HOMEBREW Digest #2635 Thu 12 February 1998

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

		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

  More on Chlorphenolics (AJ)
  Mort O'Sullivan (Andy Walsh)
  Modification, fining, mashout temps ("Steve Alexander")
  re: Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher (Pvrozanski)
  BrewCraft / Omega PID / milling moistened grain ("Keith Royster")
  Capillaries,Kunze ("David R. Burley")
  Cheers to Jethro dePiro ("Dave Draper")
  re:protein rests and chill haze (Tidmarsh Major)
  Re:Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: More chlorphenolics (George_De_Piro)
  Weissbier with clove character (Samuel Mize)
  BW Yeasts / Pale Ale Experiment / Beer Nuts (KennyEddy)
  Belgian malt question ("Kevin W. Aylor")
  Re: Kitchen Malting (Clifton Moore)
  Pale Ale Expt ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Getting rid of chlorine (Donovan)
  Re: anthocyanogen-free barley ("Mort O'Sullivan")
  Long term yeast storage in distilled H2O (Troy Hager)
  Home malting and gibberellic acid (George_De_Piro)
  Yeast info, brewing lagers (Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi)
  yeast suspension ("Spies, James")
  Re: First wort hopping ("Shawn Andrews")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 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! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: 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 JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:48:10 -0400 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (AJ) Subject: More on Chlorphenolics George DePiro asks whether I have ever tasted o-chlorophenol. I haven't. The closest I've come recently is p-dichlorobenzene which has no resemblence to free chlorine odor to me but has, rather, the kind of smell I associate with chlorinated aromatics: phenol-like but not quite so sweet (it's been years since I've smelled straight phenol) and somewhat harsh and medicinal. I've never tasted it and don't intend to! Anyway, I don't doubt that o-chlorophenol is suggestive of bleach so I asked myself "Did I remember this wrong? Have I been writing 'chlorphenolic' when I smell plastic when I should have been reporting something else?" So back to the books I went and this is what I found (don't claim this was an exhaustive search) for chlorphenolics: HBS&Y Vol II, p 765: "medicinal flavors" ASBC Methods of Analysis Sensory Analysis -12 (Uses the widely known system pioneered by Meilgaard): 0504 Chlorphenolic: "Trichlorophenol, hospital-like". Dave Miller, "The Complete Book of Homebrewing", "horrible medicinal flavors". He suggests that one can experience chlorphenolics by making sun-tea with chlorinated water. That sounds like a very interesting experiment! Johnson, Lee W. "Brew Chem 101", "Plasticlike taste". Papazian, Charlie "Evaluating Beer" in "Evaluating Beer" "...harsh chlorphenolic (plasticlike) aroma and flavor...", "Aroma is unique but similar to plasticlike phenolic." Palamand, Raoul "Training Ourselves in Flavor Perception and Tasting" in "Evaluating Beer", "Medicinal" Shelton, Ilsa, "Flavor Profiles" in "Evaluating Beer", "..reminiscent of bleach and disinfecting chemicals." So, I thought, I'm not losing it after all. There's a couple of votes for me and one for George. But how to explain this discrepancy? There are certainly more than one chlorphenolic and they may have widely different flavor and odor profiles. Sure enough, a look at Moll's chapter in "Handbook of Brewing" refers to o-chlorophenol and chloro-o-cresols (methylated phenols). Nothing is said about the flavors/aromas but it is noted that chloro-o-cresols have flavor thresholds (0.2 - 1 ppb!) less than o-chlorophenol (2-3 ppb). Anyway, this is confirmation that more than one chlorphenolic is found in beer and there have got to be dozens more. There are certainly dozens of phenols (see Steve Alexanders excellent article in the latest BT if you haven't already) and each phenolic ring invites passing chlorine radicals to feast on the electron slabs which cover them. Now here's where I change from boy amateur chemist into Hercule Poirot and George, if he's reading this, probably knows where I'm headed already. Ilsa Shelton is (or was) vice president of Laboratory Services at Siebel where one of her major duties is training students in sensory evaluation of beer. It's not surprising, therfore, that her description and George's experience match and this, I assume, is related to the choice of o-chlorophenol for training at Siebel. Suppose the ASBC's recommendation, trichlorophenol (TCP) had been used instead or chloro-o-cresol? What do they smell/taste like. Presumably TCP smells like a hospital but I suspect that the hospitallike smell described is a carryover from the days when a major hospital disinfectant was carbolic acid - otherwise known as phenol. We have all recently become sensitized to the fact that words may have multiple meanings. When Shelton writes "disinfecting chemicals" does she mean carbolic acid? A couple of other things I picked up while researching this: - Even though some chlorphenolics can be sensed at sub ppb levels some people do not smell or taste them at all. - Phenols extracted from barley and hops are not the only sources of phenolics in beer. Phenolics from decayed vegetable matter in the water supply (especially certain algae) can be a source. These are hard to remove from the supply and oxidation by permanganate, ozone or chlorine dioxide... followed by activated carbon filtration may be required. The important point here is that if the water contains chlorphenolics activated carbon filtration may not remove them. This may be the case for the gentleman who posted recently that he had plasticlike flavors even though he was using an activated carbon filter. - The water supply may be contaminated by industrial wastes containing phenols. - Boiler feed is sometimes treated with phenols and if steam from such a boiler is injected into a mash tun, for example, reaction with chlorine (presumably chloramine) in the water can result. - The similarity of the odor to "plastic" is related to the fact that many plastics are polymers which contain phenol. The single largest use of phenol in the US is in the manufacture of phenol-formaldehyde resins (the earliest of which was Bakelite). Some of these resins apparently find their way into the brewery in the plasticware used by homebrewers and as tank linings in commercial breweries. Contact with chloramine bearing water would presumably lead to chlorphenolic formation. Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:33:45 -0800 From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au> Subject: Mort O'Sullivan Psst, hey everyone, I just thought I should let you know there is a spy in our midst. Mort O'Sullivan comes from the blue with 2 very high quality posts not seen for a long time in this region. His sig gives a clue: ICBD Edinburgh. This can only mean the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling at Heriot Watt University. This is one of the major centres of brewing science research (and education) in the world, and as such Mort must be a legend to be associated with such a place. So, Mort O'Sullivan, what brings you to these far off places? Come clean, Mort O'Sullivan, or you're a dead Irishman! Andy Walsh in Sydney. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 04:36:50 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Modification, fining, mashout temps My friend, Dave Burley, incorrectly interpreted a remark that I made here - I was undoubtedly unclear. When I stated that the protein content and modification varies with variety, I was considering different 2-row barley varieties, and not the differences between 2-row and 6-row. As George Fix stated here back in 1994, and has since reiterated ... >BTW Alexis is a hybrid from Triumph (I believe it called Trumpf on >the continent) and wild barley. Triumph made some great malt in its >day, but now appears to be on the way out. It never displayed a >tendency to protein overmodification, and many feel this property in >the new varieties (all Triumph hybrids) may be coming from genetic >material in the wild barley. > George Fix In other words, modern continental malts tend toward overmodification as compared with those of a decade ago. Old rules of thumb regarding the mashing of continental malts need to be re-examined. Everyone please open your pre-1993 brewing books(Miller, Noonan, M&BS), and scratch out the bits about protein rests and modification regarding continental malts. === Charles Burns writes on Fining Agents - what they are good for >There has been some discussion about fining agents lately (gelatin, >polyclar, bentonite) and people attempting to use them to remove >starch haze and protein hazes. Gelatin, a protein, and polyclar, an articifial protein analog, do reduce polyphenol levels and *may* so prevent, not cure, protein haze, permanent and/or chill. ===== Scott (smurman at best.com) writes re mashout and efficiency >It's no coincidence that the recommended mashout temp. is the maximum >before tannoid extraction becomes a problem. If you have a source on this I'd really like to see it. I've searched high and low and have yet to find any critical temperature for phenol extraction. As a rule, increasing mash temps will permit more phenol extraction and better solubility of some of the naughtier phenols. Yet I still have no reference that indicates why a mashout temp of say 76C is more than a slight improvement over an 80C mashout. It'd be interesting to understand why. Steve Alexander War makes bad music and bad logic sound good - F.Nietzsche Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 06:30:29 -0600 From: Pvrozanski at ra.rockwell.com Subject: re: Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher I've had someof the problems Danny described but never to his extent. I also agree with his point that the tiny spigot that comes supplied with the EZmasher is grossly inadequate. Personally I think this is probably the only drawback to the EZmasher. With this in mind, I replaced the tiny spigot with a ball valve. The ball valve gives you infinate control over the sparge rate and seems less likely to allow a stuck sparge to occur. I've used the ball valve converted EZmasher for around 10 batches and I haven't had any problems with stuck sparges. Draining wort to the carboy is another thing. I got extreemly aggrivated when I used the out of the box EZmasher for straining trub. I came up with a type of strainer for this application. I don't feel like beeating a dead horse here so if you want to read more about it there's a current discussion going on on rec.crafts.brewing. The thread subject is "SS woven hose results". Good luck and welcome back to the fold, ALEman Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:37:14 +0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net> Subject: BrewCraft / Omega PID / milling moistened grain Does anyone know the status of Kerry Hauptli at BrewCraft, Ltd? I have had a number of people tell me that they don't get a response from his email. I've also tried calling a number of times but always get a "Circuits are busy" recording. If he's gone out of business I need to remove his links from my RIMS web page. - ----------------------------------------------- Speaking of RIMS, I'm looking for some feedback from people who have also used the Omega PID (Part #CN8590-DC1) for their RIMS. I've had some difficulty with mine and was wondering if this is just an isolated occurrance. I should also point out that I am still very satisfied with Omega because they have always repaired or replaced it free. I just want to know if others have also had to return theirs for repair. - ----------------------------------------------- Finally, I remember reading/hearing somewhere that moistening your grain prior to milling it makes for a better crush and also keeps the dust down. I think the reasoning is that the softened husk is less brittle. Does anyone else out there do this, or is it not worth the trouble? If so, do you have any tricks for evenly moistening the grain, such as a misting bottle? Any water/grain ratio recommendations? Thanks! (The Carolina BrewMasters will be hosting the 1998 U.S.Open homebrewing competition this April 25th! You can download the entire entry packet in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format online at http://www.ays.net/brewmasters/. So now you have no excuse for not entering!) Keith Royster - Mooresville/Charlotte, North Carolina email: keith at ays.net http://www.ays.net/brewmasters -Carolina BrewMasters club page http://www.ays.net/RIMS -My RIMS (rated COOL! by the Brewery) http://www.ays.net/movingbrews -pumps and accessories for advanced homebrewers Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:19:40 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Capillaries,Kunze Brewsters: I really enjoyed Rob Moline's great description of some electron photomicrographs he saw at Siebel. It was fun to read and not unlike I had imagined but never seen. Thanks Rob! He also commented on the discussion on capillaries in grain beds and said he had not seen these in the photomicrograph, just eaten out shells of starch granules which had contained the starch. Did Siebel comment if these "shells" were made from structural proteins and glucans? When I have used the term "capillary" I was referring to the macroscopic scale not the electron microscopic scale. Obviously, I was not clear enough even though based on his last post, Jeff Renner thinks it is intuitively obvious {8^). = After the grain bed is drained of the bulk wort, wort remains behind in the bed, as we all know. I attribute this to capillary action. If you have capillary action you must have capillaries. Pretty simple, huh? In my imagination, I think of these as the spaces between chunks of grain, cracks in the grain, husks, etc. perhaps on the order of hundredths or thousandths of a millimeter to a millimeter or two. It is in these size ranges that the viscosity of the fluid becomes measurably important to us as contrasted with distances of a centimeter and larger. Viscosity is traditionally measured using a capillary viscosimeter in which the flow rate of fluid through a glass capillary on the order of tenths of mm is measured as an indication of the relative viscosity. In the case of paints and very viscous fluids a "bucket with a hole in it" is used to evaluate the paint viscosity for spraying, for example. - ----------------------------------------------------------- George De Piro included some great stuff from the Kunze textbook - thanks! He says: > 11. "Hop addition not too early-malt polyphenols should react" = Does this suggest that, FWH, first wort hopping, may increase haze formation relative to traditional hopping if these malt polyphenols ( like anthocyanins, for example) are not reacted first? - ---------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com = Voice e-mail OK = Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:30:04 -6 From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu> Subject: Cheers to Jethro dePiro Dear Friends, Just wanted to say a quick thanks here in public to George de Piro and Rob Moline (aka Jethro Gump) for their HBD contributions during and after their stint at Seibel. As if their insights weren't already valuable! I really appreciate hearing not only some of the most pointy-headed of details, but the quick, experience-based approaches that simply work. I know how much effort it can be to summarize lots of information and you guys are doing a great job. Cheers, Dave in Dallas - --- ***************************************************************************** Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083 ddraper at utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html ...I drink cool ale... ---Kirk Fleming Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:42:42 -0500 (EST) From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu> Subject: re:protein rests and chill haze In today's HBD, George De Piro comments on protein rests and chill haze and notes an unclear point in his edition of Kunze's Technology Malting and Brewing: > 11. "Hop addition not too early-malt polyphenols should react" Does anyone have the original German edition available? Perhaps a look at the source would help. I know a little bit of German (probably just enough to add to the confusion) but perhaps our collegue Herr Hanghofer from Austria (and any other continental contributors to the digest) could help us out. Also, while I'm still not convinced that protein rests are necessary, I will quibble with George's interpretation of Kunze that all protein rests are detrimental. Each of the quotations he posts mentions a long rest. What does long mean: 15, 30, 60 mins? Does Kunze clarify this anywhere, or is that up to the reader to know? He seems to me to imply that long protein rests are detrimental while not addressing the issue of short rests (at least in these passages). Does he mention short protein rests elsewhere? Tidmarsh Major tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu Athens, Georgia (soon to be Birmingham, Alabama) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 22:36:41 -0800 From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> Subject: Re:Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher First of all, someone chewed me out for using parts of the header to identify the poster I was responding to. He went away mad because I did not understand what he was complaining about. Does this cause anyone else grief? From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach at nctm.org> " And my Brinkmann burner didn't give fineness of temperature control. Maintaining temp during mash is an art and requires a flame that whispers, not roars. You simply can not use a heavy duty burner for the job. " I opened the itty-bitty spigot on my EM all the way, and watched it trickle away. The size of the spigot has nothing to do with the flow rate, at least not the rate you are dealing with. Assuming you have sufficient head (a two foot hose pointed down will do), a too slow rate is a result of the screen being clogged and the only reason it gets clogged is a lack of patience. If you wait 10 minutes from the last time you stirred the mash, it will flow at a nominal rate that can get you out of there in less than an hour which is about right for a 5 gallon batch. If you try "helping" it by scraping the strainer with a spoon, you are doomed. In the unlikely event of a clogged screen, blow gently on the end of the hose to clear it. Keep in mind that the purpose of the strainer is to keep the "itty-bitty" spigot from getting clogged with the first rush. The grain does the filtering, not the strainer. Although I have never tried it (bad for business) I suspect if one was careful, one could sparge without out the strainer. "4. I hopped lightly: two ounces of pellets in the boil, one ounce leaf as finish (in two steps)..... Did you by any chance forget to mention Irish moss? It turns to glue and will clog the strainer for sure. Other than that, the same no stir rule applies. You must let the wort settle for reasonable time before you try to draw it off. Folks who use immersion chillers have the wait built in. If you use an inline chiller, you still have to wait so there is not much benefit to using one. " Problem: the EM outlet is high enough on the kettle wall that LOTS of wort and hop goo gets left in the kettle. I gently dumped this goo in a cheesecloth--sieve--funnel contraption and put that in the fermenter without chilling. It's a lot simpler to just pour it into a bucket and let it sit overnight. In the morning, you can pour off the clear wort and bring it to a boil for a minute and dump it into the fermenter when it cools. I used to do that but found its a lot less trouble to make an extra quart and forget about the dregs. "Two main questions: 1. should I re-engineer the outflow on my EM (and how--I'm not a tinkerer!) Don't mean to sound harsh but I suspect you would have had a much easier time if you read the instructions that came with the EM. js - -- Visit our WEB pages: Beer Stuff......... http://ays.net/jsp Astronomy....... http://user.mc.net/arf ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:13:30 -0800 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Re: More chlorphenolics Hi all, AJ posted a nice survey of the common aromas of some chlorophenolic compounds. Together with my short list it is quite a useful bit of info. The one problem with some of AJ's descriptions is that he is relying on somebody else's perceptions of those phenolic compounds. We are all different, and can perceive the same compounds quite differently. As AJ pointed out, some people can't even detect phenolic compounds at "normal" levels! This same problem greatly limits my idea of using individual perceptions of phenols to determine their cause, though. You can't always use MY perceptions of phenols to elucidate problems that YOU are perceiving. The best thing to do would be to spike beer with many different phenols and note the aroma/taste of each. Something else I noted at Siebel was that the *concentration* of a compound can completely change the way it is perceived. At relatively low levels DMS has a pleasant, sweet-corn aroma. At higher levels it takes on the unpleasant smell of overcooked vegetables. Phenol, to me, is the same way. When I used it to spike beer samples in a class I taught, at low levels it was smoky (to me). One person in the class was numb to phenols, so I kept adding more and more until he could perceive a difference. By the time he was saying, "Yes, I smell it a bit now," I was practically choking on the medicinal/plastic aroma! Monsieur Poirot is absolutely correct about Ilse Shelton being the lead taste panel instructor at Siebel. It is a shame she did not include some other chlorophenols in the panel that we were subjected to. I guess the take home message of our posts is this: My statement that the source of the problem may be elucidated by the aroma of the phenol is correct only a small part of the time. Many different phenols can be perceived as medicianl and or plastic, even if they are chlorinated. Because of the differences in perception from person to person, my statement is even less useful. So much for an easy way to track that problem! Still, spicy and smoky phenols (like those found in true Bavarian-style wheat beers) are often formed by yeast, so if that is what you perceive in your beer, look to a yeast problem as the cause. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 12:30:03 -0600 (CST) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: Weissbier with clove character Greetings, I had a homebrewed Bavarian Weizen (wheat), and greatly enjoyed the strong clove (phenolic) character. I'm trying to make my own, with wheat malt extract and Wyeast Weihenstephan (3068) yeast. My first try didn't have much clove character, but got a little after sitting in the fridge. My next try will use a cooler fermentation temperature. Three questions: Is there anything else I should be doing to encourage this character? Does serving temperature significantly affect perception of this? What commercial wheat beers have this character? My Michael Jackson book (I don't recall the title, one of the coffee-table sized ones) says that clove aroma is characteristic for Weizens, but every specific brand he discusses says it has less clove than average. Al K in Homebrewing vI recommends Tucher Weizen, but I found almost no clove/spice character in the bottle I tried. It might have come out more if warmer -- I'll try it again. Meantime, any other suggestions? Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ Personal net account - die gedanken sind frei Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:48:02 EST From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: BW Yeasts / Pale Ale Experiment / Beer Nuts Sorry for the delayed responses but I was away for a week. ***** Jon Bovard asked about several yeast's performance in Big Beers. I can't comment on those but I do have a datpoint on a barleywine I made with Danstar Nottingham Dry yeast: OG = 1.092 FG = 1.017 This is 82% apparent attenuation, pretty dang high. Now, one big factor here was my total ineptitude in acheiving a respectable mash temperature; I hovered right around 150F which resulted in a very fermentable wort. Still, the product is pretty decent (the 96 IBU sharpens this baby up into quite a mouthful) and I suspect "Ol' Nott" would give a hearty performance in a BW of almost any composition. I pitched onto a yeastcake but if you use fresh yeast, try two packets. ***** John Varaday suggests an HBD-wide "pale ale experiement". Here's my $0.02 on a similar experiment a friend and I did a couple years ago (search archives for "same thing only different" for all the gory details). It was an extract/steep-grains batch, so mashing variables were not relevent. We bought all the ingredients together -- I mean, we bought the hops and literally split the same bag -- and it turned out that we unknowingly brewed within a half- hour of each other (eliminating phase of the moon as a significant variable) but we used our own usual techniques. The end products were similar but discernable. Our techniques were similar and differed in mostly subtle ways. Hop utilization was slightly but noticbly different. I used 100% El Paso Tap Water (bleccchhh) while my friend diluted with a healthy dose of RO. We analyzed the results and decided the water was the biggest factor; in fact, this is what led me to be the RO-water-treating fool I am today. So I submit that a "looser" experiment among x members of the collective would result in x similar but discernable brews. ***** Same Mize mused: >> a GM that is not only a homebrewer, but also has "Beernut" on his >> personalized license plates! > >Is that the nut on the fermenter that you tighten to control alcohol >content? You know: the stronger the beer, the tighter the beernut... No, according to George Carlin, Beer Nuts is the dread final stage of Cotton Balls (or was it the other way around...?). ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:01:59 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Aylor" <kwa2r at removeavery.med.virginia.edu> Subject: Belgian malt question I am making a Belgian white using a partial mash, single step infusion. I have used English 2-row in the past and have been pleased with the results. This time I thought I would try Dewolf-Cosyns Belgian pale ale malt. My question is; will this malt perform well with a single step infusion mash or is a protein rest in order. I was just curious if the Belgian malt would have simular enzyme to english 2-row. Thanks Kevin - -- Remove "remove" from address to reply. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 09:59:12 -0900 From: Clifton Moore <cmoore at gi.alaska.edu> Subject: Re: Kitchen Malting > I read recently that the Pilsner Urquell brewery malts its own grain, > and uses it directly without kilning off. The practice of kilning down > to <5% moisture is only to improve storability. An advantage to not > kilning is that one can use fairly undermodified malt (good protein) and > still have sufficient enzymes for conversion. Otherwise the kilning > wrecks them. > Charles, Very interesting, but I have to think that drying is for storage and that kilning is to impart flavors. I suspect that Pilsner Urquell brewery may mash with only a small portion of thier grain in the green stage. If they were to germinate for maximum enzyme content, would this not allow them to use other unmalted grain. Just a thought as to why they might do this. My notes record the Zymergy offering as "Malting Your Own" V8 #4 1985. I have never been able to find this, but I am still searching. Mort O'Sullivan made a very informative reply to my thread in HBD 2633 making some clarifications to the gibberellic acid question as it relates to germination. It was a level of contribution I always look forward to reading in HBD. Clifton Moore Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 11:02:01 -0800 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: Pale Ale Expt John wrote: >May I suggest the following slightly modified recipe: > >********************************************************************* >Name: Pale Alexperiment O.G.: 1.054 >Style: Oregon Pale Ale I.B.U.: 41.0 >Volume: 5.0 Gallons A.B.V.: 5.2% > >Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU Oz Min >Pale, American 8.20 Columbus 15.0 0.55 75 >Crystal 40, American 1.00 Columbus 15.0 0.55 30 >Munich, American 0.80 Cascade 6.6 0.80 15 > Cascade 6.6 0.80 0 > >Yeast: American Ale Wyeast 1056 Irish Moss 1.00 Tsp at 30 mins. >Mash at 154F for 60 mins. >******************************************************************** ... >So far I have had 5 people express interest in the experiment. To make this >even across the boards, I would be willing to buy all the malt and hops and >ship to each contestant. I would crush all the grain on my mill, weight it >on my postal scale and ship. This would guarantee that we are all starting >from an equal basis. One thing. Should we all use the same grain bill and hop additions? Or should we all shoot for the same OG and IBUs? i.e., should we modify your recipe to suit our efficiencies? One more thing. What do we do with the results? Do we send two bottles to each of the other 11 people? Have your local beer judge score each of the 12 beers? - Bryan Bryan Gros gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website: http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:39:32 -0600 From: Donovan <dlambright at socketis.net> Subject: Getting rid of chlorine Rick wrote: >BTW, I still use chlorine bleach for sanitization but rinse like the devil!< I have always used chlorine bleach for sanitation and rinse with hot tap water. Just about everyone I've heard/read says to do this, so I do. In the back of my mind, however, I can't help but wonder why this practice doesn't create a risk of infection. Can anyone clarify that for me? Donovan Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:24:58 -0000 From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com> Subject: Re: anthocyanogen-free barley George De Piro offers: > 2. Use anthocyanogen-free barleys with low oxalate content > (anthocyanogens bind with the protein degradation products to form > haze.) I have no idea what varieties meet this criteria. Somebody > else jump in here! Well, I'd have to advise against using anthocyanogen-free barley--even if you could get your hands on some, which you probably can't. In the 1970s researchers at Carlsberg developed some anthocyanogen-free barley but it was a failure commercially. Farmer's wouldn't grow it because its yield was less than half that of traditional malting varieties and it was very susceptible to disease (presumably, the polyphenols that the researchers bred out of the barley conferred some sort of disease resistance). Furthermore, French researchers who used the barley on a pilot scale claimed that the resulting beer was lacking in body and insipid (polyphenols obviously have a positive contribution to mouthfeel). If you really want to reduce polyphenol levels through choice of barley variety, then choose either Galant or Dramant. Galant has 1/10 the anthocyanogen content of average malt, and a total phenol content about 1/2 that of normal malt ("normal" is considered to be 140-150 ppm). Unfortunately, Galant malts very poorly and has a natural deficiency in endo-B-nucleases so you'll likely end up with a very viscous wort that could cause a stuck run-off and/or filtration problems. Dramant has a slightly higher phenol content, but seems to produce malt with fewer B-glucan problems. Regarding oxalate: I'm not sure which barleys are naturally low in oxalate, but it can cause haze problems. I know of two ways to rid your final beer of oxalic acid: (i) if you mash with excess calcium, you will remove oxalic acid as the insoluble calcium oxalate (if this continues during the fermentation it will form beer stone); (ii) add oxalate decarboxalase to the mash to convert oxalic acid to formic acid + CO2. I personally would choose (i) over (ii). - -------------------------- Cheers, Mort O'Sullivan ICBD (Edinburgh, Scotland) tarwater at brew-master.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:38:12 -0700 From: Troy Hager <thager at bsd.k12.ca.us> Subject: Long term yeast storage in distilled H2O Brewers, Recently reread the article in BT by Michael Graham about long term yeast storage in distilled H2O. Sounds great, seems easy enough, he seems to know what he is talking about... but Are other people doing this? I reread Fix last night and he mentions nothing about this technique. I have also never heard it mentioned here in the last 6 months that I have been reading HBD. Are you all using slants and plates to store your yeast? If so, why not switch to the distilled water method suggested by Graham? - seems better to me. Am I missing something here? Private email is great! Troy A. Hager 2385 Trousdale Drive. Burlingame, CA 94010 259-3850 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 13:31:43 -0800 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com Subject: Home malting and gibberellic acid Hi all, I've never tried home malting, although I've read about it and talked with people that have done it. I was just perusing some notes about malting and noticed that gibberellic acid should be applied to malt at the rate of 0.03-0.08g/metric TON of barley. I suppose that this could be a misprint, but if it's true (and I think it is; the instructions for prepping the solution make sense), I'd say you'll have a tough time using it at home on a couple of kilos of grain! The advantages of gibberellic acid are listed as: 1. shortening of germination time by two days 2. increased product yield by ~1.0% 3. increase in extract yield by ~1.0% 4. shortened dormancy of the barley Overdosing with gibberellic acid can cause the proteolytic enzymes to develop faster than the amylotic and cytolitic enzymes, yielding malt with reduced diastatic power and too much potential for protein over-cleavage. I am always wary of advice to use such chemicals at home. It seems unnatural and unnecessary, and in this case can cause some harm. If I someday try home malting, I think I would try to control germination rates and eveness by keeping the grain at the low end of the allowable temperature range (~50F). If the germination is a bit uneven, c'est la vie! Dammit, I'm a brewer, not a maltster! If anybody knows for sure that the rate of use I have is a misprint, please chime in. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:53:54 -0800 From: Rosalba e Massimo Faraggi <rosamax at split.it> Subject: Yeast info, brewing lagers Hi! I am making my first lager (a Helles Bock) and have some questions for the HDBers. 1) I got Whitelabs Pilsner yeast; just out of curiosity, does anybody know if it is the same as any of Wyeast strains (2124, 2206, 2278...)? And which of the above is Weihenstephen 3470 and which is Pilsener Urquell (if they are not the same)? 2) Is 46F-48F too low for fermentation with this yeast? 3) I plan to lager at a lower Temp for some weeks then bottle. Can I bottle condition in the usual way (just priming) or should I add further yeast (krausening ecc.)? 4) More generally speaking, I have never tasted bottle conditioned lager, is it an out-of-style procedure? Do you suggest an alternative approach? Sorry if maybe 3)and 4) could have already been debated, but as I was posting anyway...next time I'll be less lazy and check better the archive. TIA and cheers Massimo - Genova - Italy http://www.split.it/users/rosamax/ Max Beer Page Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 19:19:04 -0500 From: "Spies, James" <Jams at mlis.state.md.us> Subject: yeast suspension Here's one for you -- (Hold on, this gets messy . . . ) I recently acquired about a gallon of yeast slurry (a Belgian strain which this particular pub uses to make a fantastic dubbel), and split the slurry in half into 2 sterile containers. I made 2 *identical* batches (same grain bill, hop additions, mash schedule, everything) 1 week apart. I pitched half the yeast the first week and reserved the other half in the fridge until the second week. Batch #1 was active within *20 minutes* of pitching, and I had high kraeusen within two hours. Activity was, shall we say, volcanic. Thank god for blow-off tubes! The activity ceased in the airlock after 5 days. Thinking of the explosive fermentation, I just racked the beer, and *then* took a hydrometer reading. 1.040. Oops. Airlock still dead after 6 hours. Double Oops. So, this being 1 day before batch #2, I simply waited a day, and pitched some of the leftover yeast from batch #2 into fermenter #1. Voila, activity began again. (Batch #1 OG 1.085 and is still fermenting now - 1 bubble every ~20 secs., coming up on 3 weeks in the fermenter :-/ ) What's the problem, you ask? Well, here it is: Batch #2 started off just as hot and heavy as batch #1, finished down to 1.019 within 10 days . . . but . . . the yeast in batch #2 won't flocculate at all. Batch #1 is clear, even after cloudy and heavy renewed fermentation **with the same yeast**. What gives. The airlock on batch #2 is *dead*, there is no foam, and the airlock is not leaking. I want to rack batch #2 off, but it looks like a weizen. Batch #1 is clear and dark, but is still going. What can I add to batch #2 to clear out the yeast? Should I add something to take the yeast out, wait until batch # 1 finishes, and then dose them both with something new (I'm thinking Wyeast 1214) to bottle condition? I don't trust this yeast to carbonate well in the bottle. Any thoughts on the performance of this (un)controlled experiment? Input from the collective would be appreciated because I'm at a loss, and I'd like to salvage both batches. Sorry for the convoluted story, and the lengthy post, but this was tricky to explain. As always, TIA Jay Spies Wisful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore. MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 18:24:39 -0600 From: "Shawn Andrews" <sabrewer at fgi.net> Subject: Re: First wort hopping Well Dave, Here goes... George Fix quotes de Clerck as saying "that = late or finish hopping is at best wasteful, and possibly harmful to flavor." I guess I'll but = that, despite several of my favorite commercial beers being heavily late hopped, Sierra Nevada comes = to mind. I'm willing to try first wort hopping, anyway. My question is if it's okay to late = hop/ dry hop as well. Oh no, sir, I'm not a hophead or anything! I have an IPA in mind for this with = lots of malt to back up the hops. Anyone tried this doing all 3 hop additions? Private e-mail = ok. Thanks, Shawn Andrews Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/12/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96