HOMEBREW Digest #2388 Wed 02 April 1997

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  unsuscribe (Perry Leets)
  re: AHA NHC (Meercat)
  Bottling yeast - AHA (Jason Henning)
  Acidification of Water - I (A. J. deLange)
  Acidification of Water - II (A. J. deLange)
  hydrometer correction, cont. (Dave Whitman)
  Vitamin C in Beer (A. J. deLange)
  Calling Dallas area homebrewers (David Draper)
  correct category/sub-category for Grand Cru? ("Michael Dowd")
  Decoction mashing (korz)
  Decoction ... malliard reactions ... (Steve Alexander)
  Need help for a paper I'm writing... ("Mark D. Johnson")
  Briess Pale Ale ("Craig Rode")
  Decoction: Pressure cooking is excellent (Charles Rich)
  Decoction reposte (Charles Rich)
  Decoction -extract efficiency/Malt Analysis (Steve Alexander)
  Mishmosh (Rust1d)
  Re: hot water (Brian Bliss)
  history of Styrian Goldings (Daniel Juliano)
  Decoction - replies (Charles Rich)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at: http://brew.oeonline.com/ If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp from: brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:14:28 -0800 From: Perry Leets <perry at pond.net> Subject: unsuscribe Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 23:39:19 -0800 From: Meercat <steveq at imagina.com> Subject: re: AHA NHC Bill Giffin <billgiffin at maine.com> said in not so many words: >Anyone who has judged, organized a competition knows there are >excellent judges, good judges, and not so good judges. There are too >sides to the judging question one is the judges, with whom I find no >fault being one, the other is the organization of the competition and >that can have a very serious effect on the judging. A judge can only be >expected to judge adequeately a few beers within a given time This >number has been given as between 8-12. Yet at the last NHC first >round I judged I judged 12 pale ales in the morning and 15 barleywines >in the afternoon. How well do you think the barleywines were judged >no matter how hard my partner and I tried? > Hmmm, it is my understanding that there are locals who organize the AHA first round judgings. Well, at least here in my town it is. I would think that it would be the organizers and possibly you, or accepting the judging of the barleywines after judging the ales, who would be at fault and NOT the AHA. Is not the judge doing a great deservice to the entrants by judging 12 barleywines a couple of hours after judging 12 ales?? Bill then goes on to state: >Tom goes on to say that at least in his region the beers are well and >properly judged and a good many of them win first place. If the folks >on the West coast are doing such a good job then why is it that so many of >the beers that win in that region have only a nodding aquantance with >the style guidelines? > Oh I see, only if you are on the east coast can you recognize beers that match the style guidelines. It is true that the west coast brewers do like hoppy beers and such but that in no way means that those of us that live on the west coast do not know how to judge beers properly. Steve <Meercat> Quarterman - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Quarterman, Portland OR <<---------->> steveq at imagina.com ICQ UIN 109308 - http://www.dm.net/~steveq/ - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 01:03:11 -0800 From: Jason Henning <huskers at cco.net> Subject: Bottling yeast - AHA Hello Friends- John C. Peterson <petersonj1 at juno.com> askes about changing that character of his beers by adding a differant yeast at bottling. I've wonder about this a couple of time. Do you run the risk of midnight mortars if you use a more attenuative yeast? Or is the amount of left over fermentables negligible? I thought George De Piro AHA renewal story was amusing. I got a similar letter. I told them I wouldn't be renewing because I thought the Special edition was a joke and I hadn't recieved the winter edition yet. You would have thought they would have wanted to make the winter edtion right with me but they didn't. It's obvious they don't care. Also Charlie P. showed up a half hour late and drunk to talk to some homebrewers in Seattle. I would've been pisted if they were stuck in traffic or had car troubles but thankfully they were just sitting around getting drunk. Then when he finally shows up, he basically says "I don't know what you wanted me to talk about so I'm going to just ramble on". And he did ramble, did you know an egg will stand on end on the spring equalnox? Jeez Charlie, guest speakers are generally expected to have topic. I left without having my book signed, he didn't deserve anymore of my time. Whoever said Charlie's having to much fun to be bothered with the business of the AHA hit the nail on the head. Cathy, the vice-pres says that they have heard from homebrewers that they want beer, free beer and more free beer. So to meet these needs, the AHA is going to 1) make maps with brewpubs and hb shops on them for anywhere in the US. 2) Start an online tech talk forum for brewers. She specifically said that Ray Danials and George Fix would be guest host. And 3), a beer evaluation program that will prime you to pass the BJCP. I'm not sure what any of these have to do with free beer. I can't believe I wasted a perfectly good brew day on these jerks. Cheers, Jason Henning (huskers at cco.net) Big Red Alchemy and Brewing Olympia, Washington - "It's the water" Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol that alcohol has taken out of me -- Sir Winston Churchill Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 5:47:11 -0700 (MST) From: CHUCK HUDSON HOMEBREW HAVEN <CHUDSON at mozart.unm.edu> Subject: SANKEY KEGS Nathan ask about fermenting in used sankey kegs. I have done so for about 7 years and they are about the most perfect fermenter.I clean mine with the high preasure RINSE at a local car wash to blast off they heavy and then I finish at home with NaOH or KOH rinse well and sanitize with Iodophor.A #11 stopper fits great but please be extra carfull in removing the valve theys containers are under preasure and high preasure A-B products that are stale and rancid are no fun. Chuck Hudson Homebrew Haven chudson at joplin.unm.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:28:11 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Acidification of Water - I Recently I've had several requests for info on how to calculate the amounts of acid of various types needed to acidify water to a given pH. This post (in 2 parts) gives formulas which will allow the amount of acid required to be calculated. They are as general as I can make them and apply equally well therefore, to strong monoprotic acids like hydrochloric, and weak, polyprotic acids like citric. It is the latter case which leads to a large part of the complexity. If you put these formulas in a spreadsheet (or program them in FORTRAN or even C++) and play around with them assuming the water pH is less than 8.3 and use strong acids you'll see that there are simplifications which can be made. The amount of acid is assumed to be that required to move a carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate system from the original pH of the water (symbolized here by pHo) to a target pH (symbolized simply by pH) plus the amount required to establish the lower pH. Note that there are several factors which make it unlikely that the amount of acid you calculate will bring your water sample to exactly the pH for which you made the calculation. Among these are: - The water alkalinity is not as reported (e.g. there has been a seasonal variation due to heavy snow melt in your area). - Part of the alkalinity is due to systems other than the carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate system (such as nitrate and/or phosphate). - The acid you are using is not exactly at its labeled strength. - Depending on your equipment you may not be able to measure the weight or volume of the acid terribly accurately. - The quantities of acid calculated depend upon the pK's of the acids which vary with temperature. Because of this it is best to measure out the calculated amount of acid and add it gradually to the water being adjusted while checking the pH. To use these formulas you must know the alkalinity of the water as the alkalinity is the major factor in determining how much acid is required unless, of course, the alkalinity is very low in which case the acid required is just that necessary to supply the H+ ions which establish the pH. The formulas follow. Example numerical values are given for the acidification of a water sample with an alkalinity of 100 ppm as CaCO3 and a pH of 8.3 to pH 5 using citric or lactic acid. Step 1. Compute the mole fractions of carbonic (f1o), bicarbonate (f2o) and carbonate(f3o) at the water sample's pH (example: pHo = 8.3) pHo = 8.3 r1o = 10^(pHo - 6.38) = 83.17638 r2o = 10^(pHo - 10.33) = 0.009332 do = 1 + r1o + r1o*r2o = 84.95262 f1o = 1/do = 0.011771 f2o = r1o/do = 0.97909 f3o = r1o*r2o/do = 0.009137 Step 2. Compute the mole fractions at pHb = 4.3 (the pH which defines alkalinity). pHb = 4.3 r1b = 10^(pHb - 6.38) = 0.0083176 r2b = 10^(pHb - 10.33) = 0.0000009 db = 1 + r1b + r1b*r2b = 1.0083176 f1b = 1/db = 0.9917510 f2b = r1b/db = 0.0082490 f3b = r1b*r2b/db = 0.0000000077 Step 3. Convert the sample alkalinity to milliequivalents/L (example: alkalinity = 100 ppm as CaCO3) alk = (alkalinity in ppm as CaCO3)/50 = 2.00 Step 4. Solve Alk = Ct*(Change in Carbonic + change in carbonate) for Ct Ct = alk/( (f1b - f1o) + (f3o - f3b) ) = 2.0220 Note that this will always be very close to alk (in mEq/L) as long as the pH of the sample is less than or equal 8.3 Step 5. Compute mole fractions at desired pH (example: pH 5) pH = 5 r1c = 10^(pH - 6.38) = 0.04168 r2c = 10^(pH - 10.33) = 0.00000467 dc = 1 + r1c + r1c*r2c = 1.04168 f1c =1/dc = 0.95998 f2c = r1c/dc = 0.04001 f3c = r1c*r2c/dc = 0.00000018 Step 6. Use these to compute the milliequivalents acid required per liter (mEq/L) Acid required = Ct*(Change in Carbonic + change in carbonate) E = Ct*( ( f1c - f1o) + (f3o - f3c) ) + 10^(-pH) - 10^(-pHo) = 1.93576 + .01 Note that this is also very close to the alkalinity (expressed as mEq/L). The alkalinity is the amount of acid required to get to pH 4.3. 'E' is the amount of acid required to get to a somewhat more basic pH. The last two terms (.01) give the acid which would be required if no carbonate or bicarbonate were being "neutralized". This is the amount of acid that would be required if distilled water were being acidified. Step 7. If the acid is labeled in terms of its normality (i.e. 1 N, 0.1N) recognize that a milliter contains the same number of mEq as the normality of the acid e.g. 1 N acid contains 1 mEq/mL, 0.1N contains 0.1 mEq/L. Of the acids typically used only hydrochloric and sulfuric are likely to be labeled in this way. Divide 'E' by the number of mEq/mL to get the number of mL of acid to add to each liter of the water. Thus if 8.75 N acid (approximate strength of hardware store hydrochloric acid) were being used with the example water 1.94/8.75 = 0.216 mL would be required for each liter being acidified. A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:28:15 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Acidification of Water - II Step 8. If the acid is not labeled by its normality then you must compute the number of millimoles (mM) required to give the needed number of mEq and then convert that to a weight or volume. This is not necessary if the acid is labeled in terms of its molarity (e.g. 2 M, 0.1M) in which case each milliliter contains the same number of mM as the strength. One mL of 1M acid contains 1 mM. Start by computing the number of mEq of H+ obtained from 1 mM of the acid at the target pH. To do this you will need all the pK's of the acid being used. The following table gives values you can plug into the formulas which follow (you will need the molecular weights later): Acid pK1 pK2 pK3 Mol. Wt Acetic 4.75 20 20 60.05 Citric 3.14 4.77 6.39 192.13 Hydrochloric -10. 20 20 36.46 Lactic 3.08 20 20 90.08 Phosphoric 2.12 7.20 12.44 98.00 Sulfuric -10. 1.92 20 98.07 Tartaric 2.98 4.34 20 150.09 I hope the chemists will appreciate that I know that hydrochloric acid, for example, only has one hydogen ion to give and that the pK for this ion probably isn't - 10. By using -10 for the pK I insures that the math will calculate 1 millimole of H+ from each millimole of HCl whatever the (reasonable) target pH. Similarly the use of +20 for the second and third pKs will result in calculation of insignificant additional amounts of hydrogen ions from the second and third nonexistant dissociations. This artifice allows the same formulas to be used for any of the acids we are likely to encounter. The "fraction" (in quotes because it may be a number biggert than one) of moles of acid which release a hydrogen ion are found from the following formulas.The pK's for the example numbers are for citric acid: pK1 = 3.14 pK2 = 4.77 pK3 = 6.39 pH = 5 r1d = 10^(pH - pK1) = 72.4436 r2d = 10^(pH - pK2) = 1.6982 r3d = 10^(pH - pK3) = 0.0407 dd = 1/(1 + r1d + r1d*r2d + r1d*r2d*r3d) = 0.004963 f1d = dd = 0.004963 f2d = r1d*dd = 0.359553 f3d = r1d*r2d*dd = 0.6106087 f4d = r1d*r2d*r3d*dd = 0.0248750 frac = f2d + 2*f3d + 3*f4d = 1.655395 It's not necessary to go through all this for hydrochloric acid which will give frac = 1 for any pH or sulfuric which will give frac ~ 2 unless the pH is below about 4 (e.g. if the water is being acidified for yeast washing). Step 9. Now divide the mEq required by the "fraction". This is the required number of moles of acid. For the citric example: mM required = E/frac = 1.946/1.655 = 1.176 mM For lactic acid frac = 0.9881 and mM required = E/frac = 1.946/.9881 = 1.969 mM Step 10. Multiply by molecular weight of the acid (192.13 mg/mM for citric) mg required = mM required*Mol.wt. (mg/mM) = 1.176*192.13 = 225.94 mg For lactic acid mg required = mM required*Mol.wt. (mg/mM) = 1.969*90.08 = 177.37 mg This is the weight of acid required to treat each liter of water. If the acid is a solid, like citric, it can be now be weighed out. If it is a liquid, like lactic, it will be necessary to determine the volume of liquid which gives the desired weight of acid (see Step 10). Step 10. Liquids are usually labeled according to the percentage of their weight which is the acid, for example, 88% lactic acid, 25% phosphoric acid and 28% hydrochloric acid are typical labelings. In order to calculate the volume of liquid which contains a given weight it is necessary to know the specific gravity of the liquid. In some cases this is specified on the label (for example 28% HCl is labeled 18 Baume which converts to about 1.142 specific gravity or 1142 mg/mL). In other cases you will have to determine the specific gravity by the use of tables in the CRC handbook (sulfuric) or weigh a small known quantity of the acid. 88% lactic acid, for example, weighs about 1214 mg/mL (and thus has a density of about 1.214 mg/mL). 25% phosphoric acid weighs about 1170 mg/L (specific gravity 1.170). If unable to obtain a specific gravity value you can use 1000 mg/L. The three examples just given indicate that you would incur errors of 14 - 21% by doing that. This may seem like a lot of error but it really isn't especially if you are going to add measured acid gradually until the target pH is reached. The mg of acid per mL is the product of the mg/mL weight of the acid times the percent acid expressed as a fraction. Thus for 28% HCl it is 0.28*1140=319.8 mg/mL, for 88% lactic acid, .88*1214 = 1068 mg/mL and for 25% phosphoric acid,.25*1170 = 292.5 mg/mL. The final step is to divide the required mg of acid by the mg/L for the particular strength acid. Using 88% lactic acid to bring a liter of the example water to pH 5 would, thus, require 177.37mg/1068mg/mL = 0.166mL of the 88% solution. With all that there are bound to be some mistakes but, as always, I hope no serious ones. A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:26:33 -0500 From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> Subject: hydrometer correction, cont. In HBD#2386, Jim Thomas asked about a formula for correcting hydrometer readings. I posted a curve-fitting method for deriving such a formula, but didn't have my own handy. I looked my equation up last night and here it is: SG(corrected to 60F) = SG(as read) + 1.05 - 0.114T + 0.001628T^2 SG is in points, i.e. 1.050 is written as 50. Temperature is in degrees F. Using this formula, a reading of 50 pts at 90F gets converted to 54 points at 60F. Every time I've checked by allowing high temperature samples to cool, the prediction is accurate within my ability to read the hydrometer. As I mentioned in my original post, I suspect this formula may be hydrometer dependent, but don't know this for a fact. If you use it, I would recommend double checking a few readings by allowing samples to cool to confirm that the equation has good predictive power with your hydrometer. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:55:06 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Vitamin C in Beer Just a quick empirical observation on vitamin C in beer. I wanted to see if my beer was oxidized relative to commercial beer and so measured the ORP of two samples. I did OK. I then stuck an aeration stone into the sample and gave it a shot of O2. Unsurprisingly the ORP went through the roof. Amused by this I dropped in a vitamin C tablet and the ORP went through the floor - well below where it was originally. I never sat down and did anything even quasi scientific about this (it's on a long list) but the initial observation was that ascorbic acid is a pretty good reducing agent. A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. - --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <-- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:21:16 -0600 (CST) From: David Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Calling Dallas area homebrewers Dear Friends, Hello again after a very long time out of the proverbial loop. After many twists and turns on the Path of Fate, I and my new sweety have arrived in Dallas, Texas, where I am happy to have finally landed a Real Job after the three years I spent in Sydney. Of course, one of the first things I need is contact information on the local homebrewing scene, so any brewers out there in the area, please email me. I need to know where the best suppliers are in the area, and which brew clubs are active and how to contact them. I'll be most interested in things to the north of downtown-- my position is at U. T. Dallas, in Richardson, and my residence is in Plano. Many thanks, and apologies for the tangential relation of my post to actual brewing... Cheers, Dave in Dallas (formerly Dave in Sydney, and before that, Dave in Bristol) ddraper at utdallas.edu "...That's right, you're not from Texas...but Texas wants you anyway..." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:03:49 +0000 From: "Michael Dowd" <mikedowd at geocities.com> Subject: correct category/sub-category for Grand Cru? This may seem like a silly question, but here goes anyway: I have a Belgian Grand Cru (similar to Celis Grand Cru, flavored with orange and coriander) which is pretty good, and which I thought I might enter in a couple competitions. However, there isn't a sub-category within Belgian ales in which it would fit well. Should I enter it as a Classic Style Herb and Spice Beer? What would be the best category/sub-category for it? Thanks, Mike Mike Dowd Yeastie Boy Brewing mikedowd at geocities.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:18:33 -0600 (CST) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Decoction mashing Say... George's question about having simple sugars around for melanoidin formation seemed logical to me, but then after a few more posts on the subject, it dawned on me: What's the difference between boiling a decoction and boiling the runnings in the kettle when it comes to melanoidin formation? Is there any? Wouldn't the amino acids and simple sugars go right into the kettle if they didn't combine into melanoidins in the mash? Comments? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:23:54 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Decoction ... malliard reactions ... Charles Rich writes ... >By the way my next experiment with decocting is going to be to cook the >bejeezus out of my decoc fraction in a pressure canner after its Great experiment Charles - please please please post the results, and don't be afraid to note your subjective opinions on aroma and taste. "Any clod can have the facts, but having an opinion is an art". - Charles McCabe, SF Chronicle. In my experience of pressure cooking wet raw grain as a medium for mushroom spawn (hmmm - beer and mushrooms, mushrooms and beer) I would expect a very substantial increase in the malliard products produced in a the pressure cooker. But ..... I've also been collecting info on non-enzymatic browning and flavor for a post (maybe ready Thursday or Friday), and I've come across some good info on the rate at which different classes of enzymes are consumed at different temperatures. The amino radicals available at 100C differ from those available at 120C (about 15psi in a pressure cooker) so you *might_possibly* get additional flavors and aromas. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:19:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Mark D. Johnson" <mdjohnso at cs.millersv.edu> Subject: Need help for a paper I'm writing... Okay, as an easy way to make my education a little more fun, I chose a topic of "Extract -vs- All-Grain homebrewing for the Beginning Homebrewer", and I am going to compare things such as cost, ease of brewing, quality of beer, etc. I've tried searching the web, but I find it to be fairly scarce of all-grain information. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Or better yet, does anyone have any information to share? (I promise I'll cite you in my paper! Or else my prof will fail me!). And since I haven't found anything on this topic, I guess I'll convert the paper to HTML when i'm done with it. (Wow, actually something usefull on my web page!) Thanks for any help, Mark P.S. I have not done an all-grain yet (due to lack of space) so anything about the subject will help. Return to table of contents
Date: 1 Apr 1997 12:34:06 +0600 From: "Craig Rode" <craig.rode at qmcin4.sdrc.com> Subject: Briess Pale Ale I was in a brewshop last weekend, trying to decide between a bag of schrier 2 row and a bag of briess 2 row. I've always used schrier, but have heard opinions that briess is superior. (About 50% of the people I talked to preferred schier over briess....). Anyway, I noticed a bag tagged "Briess Pale Ale" in a stack, and when I queried the owner, he said it was a new malt from Briess, domestically grown english malt. He said he thought it might have been Maris Otter. He had no malt analysis handy, but told me the Briess rep told him it was "maltier" than their regular 2 row. Three questions for collective: (1) Have you heard of this stuff? (2) Have you tried it, and how does it compare to english malt? (3) What IS the difference between Schrier and Briess regular 2 row? Opinions, guesses, rumors, and folklore appreciated. Craig Rode (aka Milwaukee Brewer), in Milwaukee where SPRING IS HERE! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:23:21 -0800 From: Charles Rich <CharlesR at saros.com> Subject: Decoction: Pressure cooking is excellent Hola HBD'ers This friday I experimented with pressure cooking a decoction fraction to see if it would produce a good browning reaction. I anticipated a lot of benefits from pressure cooking vs. hand-stirring a boiling decoc and I'll get into the details below but, briefly, it does do a much better job of cooking evenly with absolutely no scorching. It's a simpler production process and much faster (lazy, good), with no chance of hotside aeration from the cooking. It's also a significantly more efficient use of heating energy, propane in my case. I'd guess it uses less than a fourth as much as maintaining an open boil. Better still, my arm isn't tired. Since I continually stir a stiff fraction to avoid scorching, I would never cook the boiling fraction for forty minutes as I could this time, and Best-Of-All, I've never gotten such a massively rich flavor in the decoc fraction. First, I wanted to see if pressure cooking the decoc was feasible. I had also wanted to address an issue that George De Piro had brought up recently regarding whether cooking a fraction with more simple sugars was better than a more dextrinous fraction. I disqualified my simpler sugar part of this experiment though, because I don't feel I'd gotten as good a conversion as possible. My conversion temperature kept falling from 149F (65C) to 140F (65C). I brought it back to temp and repeated this twice more before quitting it in disgust (femto-brewing, Feh!). I don't think as much starch was made available for conversion in this portion as with the dextrinous sample since starch gelatinizes at 148F (65C) and it kept falling below this. The dextrinous portion was very well converted, however. Here's what I did. 1) Measured 8 oz. crushed (250g) Belgian Pilsner into a two 1-quart (1L) mason jars and added 21oz (620ml) water to each to simulate a moderate 1.33:1 (qt/lb) mash. This is thinner than any decoc fraction I'd normally boil, but I wanted to develop a good conversion before boiling to also test the dextrinous vs simple sugar question. I also expect that this would cook (brown) poorer than a stiffer decoc fraction so it could stand as a torture case. In a grain bill with poor diastatic power, I would pull a decoc this thin so I could get as much work out of the enzymes during the mini-rest as possible, before they were denatured in the boil. 2) Doughed in at 105F (40C) and in a water bath I brought both jars' contents to 135F (57C) and rested for twenty minutes to allow the enzyme systems to go into solution, the protein benefits of this rest were irrelevent for this test, though. pH 5.2, Temps were measured in the mash, not the waterbath. 3) Heated the waterbath with both jars to saccarification temperatures. I removed the simple-sugar jar at 149F (65C) and put it inside an insulator (now see why it kept falling?) took the remaining jar to 156F (69C) and rested for thirty minutes. It was very sweet. The other, after two more tries was sweet but still had some starchy flavor remaining. 4) Covered the jars with aluminum foil to prevent spluttering grains from clogging the pressure relief valve of my pressure canner, and placed them inside the canner along with about 1/2" of water to produce steam in the vessel. I cranked up the heat until the canner vented steam for about five minutes (this evacuates the air inside) and then brought the canner to 250F (121C) at 15 lbs (6.8K) and reduced the flame to a tiny, temp-maintenace size for twenty minutes. Reduced pressure and tasted. Both jars were the same degree of dark tan. Both jars were tasty but still had a slight, raw starch flavor. The simple sugar jar more so, most likely because it still had more starch remaining after sugar conversion. I wouldn't sweat this too much since in practice the starches would be given back to a viable enzyme pool on returning the decoc to the mash. Both produced a whiff of DMS on lifting their foil lids but that dissipated quickly and didn't show in their taste after stirring up. I specifically tasted for tannin flavors and found none. This was a particulary crummy grind too. The brewstore (not my usual) used a coffee grinder and I had to put it through at "Perc" and then at "Drip" grind before getting a reasonable crush. The husks were torn to shreds by that time. If any batch would yield husk flavors this one had the opportunity. I returned them for another twenty minutes at the same temp and pressure, and this produced a truly great decoc. They were now both darker still, between the color of corrugated cardboard and brown wood. Both tasted fully cooked, with the dextrinous jar tasting much better than the simpler sugar jar, but remember that that comparison may not be completely valid. However it does show that a dextrinous fraction (my practice) produces a really great result when cooked this way. I subscribe to the school of thinking that says decocs produce "better" malt flavor not "more" malt flavor. To use this in brewing I would pull the stiffest practical fraction of grain into my three-gallon cheapo canning pot and put it, covered, into the canner and cook for at least forty minutes at the above temp and pressure. After cooling it with an immersion chiller back to 135F (57C), the temperature that the rest of my mash is resting at, I would add it back and take the whole mash to whatever sugar conversion temp is appropriate for the beer. The double-boiler, pot within the canner, approach is pretty important to keep from scorching the grains. Their pot rests on a stand a little above the bottom of the canner, and effectively doesn't go above 250F (121C) but if you were to put them directly into a pressure cooker the direct firing would certainly burn them on the bottom. It's the nature of pressure cooking that food doesn't scorch if not in contact with the heating surface. The whole volume of liquid water and vapor acts like a cooking surface at 250F so it cooks evenly. There's also no risk of hotside aeration while cooking since there's no air in the vessel after steam purging. I'm sold. I'll never go back, Charles Rich (Seattle, USA) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:25:41 -0800 From: Charles Rich <CharlesR at SAROS.COM> Subject: Decoction reposte To keep the message size down I'm posting this separately. Re: Dave Burley in HBD #2386: >Malts that do fine in single malt infusions - AKA >pale Ale malts already have plenty of protein and parking at the protein >rests at 135F will produce perhaps more Mid-Mw protein than desired. This >could lead to excessive chill haze. doubt you could get too much MMWP in a beer -- they contribute so much. A rest at 135F for any still-diastatic barley malt bill helps develop these, a lager bill more so than an ale bill, but more body, more mouth feel, better head retention in any beer is good. >BTW it is not the purpose of the decoction to "cook" the malt, but rather >to carry out a reaction that proceeds rapidly at the boil and ultimately >produces melandoins, gelatinization of the starch is a side benefit If >sufficient enzyme capacity is available in the main mash. 1) Sounds like cooking to me. 2) gelatinization of starch occurs with heat, enzymes have nothing to do with it. Since decoc fractions aren't really needed for controlling temperature steps, the only remaining reasons to do them are for flavor improvement, to present more starch for conversion, and the ability to present dextrins to a still labile beta-amylase pool (if desired), which develops even more simple-sugars. Quickness is not wanted here. The more cooked, the better tasting. >High temperature saccharification ( at 158F which I favor) in the main mash >may suffer in this case because of a diminished beta concentration at the >outset of the saccharification step. A diminished beta concentration at the outset of the saccharification step won't interfere with alpha-amylase activity. The reverse holds true since beta-amylase develops more simple sugar from dextrins than from starch, but isn't natural, although can be acomplished artificially as with a decoc. >Keep on brewin' Yes! Cheers, Charles Rich (Seattle, USA) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:33:26 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Decoction -extract efficiency/Malt Analysis George De Piro posted that he didn't experience better extraction from decoction mashing. Back in my extraction efficiency obsessed days I did see a significant improvement when decocting - 10% to 15%. Today I stop sparging sooner and take care to not overcrush the malt. My efficiencies are still pretty good, but the results taste even better. Measuring efficiency is important, particularly when changing brewing hardware, malts or methods - efficiency isn't the goal. BTW check George Fix's 40-60-70C masshing paper. In it he extracts 30.4 pt-gal/# in a pale ale mash - a HB efficiency in the low 80% range. If it's good enough for GeorgeF ... > Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could obtain malt analysis specs so > that we'd know for sure what we are working with? Do you small pro > brewers get spec sheets? I have found that Breiss at least is unwilling to talk to amateur brewers - they'll push you off to your retailer who must in turn get numbers from the distributor in a process that may take weeks. The first maltster to put up a fax-back or a web site with figures will certainly get my attention. In the mean time, Charley Burns noted in a private email that Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co. has some good analysis numbers for Durst, Gambrinus and Great Western malts on their website and they promise more. http://www.brewsupply.com/ I also noticed that Fred Waltman of Culver City HB posted to HBD last May listing a bunch of analysis figures for Gambrinus. It's nice to see a HB shop so interested in supplying information. Aside from abusively using their website as an information source, I have absolutely no affilation with Culver City HB. These guys carry Breiss, Durst, DeWolfCosyns, Baird, MFB, Great Western and Gambrinus malts - an impressive array of hops varieties too. Steev Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:54:57 -0500 From: Rust1d <rust1d at li.com> Subject: Mishmosh * Randy Ricchi talks about a film on his wheat beer: * >By the way, I have a weizen in secondary right now and there is a film on >the surface of the beer. I made a batch of cider (11/16) with 4 gallons of fresh pressed cider and Wyeast 3068 Weihenstephan Wheat. After primary fermentation this tasted excellent, very appley in aroma and flavor. After a couple of months a film has developed on the surface of the cider. This is a very thin layer that is skin like. A sample taken reveals a very nice tasting cider but much drier that previously (but not vinegar). Is there anything I should be concerned with? appLambic? On the subject of non-traditional cider yeasts I also made a batch of cider with Wyeast 3944 Belgain White which is terrific, dry and very tart (but w/o a strange film). * Randy Erickson replies regarding sanke fermenters: * >I would clean the inside like any other fermenter, i.e. carboy brush, tsp, >b-brite, bleach solution, etc. If you use bleach, don't overdo the >concentration or the contact time, and rinse well. I ferment in sankes that have the tops chopped and ball valves located about 1.5 inches from the bottom. Having the top cut out really helps. This enables you to skim krausen and reach inside when it is time to clean. I sanitize by putting a cup of water in the bottom, covering with a lid and hitting it with 220K BTU from my king kooker for 5 mins. Leaving the valve open at the bottom helps to steam clean it as well. I cover the keg with a trash bag (small kitchen type fits very snug) to keep intruders out. The bag will inflate for a couple of days and then deflate when primary ferment is complete. This is the time to harvest yeast and secondary. * Randy Reed talks about cold water * > Am I the only person who has used cold tap water for my brewing water? Being the outdoorsbrewer that I am, I don't have access to hot water (except the time last winter when the hose was frozen and I ran one off the bathroom sink. What a good wife I got). I get all my water from a garden hose (w/no off flavors). One great equipment tip for you hose brewers. I have a jet carboy washer that broke so I cut the end off with a pipe cutter. I use this on my hose (with an on/off fitting) to fill kegs hands free. With its curved shape it hooks right to side. This also make cleaning the under the top of my kettle, fermenters and cornys a breeze because of the higher pressure. Next week I'll concentrate on posts from people named Scott. * The 135F protein rest * With this much discussed 135F protein rest, is it necessary to still dough in at 60-70F? or should the first infusion of liquor bring the mash to 135F? Are the lower rests (below 122F) overkill with todays malts as well? I finally have a valid e-mail address once again: rust1d at usa.net Thanks for the BW, John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program Lafayette Hill, PA * New email address ***> rust1d at usa.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 12:02:31 CST From: Brian Bliss <brianb at microware.com> Subject: Re: hot water >Now a separate question: Is there any general reason we wouldn't fill our >mash and sparge tanks from the Hot Water tap? Microbrewies take water from >a hot water tank which keeps the water at a high temperature at all times. >Am I the only person who has used cold tap water for my brewing water? Any >pros/cons? My water heater is a gas unit. yes - you'll get a much higher calcium concentration due to deposits in your water heater (or so I've heard). The general rule of thumb in cooling is never to use hot water directly, use the cold and heat it up. I filter all my water through a charcoal filter which is for cold water only, so I've got an extra reason. After I've filtered it, it is dubbed "pure" enough so that I can easily adjust the ion concentrations via the recommendations in the special issue of zymurgy on water. Doing this resulted in the third biggest improvement in my beer. #1 was doing a full boil and chilling quickly. #2 was going all grain. I rank using liquid yeast way down on the scale at #4, but then again, my dry yeast brand of choice was whitbread, which ain't that bad. #5 is decoction mashing. #6 is standing on my head and guzzling a barleywine just before mash-in, chanting the ancient beer scriptures... I digress - bb Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 12:20:03 CST From: Daniel Juliano <dan at starfire.ne.uiuc.edu> Subject: history of Styrian Goldings In Mark Garetz's book _Using Hops_ he says that Styrian Goldings originated from English Fuggles, and that they are therefore not Goldings at all. In George & Laurie Fix's VOM book they state that English (Kent) Goldings came from Styrian Goldings. Does anybody know the definitive history of Styrian Goldings, and how this variety is related to English Goldings and/or Fuggles? - -- Daniel Juliano Urbana, IL dan at starfire.ne.uiuc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:50:07 -0800 From: Charles Rich <CharlesR at SAROS.COM> Subject: Decoction - replies To keep the message size down I'm posting this separately. Thanks very much to Steve Alexander for pointing up errors in my Fahrenheit-Celsius conversions. I am mortally embarrassed. Temperatures I've given in Fahrenheit can be taken as my intended temperatures. Celsius degrees had been done by hand on a four function calculator (hey, it has great boolean and bitwise operators). I've just taped to my monitor a laboratory ruler with an side by side F-C scales which I'll refer to henceforth. mea culpa.. Re: Dave Burley in HBD #2386: >Malts that do fine in single malt infusions - AKA >pale Ale malts already have plenty of protein and parking at the protein >rests at 135F will produce perhaps more Mid-Mw protein than desired. This >could lead to excessive chill haze. Personally, I doubt you could get too much MMWP in a beer -- they contribute so much that is desirable. A rest at 135F for any still-diastatic barley malt bill helps develop these, granted a lager bill develops more than an ale bill, but more body, more mouth feel, better head retention in any beer is good. >BTW it is not the purpose of the decoction to "cook" the malt, but rather >to carry out a reaction that proceeds rapidly at the boil and ultimately >produces melandoins, gelatinization of the starch is a side benefit If >sufficient enzyme capacity is available in the main mash. I would guess that originally it was only for temperature steps, but what you're describing sure sounds like cooking to me. If decoc fractions aren't used for controlling temperature steps, the only remaining reasons to do them are to render more starch available for conversion (possibly unecessary); the ability to present dextrins to a still labile beta-amylase pool (if desired), which develops even more simple-sugars; but otherwise, most importantly, for flavor improvment. Quickness isn't wanted here -- the more cooked, the better tasting the decoc. >High temperature saccharification ( at 158F which I favor) in the main mash >may suffer in this case because of a diminished beta concentration at the >outset of the saccharification step. Eh? This doesn't read correctly. A diminished beta concentration at the outset of the saccharification step won't interfere with alpha-amylase activity. The reverse could hold true though, since beta-amylase will develop more simple sugar from dextrins than from unbroken down starch. Cheers, Charles Rich (Seattle, USA) Return to table of contents