---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  RE: High-pH Brewing Water (John Wilkinson)
  Re:My First Taste of Lambic: WOW!! (John.E.Carsten at oklaosf.state.ok.us)
  Re: Rye Beer (Steve Alexander)
  CPBF/grains ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Re: Roggen yeast choice ... (Steve Alexander)
  Re: stretching yeast (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Re: GABF PPBT (Kelly Jones)
  malts - 6-row vs 2-row (Steve Alexander)
  Steeping grains: something to ponder ((George De Piro))
  reusing yeast, good web pages ("Taber, Bruce")
  malts/protein rests (Steve Alexander)
  Re: GABF Judging (Glenn Colon-Bonet)
  Starter (Jorge Blasig - IQ)
  Popcorn,  NY (DC at carlsonco.com)
  re: stretching yeast ((Bruce Eckert / x3388))
  lambics/rye/DMS/protein rests/beer fridges/how NOT to sanitize air! (korz at xnet.com)
  Kegs and Olympia (HuskerRed at aol.com)
  re: Spigots and Enamel Pots (PVanslyke at aol.com)
  DMS from malts... ("Pat Babcock")
  re:Rye (The Holders)
  Re: GABF (Jason Goldman)

For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
  homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
  and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.

Please note that if 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
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
  then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor,
homebrew-digest-owner at aob.org.

OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
  http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
  http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
  info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.

ARCHIVES:
  At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp.  Also
  http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.

COPYRIGHT:
  As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
  original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
  Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
  collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
  may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
  posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.


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

From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 12:37:53 -0500
Subject: RE: High-pH Brewing Water

In responding to Duffy Toler asking about dark beers and water pH, Ken Schwartz
said: 
 
>A subtle point but one of perhaps some historical importance is essentially 
>that the dark grains are used because of high-pH water, rather than the other 
>way around as in Duffy's question. 
 
That is certainly my understanding of the situation and to expand on it, 
I hope correctly, isn't it the calcium in the high alkalinity water that 
reacts with the darker grains to lower the pH?  My brewing water is low pH 
but very low in calcium so I would not expect darker grains to lower the pH 
too much further.  Is this correct? 
 
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at imtn.dsccc.com 

Return to table of contents


From: John.E.Carsten at oklaosf.state.ok.us
Date: 01 Oct 96 13:03:48 -0500
Subject: Re:My First Taste of Lambic: WOW!!

I'd like to thank Tom satterfield in advance for the firey discussion his post 
on lambics is sure to inspire.  While also a novice brewer interested in the 
style, I am also a long-time lurker with no desire to hear the back-biting and 
nasty bashing posts as one 
homebrewer attempts to one-up the one before him/or her regarding the "best" 
way to brew a lambic.  Since there are sure to be several other topics we can 
(AND SHOULD) address in this forum, it is my hope that someone can recommend a 
few good reading resources on the lambic style, and we take this discussion off
line early. 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:07:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Rye Beer

 
Michael Jackson spends a page on Schierlinger Roggen in the Beer 
companion - or whatever the title. MJ implies that Roggen is 60% 
malted rye, and equal parts pale malt and crystal malt, w/ a small 
addition of dark roasted (malted?) grain for color.  Schierlinger uses 
their hefe-weizen yeast on it, which makes Roggen acidic and phenolic, 
tho' not nearly as phenolic as many weizen's I've tasted.  The OG 
according to MJ is 1.048, the color 45 EBC and the hops are perle in 
two additions.  I decoction mash is used, and Schierlinger has some 
sort of CO2 pressure sparger to force the liquid thru the sticky rye 
grainbed.  MJ also notes a shallow grainbed, and the use of sparging 
knives to cut the grainbed. 
 
Ed Westemeier responded to Peter Ensminger's query for a 'Roggen' like 
beer as: 
 
>First, go ahead and do it -- most people really enjoy the taste. 
 
Totally agree here. 
 
>Second, use a small percentage of rye. It's MUCH, MUCH stickier than 
>wheat, and you'll end up with a mash tun full of glue if you use too much. 
 
I agree it's sticky, but MJ claims roggen is ~60% malted rye.  I'd 
suggest the addition of rice hulls if the mash is too sticky for your 
sparger. 
 
>I only use it in decoction mashes for this reason. I'd recommend staying 
>under 10% rye malt, but you can go as high as 25% in a double decoction. 
 
Agreed - the decoction boils substantially improve the spargability of 
the rye mash. 
 
>Third, the Schierlinger Roggenbier uses a weizen style yeast, so keep that 
>in mind when you design your recipe. 
 
Yes but with mild a mild phenolic flavor.  Wy3787 fermented at 68F is 
too strong IMO.  I've also used Wy3944 and think it's too phenolic 
also.  Can anyone cite a mildly phenolic and crisply acid yeast to use 
for this style ?? 
 
The Roggen bottle dregs can't be cultured - (I've tried twice and am 
pretty experienced at this). They're probably toasted yeast added 
after filtration. 
 
Steve Alexander 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 13:32:32 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: CPBF/grains

(This message got eaten from Monday's digest) 
>>From: greg at chtree.com 
>>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:13:43 -0700 
>>Subject: Counter Pressure Bottle Filler 
>> 
>>My local brewstore sells a counter pressure bottle filler for $35. How do 
>>these work? How well do they work? I'd rather build one than buy one, 
>>so I'd love to hear any construction ideas.  Thanks. 
> 
 
As I reported a couple weeks ago, I broke down and bought one from 
Braukunst.  It was about $40, seems quite well made, scored well in 
the Zymurgy "road test", and worked great right out of the box!  I 
had seen a local brewer use one, so I knew what to do, but I was 
still suprised at how easy it was first time. 
 
I'd recommend this filler (although the needle valve could be replaced 
if I was making one). 
 
****** 
Charley Burns writes: 
>(I wrote): 
<<<<<<<Pale ale malt has lower protein, lower enzymes (diastatic power), 
>and higher color.  It will make a darker beer than the pils malt.  It is 
>good for single infusion mashes, however, due to the low protein.>>>>> 
> 
>So, does that mean that when mashing with Pale Ale malt we need to do the 
>protein rest (132F) before boosting up to sacharification (152-158F) for 
>conversion, and if we're mashing with Pale Malt (not ale) we can do the 
>single temperature infusion (152F - 158F)? 
 
I think you read it backwards.  Since pale ale malt has less protein, 
you don't need to do the protein rest.  English ales have generally 
been made with a single temperature infusion mash (I think). 
 
Why do we need a protein rest?  I think a protein rest will help 
the sparge go better, reduce potential protein haze, create 
more amino acids for the yeast, and/or provide smaller proteins 
for head formation. 
 
By the way, someone else asked the difference between lager malt 
and pils malt.  I believe these are basically the same thing. 
 
As always, someone please correct me if I'm wrong. 
 
****** 
As for beer labeling, distribution, and sales, keep in mind that 
most of these regulations are specific to states.  In Texas, the 
word "bock" is defined by law.  In Tennessee, we don't need to 
worry about malt liquor; Beers over 5% can't be sold here! 
 
****** 
Congratulations Jethro. 
 
          - Bryan 
            grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu 
            Nashville, TN 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:55:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Roggen yeast choice ...

I just wrote ... 
 
>Yes but with mild a mild phenolic flavor.  Wy3787 fermented at 68F is 
>too strong IMO.  I've also used Wy3944 and think it's too phenolic 
>also.  Can anyone cite a mildly phenolic and crisply acid yeast to use 
>for this style ?? 
 
I'm very confused.  My written notes say Wy3787, but my recollection 
is Wy3333. So until I check I don't know which of these I used, except 
that it was too phenolic and very similar to 3944. 
 
Stevea Alexander 

Return to table of contents


From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 11:06:59 -0800
Subject: Re: stretching yeast

Anton Schoenbacher asks about stretching his Wyeast packs 
to more than one batch.  There are a number of ways 
to do this discussed in the yeast FAQ.  See the 
archives as mentioned in the header of this digest, or 
go directly to: 
http://realbeer.com/spencer/yeast.html 
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman 
mailto:jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu 
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb 

Return to table of contents


From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 12:04:43 -0700
Subject: Re: GABF PPBT

Ed Westemier had some comments on the quality of the PPBT results.  I'll 
second his opinion.  It seems the quality of this judging is going downhill, 
especially in some of the more 'esoteric' styles (Belgians, German Wheats, 
etc.).  One of the problems I observed this year was a lack of emphasis on 
complexity.  The winning beers in some categories were simply the ones that 
had the strongest flavor of 'X', where 'X' is some flavor descriptor which 
_helps_ to define the style in question.  This does not, IMO, define quality 
judging.  The winning wheat beers need not be the ones which taste most like 
bananas, nor the winning fruit beers the ones which taste most like Kool-Aid. 
It would be interesting to see some breakdown of PPBT tasters which showed 
which ones were qualified judges, and which ones merely happened to be friends 
of the organizers! 
 
Kelly 
Hillsboro, OR 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:07:12 -0400
Subject: malts - 6-row vs 2-row

 
Picking up last weeks thread on malts and maltsters ... 
 
Regarding choice of malts, I've noticed that M&F makes (almost?) all 
their malt, except the 2-row pale or lager malt from 6-row barley. 
 
I also recently saw some screening data in Schreiers malts and based 
on grain size distribution suspect that Schreier also uses 6-row for 
all of their non-pale malts. 
 
I have recently compared Munton&Fison crystal w/ Breiss and find than 
I definitly prefer the M&F in ales.  I don't know but suspect that M&F 
crystal is 2-row. 
 
Do any North American maltsters use 2-row for crystal ? Does it make a 
difference ? 
 
Steve Alexander 

Return to table of contents


From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:38:47 -0700
Subject: Steeping grains: something to ponder

     Hi all! 
 
     There has been a fair amount of talk about steeping grains in extract 
     beers.  There has been talk of steeping all sorts of grains, including 
     grains that require mashing.  The instructions given are usually to 
     steep the crushed grain at 150-160F for 30-60 minutes. 
 
     I guess the idea is to convert the starch to sugar, but at the 
     extremely dilute enzyme concentrations that exist in this system, does 
     conversion happen that quickly, if at all?  Proteins tend to be less 
     stable in more dilute solutions. 
 
     I really don't want to go back to the "how fast are enzymes denatured" 
     thread, but I don't want to see a lot of beginners making starchy 
     beer!  (I've been there, it sucks) 
 
     On the other hand, I only ever made a few extract batches before going 
     on to mashing, so I'm no expert. 
 
     Just something to think about. 
 
     Have fun! 
 
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY) 

Return to table of contents


From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER at nrc.ca>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 96 14:59:00 EDT
Subject: reusing yeast, good web pages

 
     Anton Schoenbacher asked about how to reuse liquid yeast.  This is a 
question that is posted on a regular basis.  For all those who don't use 
liquid yeast because it is too expensive, reusing it is VERY easy.  It can 
be as easy as pouring the sludge from your secondary into a sterilized jar 
and putting it the fridge for a month or so until you're ready to use it. 
 Take it out and let it warm up slowly.  Pitch it in a small starter and 
you're there. Simple. 
     There are a number of different methods.  If you have internet access 
you should read the yeast information at 
http://alpha.rollanet.org/library/yeast-faq.html     . As a mater of fact, 
anyone not using liquid yeast should probably print out a copy of this info 
and keep it for when they do want to try it in the future. 
     Also, for the few of you who may not realize it, there are some great 
homebrewing web sites out there.  Most have links to huge amounts of home 
brewing information.  Spencer's Beer Page, The Brewery, Beer Town to name 
just a few.  They are great sources of knowledge. 
     As a last comment, have you all checked out Michael Jackson's Beer 
Hunter web page?  It's pretty good and it is updated regularly.  Check it 
out. 
     Enough for now.... time to rack my Raspberry Brown. 
 
Bruce Taber 
taber at irc.lan.nrc.ca 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:53:49 -0400
Subject: malts/protein rests

 
In Mark Bayer's excellent answer to Duffy AToler's question .. 
 
>1.  What is the difference between lager malt and pale ale malt?  Is a lager 
>malt a generic name for Pils? 
 
He skips over an aspect - traditional lager malts are less well 
modified than english pale ale malts.  That is the malster kilns the 
lager barley at an earlier stage of development than the pale ale 
malt.  So the pale ale malt is more enzymatically degraded. 
The lower kilned but less degraded lager malt has many more types of 
enzymes intact. 
 
When the pale ale malt is kilns at a higher temp, not only do we lose 
a fraction of the alpha- and beta-amylase, but nearly all of the 
phytase, very much of the peptidase and proteases, I suspect almost 
all of the alpha-glucosidase.  These are enzymes associated with the 
acidification rest, protein rest, and alpha-glucosidase for enzymatic 
starch granule degradation. 
 
For this reason an acid rest with pale ale malt makes no sense, and a 
protein rest for pale ale malt is nearly as pointless (and hopefully 
unnecessary too).  The lack of alpha-glucosidase means that starch 
granule gelatinization by thermal means is desireable for high extract 
efficiency in a pale ale.  None of these thing apply to the lower 
kilned 'lager' malts - where acid rests, protein rests and enzymic 
starch degradation can be used. 
 
Steve Alexander 
 
BTW - many currently available lager malts are nearly as well modified 
as pale ale malts, but are still kilned lower. 

Return to table of contents


From: Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb at hpesgcb.fc.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:30:57 -0600
Subject: Re: GABF Judging

 
In HBD #2210, Ed Westemeier wrote: 
 
> I'm much more concerned that the microbreweries and brewpubs aren't getting 
> a fair shake at the GABF. They produce stunning beers, but I've tasted many 
> of them (both at the source and at the GABF) and I've very often been 
> appalled at the discrepancies I've noticed. Truly outstanding examples that 
> fail to get a medal year after year, mediocre examples that win big, etc. 
 
Rather than write off the judging as being inaccurate, consider that a lot 
is involved in getting beers from around the country to Denver to be judged. 
Some of the products may not travel well, or may not have been bottled in a 
manner that they will stay fresh for the time before the judging begins.  I 
will try next year to reduce the time it takes me and my staff to process 
beers so that we can present the beers in the freshest possible state. 
 
> Based on what I've heard about the process from PPBT participants... 
> (comments about judging process snipped) 
 
The panel isn't just some random collection of beer people who "happen" to 
work for a brewery/distributor/whatever.  These people are asked to submit 
a JUDGING resume and 3 letters of recommendation as to their JUDGING 
qualifications from people in the industry.  This information is reviewed 
by the festival staff and the most qualified people are chosen. As far as the 
process of side-by-side comparative evaluation of samples and selecting the 
best, what is wrong with that process?  All homebrew competitions use this 
process for best of show judging. And, as far as a judging sheet is concerned, 
you are right in that a full page isn't filled out for each beer and a 
numerical score assigned.  We do, however, fill out a 1/4 page form for each 
beer by a minimum of 3 judges.  The selection of the Gold, Silver and Bronze 
winners is based not only on a top three position, but also the beers must 
truly exemplify the style and be free of major flaws.  A numerical score 
simply states your "favorites" numerically rather than verbally.  It is no 
more accurate. 
 
This process *IS* judging. 
 
> And I know that many of the PPBT members are very well 
> qualified to evaluate any beer. It's just that many of them aren't. 
 
This is not true.  There is *NO ONE* on the panel that is not qualified 
to be there.  All festival attendees were provided with a list of judges in 
their program.  If you feel someone on that list isn't qualified, I'd like 
to know who and why you think so. 
 
> In fact, I believe that last year was the first time that the "tasters" 
> were even asked to fill out a comment card on the entries. 
 
Not true.  The comment cards have been a part of the judging process for at 
least the last 4 years that I've been involved with the festival, and, I 
believe, even before.  In the past, I've had some trouble getting them out 
in a timely fashion, but in the past 2 years, I've returned them within 2 
weeks of the festival. 
 
As far as the professionalism of the Great American Beer Festival is concerned,
I received many compliments from brewers, judges, and attendees about how well 
the event is run.  The comments I've received indicate that this is one of the 
best run competitions in the world.  I and my staff take pride in what we've 
accomplished and strive to do better each year.  If you have some feedback 
on things that we can improve on, I'd be like to hear it. 
 
   Cheers, 
   Glenn Colon-Bonet  (gcb at fc.hp.com) 
   Manager, Professional Panel Blind Tasting 
   Great American Beer Festival 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb at elmer.fing.edu.uy>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:32:04 -0300 (UY)
Subject: Starter

 
Dear friends, 
I am trying to start my first batch of mead. I think I have some problems 
with the starter. 
I added three big spoons of honey to a pint of water and 1 tsp of yeast 
extract and boiled for 15 min. I put this wort in a 1 L bottle. When it 
was at around 25C, I added 2 tsp of previously re-hydrated yeasts and 
aereated it as much as possible and put the airlock to the bottle. 
There has been lots of bubbling since then (started immediately after the 
pitching) and during the last three days. However, the yeasts do not seem 
to grow as I think I need. I have a 1 cm sediment since the beginning but 
it does not seem to grow to 5 cm as I was suggested. I do not not whether 
this is enough for pitching a 25 L carboy or not. 
I need your opinions and suggestions. 
 
Jorge Blasig in his first batch. 
 

Return to table of contents


From: DC at carlsonco.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 15:42:03 +0000
Subject: Popcorn,  NY

There is a brewpub in Madison that has an ale made with 
unpopped pop corn.  I'm not sure if it is pyschological or not, but 
it does taste a bit like popcorn.  Anyone ever try this before? 
Can anyone think of a good reason why you'd want to? 
 
Secondly, can anyone directly forward me any information on Lake 
Placid, NY - Ski hills, drinking establishments.... 
 
Thanks in advance 
dc at carlsonco.com 

Return to table of contents


From: BPE at hoho.org (Bruce Eckert / x3388)
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 17:01 UT
Subject: re: stretching yeast

Anton Schoenbacher on  Mon, 30 Sep 96 asks about "stretching yeast": 
 
> O.K. I have been brewing extract for about two years 
> and am pretty good at it (give or take a batch).  I was 
> wondering if there is a relatively simple way I can 
> get maybe 5-10 batches of yeast out of one $5.00 wyeast 
> package. I have heard stuff about yeast culturing and 
> some of it seems to be way out in left field for me. 
> 
>Does someone have simple instructions on how to do this. 
> 
> Also Instructions on how to 'revive' it. 
 
I have been brewing just over a year, and I have tried three different things 
to "stetch" yeast, two of which have been successful. 
 
  1) I tried "washing" (instructions in the Yeast FAQ) the yeast sediment from 
     a secondary ferment and repitching it directly.  This failed miserably. 
     Perhaps I didn't wash it right or something, but my wort did not ferment. 
 
  2) I have siphoned a brand new batch of cooled wort onto the Yeast Cake ( 
     crud) in the bottom of my fermenter, out of which I had *just* racked 
     another batch.  This works great!  The new batch takes off fermenting 
     immediately (just an hour or two) and I've had no infections or other 
     problems.  I do believe that timing is critical -- I aim to rack off 
     the first batch to a secondary and then *immediately* siphon the new 
     batch into the primary.  With this method, my new batch does end up 
     fermenting with the trub and other miscellaneous crud from the first 
     batch, but I haven't noticed any ill effects from this (the beer that I 
     think is the best I've made I did this way). 
 
  3) I made a small batch of beer (1/2 gal) into which I pitched a liquid 
     yeast culture, and allowed it to ferment out.  I then (very carefully 
     and cleanly) bottled this "beer".  Now, I use these "beers" as yeast 
     starters - pitching them into some sterile wort a few days ahead of 
     brewing.  This, too, works fine. 
 
I have even combined #2 and #3, so I used a home-made starter twice.  This way 
I can get 12 batches out of one liquid yeast culture.  I'm not sure I'll go 
that far, but I think I could! 
 
Bruce Eckert 
Holland Michigan 
bpe at hoho.org 

Return to table of contents


From: korz at xnet.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:39:10 -0500
Subject: lambics/rye/DMS/protein rests/beer fridges/how NOT to sanitize air!

 
Tom writes: 
>I had my first bottle of lambic beer a few days ago; a Strawberry; 
>WOW!! THIS IS GREAT STUFF!!  I finally bought a bottle; at $4+ it was 
 
Since "strawberry" was mentioned, I suspect that what you had 
was  DeTroch "lambic."  DeTroch are syrupy, sweet, "soda-pop" 
beers and do not resemble lambics any more than Bud resembles 
Pilsner Urquell.  Before you decide that you want to take 3 years 
to make a beer in which the cultures will cost you as much as some 
entire recipes, you had better taste Cantillon and/or Boon lambics. 
 
Once you have tasted Cantillon and/or Boon, if you still think "THIS 
IS GREAT STUFF," like I do, your first steps should be to get a copy 
of J.X.Guinard's book "Lambic" from the Association of Brewers or 
your local homebrew shop.  The next thing would be to subscribe to 
the Lambic Digest by sending email to lambic-request@ longs.lance.colostate.edu 
Please note that the administrator for this list is off-line this week 
so subscriptions may take a week.  If you hate the Boon and Cantillon, 
then just brew some fruit beers.  There is litle point to going through 
all that effort just for a fruit beer if you don't like the acidity 
and horsey/sweaty Brettanomyces character. 
 
*** 
Ed writes (regarding rye beer): 
>Second, use a small percentage of rye. It's MUCH, MUCH stickier than 
>wheat, and you'll end up with a mash tun full of glue if you use too much. 
>I only use it in decoction mashes for this reason. I'd recommend staying 
>under 10% rye malt, but you can go as high as 25% in a double decoction. 
 
I used 43% rye malt in a 150/158F two-step infusion and although the 
runoff was slow (3 hours to get 6.5 gallons of runnings), it never 
stopped trickling.  My advice: patience! 
 
*** 
Mark writes: 
>also, the kilning of pale ale malt eliminates the precursors of dms, which 
>is never detectable in an english pale ale.  lager malts still have the 
>compounds necessary for dms formation, which forms during slow wort cooling. 
 
Kilning hotter and longer (as in the case of pale ale malts) *reduces* but 
does not eliminate S-methyl-methionine (I think I've gotten the spelling 
right, "SMM," nonetheless) in the malt.  SMM is converted to DMS when the 
wort is above 158F, but boils off if the wort is boiling.  A good, rolling 
boil with the lid ajar and quick cooling of the wort from boiling to below 
158F (I've read 140F also, but most recently, I've read 158F) will reduce 
DMS to below human threshold levels.  If you boil covered you can easily 
reach the threshold level of DMS even with pale ale malt. 
 
Mark continues: 
>as stated by bryan above,  pale ale malt has lower protein levels compared 
>with lager malt because of the varieties of barley used and the climate/soil 
>they're raised in.  this is one basis for the maritime vs. continental barley 
>arguments.  also, i _think_, the more exhaustive english malting 
>procedure results in a higher soluble to insoluble protein ratio as compared 
>to lager malt.  this may have something to do with the barley varieties also, 
>but i think it's mostly the malting that produces the soluble protein. 
>with lager malt, it typically has more total protein, and if the malting 
>method is not as complete as the english tradition, there will be higher 
>levels of insoluble protein as a percentage of total.  most lager malt 
>has more insoluble protein than traditionally malted english pale ale malt. 
 
Perhaps, but I think that the main reason you don't need a protein rest 
for most pale ale malts (and most modern lager/pils malts too) is because 
of higher modification.  The higher the level of modification, the more 
of the proteins in the barley will be convered to amino acids.  Modern 
malts are quite a bit more modified (even German lager/pils malts) than 
they used to be and therefore most malts don't need a protein rest. 
 
>so, because of the higher protein (and higher insoluble protein), a lager malt
>is typically the one you'd want to do the protein rest with, and the ale 
>malt, if traditionally malted (english) from a low-protein barley strain, 
>does not require one. 
 
US grains are the highest in protein, really, especially US 6-row, but 
protein levels have been climbing all over the world.  Why?  Fertilizers 
are increasing the nitrogen available to the barley and therefore increasing 
protein levels.  Farmers and maltsters care more about their yield than 
the brewers' so they use fertilizers.  During a talk at the first Sprit 
of Belgium, brewer Eric Toft reported that many brewers in Germany are 
having to eliminate or shorten protein rests because their malt is too 
well-modified. 
 
>>if I don't do a protein rest with my Durst 2 row pilsner and just 
>>do a simple infussion, will my beer tell me I should have done 
>>it? What will it say ? 
> 
>it may have a hard time seeing you through the (chill) haze. 
 
Chill haze would be one problem, but I feel a bigger problem is *tons* 
of hot and cold break.  Another problem is yield.  The starch in the 
malt is bound in a protein matrix.  If the malt is indeed undermodified 
and you don't use a protein rest, you will have a lot of trouble getting 
out all the possible starch for conversion to sugar.  The level of 
modification is usually judged by the coarse/fine extract ratio.  If the 
ratio is big, you have lots of starch bound up in protein (low modific.). 
If the ratio is small, the malt is well-modified.  I don't have the 
ranges here at work, but I know that there is an explanation of this 
in the Great Grains Special Issue of Zymrugy and I believe it is 
explained in George Fix's Principles of Brewing Science. 
 
Personally, I try a small batch of beer with a new malt without a protein 
rest.  If 1/5 of the wort in the fermenter is hot and cold break, I 
know to use a protein rest with this malt in the future. 
 
*** 
Chuck writes: 
>I'm trying to postpone the purchase of a beer fridge until 97.  Has anyone 
>out there in brewing land tried this? 
 
Yes, but I failed miserably.  I broke down and bought one in 1990 and 
another in 1991. 
 
But seriously... yes, your idea of cooling your fermenter by cycling 
ice will work.  You may want to consider using those Blue Ice packs 
which you can re-freeze.  They may also cool a little slower than pure 
ice and give you a more even temp. 
 
*** 
David wites: 
>I am interested in using a bubblestone to oxygenate the wort of my next ale. 
>I seem to recall there was a way to put a piece of cotton soaked with rubbing 
>alcohol in the airline to act as a "bacteria trap" to keep the beasties from 
 
This won't work David... wet cotton will block all the air.  Dry cotton 
might work, however. 
 
Ed writes: 
>I use an aquarium pump with an airstone in a setup that also includes 
>a hydrogen peroxide trap. 
 
<the rest of the post deleted -- it describes a system where the air 
bubbles through hydrogen peroxide on it's way to the wort> 
 
Sorry, but this is a very popular method that doesn't work.  It has even 
been published in a respected brewing magazine twice and it's still wrong. 
Bubbling air through hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, iodophor, bleach, etc., 
will NOT sanitize it.  The only place where the air touches the sanitizer 
is at the walls of the bubble.  You cannot make the bubbles small enough 
to kill all the airbourn wild yeast and bacteria.  When the bubbles pop 
in the hydrogen peroxide, they release all the nasties into the headspace 
of the jar and onward to the wort.  Boy, this method has the tenacity (and 
utility) of the Good Times virus! 
 
Get yourself a submicron air filter (Brewer's Resource has one, as does 
Heartland Hydroponics) and put that between the airpump and airstone. 
 
Al. 
 
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL 
korzonas at lucent.com 
korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com 
korz at xnet.com 

Return to table of contents


From: HuskerRed at aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 18:29:13 -0400
Subject: Kegs and Olympia

Hello friends- 
 
 
I'm starting to gather the parts for kegging.  I recently 
bought 2 korny kegs ($15 each:).  They have three nipples (or 
whatever that collar is called that the gas/liquid fittings 
screw on to), the usuals gas and liquid nipples and one for a 
level sensor.  In the sensor's nipple, I could put a dip tube 
in and a fitting on.  There's four combo's, gas fitting/short 
tube, gas/long, liquid/short, liquid/long.  With two gas/ 
short's, I could have CO2/N2 for my stouts! 
 
Don't laugh, but does anyone have a good use for a third nipple? 
 
- ----- 
 
I just moved to Lacey Washington, a suburb of Olympia.  Any 
homebrew shop, brew pub, micro brewery, mega-swillery 
info would sure be welcomed.  Anyone in the area want to swap 
a few cold homebrews?  I guess I'm a Northern Brewer now. 
 
Went to the Oly Brewery for the tour.  The guide didn't know 
what varieties of hops they used other than cascades.  I 
probably should have asked about the heart of the hop!  He also 
said "hops are the salt and pepper of beer", thinking of my 70 
IBU IPA, I told my friend that in my brewery "hops are the 
meat and potatoes of beer"!  The guide (and no one else that 
was working) wasn't a brewer and didn't know much about the 
brewing process. 
 
At the free beer part, I was talking with one of the servers. 
He was asking about my homebrew process and I was explaining 
how it was the basically the same as brewery.  He wasn't 
making the connection.  I thought for a while that I was going 
to have to explain the whole brewing process to him but he had 
to give the next tour! 
 
They make an Oly Dark that is thier basic Oly recipe with some 
roasted malt.  Kinda a no-frills lite porter (forgive me).  I 
was surprised how good it was (forgive me again).  It seemed 
like the tour group preferred it as well.  It's funny that 
their best beer is available in cans only at the brewery and 
it served at a handful of locations on tap 
 
Cheers, 
Jason Henning 
Big Red Alchemy and Brewing 
 
"Hot water heater? Why would you want to heat hot water?" 
Earl Kleen 
 

Return to table of contents


From: PVanslyke at aol.com
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:08:19 -0400
Subject: re: Spigots and Enamel Pots

Hi All 
 
On Tuesday's HBD, Jim Lanik asked about drilling an enamel pot. 
 
This may be possible but some time ago I saw an enamel pot that was used for 
steaming clams. The pot had a spigot installed (manufactured this way) so 
that the broth could be drawn off. I have no idea where the pot can be 
purchased. 
 
Paul >>> brewing and relaxing in Deposit, NY 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 20:51:37 +0500
Subject: DMS from malts...

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... 
 
In recent conversations regarding DMS production from pils malt due 
to slow cooling, let us not forget that short boils leaves too much 
S-methyl methionine (SMM) left unconverted by the vigor of the boil. 
 
"OK, smarty-pants! Just what does this all mean," you ask. "Hmmmm?" 
 
Ah! Elementary, my dear Gaston, er Watson! SMM converts to DMS at 
temperatures around and above about 70'C (158'F). This occurs in 
your mash when the temperatures are near or above this target 
temperature, and occurs in butt-loads (Technical term. Sorry. I'll 
drop the jargon.) during the very hot boil. The evolving steam of 
the boil drives off the baby DMS that is born through this reaction. 
Capice? 
 
OK. Now, let's assume you truncate your boil, and cool s-l-o-w-l-y. 
There's *gobs* of SMM left in the wort, and your cooling will pass 
slowly from the boiling temperature to your pitching temperature. The 
thermometer stops for drinks around the 90'C area, and gets so 
plastered it just plain forgets to leave before its hosts throw him 
out at, say, 65'C. Ol' Mr. Temp then staggers and meanders through 
the thermophyllic bacteria ranges until he finally stumbles home at 
the pitching temperature. 
 
And his wife throws him out. True story. 
 
While old Jack Calorie was partying in that 100 to 65'C range, he 
thoughtlessly converted SMM to DMS. Since the whole works was losing 
steam (stupid joke intended), the DMS parasails did not fill, DMS did 
not waft away, and it remained to become a major flavor constituent 
of your beloved brew.. 
 
No matter how fast you cool, however, if the SMM is there to be 
converted, it will. Just that faster cooling minimizes it. Also, this 
is one instance where an immersion chiller may have the edge over a 
counterflow: The immersion immediately begins reduction of the 
temperature of the entire batch. DMS production will slow and 
eventually stop (assuming SMM is available for conversion) in the 
entire batch. With a CF chiller, the entire batch (less some delta 
batch in the chiller) pretty much sits at the temperature the boil 
left it, less the effects of air cooling, until it passes through. 
Granted, a CF is faster overall, but the wort is hotter longer. It is 
left as an exercise for the reader to ponder which is superior in 
this regard. 
 
Sooooooo..... 
 
A longer boil with slow cooling will produce less DMS than a short 
boil and slow cooling. FAST cooling with a truncated boil STILL 
sucks really bad. Thusly and therefor, I recommend a minimum 90 
minute boil, and cooling as quickly as possible. So there. QED. 
 
Back to the Pat cave... 
 
See ya! 
 
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit) 
pbabcock at oeonline.com  URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/ 
    Beer is my obsession and I'm late for therapy! 
 

Return to table of contents


From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 19:28:59 -0700
Subject: re:Rye

I've brewed two Rye ales, one of which is in the fermenter now. Its 
destined for our club Octoberfest party (Hi everyone from LBH). You can 
find the recipe here: 
http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat/recipes/ale/ales/recipes/7.html 
That's about it. 
 
Wayne Holder 
Long Beach CA 

Return to table of contents


From: Jason Goldman <jason at purpur.bbn.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 96 10:20:17 MESZ
Subject: Re: GABF

 
 
I wanted to comment on Ed's concerns and comments about the PPBT 
(Professional Panel Blind Tasting).  I'm writing this based on my experience 
as a volunteer for PPBT for the last several years, not from any official 
position. 
 
ed.westemeier at sdrc.com (Ed Westemeier) writes: 
 
> I'm much more concerned that the microbreweries and brewpubs aren't getting 
> a fair shake at the GABF. They produce stunning beers, but I've tasted many 
> of them (both at the source and at the GABF) and I've very often been 
> appalled at the discrepancies I've noticed. Truly outstanding examples that 
> fail to get a medal year after year, mediocre examples that win big, etc. 
> 
This is very true.  I think that there are at least two reasons why this is 
the case.  First of all, the beer to be judged (and it *is* judged) is 
submitted separately from the beer at the festival and must be in bottles. 
So if the beer is only available on tap, the beer must be bottled -- many 
small breweries just fill a bottle from the tap and hope for the best. 
This also means that the beer submitted to the judging might only have the 
name in common with the beer served at the GABF (or at their brewery).  I 
also don't have to mention that the beer may not have been shipped in a 
refrigerated truck (while the larger quantity for the fest usually is). 
Second, there is a big time lag from when the beer must be received for 
judging and when it is actually judged, due to organizing the entries. 
While the beer is stored in a cooler, it's just not going to be as fresh as 
the stuff at the brewery.  Especially when you think about those tap-filled 
bottles. 
 
> While shaking my head in despair while reading the medal listings this year, 
> it suddenly occurred to me: the GABF no longer even uses the word "judge" 
> in any of their publicity. They refer to the competition as the Professional 
> Panel Blind Tasting (PPBT). 
> 
> Based on what I've heard about the process from PPBT participants, I get the 
> strong impression that instead of "judging" the entries in anything even 
> remotely resembling the way an organized homebrew competition is run with 
> BJCP beer judges, the PPBT is simply a group of people who are 
"professionals,"
> that is, they happen to be in the industry (work for a brewer or distributor,
> write about beer, etc.). These "professionals" then engage in a "tasting" 
> (NOT "judging") of a selection of beers in a category. Their _favorites_ 
> (what they call the "best" beers) are then awarded medals. 
> 
I disagree with this.  As a participant, I have listened to the judges 
dicuss the entries.  They are conscientious in their assessment of the beer 
according to the style, they generally have experience with the style, and 
they generally have pretty good palates.  I still disagree with them 
sometimes based on tasting the same *bottles* that they do, but I respect 
their abilities.  Sometimes, too, there is quite a debate on whether to 
judge the beer based on the written style description or the consensus of 
what that style should *really* be.  All in all, it's much like a homebrew 
competition in this respect.  Addtionally, each beer is judged by a panel of 
at least 3 judges per round, with final rounds generally being judged by 6 
judges. 
 
I keep using the word "judge" intentionally.  While most of these industry 
professionals are not certified as judges by the BJCP, et al., they are 
experienced in brewing, analyzing, and evaluating the beer according to 
style. 
 
> In fact, I believe that last year was the first time that the "tasters" 
> were even asked to fill out a comment card on the entries. 
> 
This is also not true.  There has been some form of comment card for each 
beer for the last several years.  In the last couple of years, the 
organizers have been more insistent that they are filled out and that that 
they are passed on to the brewers.  Given that the goal is not so much to 
provide feedback to the brewers (like in a homebrew competition), but rather 
to pick the best, the judging procedure is much like a final round ranking 
in a homebrew competition. 
 
Jason Goldman 
jason at fc.hp.com 
 

Return to table of contents