HOMEBREW Digest #3041 Thu 27 May 1999

[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

  Siebel appeal (Radzan1000)
  Siebel answer to joe rolfe - subject: immobilized yeast fermentation (Radzan1000)
  Siebel answer to biergiek - subject: MWP's and chill haze (Radzan1000)
  Siebel answer to arnold j neitzke - subect: mash thickness (Radzan1000)
  Siebel answer to william frazier - subject: low alcohol beer (Radzan1000)
  Yeast autolysis ("WILLIAM R. SIEBEL")
  Siebel answer to llom - subject: potatoes as adjuncts (Radzan1000)
  Siebel answer to paul shick - subject: bottle conditioning (Radzan1000)
  Siebel answer to david l houseman - subject: mash and body (Radzan1000)
  sour cherries (Jim Liddil)
  Siebel answer to mark a bauer - subject: cold break, etc (Radzan1000)
  Siebel: Infusion vs. Step mashing vs. RIMS/HERMS (Dean Fikar)
  moldy polyclar? (Kurt Congdon)
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Siebel: Sorry I spelled your name wrong\hop freshness ("Frederick L. Pauly")
  Carboys are dangerous (Nathan Kanous)
  HSA in homebrew (Nathan Kanous)
  Thanks/phytin/RO (AJ)
  Siebel-malt flavor/modification (Jim Liddil)
  Siebel Question ("Tim Martin")
  New Brewery & Foam (Dan Listermann)
  RE: malt liquor? ("Kelly")
  Bavarian Lager Malt Bills (Biergiek)
  alcoholism (ensmingr)
  Seibel: Fermentation temps (hope I'm not too late) (Lou.Heavner)
  Siebel; hot side aeration/oxidation ("Stephen Alexander")
  Siebel amswer to t d hamann - subject: grist to liquor (Radzan1000)
  Re: ale yeast for fake lagers? (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Mickey's (ensmingr)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99 (http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff) Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:28:24 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel appeal Response to our appearance on the Home Brewers Digest has been high. We are trying to address all questions. Now we have been deluged with a large volume of direct e-mail, by-passing the Digest. We cannot promise that we will answer these. The questions addressed through the Digest will take precedence and if we answer any more of the e-mail, it will be through the Digest. Thank you for your interest. Dave Radzanowski Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:28:27 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to joe rolfe - subject: immobilized yeast fermentation We have done a lot of tasting on immobilized yeast fermenting beer. Over the years the process has been improved quite a bit going from producing horrible beers to beers which are almost commercially acceptable. As far as I know, the only beers being produced commercially using the immobilized yeast are beers where immobilized yeast is used only for a rapid maturation of the beer and for a very short fermentation used to produce low or non-alcoholic products. These applications have been very successful in Europe. I have tasted both types of beer and like them very much. As a matter of fact, if anybody still makes immobilization on a small scale available, I would recommend this method to produce a low/non-alcoholic product - see question from William Frazier. There is still a bit of room for improvement. Maybe if you get back to brewing in the future an acceptable system for producing regular beers will be available. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:28:23 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to biergiek - subject: MWP's and chill haze I think too much has been made of the molecular weight of proteins as regards chill haze production. The research I have seen found two different sizes of protein implicated in chill haze, one rather large and one rather small. Of course, large and small are relative terms. Most proteins in beer are rather small compared to the range of proteins found in all of nature. I think the real reason proteins have been characterized by molecular weight is that separation based on molecular weight is relatively easy to do with available techniques - not that it means anything in particular. Current thinking leans more toward other properties of chill haze proteins especially high content of the unusual amino acid proline and of negatively charged amino acids as explaining their high reactivity with tannins to form chill haze. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:28:16 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to arnold j neitzke - subect: mash thickness In the absence of any other data on the brews such as final volume, the most likely explanation is that boiling was different and that the thicker brew had been boiled down to a slightly smaller, more concentrated volume. Differences in lautering efficiency due to slight differences in run-off procedures are another likely source of variability. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:48:38 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to william frazier - subject: low alcohol beer The German Malz beers have been made in the past as Malta beverages are today. Dark wort is filtered and carbonated then bottled and Pasteurized at least ten times as much as regular beers. There is no fermentation to produce alcohol. One problem with non-fermented or partially fermented worts is that they taste sweet. You can balance the sweetness to some extent with hop bitterness. Traditional Germean Ludwig's beer going back to the nineteenth century was made by fermenting wort with Ludwig's yeast - today called Saccharomycodes ludwigii. This yeast cannot ferment maltose, the main fermentable sugar in wort, so it produces low levels of alcohol. For a 10 to 12 Plato wort the alcohol would be a little under 2% by weight. Beers fermented by this yeast taste pretty good. Thet are sweet, but you can balance sweetness with hop bitterness and acidity; From what you say you don't seem to mind some sweetness. Preservation would be a big problem. Most preservatives work best at a lower pH than typical beer, like 3 in wines and soft drinks. Probably your best bet for preservation is very thorough Pasteurization, say 160F for 15 min., or making certain that the beer is kept very cold. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:20:09 -0500 From: "WILLIAM R. SIEBEL" <SIEBELINSTITUTE at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Yeast autolysis Hi Jason Gorman, In response to your question on yeast autolysis: Yes, I often describe the process of yeast autolysis as "the yeast spilling it's guts into the beer". Yeast autolysis is the process whereby the yeast basically "digests" itself, when it runs out of nutrients. This process is obviously accelerated by elevated temperatures. The internal contents of the yeast is then released into the beer. Some of the "stuff" that is released into the beer would naturally be present, but at lower levels,ie. compounds that are either excreted or leak out of the yeast. However, other compounds that are not usually present in beer will also be released when the cells die. Many of the compounds that occur as a result of yeast autolysis can be used by the yeast as nutrients, eg vitamins, fatty acids, amino acids, etc. However, some of the compounds are not used by yeast as nutrients eg proteins, various sulfur compounds. SO if you transfer to secondary and add some DME (I assume this means Dried Malt Extract) and also added some fresh yeast you may expect a certain reduction in the Yeast autolysis flavors, but it is very unlikely that you will rid yourself entirely of the rubbery autolysis taste and smell as part of this is coming from compounds released during autolysis that are not remetabolized by the yeast. I am suggesting that you would need to add fresh yeast, as the yeast that is left in the beer is obviously not in very good shape if it is leading to autolysis flavors. This yeast may well not be capable of fermenting the DME that you are adding. Hope this answers your question. Cheers, Lyn Kruger SIEBEL INSTITUTE Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:23:26 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to llom - subject: potatoes as adjuncts It sounds like you are interested in production of Hohenheim style beer, formerly produced in this small town, now swallowed up as a suburb of Stuttgart. A description of production of Hohenheim malt-potato beer was given by Professor K. Siemens published in Professor Julius Thausing"s book "Preparation of Malt and Fabrication of Beer" as translated by Anton Schwarz, one of the founders of our present day school, in 1882. Potatoes were ground to a pulp and put through a sieve to separate skins and unground pieces. The pulp was placed on a cloth laid on top of the lauter tub screens and the "fruit sap" is removed since it gives a disagreeable taste to the beer. Hot water is then passed over the pulp until the water runs clear and the pulp does not pick up color when it is allowed to stand. This process takes about 24 hours and the potatoes are prepared for brewing. Mash water is heated to 122F and potato pulp and half the malt are mixed in. The mash is slowly heated to 140F over the course of an hour. The other half of the malt was mixed with cold water the night before, and the liquid is removed from the cold malt mix on the brewing day and saved. The rest of the cold mash is mixed with the potato-malt mash and kept between 140 and 158F for one hour to saccharify. The mash is then boiled until the liquid portion appears clear. The clearest portion of the reserved cold mash liquid is then added to the boiled mash, sufficient to reduce the temperature to about 158F. The remiaining solids from the cold water are mixed into the mash as lautering is about to start. Professor Siemens reports that potato beer clarifies well after fermentation and has a light color and rather vinous flavor. 600 to 650 pounds of wet potato pulp or starch were used with 300 to 350 pounds of malt, about 1/3 potato to 2/3 malt on a dry basis. Dry potato starch and potato flour was also used in Hohenheim. Mashing the starch with hot water (somewhat like cooking) before addition to the malt mash was recommended. Professor Siemens reported that lautering difficulties were commonly encountered when potato starch was used. >From the description of this long, drawn out process I think you can see why Hohenheim style beers are no longer being produced. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:23:28 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to paul shick - subject: bottle conditioning Some hard data on bottle conditioned beers has been published from the Louvain in Belgium. Oxygen dissolved in the beer up to quite a high level of 2 ppm disappears within a few hours and does not have much chance to harm the beer. Oxygen in the headspace cannot be removed by yeast in the beer unless it diffuses into the beer. Agitation during shipping might help get rid of oxygen by shaking it into the beer where the yeast can use it. In their experiments only 30% of the headspace oxygen was removed. The rest contributed to deterioration of the beer flavor. The time for deterioration at high but not ridiculously high levels of oxygen was 6 to 9 months. For short periods of time for beers packaged with poor air control the conclusion from the research done would be that bottle conditioning shows a significant advantage over pressure filled beers. Of course you have to be sure that you do not introduce beer spoiling organisms into the beer along with the yeast for bottle conditioning. This seems to be the most difficult part of the process. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:23:27 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to david l houseman - subject: mash and body I think you are reaching the point of splitting hairs on mash-out temperatures. At temperatures in the range of 158 to 170F, beta amylase will be inactivated rather quickly, within 15 minutes, and some but not all alpha amylase will remain. A mash out at 170F will not stop all enzyme activity and you don't want to stop all activity. Some alpha amylase should be present during lautering to digest any starch released late in the process. The general rule is that mash-out should never exceed about 175F or too much alpha amylase will be inactivated. Experience with North American malts is that a temperature of 158F for saccharification still gives a lot of fermentable sugar, about 65 to 68% wort fermentability, and that you have to go quickly to saccharification at about 165F to get a significant increase in non-fermentable sugars. Higher mash-out temperatures decrease the viscosity of the wort and therefore allow more efficient separation of wort and grain during run-off. A mash-off temperature of 168-170F is pretty commonly used today as a compromise to get low viscosity and still allow a little alpha amylase activity to digest any remaining starch. Tannins such as tannic acid are commercially extracted at a temperature of 185F. The worry about tannin extraction from malt is another reason not to exceed 175F. On the other hand, decoction mashin where some of the malt is boiled has been traditionally practiced to make good beers for a long time. Maybe there shouldn't be too much emphisis on tannin extraction. But never inactivate all of the enzymes before the wort reaches the kettle. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 18:30:05 -0400 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: sour cherries the two varieties that Dr. Iezzoni just released and suggested to me are: Ballaton and Danube Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:17:43 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel answer to mark a bauer - subject: cold break, etc Cold break Cold break particles are very small, about 1 micron in diameter, and very difficult to remove by any type of filtration. They can be coagulated and removed by the use of Irish Moss. I think this is the most effective method for removal if you wish to remove cold break. In Germany floatation is also used to reduce cold break. To use this method, overaerate the cold wort so that a fairly thick layer of foam forms. You could whip in air with a high speed mixer or bubble in air through a diffusion stone. Let the wort stand for several hours. Then carefully remove the wort, leaving a little foam behind. Cold break particles will attach themselves to the foam bubbles and be left behind. Whichever method you use, be careful not to remove all of the cold break. The presence of some cold break particles helps fermentation by helping to release carbon dioxide gas from solution. Protein rests Rests at lower temperatures are not just protein rests; they are more properly a period of continued malt modification. I prefer the term modification rest. While some protein is made soluble during the rest, it seems more effective at increasing levels of small nitrogen compounds important for yeast nutrition - free amino nitrogen. For all malt beers there is usually adequate nitrogen present in the wort without using a low temperature rest. If a modification rest is eliminated, though, you will have more beta glucans in the wort, you will obtain a slightly lower amount of extract from the malt used and for a weizen beer there will be less phenolic flavor precursor. Our attitude is that you shouldn't follow any blind recommendations. Look at factors like, do you want to sterile fill the beer?, are you making a weizen type beer?, is it worth your time to save a little money on malt purchases? and then make up your own mind. We did some calculations on a 20 hl all malt brew recently and concluded you could use about $3 worth less malt per brew by doing a "protein rest." If the $3 per brew was applied to a year end bonus to you for using the "protein rest," I would advise you to incorporate one. Saccharification My critique to the statement "I saccarify all my beers at 158F to promote more body, mouthfeel and sweetness" would be "You're wasting your time" (assuming you're using North American Malt). You will need a higher temperature than that to get a significant increase in unfermentable body, as high as 165F. See the response to David Houseman for a more complete discussion. Joe Power Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:28:18 -0500 From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net> Subject: Siebel: Infusion vs. Step mashing vs. RIMS/HERMS Do you believe that there is any advantage in the finished beer, at the homebrew level, to step mashing or RIMS/ HERMS over simple infusion mashing for styles not traditionally decocted? I know that you might get better extraction rates and might have an easier sparge with the more complicated methods but I don't know if I see much of an advantage in the finished product over and above what you can achieve by infusion mashing modern malts. I do mostly single infusion no-sparge or low-sparge brewing so I don't really care what my extraction rates are. I've never had a stuck mash (I mash and lauter in a 10 gal. Gott cooler with a slotted copper manifold) and I don't get much haze in my beer, probably since I tend to cold age them at temps < 40F. I would consider investing in a more complicated setup if I thought it might make any positive difference in the final product. I have a real desire to make the best beer possible in a homebrewery setting, particularly since I like to enter my best beers in competitions. What should I do? Thanks, Dean Fikar - Ft. Worth, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:52:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Kurt Congdon <kcongdon at enteract.com> Subject: moldy polyclar? I've got a very strange question, is it possible for mold to grow in polyclar? I purchased a new package several weeks ago, and I went to use it for the first time tonight and found grayish pockets of what I think might be mold. Is this possible or is it something else? Is it just coloration of the polyclar? Curios, Kurt Congdon Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 23:29:31 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report The Jethro Gump Report It is obvious that many mis-understood my last post to the HBD...but this has also had many unintended benefits, as I can vouch for....as a result of scores of e-mails from brewers throughout the world..... I do intend to pull back for a bit....I am still sickened..... My thoughts at that time were focused on a lack of appreciation for a certain group of craftsmen....folks like Steve Perry...that do the job they have 'cos they love the job...certainly not because they are making thousands of dollars from it....'cos they aren't.... And there are more of them, like Steve, than you may know..... I know Steve....though I have never met him...and have many phone conversations to remember....some as recently as last week, that haunt me with his fire, humour...and passion for the brotherhood of brewers that he served..... My fury is directed to the generally sorry state of our industry, that to this date, continues to allow brewers to be lured with promises of 5.25 dollars an hour...(it is a real occurrance).... and with the understanding that they are no more valued than the next dishwasher...... Yes, as some have suggested, I am depressed....depressed that our craft is not valued by many.....most of all our employers.... In an industry, just speaking of brewpubs....the correspondence I get speaks of tawdry co-existence, and disdain......"Christ, I can get anyone to brew! Just turn that valve, and follow this recipe...." Brewing is a lot of process...no doubt....but the art is what no one appreciates....that thing that separated the CRAFT from the hourly employee....and that, my friends, is what separates the great from the mundane.....Thankfully, this is not universal....and hopefully, one day I will be a part of the former.... Steve did it....he gave of himself for the pursuit of what he believed in....our industry.....as anyone who has worked in a similar position would vouch for.....certainly not for the money......the money wasn't there...the fire was.... I am further depressed that I cannot just make it better for Mrs. Perry by doing something....anything..... THAT was my big prob....I can't feel like I can make a difference...... But I am buoyed by the work of folks like Dave Edgar of the IBS....that has set up a Trust Fund for Steve's daughter.... http://www.beertown.org/temp/steve.htm I include a post, without permission, I don't think it matters at this point, from Dave Edgar....to the IBS Forum.... From: David Edgar <david at aob.org> Subject: Stephen Perry On Thursday, May 20, the same day of the arrival of his first child, a baby girl named Caroline Anne (6 lb., 2 oz.), Steve Perry was admitted to Boulder Community Hospital for complications believed to be caused by Wilson's disease, a hereditary disease that prevents the body from being able to process copper, causing an acute liver ailment due to the buildup of copper in the liver--requiring a liver transplant. A helicopter flew Steve to a Denver hospital on Saturday in an attempt to get the transplant--but he did not live long enough. It is with deepest sadness and regret that I must inform you that Steve Perry passed away Saturday evening. We at IBS and AOB are still in a state of shock over the sudden news of Steve's passing, as he was a valued employee, friend and a great guy who was very excited about becoming a new dad--in addition to being a dynamite moderator of the IBS Brewers Forum. Later this week we hope to post a page on our website in tribute and memorial to Steve, who was just 30 years old, with an opportunity for those who knew him to share their good memories of Steve. The page will also provide information about a fund being set up by the Association of Brewers for his daughter, Caroline Anne Perry, where interested individuals may send contributions in Steve's memory. <SNIP> - -- David S. Edgar Director Institute for Brewing Studies http://beertown.org (web) So, my friends, I am sorry to annoy you with my anger....and my grief.....I do really appreciate the words of support I have been given in the last 24 hours...and the phone calls too....But, supporting me is not needed...I am too bloody stupid to be worth it anyway..... What I really want you to do is write a check.....I don't care if it is only 5 bucks....and send it to the fund that Dave has set up at the AOB..... We need to help this time......One of our own has gone.....This is how we can make a difference.... And we need to do better in the future..... Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 05:58:19 -0400 From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m at unix.mail.virginia.edu> Subject: Siebel: Sorry I spelled your name wrong\hop freshness I posted in the May 24 digest #3038 asking how to know if my hops were fresh and or how to get great hop flavor like in a fresh Anchor Liberty Ale. Rick Pauly Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 07:38:28 -0500 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Carboys are dangerous Todd Larson had an accident. Sorry to hear about it and I hope you're able to walk just fine after recovery. I ALWAYS carry my carboys in a milk crate. It doesn't necessarily prevent me from dropping them, but I've got a better hold on it and if I do drop it, hopefully most of the pieces will stay in the crate. I dropped one once...while cleaning....damn soap. nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 07:43:11 -0500 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: HSA in homebrew Sorry, but I disagree. I had a batch of special bitter that I brewed last September. I had a foul up in my drain hose from the mash tun....lots of air got into the line as I was sparging. Three weeks later (after fermentation and packaging) the beer was terrible....tasted like the cardboard carrier you buy beer in. Is HSA a huge problem in homebrewing? I don't think it's as big as some have made it out to be, but by no means is it non-existent / benign. nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:08:10 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Thanks/phytin/RO First off, thanks to Joe Power for taking time to answer my question. As you can see from Alan Meeker's post (and what follows) this is currently the subject of intense discussion. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Phytin/Phytate/Phytase etc. Once again the bulk of the discussion is going on off line and once again I'll offer to copy anyone who is interested (though I think we are winding down - I believe I'm beginning to understand this) Just to be clear up a couple of points WRT Alans post: ->I now have 3 refernces that seem to agree that "phytin" means the mixed calcium/magnezium salt of phytic acid. Most of the phytic acid in barley (and other seeds) is in the form of this salt. ->When I said that only ruminant animals produce phytase I was referring to phytase in the gut and never meant to imply that other animals are phytin/phytase free. Myo - inositols and phosphoinositides play many important roles in the biochemistry of all (should never say all, I suppose) living things. Monogastric animals that eat plant products containing phytin (most of which, in particular seeds) do, do not absorb calcium/magnesium/iron etc as well as and excrete more phosphate than do ruminants who, having evolved eating these foods, produce gastric phytase in at least one of their stomach chambers. This has led to problems both with nutrution of monogastric farm animals and with phosphates in their manure leading to eutrophication in water bodies which receive runoff exposed to it. Phytase is now commercially available to add to feeds for these reason. ->WRT the equation: In textbooks it is written H2O Phytate -----> myo-inositol + Pi phytase where Pi is the symbol for inorganic phosphate. This (i.e. use of the generic Pi) is done intentionally to avoid having to deal with the issues of the degree of protonation of either the phytic acid or the phophphate species (depend on the pK's and pH). When one solves numerical problems dealing with things like how much calcium phosphate precipitates given a specific set of circumstances one must take all this into consideration. The usual approach is to write equations (one for each de-protonation) which simultaneously satisfy the equilibrium conditions, electrical neutrality and proton condition (all protons must be accounted for) and solve them (usually through the agency of pH as the "master variable"). Not wanting to get into any of this here I tried to simplify by writing balanced equation which communicates essentially what is happening. As written it is clearly only applicable where pH is substantially less than 1 because that is the only condition under which you would find all phosphate fully protonated (H3PO4) and probably the only one under which phytic acid would be fully protonated as well (=CH-OPO3H2 at each corner. ->When Alan does the phosphate buffer experiment he gets no pH drop even though there is a precipitate and asks for an explanation. I can't give one. If precipitate forms with a phosphate buffer and phosphate coalesces with the calcium and falls out then the equilibrium between the phosphate species is upset. The relative quantities of the remaining phosphates must change to restore the equilibrium. Changing the phosphates quantities involves the shedding of protons and an accompanying pH change. Perhaps a clue lies in the phrase "in which the phosphate was buffered". If this means that some phosphate was placed in another buffer, e.g. tris + HCl, (though most buffers I'm aware of around pH 7 contain phosphate) then the explanation is that the protons released were absorbed by the buffer. Whenever I do this with a phosphate buffer I see a pH drop, even when the precipitate is so minimal that I can't see it. -> My recommendation that people only worry about the alkalinity of the sparge water, not its pH, assumes that the phytin/phytase reaction is over. It rests on the principal that if the mash, with all the acid it is ever going to produce, has a titratatble (to pH 6) acidity greater than the alkalinity (to pH 6) of the water then the water alkalinit cannot raise the mash pH above 6. Thus it has nothing to do with calcium. If calcium can still react with mash phosphate to lower pH further, then that's gravy. I never intended to imply (though I gotta say I have a much clearer picture now than I did when this thread started) that the phytase reaction lowers pH by itself. It does do this indirectly by converting some of whatever phytin does dissolve to myo-inositol thus releasing organic phosphate which coalesces with calcium releasing protons. This upsets the equilibrium (removing the product of a reaction allows the reaction to procede in the product direction) so that more phytin can dissolve and so on. There is also a second mechanism, i.e. the one that is predominant in ale brewing (where phytase is pretty much inactivated by the more intense kilning of ale malts) where calcium is chelated by solubilized phytin directly, i.e. without release of Pi. This also releases hydrogen ions. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Nathan Kanous askes about why RO processors can remove lots of things (like chloride ions) but not chlorine gas. What RO membranes can remove and not remove is mostly a function of the size of the ions/molecules involved. Some things are removed more effectively than others. The issue with elemental chlorine is not its size but the fact that it poisons the most commonly used membrane material - I don't know the details. For this reason, RO units that use this type of membrane always include an activated carbon filter (which removes the clorine) before the RO cartridge and it is very important that this filter be serviced frequently. Treat a RO membrane well (avoid chlorine poisoning) and it will serve for years. - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:07:17 -0400 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at vms.arizona.edu> Subject: Siebel-malt flavor/modification christopher bird wrote: > Subject: malt flavor > > Malt flavor is a bit abstract. Not much is known (very little technical > papers deal with malt flavor). If you are trying to match the malt > flavor found in German lagers, however, I feel that this characteristic > is acheived by the use of an undermodified base malt (less well modified > than North American varieties) Can you comment on what you mean by "undermodified"? A review of various web sites (wyermann etc.) indicates that German malts look every bit as "modified" as North American malt from Briess, etc. Additional comments would be welcome as this has been debated extensively on this forum. Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:06:57 -0400 From: "Tim Martin" <TimMartin at southwest.cc.nc.us> Subject: Siebel Question Hey Neighbors, Hope this is not too late. Thank you Mr. Siebel for this service. I brew the lazy way...simple one step infusion and I have always enjoyed my beer. When and why should I change to multi-step, protein rest or decoction? Thank you, Tim Martin Cullowhee, NC Buzzards Roost Home brewery "with that strong predatory taste" Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:38:35 -0400 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: New Brewery & Foam Carm Salvatore (carmen.salvatore at lmco.com) says that he is building a brewery in the basement of his new house. I suggest that he get his priorities straight. He is allowing his wife to build a house on top of his brewery. Dave Radzanowski ( radzan1000 at aol.com) of Siebel is open to suggestions regarding a verb to describe the collapsing of foam. May I suggest "defobulation." Dan Listermann dan at listermann.com 72723.1707 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:43:31 -0500 From: "Kelly" <kgrigg at diamonddata.com> Subject: RE: malt liquor? Here in the States, if beer is over a certain percentage of alcohol (forgot what that is)....it can't be referred to as beer. It has to be labeled malt liquor. Basically anything I brew would have that label..... At least, that's my understanding...... HTH, Kelly Original message------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:47:49 +0930 From: "Thomas D. Hamann" <tdhamann at senet.com.au> Subject: malt liquor? Have just drunk a funny shaped screw top bottle of "Mickey's Malt Liquor", what is it? We don't use that terminology in Australia and Michael Jackson says its not malty and it aint liquor and contains lots of cheap sugar. The bottle also doesn't tell me how much zumba it contains, how alco. are these beers? tdh "Life is what happens.... ....While you're out making other plans" John Lennon Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:04:44 EDT From: Biergiek at aol.com Subject: Bavarian Lager Malt Bills Stephen says, >I'd be willing to wager a significant sum that Kyle, like most brewers, even tho' >quite familiar with components hops flavors, cannot reliably identify hops >used two or three at a time in beer. Even such a simple decomposition is >really quite difficult. What are the odds? Anyway, I can't distinguish between different hop strains worth a hoot. The best I can do is bitter or aromatic. I can't distinguish between Ultra, Liberty, or Crystal, for example. This is why I don't purchase imported hops. Why spend the extra money on something I can't appreciate? >You want malty flavor, but not the sort of flavor found in a bag of malt. >You state a contradiction to my way of thinking. "Malty" *IS* the flavor >and aroma of malt - not of some other substitute. I have tasted the "malt shop" malty flavor (or flavour if you live in Oz) in Paulaner Oktoberfest and Spaten Oktoberfest. Sometimes its there, sometimes not. It could be the condition of my senses on the particular day, could be the beer. I think the malty taste you reference is more like the taste of Munich malt. >Since you reject what I write, and also fail to mention what style of >Bavarian beer you seek to brew, may I suggest you get a copy of Kunze and >follow the malt bill guidelines for your chosen style there (pp 164) using >good quality continental malts. Oktoberfest, Munchner (dunkel), and Bock. I am not going to spend $100+ for a book where all I want are the recipes. Would you, or someone else who has the book, please post a few of the malt bills, thanks. I think the most interesting and poignant comment was given in the Siebel answer where he suggests undermodified malts may produce better malt shop flavors (notice how he described the malty flavor as 'malted milk balls', he seems to know what I mean). By undermodified, I assume he is referencing carbohydrate modification and not proteolytic modification. >Witty sarcasm is clearly your long suite Kyle, try hunting about for the >page-down key sometime. Come on now Steve, don't take this beer thing so seriously. Get out of the lab and have a few laughs once in a while. I know a group of guys who exchange halarious emails on a daily basis, I can ask them to cc you if you like. Kyle Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:34:09 -0500 From: ensmingr at npac.syr.edu Subject: alcoholism FYI, the recent issue (May 26, 1999) of *Journal of the American Medical Association* has an interesting article (sort of a mini-review) entitled "New Findings in the Genetics of Alcoholism" [see: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/journals/most/recent/issues/jama/jct90005.htm ]. There is discussion of alcohol metabolizing enzymes (ADH, ALDH); the level of response to alcohol; phenotypes of interest; and implications for treatment. Among the conclusions, the authors state "A number of combined genetic factors appear to explain approximately half of the alcoholism risk, and the search for genes that have an effect on (not definitively cause) risk has important implications. The range of potential causes seen in genetic studies implies that there might not be a single definitive treatment that will work for everyone. Prevention and treatment will probably require a variety of interventions. Regarding prevention, the genetic data reinforce the wisdom of teaching children of alcoholics that they carry a heightened vulnerability toward a serious disorder, which can be avoided by abstinence or diminished by adhering to limited levels of alcohol intake." Cheers! Peter A. Ensminger Syracuse, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:23:18 -0500 From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com Subject: Seibel: Fermentation temps (hope I'm not too late) To: Seibel folk, I have a pretty good handle on how to control temperatures when fermenting conventional ales and lagers. What I'd like have never seen is time and temperature regimen for those colder fermented continental ales like alts and koelsches. Specifically, how long and at what temps would you recommend fermenting, lagering, bottling, conditioning. As a side note, I don't keg, only bottle condition and of course I don't filter. I usually use Wyeast strains which have been stepped up at least once for ales and at least twice for lagers. I typically transfer the beer to a secondary/lagering vessel for lagers, but bottle straight from the primary fermenter with ales. I usually prime with corn sugar and rarely if ever add fresh yeast at bottling. Carbonation seems to take quite a while in my lagers, but finally does happen, but I suspect that is related to the quantity and age of the yeast and temperature during bottle conditioning. Any suggestions/recommendations are appreciated. Regards, Lou Heavner - Austin, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 10:56:42 -0400 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Siebel; hot side aeration/oxidation Open follow-up question to Dave Radzanowski of Siebel I'm very appreciative of the wonderful flow of knowledge from Siebel staff to HBD, and I feel somehow like I'm challenging the Oracle of Delphi but ... >This one is easy. No, I do not believe that "hot side aeration" is a factor >at the homebrewing scale. When you are required to ship large quantities for >great distance and need to have very long shelf stability under conditions >over which you have no control, then it becomes a factor. Homebrew practices often entails transfer of mash to a separate lauter tun and then recirculation (vorlauf) of about 50% of the mash liquor volume to get adequate clarity. Both transfers are often accomplished manually with a 'scoop' of roughly 1/2 gallon volume and (hopefully) gentle pouring. The mash and boiler depths are typically about 15 inches - so the surface area per volume of wort is quite high in our small batches. These seem like great potential sources for oxygen contact and HSA. Because of the lack of finish filtration (and often slower fermentation), homebrewed beer in my experience is seldom in prime drinking shape in less than one month and often requires 2-3 months before it hits it's peak for clarity and flavor. A quick review of some modest gravity homebrewed ales winning national prizes shows an age range of 3 to 9 months. During this period temperature control may be spotty. These contest entry beer are often bottled with concern, but less control over entrapped headspace air than in commercial practice. They are then shipped cross-country with little or no temperature control. Best homebrew practice improves on above methods, but the methods above are not uncommon. We have hot-side air contact, substantial aging and temperature control problems, bottling air inclusion, long distance shipping and heat/storage issues. Many homebrewers have experienced flavor declines consistent with oxidation damage after a beer has been in good drinkable shape for weeks or months. The off-flavors and decline often appear and advance quite quickly. I can only speculate as to whether HSA, other oxidation or something else is responsible for the deterioration. Changes to brewing and handling methods appear to improve the situation - tho' I know of no good controlled tests. Flavor deterioration problems of all sorts are rarely reported in bottle conditioned homebrew, but are not uncommon for kegged homebrew. In consideration of a 3-9 month useful "shelf-life", the potential for greater hot-side air/wort contact per unit volume and limited storage temperature control, do you remain convinced that HSA can be ignored in homebrew ? still sleeping uneasily, Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:29:41 EDT From: Radzan1000 at aol.com Subject: Siebel amswer to t d hamann - subject: grist to liquor Gee, I've been around the industry for over 37 years and I didn't know that there was only one way to do anything in brewing. I've found that what works best for a given system and what works best to produce the best product is what you do. Gurus that state that there is only one way are self proclaimed and should not be worshipped. As a matter of practicallity, the breweries that I worked for always introduced an amount of water into the mash vessel before the introduction of the grain. This was to the height of the bottom half of the mixer blades and the mixer was then placed in motion and the grain was then started into the vessel. The grain addition is then somewhat rapid in the same time frame as the run in of the rest of the doughing in water. This became very important once we realized the advanages of low shear mixing and lowered the speed and changed the design of our mixers. In the major breweries, extract is of the utmost importance and dry grains clinging to the bottom of the vessel and dry lumps contribute no extract. The major German manufacturers of new brewhouse equipment, recocnizing this need, now incorporate massive foremasher or premasher systems in their newest installations. Use the method that works best for you and your brew. Dave Radzanowski Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 08:51:33 -0700 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: ale yeast for fake lagers? > Is there any good yeast choice for making an acceptable lager tasting > beer while fermenting at, say, 62 or so? Yes. I'm happy to say that my homebrewing club, the Worts of Wisdom, has recently completed a yeast experiment. We fermented 22 samples of wort donated by our local brewpub (the Tied House) with a large number of yeast strains. We did all the Wyeast ale strains except the Belgian and the wheat (second plug: donated by Wyeast and Fermentation Frenzy). We also threw in a few White Labs strains and a few from our own yeast bank. The complete details will be on our website soon, but for now I'll summarize: We did the ferment at uncontrolled temperature due to the large number of fermenters. This ended up being 60-62F average. Most of the ale yeasts were very clean tasting with few differences of any significance between them. However, we did use an alt yeast obtained from the now defunct Head Start. I have usedthis in the past for alts and always found it too lager-like, even in the upper 50s. Well, even in the very low 60s it is very lager like. Other than a bit of sulfur I can't really say why it seems more lager-like than the ale yeasts when they are at their cleanest, but it does. Anyway I'm happy to give this to Bryan the next time I see him, but how about everyone else? Maybe the YCKC can get permission to distribute this from Brian Nummer. Or maybe they don't need to? - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:07:21 -0500 From: ensmingr at npac.syr.edu Subject: Mickey's Thomas D. Hamann asked about Mickey's in HBD 3040. Mickey's is made by Heileman Brewery in LaCrosse WI. It is 5.8% ABV; 158 cals/12 oz; OG 1.049, FG 1.006. This info used to be available at http://beertown.org/GABF/97breweries/brewerylist.htm , but this site is now closed. For alcohol and calories of this and other beers, see: http://www.npac.syr.edu/users/ensmingr/beer/beerdata.html . Cheerio! Peter A. Ensminger Syracuse, NY Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/27/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96