---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  Sunflower seeds and wort (rhampo at ford.com (Rich Hampo))
  ? on Wyeast #2007 (CSS2 at oas.psu.edu     (SPEAKER.CURTIS))
  Re: esters ("Tracy Aquilla")
  English ale hops/flavourful low-OG/DMS/Split batches (korz at pubs.ih.att.com)
  "PSI Loss" or Hose Length /Carbonation (Ogneg at aol.com)
  Dave's Manifesto (korz at pubs.ih.att.com)
  Wort Chilling/Ice (lachina at interramp.com (Lorne Franklin))

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES
  homebrew at aob.org                (SUBMISSIONS only)
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org (for REQUESTS only)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at aob.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending a
  one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
This list service is now being provided by majordomo at aob.org, so some
  of the commands may have changed.  For technical problems send
  e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.

ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION

Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org or visit
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web.  Othere information is available by
e-mail from info at aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob.
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu.
  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the
  password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.
  AFS users can find it at /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.  Some
  archives are available via majordomo at aob.org.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: rhampo at ford.com (Rich Hampo)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:11:30 -0400
Subject: Sunflower seeds and wort

Howdy!

I was just some eating sunflower seeds while I am working, and spitting
the shells into a cup.  When I put my face up to the cup to deposit
another shell, I get a strong wort-like malty smell. Is it the
kilning smell or something different?  Or am I just daydreaming of
beer while I am chained to the old desk at work?
Anyone ever use sunflower seeds in beer? Why?

Brew on!

Richard Hampo
H&H Brewing Ltd.

Return to table of contents


From: CSS2 at oas.psu.edu (SPEAKER.CURTIS)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:21 EDT
Subject: ? on Wyeast #2007

Greetings fellow zymurgists!

I recently made my first decoction pilsner with all pilsner malt and saaz
hops.  I pitched my 1 qt. starter of Wyeast #2007 (aka da Bud yeast).
Fermentation was vigerous within 6 hours.  After a couple days, the kreusen
had fallen, so I racked to a carboy and put it into my cooler to lager (set at
40F). After a few days, I glanced at the carboy:  I saw no activity in the
airlock, and the beer was still fairly cloudy.
Previous lagers that I have made seem to clear very quickly when I throw them
into the lagering fridge, and airlock activity picks up after a day or so.
Does anyone know if #2007 is particularly susceptible to cold?  The Wyeast
brochure says 48-56F, but is says that for other lager yeasts that I have had
no trouble with (#2278, #2308, #2206).
I was not wearing any plaid at the time, if that helps :-)
Does anyone have any ideas???
Thanks...
Curt
css2 at oas.psu.edu

Return to table of contents


From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 16:06:32 CDT
Subject: Re: esters

In Digest #2075:
"David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Finally, on the question of ester formation. There seems to be two
>diametrically opposed opinions, sometimes put forth by the same person. More
>oxygen will give more, or sometimes, less esters?  I'm confused.

My opinion is that this is highly dependent on the yeast strain. I also
believe pitching rate is significant, although there is some literature to
the contrary. For now, let's just say it's a complex process and broad
generalizations may not mean much.

>Is there a problem here in confusing esters (a product of reaction between
>alcohol and a carboxylic acid) and aldehydes and ketones ( an oxidation 
product
>of alcohols and related products).  Is any odoriferous substance( whether or
>not it is chemically an ester) called an ester by some people?

Doubtful, although I suppose it's possible. As far as I know, the folks
involved in the discussion so far know what esters are.

>I understand that oxygen can (and is necesssary to) oxidize ( directly or
>through an enzyme catalysed reaction)  an alcohol to an acid so that with a
>higher acid concentration we will get more ester formation.

Oxygen isn't really necessary for oxidation; other oxidizers work too (eg.
melanoidins). Since esters don't form spontaneously at any appreciable rate,
enzymes are the key to ester synthesis. However, it has been demonstrated
experimentally that increasing the concentration of the substrate pools
(alcohols and acids) can increase the rate of ester synthesis. So you are
correct, increasing concentrations of acids (and alcohols) can lead to
increased ester levels.

>that aldehydes and ketones are partial oxidation products of alcohols on the
>way to formation of acids.  More oxidation would give more of them, but
>continued oxidation would carry these products to acids and more ester
>formation.

Not necessarily. Ester synthase activity is needed to catalyze the reaction.
If these enzymes aren't present and active, no esters will be formed, even
if the substrate pools are huge.

>Since these products are require oxygen, how could increasing the oxygenation
>reduce the formation of ester and related intemediates? What am I missing?

For one thing, oxygen is not required for oxidation. The current dogma is
that oxygenation inhibits esterification by redirecting substrates through a
different pathway. I'm researching another article now, this time on esters.
I expect it to take me at least a couple of months to complete. Expect more
tidbits as the data flow in.
Tracy

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 16:51:45 CDT
Subject: English ale hops/flavourful low-OG/DMS/Split batches

Goldings writes:
>If you want to go for an English Pale, use Goldings for bittering; Fuggles
>for flavor & aroma; an English Bitters would use only Goldings.

Despite what the AHA Guidelines say, I feel that there is no difference
between English Pale Ale and English Bitter.  In the UK the two names are
used interchangeably by brewers.  You should check out Roger Protz's
book "The Real Ale Drinker's Almanac."  The third edition gives you the IBUs
as well as the grains and hops used by most of Britain's Real Ale brewers.
In some cases it even says things like "OG 1.043; 4.1% ABV; 93% Pipkin Pale
Ale malt, 6% Crystal malt, 1% Black Patent malt; Fuggle pellets for bittering,
dryhopped with whole East Kent Goldings; 34 bittering units."

Clearly Goldings and Fuggles are the most popular hop amongst Real Ale brewers,
but they also use lots of Target, Challenger, WGV, Northdown and even some
American and Continental varieties.  In short, what I'm trying to say is tha
you can use any of these hops as bittering, flavour, finishing or dry hops.
Personally, I prefer to not use American or Continental varieties except
for bittering on rare occasions.  There is no need to limit oneself to
Goldings and Fuggles.  Furthermore, I've had very good success getting an
intense East Kent Golding-like aroma from British Columbian Goldings and
Styrian Goldings (despite the fact that the latter is actually a relative
of Fuggles and not Goldings).

***
Jim writes:
>   The key to brewing these low gravity styles successfully are obtaining
>body and malt character in beers with an OG that's only in the mid-1.030s.
>In this regard, rounded, sweet flavors are Good Things(tm), since they help
>give the impression that the beer is more full-bodied than it actually is.
>Conversely, sharp flavors such as hop bitterness and dark roasted malts are
>Bad Things(tm), since they will contribute to the impression that the beer
>is thin and watery.

Ahem... recall that one of these flavourful, low-gravity styles we're
talking about here is English Bitter?  This is a style where bitterness
should clearly dominate.   Consider Boddington's (yes, in the blasted
Draft-flow cans... alas, there are few examples of good low-gravity bitters
available in the US) or Henley Ale or Shepherd Neame Masterbrew Premium.
The Henley is about evenly balanced, but the other two are definitely
balanced towards bitterness.

Jim continues:
>   With the exception of iso-amyl acetate (banana flavor in weizens), most
>esters tend to be sharp flavors.

Esters primarily create aroma (usually fruity, but sometimes solventy).
I don't see how a fruity aroma could cause sharpness in a beer.

>Ideally, a yeast that is relatively non-attenuative,
>leaves some diacetyl (see above, rounded, sweet flavors are Good Things(tm)),
>and does not throw a lot of esters should be used for these types of beers.

I agree that a little diacetyl is a "Good Thing" but don't agree that we
would prefer less estery yeasts over more estery ones.  I think that any
less-attenuative yeast should do well in these low-gravity beers -- it just
depends on what the brewer likes.  Wyeast #1968 London ESB is quite fruity
and makes an excellent low-gravity bitter.

> Yes, if you do decide to dilute after fermentation, the dilution water must
>be handled just like beer, i.e., siphoned quietly with no splashing, to avoid
>re-aerating the water. If this is not done, the ethanol that's present in
>fermented beer will be oxidized to acetaldehyde, a very sharp flavor (green
>apples), and a very Bad Thing(tm) indeed.

The alcohols will be oxidized to aldehydes, but not acetaldehyde.  I've never
smelled the characteristic green apple aroma of acetaldehyde in a beer that
has post-fermentation oxidation.  The aromas I get from these beers are
papery, wet cardboard and PlayDough (sp?).

***
Bill writes (with something, no doubt, up his sleeve):
>I have DMS in my beer is the beer ruined?

Well, Bill, it depends on the level and the style.  In most pale lagers
(American Pilsner, Munich Helles, Munich Hellesbock, Dort, German Pils,
Bohemian Pils, etc...) a level of DMS slightly above the human threshold
is acceptable and desirable.  It often is considered part of the malt
character in these beers.  On the other hand DMS in all ales and dark
lagers is generally considered a flaw.  Excessive levels in any beer
are unpleasant and can make your beer smell like cooked corn or parsnips.
Very high levels of DMS are usually a sign of problematic procedures
(i.e. boiling with the lid on, long, slow cooling of hot wort, etc.) or
bacterial infection: Hafnia Protea is the most common source I believe
(don't have my books here... it was formerly known as Obesumbacteria).

***
Tom writes:
>If I obtain a larger
>kettle, I would like to do a full 10 gallon boil and then
>separate the wort in to 2 carboys to pitch yeast into. Can I do
>this?

Quite simply: Yes.

>Secondly, what if I was to use three primary fermentation
>containers for the 10 boil and "top off" each carboy to 5 gallons
>with chilled water?  Is there any reason I can not do this?

I prefer to preboil all the water I use to top off carboys for two
reasons: 1) to sanitize it and 2) to boil off chlorine.  Unless
your water is high in chlorine or bacteria, you can get away with
using it straight from the tap.  As for whether you can do it, the
answer again is: Yes.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


From: Ogneg at aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 17:58:17 -0400
Subject: "PSI Loss" or Hose Length /Carbonation

I know I am VERY far behind on my reading, so sue me!  If you haven't gotten
a reasonable answe yet on why you are not recieving the expected PSI Loss
from your beer lines, there is a good expaination for this.

Every different kind of hose gives a slightly different amount of "friction
loss"  per length of hose.  If you try to use the same formula for every kind
of hose, you may or may not be in the right ballpark.  You can only use that
general table with any realistic accuracy for the one type of hose that was
used to make the original table.

But, if you figure out what the friction loss was on your specific hose per
foot, you can make your own table, and be pretty accurate for the hose you
are using.  There are also formulas you can use to figure out the friction
loss, but I only know the numbers for a very specific medium.  So, I guess
you just have to guess untill you figure out a table for the hose type you
are using!  good luck!

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 17:02:04 CDT
Subject: Dave's Manifesto

Dave writes:
>What does this mean?  Frankly, I was surprised by these numbers. I would have
>guessed that carbon dioxide would have been several orders of magnitude more
>soluble. ( and it is at the correct pHs and pressures)

Yes, but recall that most brewers don't try to dissolve O2 into their beer
under pressure (Dion, I believe, is the only one I know doing this) whereas
*force* carbonation is, by definition, done under pressure... our goal is
to supersaturate the beer with the CO2.

>But what it means to at least one HBD inquiry on the efficiency of various
>methods is that the AMOUNT of gas dissolved is extremely small.  Think of it
>this way. A five gallon carboy open to the air will contain about 1 gallon of
>oxygen. This amount is about  0.2/(2XE-5) or 10,000 times more than you will
>need to saturate the beer in that 5 gallon carboy!.

Yes, but as you pour the wort in, the O2 is pushed out.  Only the O2 that
dissolves into the wort via splashing and via diffusion along the air/wort
interface goes into solution.

>Given that you bubble oxygen into the cold wort for five minutes...

Whoa!  A.J. proved that it takes a fraction of that to reach saturation
with pure oxygen.  It was a minute or less (too lazy to look it up).

>SO, what does this mean?  It looks to me like bubbling in oxygen is necessary
>for a closed fermentation, but not necessary in an open fermentation in which
>the wort is only a foot or two deep.  Maybe those guys who designed the
>Yorkshire Squares and the coolships knew what they were doing.

Yorkshire Squares are not wide and shallow.  They are quite a bit taller
than they are wide and long.  Don't be fooled by the part of the Squares
with the foam on it.  That's only the top and doesn't contain any wort.
The wort is in the bottom 2/3 of the vessel which is down below the floor
that you are standing on when you look at the kraeusen.

Some crucial information that you were missing before formulating your
hypothesis are the data from A.J.'s experiments with oxygen and carboy
shaking.  A.J... any chance you could redo it for just a standing open
fermenter?

>On the subject of hot side absorption...

That should be "hot side aeration."

>Remember, professional brewers exclusively use closed boiling which we don't
>have the opportunity to practice in most cases due to boil-over potential.  To
>me an hour at a rolling boil in a small kettle ( high surface to volume ratio)
>in the presence of air will do plenty of HSA, oxidation and browning.  Giving
>lots of by products and beer darkening. What am I missing?

Most professional brewers don't use closed boiling.  Some of the megas do
boil under pressure, but they must later use other techniques to remove the
DMS that is produced.  A-B uses nitrogen to scrub it out.  Furthermore, there
is virtually no oxidation from a rolling boil.  The evolving water vapour
purges the air (and thus oxygen) from the headspace of the kettle.

>What is the big deal about HSA versus CSA? From a rate of reaction standpoint,
>100 deg C versus 20 deg C will mean a rate of reaction difference of
>2X2X2x2x2X2X2X2 = 256.
 <snip>
> So cooling down will slow down the
>reaction, but with our penchant for bubbling in oxygen and long term exposure
>before the carbon dioxide sweeps out the oxygen

What you are missing is that it's the yeast that consume the oxygen, not the
CO2 that scrubs it out.  The yeast will consume virtually all the O2 that you
give them and do it in less than an hour (if I recall correctly).  Even if
it is an hour, the oxidation reactions that take place during that hour at
68F (20C), using your 256 factor, would be equivalent to 256 hours or 10.75
days in cooled wort if the yeast did not consume the oxygen.

>In fact,
>oxygen is substantially less soluble in hot wort than in cold, so with
>HSA and a closed fermentation with no oxygen added as CSA, the damage
>could be less.  Whatam I missing?

You are missing:

1. we *want* to give the yeast a good supply of oxygen and aerating hot
   wort won't give some yeasts enough (assuming no trub-based sterol sources),
2. an hour at 100C is more than enough time to result in excessive oxidation
   of malt and hop components, and
3. an hour at 20C is not enough time for significant oxidation to take place.

>I understand that oxygen can (and is necesssary to) oxidize ( directly or
>through an enzyme catalysed reaction)  an alcohol to an acid...

Alcohols are not oxidized to acids.  Esters are formed from alcohols and
acids.  While there was quite a bit of text written from both sides of the
esters versus aeration debate, I believe that it was primarily Noonan's
experience on one side of the debate and an overwhelming amount of data
to the contrary.  You should go back and re-read the last two posts on the
subject.

Dave-- it's good that you question the accepted practices... sometimes
there are good alternatives to be found.  Alas, you were missing some
necessary data.  You remind me of a polite, non-commercial Jack Schmidling.
Sorry Jack ;^).

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


From: lachina at interramp.com (Lorne Franklin)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:04:27 -0400
Subject: Wort Chilling/Ice

In 2073 Woody says:

. . . 60F tap water is unlikely to be sterile.  Let me offer an
alternative: since you are buying ice anyways, add it to the hot wort
instead of to the bath.  "Party ice" seems to be sterile: I suspect that
liabilities would require it.

In our area news hounds, desperate for a story, analyzed a sampling of
thirty or so bags of commercial ice and found most of them were
contaminated with human and animal hairs (what kind of animals?!) and other
particulate.

Lorne Franklin
gu151 at cleveland.freenet.edu

L o r n e  F r a n k l i n
     Lachina Publishing Services
     t. 216.292.7959 - f. 216.292.3639
     lachina at interramp.com



Return to table of contents