(formerly Volume 02 : Number 025)



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

Contents:
  New product announcements
  Re: big heads; widmer
  Need address of inventive Aussie
  hops in wort
  Sparge Temperature - Why not lower?
  RIMS flow rate inquiry/high temperature tubing
  starter from dregs of boiling
  Flannel shirt as insulation
  Paranoid Brewer...
  Apology
  158F and enzyme activity/husks and brewing/agar
  Immersion Chiller (Dave Hinkle)
  Big Head/Decoctions/Crystal
  Conversion......
  twistoff caps
  mixed yeast culturing
  tannins from decoction
  clarification
  Good Tannins/Bad Tannins (S.Alexander)
  Mackeson
  Single Decoction Mash (S. Garrett)
  Welding Things
  Dry hopping experiement


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

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 12:40:22 -0500
From: DB <bq240 at apk.net>
Subject: New product announcements

How does one announce a new homebrew product ? Is posting a message here
appropriate ? I certainly do not want to do so if it is not. I don't
think it is appropriate to post ads on rec.crafts.brewing, so was
wondering how to get the word out. 

Any advice apprciated.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:22:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Frane <jfrane at teleport.com>
Subject: Re: big heads; widmer

>From: smurman at best.com
>Subject: Big Head Beer
>>
>I'm a fan of Belgian and wheat beers, and one characteristic these
>brews share is a big head.  I've been unable to replicate the 
>extreme carbonation that these types of bottle-conditioned brews
>achieve, even by adding somewhat excessive amount of corn sugar
>for priming (within safety limits).  I'm wondering if anyone has
>any secrets for getting that "I'm so happy to see you" foamy head.

Two different approaches, two different beers.  I've had excellent
results in strong Belgian ales/abbey-syle beers by simply upping
the quantity of priming sugar -- in conjunction with a goodly
portion of sucrose in the kettle.  I believe there is a direct
connection between the use of sucrose and the "mousse" head in
the Belgian beers.  Note, as a cross-reference, the mousse head
on a glass of Cooper's Ale, which also uses sucrose in the kettle.

As for wheat beers, once again, raise the priming (whether sugar
or wort) and make sure you have plenty of wheat in the grist.
The big head takes care of itself.


>From: eric fouch 
>Subject: Decoction Tannins/Widmer Starter
>> 
>I have a nice starter going of yeast obtained from a sixer of Widmer Bros
>Hefeweizen.  They claim it's a secret yeast strian given them by a German
>brewer.  Supposedly, it stays pretty much in suspension.
>Anybody know what it is?  I plan on using it this weekend to make my own
>version of fruited hefeweizen.
> 
>
Widmer uses a top-fermenting "altbier" strain they got
from the Zum Uerige brewery in Dusseldorf (which is one
of the very, very best alt breweries); it is not a
weizen strain, per se, although that's what they use
it for.  

You'll get the best results if you include a period of
cold-conditioning after primary fermentation -- it will
clear the yeast remarkably well, but if you leave it
out, the stuff takes forever to clear.

- --Jeff Frane

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:23:01 -0700
From: Ken Sullivan <kj at nts.gssc.com>
Subject: Need address of inventive Aussie

Hi all,
I'm in need of the address of the inventive Aussie that
came up with the idea of the RIMS unit using a hobby
motor and a small propeller to recirculate the wort
during the mash.  I have some nifty ideas to discuss.
I've been working on my own and have it mostly built.
I've made quite a few changes, (not knowing the details
of the original design), thus feel this is a similiar but
different design. Could the poster (Aussie) put me in touch
with the originator? or Someone who archives the HBD
search for the word 'hobby' or 'propeller' and forward the
poster's email address??  Thanks, abunch!

KJ SUllivan

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 10:26:43 -0800
From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: hops in wort

On getting clear wort-
        Is there any non-anecdotal information that says that leaving
trub
in the wort affects flavor adversely?  My beers always settle and are
clear
after fermentation so I curious if we need to care.

For my first several batchs (and occasionally to this day) i would cool
the wort to temp, usually in the bath tub, and then pour the whole
thing, hops and all into the fermentor.  pitch yeast, and bottle in two
weeks.  Worked like a charm, beer tasted great, nice mellow hop taste,
very drinkable.  I now rack the beer off the trub to a secondary, but i
have been doing it like i said for over a year with no complaints.

I am going to be trying all grain with an ezmasher soon, and we will see
if its enough different after a few batches.

just my $.02 worth

Brander Roullett        badger at nwlink.com        www.nwlink.com/~badger/

	Filled with mingled cream and amber
	I will drain that glass again.
	Such hilarious visions clamber
	Through the chambers of my brain ---
	Quaintest thoughts --- queerest fancies
	Come to life and fade away;
	Who cares how time advances?
	I am drinking ale today.

			- Edgar Allan Poe

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 13:01:03 -0600
From: galley at ns.Sperry-Sun.COM
Subject: Sparge Temperature - Why not lower?

    =20
     A series of niggling problems, poor planning, and interruptions=20
     resulted in my wasting enough time prior to sparging that my sparg=
e=20
     water temperature dropped to the high 150's.  I raised it to the l=
ow=20
     160's by adding boiling water, but I ran out of preboiled brewing=20
     water, and headroom.  Since I use gravity feed, I didn't want to s=
crew=20
     around lowering 10.5 gallons of hot water and heating it back up, =
so I=20
     didn't worry and sparged away. I had already mashed out to 168=F8F=
=2E =20
     Over the course of a 2 hour sparge (22# grain bill in 10 gallon Go=
tt),=20
     the temperature of the sparge water dropped from about 162=F8 to a=
bout=20
     156=F8.  Granted, I need to better insulate my reservoir. =20
    =20
     Extraction was a whopping 80% efficient compared to my expected 75=
% or=20
     so.  I guess this was the result of continuing enzyme activity dur=
ing=20
     the sparge, although I ended up mashing for 2.5 hours, which was a=
n=20
     hour longer than planned.  The wort tasted great and fermented out=
=20
     quickly in primary.  The beer is drier than I hoped when transferr=
ed=20
     to secondary (1.010 SG), but still tastes great.  It shouldn't hav=
e=20
     been more fermentable, though, since the temperature during sparge=
 was=20
     higher than my 153=F8F mash temperature. =20
    =20
     So the question is:  Why not sparge at these lower temperatures? =20
     Seems less attention to ph would be necessary to prevent tannin=20
     extraction.  What difference does it make if the enzymes keep work=
ing=20
     a bit?  Why was the wort apparently more fermentable than planned?
    =20
     Thanks,
    =20
     Tom

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 10:31:55 -0600
From: Daryl K Kalenchuk <dkk886 at mail.usask.ca>
Subject: RIMS flow rate inquiry/high temperature tubing

Could some RIMS users let me know what they expect their maximum flow rate
is during the mash as I'm trying to size a pump that I'm _making_. I
understand there are many factors that effect this so please speak from
personal experience if necessary.  I want to size the pump so that it is no
larger than necessary.
- ---------
Lost the post where it was asked about high temp tubing but I've been
looking a bit for myself lately and found some silicon tubing 1/4 id 3/8 od
for $33.00/25ft.  It is rated to 460 F and can be autoclaved to 'sterilize',
they've got lots of other sizes and materials to chose from.  You can check
it out at http://www.coleparmer.com/  (NAFBBB).  I plan on ordering some
beginning of next week if someone is interested please let me know, it won't
necessarily be the size mentioned.

Daryl, 
Saskatoon, Canada

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:04:56 -0800
From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: starter from dregs of boiling

Subject: re:Clarity of Wort

The wort mess you leave behind can be left to sit overnight in a cool
place, 
like the patio. The next morning decant the wort into a 1 quart jar and
put 
it in the refridgerator. Next time you brew, you've already got 32 oz of
starter wort in the jar. Just reboil for a few minutes, pitch. No need
to 
waste the left over wort.

but what about the hops that are in the gunk left behind, aren't you
hopping the wort this way?  or is the flavor neglible?

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:09:07 -0500
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at ford.com>
Subject: Flannel shirt as insulation

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

In HBD V2#022, Cliff Rones speaks of insulating his fermenter using a flannel
shirt...

Not a good idea, Cliffy! Most flannel shirts are plaid...     ;-)

See ya!

Pat Babcock
Canton, MI
pbabcock at oeonline.com
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html

Return to table of contents


Date: 9 Jan 97 15:37:40 EDT
From: Bob Bessette/PicTel <Bob_Bessette at smtpnotes.pictel.com>
Subject: Paranoid Brewer...

Fellow Brewers,
 I am the formerly depressed brewer that told you of my saga of infections. For 
those of you who missed it, I have had approximately 7 out of my last 10 brews 
be somewhat infected. Not to the degree that they weren't undrinkable but 
pretty bad none the less. Anyway, I pretty much revamped my sanitation 
procedures and have brewed another batch. I went out and bought and am using 
iodophor, bought new hoses and a new spigot for my bottling bucket. I also have 
not introduced any unboiled well water into the beer after chillling.
 I am going to bottle this weekend and I am fairly confident that I have a 
winner here. I am still a little paranoid because I still have not bought a new 
bottling bucket. I have inspected this thing over and over and see no 
scratches. I plan on letting it sit overnight in iodophor and will use this 
same iodophor on bottling day as a bottle rinse. Is there any possiblity that 
there may be a scratch in the bottling bucket harboring bacteria that the 
iodohpr would not kill with an overnight soak? I would appreciate private email 
to bbessett at pictel.com.

Cheers,
Bob

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 15:11:55 -0600
From: "C. Robert Spangle" <rspangle at wf.net>
Subject: Apology

Fellow HBer's:

Sorry if I advertised on the list.  I was only trying to help other HBers
with their water!

I will be sending info to everyone who sent me requests!


Rob

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:21:50 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: 158F and enzyme activity/husks and brewing/agar

Charley writes:
>in HBD 2-21, someone wrote:
>
>> Enzyme activity should not be a problem as long as you raise the temperature
>> above 158F... <snip>
>
>I regularly mash  at  158 and get plenty of sugar, enzymes will not stop at 
>that temperature. I've even gone as high as 165F, and still got some 
>conversion. When I want enzymes to stop, I go to 170F.
>
>PS - The 158F mash gives some wonderfully malty flavors on less alcohol due 
>to the dextrins created.

Actually, this was a quote of a personal email from me.  Part of the
discussion was not posted, part was, so it's odd when you read it out-of-
context.

What I was referring to was JS's (no, a different one) concern that letting
wort sit around between the laeuter and boil was not going to change
the fermentability that much.  If you mashed at the cool end then you
presumably wanted lower dextrin levels and higher fermentability.  Continued
enzyme activity would not be problem here because it's what you *wanted*
in the first place.  If you mashed at the warm end, you presumably wanted
higher dextrin levels and lower fermentability.  Since all the beta amylase
would be denatured (certainly by the end of the mash) having the wort sit
around for a while would only have alpha amylase active and that would be
making primarily dextrins, so again you don't care.

An alternate method of controlling fermentability/dextrin balance is by
mashing cool for time x and then mashing warm for time y.  You change
the balance by the amount of time at x and y (more time at x, means
more fermentable, less dextrinous).  But (and this is where my quote
comes in), as long as you do go up to 158F or so sometime in the middle
of the mash, the beta amylase will be denatured quickly and no amount
of time at 158F (or even if the temperature drops back down to 148F)
will change the fermentability ratio (assuming there was enough time
for all the starch to be converted either to dextrins or fermentable
sugars).

This shows the dangers of posting pieces of private emails... you can
get people confused when they miss part of the discussion.

***
Bill writes:
>A continuing thread over the past couple of years and something that you
>are warned about in all grain brewing is the husk portion of the malt. 
>The husks have been blamed as being the major source of tannins in beer,
>yet when beer is brewed with the husks being sieved off, the tannin  is
>about 91% of the tannin found in  beer that is brewed with husks.  Where
>is all this tannin coming from?  At least some of it is coming from the
>hops.  

33% according to Moll in Brewing Science (Vol. 3, I believe, "Collodal
Stability in Beer" is the name of the chapter).

>Husk material is rich in silica  and you may want to limit the amount of
>silica in you beer.

Silica or silicates?  I'd like to learn more about this, incidentally, so
post sources, please!  Moll also talks about anthocyanogens and the levels
of them are listed in dozens of tables in the aforementioned chapter of
Brewing Science, but in either Practial Brewing or Malting and Brewing
Science, they say something like "the correlation of haze and anthocyanogens
is unclear" (no pun intended ;^).  I don't recall a clear correlation
from reading Moll either and I don't believe that he comes out and
specifically says anthocyanogens are related to colloidal haze potential.
Comments?  Where's Charlie Scandrett when you need him?!?!

>Low extraction rates for all grain brewing is taken as the norm.  The
>answer is to add more malt to the mash tun to get the gravity.  When you
>add more malt to the grist to achieve the same result you are also adding
>more husk material. More husk material equals more off  flavors and beer
>that is not in balance.  

This is counter to what Fix has found in his research and I trust his
(and Laurie's) palate.

>Lets take an extreme example.  If you brew a beer with an original
>gravity of 1.050 and you use 10 pounds of grain to brew that beer, then
>you will have 36% more husk material then another brewer who can brew the
>same beer with 7.35 pounds of malt.  I feel that this is a good reason to
>get your brewing efficiencies up to make better beer.  

This again goes against the whole parti-gyle system (in which you take
the first runnings for one beer (the "best" beer) and then use the
second and third runnings for some "lesser" beers.

>The difference between brewing truly great beer and just drinkable beer
>isn't that much.  Balance of all the ingredients is essential.  The
>balance of the different malt fractions to each other.  The balance of
>the hops both in flavor and bitterness to the malt.  The balance of the
>yeast characters to both the malt and hops.   

Didn't someone once say something like: the difference between theory
and practice is, in practice, much bigger than it is in theory?  A lot
of intuitively wrong things make some practically wonderful beer.
Intuition tells us that break does not affect wort gravity readings,
but I'm willing to bet any money that it does, because I've seen it
work in practice.

***
Michael writes:
>Does anyone know a realitively inexpensive place to get Agar?

Yes.  Chineese grocery stores.  Ask for "agar agar."

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com

Return to table of contents


Date: 09 Jan 1997 15:06:32 -0700
From: Dave Hinkle <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com>
Subject: Immersion Chiller (Dave Hinkle)

A few days ago, I posted my experience with a flat, or planar immersion chiller 
design.  A few people have stepped forward to claim credit for the idea, but I 
thought I'd pass along this tidbit from HBD days past:

>>Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1993 08:07:22 -0400
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca>
Subject: Re: Another immersion chiller

Steven Smith mentioned his 'hang from the edge of the pot' chiller, which
sounds pretty cool.  I would like to toot my horn once more and promote the
joys of the planispiral chiller.  It's a flat coil (like an electric stove
burner) of 25' of 1/4" OD copper tubing, the last (outer) coil descends to
the bottom of the pot as a support, and the in/out tubes hang over the side
also for support.  The disc/coil is suspended an inch or two below the
surface.  The cooled wort drops to the bottom, warm wort rises up the
sides.  I've never had to stir my wort to get it to chill properly, the
convection currents are sufficient.
<<

Thanks for the idea, Ed, where ever you and the Pick & Fossil Picobrewery are!  
Gee, it only took me 3 years for the idea to sink in.  Someone mentioned that 
they thought they read about the flat chiller design a few years ago in BT, but 
I don't have issues back that far.  The last known address I can find for Ed is 
ehitchcock at sparc.uccb.ns.ca, but that was from 8/95.  Ed, you there?

Dave Hinkle
Phoenix, AZ

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 17:22:32 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Big Head/Decoctions/Crystal

Scott Murman asks about big headed wheat beers ... 
One secret of big head is raw wheat (not malted).  Pierre Celis uses
red winter wheat which I believe has more protien than average.

Decoction schedule - I mash in  at  1qt/# and pull decoctions with a
kitchen sieve, add some additional water since I'll need to thin the
mash anyway.    I find it uneccesay to use complicated temp steps for
the decoction.  I slowly heat the decoction  to ~175F over 15minutes
or so, then turn up the heat to get the decoction boiling.  Sinngle
decoctions seem to me to give results that are close to or the same as
double decoction.  Triple decoctions are pointless IMO.

George dePiro questions the practise of adding crystal late in the
mash.  A while back AlK posted stating that for Breiss dextrin malt
specifically has glucose polymers that don't degrade in the mash.  I
suspect that he truth for normal crystal is that some enzymatic
degradation takes place, but less than complete.  I understand the
logic of adding crystal late, tho' I've never done this, and like
George I question this technique.  I've never seen the late addition
of crystal mentioned in the literature - does anyone have a reference ?

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 15:55:07 -0700
From: Vince <VJMitchell at asu.edu>
Subject: Conversion......

I am looking for conversion factors for extract to all-grain and vis
versa.  I figure that one of you Brewing gurus should have this info
memorized.  Thanks!

Vince Mitchell
VJMitchell at asu.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:33:03 -0800
From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: twistoff caps

>The crown caps that I bought actually had twistoff written on the side.

I've never used caps labeled "twist-off" nor can I remember running into
them at homebrewing competitions, so I can't help there.

My first kit came with a huge bag of "old english 800" caps that had the
immortal words "Twist Off" on them.  These caps caused no end of amusing
and sometimes painful situations when people tried to twist them off.  i
normally was able to tell people before they tried, but sometimes when i
would bring a case or two to a party, i wasn't able to get them all. <G>
some rather drunk (and not to mention stupid) people tore up there hands
trying open them.  I started calling them my drunk test.  :)  anyway,
just a word of warning about twist off caps.  get the blank ones, that
way you can mark batch numbers, with having to label them all.

Brander Roullett        badger at nwlink.com        www.nwlink.com/~badger/

	Filled with mingled cream and amber
	I will drain that glass again.
	Such hilarious visions clamber
	Through the chambers of my brain ---
	Quaintest thoughts --- queerest fancies
	Come to life and fade away;
	Who cares how time advances?
	I am drinking ale today.

			- Edgar Allan Poe

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 16:20:34 -0800
From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro at MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: mixed yeast culturing

In this most recent run i made a super streangth wort, and split it into
two carboys, and added water to 5 gallons.  in one i pitched Edme Ale
(no starter, just rehydrated), and in the other i pitched WYeast #1056
american Ale.  (pre whacked)  the Edme took off like a shot, and the
Wyeast did nothing, after 24 hours i had some little white spots on the
surface of my beer.  I panicked, and tossed in a packet of Edme, (no
rehydration, just tear and pour) and the fermentation took off (albiet a
little slower, and less furious than the other)  for new years i bottles
the other one, and racked the mixed yeast one to a secondary.

My question is about culturing the yeast off the bottom of the secondary
with the mixed yeasts.

1) Is this a good idea?  (in other words will this produce some new
varient strain, or yeast mixture, or just be dangerous?)

2) Are there any commerical yeasts that are mixtures like this?

3) Why would the #1056 not take off like that?

Brander Roullett        badger at nwlink.com        www.nwlink.com/~badger/

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:41 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: tannins from decoction

collective homebrew conscience:

eric fouch wrote:

><snip> what do you suppose happens to all those
>nasty tannins that get extracted during a decoction?  Surely there must be
>some?"<snip> Anybody else got any information on what tannins are extracted
>during a decoction, and if any, what happens to them?  Do they get reabsorbed
>by other grain husks?  If tannins mask the taste of melanoidins which are 
>supposedly extracted preferentially in the first runnings, it seems you would
>be defeating the purpose of no-sparge brewing if you also used decoction.
 
>Anyone?....anyone?....
 
let me volunteer a little information i got from none other than ajd a while
back:

>Boiling grains during decoction certainly does extract phenolics (tannins).
>Some of these form complexes with protein and precipitate during the
>decoction boil and are filtered out during the lauter. Some of the
>remainder is precipitated in the kettle and left with the hot trub. The
>rest precipitates (by complexing with protein) more gradually during
>lagering. This is one of the reasons that lager beers are stored for so
>long (3 months traditionally) at cold temperature. Miller discusses this in
>his "Continental Pilsner" (p50) and Noonan in "Brewing Lager Beer" pp 129
>&163.

there you have it.  i would also add that i have no absolute proof, but i 
would be willing to bet that some of the world's maltiest beers are brewed
using the decoction method, and there's probably some sparge water involved.

does anyone kmow where i can get  a cylindrical type of glass container, like
a large hydrometer sample flask, that could hold around a gallon of liquid?

also, does anyone have experience with a product mfgd by fermentap that's 
supposed to go on the end of a racking cane and help you siphon wort out of 
your kettle at the end of the boil, and hold back the trub?


>Dave writes:
>>        Is there any non-anecdotal information that says that leaving trub
>>in the wort affects flavor adversely?  My beers always settle and are clear
>>after fermentation so I curious if we need to care.

this is not really the exact same topic, but it's related:

i recently had a couple of batches of english bitter that were bottled before 
they had clarified well.  the first batch, i forgot to use irish moss in, and
didn't get a lot of break material in the kettle, at least, not as much as i
am used to.  so, after i bottled the cloudy brew, i checked about a week later
to see if it was clearing in the bottle.  to my dismay, i witnessed at least
3/4 of an inch of trub and yeast in the bottom of the bottles.  the beer 
tasted fine for about 2 weeks after it had carbonated.  it then almost 
immediately plunged to pretty bad, stale tasting beer.  it's fairly bad now,
but drinkable.  it's a character builder.  a motivator.

the second batch scored a 39.3 average in the recent st louis brews happy
holiday homebrew competition and just missed a ribbon.  it was 2 weeks in the
bottle at the competition.  it also has some trub in the bottles (not as much
as the first one), and it also has degraded rapidly since the first week of
december, when it was judged.  

i believe the poor stability of these beers is due largely to the trub in the
bottle.  i just wanted to contribute this to encourage the rest of you to 
watch out for this.  don't get in a hurry.  let your beer clear sufficently
before packaging if there's trub in the wort.

i have seen some articles that claim that hot break is more detrimental than
cold break, and some breweries make minimal effort to remove cold break.  the
articles were referring to flavors produced during fermentation.

brew hard,

mark bayer

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 18:52 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: clarification

collective homebrew conscience:

i misled you.  

dave burley wrote:

>Mark Bayer asks:
 
>1)> so my question is basically this:  why can't i get wort as clear as the 
>>wort i racked straight out of the kettle by using the oversize fermentor and
>>letting the wort sit for 6 to 10 hours?

>There are two breaks - the hot and cold break.  Presumably letting the wort sit
>around for hours allowed both breaks to settle out giving you an ultimately
>clearer wort in the fermenter.


my original post above was supposed to convey that the wort i drew
from the kettle after an hour of settling was clearer than my usual method
of putting the wort through a strainer and letting it settle for 6 - 10 hours.
that's what happened.  my hypothesis was that putting the wort+trub through the
strainer does something to the trub so as to not allow it to settle again as 
completely as it does in the kettle when left undisturbed after chilling.

that's really not much clearer (pun), is it?  

brew hard,

mark bayer

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 20:01:15 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Good Tannins/Bad Tannins (S.Alexander)

Eric.Fouch and Bill Giffin ask about tannins, decoction and more ....
 
I've been studying phenols, polyphenols and tannins lately (and from
private email I understand that Charlie Scandrett has been too).
Having read a great deal on the topic I must say that there is no
entirely satisfying explanation of the lack of harsh phenolics in
decoction brewed beers.  It appears that every aspect of phenols in
beers is contradictory - they taste good, they taste bad, they cause
haze, they eliminate haze, high temps leach them from grist yet they
are not a problem in decoction brewing.  What could be more
interesting ?

Why decoction beers aren't horribly tannic ....

One line of argument is that the polyphenols combine with protein
(both soluable and immobile) in the decoction boil and you essentially
get a hot break on this boil that makes the worst of the phenols
inaccessible.  If this is true, then a proteolysis rest and a 15+
minute decoction boil would be a good idea.

Another line of argument is that decoction worts are known to contain
a greater amount of oxidizable phenols and a lower fraction of
oxidized phenols than infusion worts.  This is an advantage for
decoction since oxidizED phenols readily polymerise into nasty tasting
compounds.  OxidizABLE phenols are sensed as fresh tasting.

The question comes up periodically about heating wort or decoctions in
a microwave - several articles I've seen suggest that polymerization
of phenols and denaturing of proteins are both likely in a microwave.
This sounds bad. It would be interesting to see if this is true for
worts.

Tannins and husks ....

Bill Giffin suggested that 15% of the husk mass (presumeable full of
phenols) is released in the mash.  Bill's later posts corrects the
impression somewhat by noting that beer made w/o husks has 91% of the
phenols as normal beer, but I think this too leaves a misimpression.

There are three different things which are commonly referred to as
"HUSK".  First there is the true husk - the pallea and lemma. The true
husk contains most of the cellulose in the grain. In fact the true
husk is mostly cellulose with some protein, phenols, silicates and
gums embedded in it.  Next is the husk as produced by manual selection
or decortication - since the true husk is fused to the tissue layer
immediately beneath the husk (the pericarp) this is included.  Most
practical research in the husks include at least the pericarp since it
is so difficult to separate.  Husk and pericarp are around 10% of the
mass of 2-row barley.  The third definition of husk is really the
'husk fraction'.  The husk fraction is everything that remains on a
screen just small enough to hold most of the husk, but allow most of
the grist to drop through.  The husk fraction includes the true husk
and pericarp, lodicules, testa, some nucellar tissue, alurone layer
and fragments of the embryo, acrospire and endosperm. Only a modest
portion of the "husk fraction", is true husk.  The true husk probably
contains only a small amount of soluabilizible phenols - but perhaps
some of the worst tasting ones. Undoubtedly the majority of phenols
from the husk fraction come from the pericarp and alurone layers.

The experiment that Bill Giffin refers to, involving brewing with and
without husks, is I believe the one from a table in M&BS and comes
from an article in JIB from the 1960s.  This experiment brewed with
and without the "HUSK FRACTION".  The no-husk-fraction beer ends up
with about 90% of the total phenols as the husk-beer, but if you
factor out the contribution from hops and phenol loss in production
you'll find that the husk fraction contributes in the neighborhood of
one third of the total phenols in the unhopped wort.  In other words
grist without husk fraction still contains two thirds or so of the
soluabile phenols.  The no-husk-beer contains only a very small
portion of the total silicates as the husk-beer, and silicates cause
harsh flavors too.  So I agree with Bill that the husk fraction is not
the sole contributor - BUT the 15% of so of the grist called the 'husk
fraction' does contribute say 25% to 40% of the phenols.  A major
contribution.  Furthermore I suspect that the important question is
not "how much phenol", but which phenol compounds.

Elsewhere in M&B Science there is a notation that experimental beers
made with the HUSK FRACTION removed taste dull and insipid.
Experimental beers made with an addition of husk fraction tasted harsh
and astringent.  Pretty clearly there are good and bad tasting
components or precursors in the husk fraction.

Phenols, whats happen here ? ......

Two well studies classes of polyphenols are anthocyanid and catechins.
There are good reasons to think that these two should contribute to
beer flavor and perhaps color but a variant strain of barley (Ant-13
var Foma) has only trace amounts and these and their precursors and
yet this barley produces perfectly normal tasting beer with very
little tendency to form haze.

There are some methylated phenols (perhaps more properly called
benzene compounds) which are likely to form bad flavors in the woody
lignin portions of plants.  There is some small amount of lignin in
barley grain and a lot in the stem. Hops stems also contain lignin and
are likely to be part of your hops load.  Barley lignin may be the
source of the oversparge=astringency problem - just a suspicion.

Chlorine and phenols of course can easily form chlorinated phenols -
which are totally nasty tasting.

Yeast and infectious organisms can produce many phenols also.  In fact
the clovey 4VG in weizen beers is a phenol.  Obviously this is very
yeast strain dependent.

How can phenols be reduced ?

A maltster can perform an alkaline soak of barley before malting.
This tends to leach phenols from the true husk.  Similarly grain can
be treated with formaldehyde which is presumed to act by linking some
phenols to other grain constituents.  Unfortunately formaldehyde also
tastes nasty and is poisonous.  Not practical for HBers.

A while back Charlie Sandrett suggested separating the husk fraction
and mashing with the husks in a grain bag,  but removing the husks
before mashout.  There is still the problem of getting a good
filterbed sparge going without the husks ....

We all know the sparge pH vs phenol problem.  Keep the sparge below pH
6.0 IMO.

The phenol composition of wort declines the longer you boil.  I don't
have the numbers in front of me, but a 2 hour boil will reduce phenols
significantly more than a 1 hour boil.  Of course if you don't get a
clean sparge you may have husk remnants in your boiler and be
introducing phenols.

Here is an interesting method - pale malt contains some small amount
of peroxidase enzymes that should reduce phenols.  They require
hydrogen peroxide for the hydrolisation.  Add hydrogen peroxide to
your mash and perform a "phenol rest" !!!  I don't have a good figure
for the rest temperature but I suspect it's down around 35C.  What if
there isn't enough peroxidase present - horseradish is quite high in
peroxidase and you just might make something that will stand up
against those chili-pepper beers.

Several plant materials, like potatoes and some gel compounds will
absorb phenols - but the effect is weak.

Add activated carbon(AC) to the mash tun and/or boiler to collect
polyphenols.  OK, I've actually tried this one for the past several
brews because it is supposed to reduce haze. It does have an effect
but I'm still experimenting with this.  AC is available cheaply in
aquarium supply places (if it's good enough for guppies ...).  AC in
the boiler should act to absorb hops phenols too.

There's a lot more, but enough for today,
Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 18:04:33 -0700
From: Vince <VJMitchell at asu.edu>
Subject: Mackeson

Does anyone have recipe for a stout that comes close to Mackeson XXX
stout?  It would be greatly appriciated!

Vince Mitchell
VJMitchell at asu.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu,  9 Jan 1997 19:54:02, -0500
From: STEVE GARRETT <sdginc at prodigy.com>
Subject: Single Decoction Mash (S. Garrett)

Many thanks to all who replied to my post asking for suggestions on 
my single decoction mashes of a Bock and a Czech Pils. I actually 
brewed Tuesday the 7th, a couple of days earlier than I expected. So 
some of the replies arrived after the fact. I wrote a review of the 
replies and my rationale for what I did. As it is rather lengthy, 
rather than eating up the limited HBD bandwidth, I have posted the 
article to the rec.crafts.brewing (RCB) newsgroup. For those 
interested that don't have access to newsgroups, send me an email and 
I will send you the article. It may take me a while to get it to you 
as I will be out of town until the middle of next week.

Thanks again!

Steve Garrett
sdginc at prodigy.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 20:34:35 -0800
From: "Kelly C. Heflin" <kheflin at monmouth.com>
Subject: Welding Things

Someone just wrote about stainless steel rusting after welding.
As a welder and having just welded 3 stainless pots for myself,
let me give my opinion. Even when stailess is welded without the
addition of any rod, (a nipples can be fused to the pot without any
rod)The stainless will discolor and appear to be rusting. This happened 
to me. Take a wire brush or some steel wool and scrub the area
around the nipple. Relax and make brew. Even if the guy did add some
non stainless rod, your pot wont fall apart anytime soon. Its gonna
get wet when you use it but then you will dry it anyway. Just dont
let any rust chips fall in the brew.
later
kelly 
- -- 
Kelly C. Heflin
Kheflin at monmouth.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 09 Jan 1997 18:34:49 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu>
Subject: Dry hopping experiement

Don Van Valkenburg <DONVANV at msn.com> posted an interesting
experiment where identical bottles were dry hopped with 
different hops:

> How does one do a side by side taste comparison
> of hops without actually brewing a different batch
> for each hop? ---- DRY HOPPING! ---- True, dry
> hopping is not the same as late kettle additions, nor
> is there the benefit boiling each hop.   However,  
> dry hopping does afford one the ability to add in
> hops to a finished  beer.

Our club wrestled with this same issue.  We started out
with a pilot experiment where we brewed 6 or 7 batches.
Like Don's they were plain pale ale types bittered with
isoalpha extract (all hop products were donated by HopTech).
We varied the late addition: 30', 20', 10', dry hop, none,
and a 30' steep after the boil.  All of these were with
one hop type (Willamette if I recall).  

The idea of this 6 batch run was both to do a pilot run for
the big brewing with all the hop varieties (we did 17) (added at
the same time) and to examine the qualitative differences in the
various timings.  I'm sure none of the HBD readership will be
surprised to read that we found huge differences in the quality of
the hop flavor and aroma.  This lead us to the idea that
while both were interesting, dry hop and late hop (10-20')
were very different experiments.  As Don concluded, the
dry hop is easier, therefore we elected to do the late
hop as a club, figuring that one could do the dry hop
experiment alone.

Our results were disappointing.  First it turned out to be
very difficult to get the club to brew 17 consistant
batches on equipment most were unfamiliar with.  A few
batches had contamination problems and several had off
flavors of other types (DMS, HSA, etc.) making comparisons
difficult.  During the tasting we also realized that the
base beer wasn't really appropriate for tasting all the 
hop types.  The noble hops as a rule just didn't do well
with the ale background.  I would suspect that Don's
experiment suffered in this way, and maybe even moreso
since the noble hops aren't "designed" for dry hopping.

I think these kinds of experiments are great, but they
are really difficult to design and to execute.  Three ideas
for the hop experiment are: 1) Do what Don did but use hop
teas instead of dry hopping.  This way 2 or 3 dedicated 
people could do it all, 2) get a friendly local brewpub
to donate some wort for big experiments, 3) think about
2 or 3 different recipes for different hop types.  My
web page has an article with a few other thoughts on
doing brewing experiments.

Don also wrote:

> Another variation we noticed from one hop to another aside from 
> bitterness was head retention.  The control bottle(no hops)  
> had no head retention, in sharp contrast to those with hops.

Since there were pellets in the beer do you think they added
to the rate of bubble nucleation causing more foam to be
generated, as opposed to causing the same amount of foam to
last longer?
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2305