I did. As it is rather lengthy, rather than eating up the limited HBD bandwidth, I have posted the article to the rec.crafts.brewing (RCB) newsgroup. For those interested that don't have access to newsgroups, send me an email and I will send you the article. It may take me a while to get it to you as I will be out of town until the middle of next week. Thanks again! Steve Garrett sdginc at prodigy.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 20:34:35 -0800 From: "Kelly C. Heflin" <kheflin at monmouth.com> Subject: Welding Things Someone just wrote about stainless steel rusting after welding. As a welder and having just welded 3 stainless pots for myself, let me give my opinion. Even when stailess is welded without the addition of any rod, (a nipples can be fused to the pot without any rod)The stainless will discolor and appear to be rusting. This happened to me. Take a wire brush or some steel wool and scrub the area around the nipple. Relax and make brew. Even if the guy did add some non stainless rod, your pot wont fall apart anytime soon. Its gonna get wet when you use it but then you will dry it anyway. Just dont let any rust chips fall in the brew. later kelly - -- Kelly C. Heflin Kheflin at monmouth.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 18:34:49 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu> Subject: Dry hopping experiement Don Van Valkenburg <DONVANV at msn.com> posted an interesting experiment where identical bottles were dry hopped with different hops: > How does one do a side by side taste comparison > of hops without actually brewing a different batch > for each hop? ---- DRY HOPPING! ---- True, dry > hopping is not the same as late kettle additions, nor > is there the benefit boiling each hop. However, > dry hopping does afford one the ability to add in > hops to a finished beer. Our club wrestled with this same issue. We started out with a pilot experiment where we brewed 6 or 7 batches. Like Don's they were plain pale ale types bittered with isoalpha extract (all hop products were donated by HopTech). We varied the late addition: 30', 20', 10', dry hop, none, and a 30' steep after the boil. All of these were with one hop type (Willamette if I recall). The idea of this 6 batch run was both to do a pilot run for the big brewing with all the hop varieties (we did 17) (added at the same time) and to examine the qualitative differences in the various timings. I'm sure none of the HBD readership will be surprised to read that we found huge differences in the quality of the hop flavor and aroma. This lead us to the idea that while both were interesting, dry hop and late hop (10-20') were very different experiments. As Don concluded, the dry hop is easier, therefore we elected to do the late hop as a club, figuring that one could do the dry hop experiment alone. Our results were disappointing. First it turned out to be very difficult to get the club to brew 17 consistant batches on equipment most were unfamiliar with. A few batches had contamination problems and several had off flavors of other types (DMS, HSA, etc.) making comparisons difficult. During the tasting we also realized that the base beer wasn't really appropriate for tasting all the hop types. The noble hops as a rule just didn't do well with the ale background. I would suspect that Don's experiment suffered in this way, and maybe even moreso since the noble hops aren't "designed" for dry hopping. I think these kinds of experiments are great, but they are really difficult to design and to execute. Three ideas for the hop experiment are: 1) Do what Don did but use hop teas instead of dry hopping. This way 2 or 3 dedicated people could do it all, 2) get a friendly local brewpub to donate some wort for big experiments, 3) think about 2 or 3 different recipes for different hop types. My web page has an article with a few other thoughts on doing brewing experiments. Don also wrote: > Another variation we noticed from one hop to another aside from > bitterness was head retention. The control bottle(no hops) > had no head retention, in sharp contrast to those with hops. Since there were pellets in the beer do you think they added to the rate of bubble nucleation causing more foam to be generated, as opposed to causing the same amount of foam to last longer? - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2305