---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  unsuscribe (Perry Leets)
  re: AHA NHC (Meercat)
  Bottling yeast - AHA (Jason Henning)
  SANKEY KEGS (CHUCK HUDSON HOMEBREW HAVEN)
  Acidification of Water - I (A. J. deLange)
  Acidification of Water - II (A. J. deLange)
  hydrometer correction, cont. (Dave Whitman)
  Vitamin C in Beer (A. J. deLange)
  Calling Dallas area homebrewers (David Draper)
  correct category/sub-category for Grand Cru? ("Michael Dowd")
  Decoction mashing (korz)
  Decoction ... malliard reactions ... (Steve Alexander)
  Need help for a paper I'm writing... ("Mark D. Johnson")
  Briess Pale Ale ("Craig Rode")
  Decoction: Pressure cooking is excellent (Charles Rich)
  Decoction reposte (Charles Rich)
  Decoction -extract efficiency/Malt Analysis (Steve Alexander)
  Mishmosh (Rust1d)
  Re: hot water (Brian Bliss)
  history of Styrian Goldings (Daniel Juliano)
  Decoction - replies (Charles Rich)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  brew.oeonline.com 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu 
  that says: UNSUB BEER-L

Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
  Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
			http://brew.oeonline.com/

If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.

For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org

ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp from:
	
	brew.oeonline.com	/pub/hbd	
	ftp.stanford.edu	/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

  AFS users can find it under

	 /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.


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


Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:14:28 -0800
From: Perry Leets <perry at pond.net>
Subject: unsuscribe



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 23:39:19 -0800
From: Meercat <steveq at imagina.com>
Subject: re: AHA NHC

Bill Giffin <billgiffin at maine.com> said in not so many words:

>Anyone who has judged, organized a competition knows there are
>excellent judges, good judges, and not so good judges.  There are too
>sides to the judging question one is the judges, with whom I find no
>fault being one, the other is the organization of the competition and
>that can have a very serious effect on the judging.  A judge can only be
>expected to judge adequeately a few beers within a given time This
>number has been given as between 8-12.  Yet at the last NHC first
>round I judged I judged 12 pale ales in the morning and 15 barleywines
>in the afternoon.  How well do you think the barleywines were judged
>no matter how hard my partner and I tried?
>
Hmmm, it is my understanding that there are locals who organize the AHA
first round judgings.  Well, at least here in my town it is.  I would think
that it would be the organizers and possibly you, or accepting the judging
of the barleywines after judging the ales, who would be at fault and NOT
the AHA.

Is not the judge doing a great deservice to the entrants by judging 12
barleywines a couple of hours after judging 12 ales??

Bill then goes on to state:

>Tom  goes on to say that at least in his region the beers are well and
>properly judged and a good many of them win first place.  If the folks
>on the West coast are doing such a good job then why is it that so many of
>the beers that win in that region have only a nodding aquantance with
>the style guidelines?  
>
Oh I see, only if you are on the east coast can you recognize beers that
match the style guidelines.  It is true that the west coast brewers do like
hoppy beers and such but that in no way means that those of us that live on
the west coast do not know how to judge beers properly.

Steve <Meercat> Quarterman

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Quarterman, Portland OR   <<---------->>  steveq at imagina.com

ICQ UIN 109308 - http://www.dm.net/~steveq/
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 01:03:11 -0800
From: Jason Henning <huskers at cco.net>
Subject: Bottling yeast - AHA

Hello Friends-

John C. Peterson <petersonj1 at juno.com> askes about changing that 
character of his beers by adding a differant yeast at bottling. 
I've wonder about this a couple of time. Do you run the risk of 
midnight mortars if you use a more attenuative yeast? Or is the 
amount of left over fermentables negligible?

I thought George De Piro AHA renewal story was amusing. I got a 
similar letter. I told them I wouldn't be renewing because I thought 
the Special edition was a joke and I hadn't recieved the winter 
edition yet. You would have thought they would have wanted to make 
the winter edtion right with me but they didn't. It's obvious they 
don't care.

Also Charlie P. showed up a half hour late and drunk to talk to some 
homebrewers in Seattle.  I would've been pisted if they were stuck in 
traffic or had car troubles but thankfully they were just sitting 
around getting drunk. Then when he finally shows up, he basically says 
"I don't know what you wanted me to talk about so I'm going to just 
ramble on". And he did ramble, did you know an egg will stand on end 
on the spring equalnox? Jeez Charlie, guest speakers are generally 
expected to have topic. I left without having my book signed, he didn't 
deserve anymore of my time. Whoever said Charlie's having to much fun 
to be bothered with the business of the AHA hit the nail on the head.

Cathy, the vice-pres says that they have heard from homebrewers that they 
want beer, free beer and more free beer. So to meet these needs, the AHA 
is going to 1) make maps with brewpubs and hb shops on them for anywhere 
in the US. 2) Start an online tech talk forum for brewers. She specifically 
said that Ray Danials and George Fix would be guest host. And 3), a beer 
evaluation program that will prime you to pass the BJCP. I'm not sure what 
any of these have to do with free beer.

I can't believe I wasted a perfectly good brew day on these jerks.

Cheers,
Jason Henning (huskers at cco.net)
Big Red Alchemy and Brewing
Olympia, Washington - "It's the water"

Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol that alcohol 
has taken out of me -- Sir Winston Churchill


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 5:47:11 -0700 (MST)
From: CHUCK HUDSON HOMEBREW HAVEN <CHUDSON at mozart.unm.edu>
Subject: SANKEY KEGS

Nathan ask about fermenting in used sankey kegs. I have done so for about 7
years and they are about the most perfect fermenter.I clean mine with the high
preasure RINSE at a local car wash to blast off they heavy  and then I finish
at home with  NaOH or KOH rinse well and sanitize with Iodophor.A #11 stopper
fits great but please be extra carfull in removing the valve theys containers
are under preasure and high preasure A-B products that are stale and rancid are
no fun.

Chuck Hudson
Homebrew Haven 
chudson at joplin.unm.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:28:11 -0500
From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Acidification of Water - I

Recently I've had several requests for info on how to calculate the amounts
of acid of various types needed to acidify water to a given pH. This post
(in 2 parts)  gives formulas which will allow the amount of acid required
to be calculated. They are as general as I can make them and apply equally
well therefore, to strong monoprotic acids like hydrochloric, and weak,
polyprotic acids like citric. It is the latter case which leads to a large
part of the complexity. If you put these formulas in a spreadsheet (or
program them in FORTRAN or even C++) and play around with them assuming the
water pH is less than 8.3 and use strong acids you'll see that there are
simplifications which can be made.

The amount of acid is assumed to be that required to move a
carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate system from the original pH of the water
(symbolized here by pHo) to a target pH (symbolized simply by pH) plus the
amount required to establish the lower pH. Note that there are several
factors which make it unlikely that the amount of acid you calculate will
bring your water sample to exactly the pH for which you made the
calculation. Among these are:

 - The water alkalinity is not as reported (e.g. there has been a seasonal
variation due to heavy snow melt in your area).
 - Part of the alkalinity is due to systems other than the
carbonic/bicarbonate/carbonate system (such as nitrate and/or phosphate).
 - The acid you are using is not exactly at its labeled strength.
 - Depending on your equipment you may not be able to measure the weight or
volume of the acid terribly accurately.
 - The quantities of acid calculated depend upon the pK's of the acids which
vary with temperature.

Because of this it is best to measure out the calculated amount of acid and
add it gradually to the water being adjusted while checking the pH.

To use these formulas you must know the alkalinity of the water as the
alkalinity is the major factor in determining how much acid is required
unless, of course, the alkalinity is very low in which case the acid
required is just that necessary to supply the H+ ions which establish the
pH.

The formulas follow. Example numerical values are given for the
acidification of a water sample with an alkalinity of 100 ppm as CaCO3 and
a pH of 8.3 to pH 5 using citric or lactic acid.

Step 1. Compute the mole fractions of carbonic (f1o), bicarbonate (f2o) and
carbonate(f3o) at the water sample's pH (example: pHo = 8.3)


pHo                     = 8.3
r1o = 10^(pHo - 6.38)   = 83.17638
r2o = 10^(pHo - 10.33)  = 0.009332
do = 1 + r1o + r1o*r2o  = 84.95262
f1o = 1/do              = 0.011771
f2o = r1o/do             = 0.97909
f3o = r1o*r2o/do        = 0.009137

Step 2. Compute the mole fractions at pHb = 4.3 (the pH which defines
alkalinity).

pHb                     = 4.3
r1b = 10^(pHb - 6.38)   = 0.0083176
r2b = 10^(pHb - 10.33)  = 0.0000009
db = 1 + r1b + r1b*r2b  = 1.0083176
f1b = 1/db              = 0.9917510
f2b = r1b/db            = 0.0082490
f3b = r1b*r2b/db        = 0.0000000077

Step 3. Convert the sample alkalinity to milliequivalents/L (example:
alkalinity = 100 ppm as CaCO3)

alk = (alkalinity in ppm as CaCO3)/50  = 2.00

Step 4. Solve

Alk = Ct*(Change in Carbonic + change in carbonate) for Ct

Ct = alk/( (f1b - f1o) + (f3o - f3b)  ) =  2.0220

Note that this will always be very close to alk (in mEq/L) as long as the
pH of the sample is less than or equal 8.3


Step 5. Compute mole fractions at desired pH (example: pH 5)

pH = 5
r1c = 10^(pH - 6.38)     = 0.04168
r2c = 10^(pH - 10.33)    = 0.00000467
dc = 1 + r1c + r1c*r2c   = 1.04168
f1c =1/dc                = 0.95998
f2c = r1c/dc             = 0.04001
f3c = r1c*r2c/dc         = 0.00000018

Step 6. Use these to compute the milliequivalents acid required per liter
(mEq/L)

Acid required = Ct*(Change in Carbonic + change in carbonate)

E = Ct*(  ( f1c - f1o) + (f3o - f3c) ) + 10^(-pH) - 10^(-pHo) = 1.93576 + .01

Note that this is also very close to the alkalinity (expressed as mEq/L).
The alkalinity is the amount of acid required to get to pH 4.3. 'E' is the
amount of acid required to get to a somewhat more basic pH. The last two
terms (.01) give the acid which would be required if no carbonate or
bicarbonate were being "neutralized". This is the amount of acid that would
be required if distilled water were being acidified.

Step 7. If the acid is labeled in terms of its normality (i.e. 1 N, 0.1N)
recognize that a milliter contains the same number of mEq as the normality
of the acid e.g. 1 N acid contains 1 mEq/mL, 0.1N contains 0.1 mEq/L. Of
the acids typically used only hydrochloric and sulfuric are likely to be
labeled in this way. Divide 'E' by the number of mEq/mL to get the number
of mL of acid to add to each liter of the water. Thus if 8.75 N acid
(approximate strength of hardware store hydrochloric acid) were being used
with the example water 1.94/8.75 = 0.216 mL would be required for each
liter being acidified.

A. J. deLange
 - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.

- --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <--



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:28:15 -0500
From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Acidification of Water - II

Step 8. If the acid is not labeled by its normality then you must compute
the number of millimoles (mM) required to give the needed number of mEq and
then convert that to a weight or volume. This is not necessary if the acid
is labeled in terms of its molarity (e.g. 2 M, 0.1M) in which case each
milliliter contains the same number of mM as the strength. One mL of 1M
acid contains 1 mM. Start by computing the number of mEq of H+ obtained
from 1 mM of the acid at the target pH. To do this you will need all the
pK's of the acid being used. The following table gives values you can plug
into the formulas which follow (you will need the molecular weights later):

        Acid            pK1     pK2     pK3     Mol. Wt

        Acetic          4.75    20     20        60.05
        Citric          3.14    4.77    6.39    192.13
        Hydrochloric  -10.     20      20        36.46
        Lactic          3.08   20      20        90.08
        Phosphoric      2.12    7.20   12.44     98.00
        Sulfuric      -10.      1.92   20        98.07
        Tartaric        2.98    4.34   20       150.09

I hope the chemists will appreciate that I know that hydrochloric acid, for
example, only has one hydogen ion to give and that the pK for this ion
probably isn't - 10. By using -10 for the pK I insures that the math will
calculate 1 millimole of H+ from each millimole of HCl whatever the
(reasonable) target pH. Similarly the use of +20 for the second and third
pKs will result in calculation of insignificant additional amounts of
hydrogen ions from the second and third nonexistant dissociations. This
artifice allows the same formulas to be used for any of the acids we are
likely to encounter.

The "fraction" (in quotes because it may be a number biggert than one) of
moles of acid which release a hydrogen ion are found from the following
formulas.The pK's for the example numbers are for citric acid:

pK1 = 3.14
pK2 = 4.77
pK3 = 6.39
pH  = 5
r1d = 10^(pH - pK1)     = 72.4436
r2d = 10^(pH - pK2)     = 1.6982
r3d = 10^(pH - pK3)     = 0.0407
dd   = 1/(1 + r1d + r1d*r2d + r1d*r2d*r3d)      = 0.004963
f1d = dd        = 0.004963
f2d = r1d*dd    = 0.359553
f3d = r1d*r2d*dd        = 0.6106087
f4d = r1d*r2d*r3d*dd    = 0.0248750
frac = f2d + 2*f3d + 3*f4d      = 1.655395

It's not necessary to go through all this for hydrochloric acid which will
give frac = 1 for any pH or sulfuric which will give frac ~ 2 unless the pH
is below about 4 (e.g. if the water is being acidified for yeast washing).

Step 9. Now divide the mEq required by the "fraction". This is the required
number of moles of acid. For the citric example:

    mM required =  E/frac   = 1.946/1.655  = 1.176 mM

For lactic acid frac = 0.9881 and

    mM required =  E/frac   = 1.946/.9881  = 1.969 mM


Step 10. Multiply by molecular weight of the acid (192.13 mg/mM for citric)

   mg required = mM required*Mol.wt. (mg/mM)   = 1.176*192.13   = 225.94 mg

For lactic acid

   mg required = mM required*Mol.wt. (mg/mM)   = 1.969*90.08    = 177.37 mg

This is the weight of acid required to treat each liter of water. If the
acid is a solid, like citric, it can be now be weighed out. If it is a
liquid, like lactic, it will be necessary to determine the volume of liquid
which gives the desired weight of acid (see Step 10).

Step 10. Liquids are usually labeled according to the percentage of their
weight which is the acid, for example, 88% lactic acid, 25% phosphoric acid
and 28% hydrochloric acid are typical labelings. In order to calculate the
volume of liquid which contains a given weight it is necessary to know the
specific gravity of the liquid. In some cases this is specified on the
label (for example 28% HCl is labeled 18 Baume which converts to about
1.142 specific gravity or 1142 mg/mL). In other cases you will have to
determine the specific gravity by the use of tables in the CRC handbook
(sulfuric) or weigh a small known quantity of the acid. 88% lactic acid,
for example, weighs about 1214 mg/mL (and thus has a density of about 1.214
mg/mL). 25% phosphoric acid weighs about 1170 mg/L (specific gravity
1.170). If unable to obtain a specific gravity value you can use 1000 mg/L.
The three examples just given indicate that you would incur errors of 14 -
21% by doing that. This may seem like a lot of error but it really isn't
especially if you are going to add measured acid gradually until the target
pH is reached.

The mg of acid per mL is the product of the mg/mL weight of the acid times
the percent acid expressed as a fraction. Thus for 28% HCl it is
0.28*1140=319.8 mg/mL, for 88% lactic acid, .88*1214 = 1068 mg/mL and for
25% phosphoric acid,.25*1170    = 292.5 mg/mL. The final step is to divide
the required mg of acid by the mg/L for the particular strength acid. Using
88% lactic acid to bring a liter of the example water to pH 5 would, thus,
require 177.37mg/1068mg/mL  = 0.166mL of the 88% solution.

With all that there are bound to be some mistakes but, as always, I hope no
serious ones.

A. J. deLange
 - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.

- --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <--



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:26:33 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com>
Subject: hydrometer correction, cont.

In HBD#2386, Jim Thomas asked about a formula for correcting hydrometer
readings.  I posted a curve-fitting method for deriving such a formula, but
didn't have my own handy.  I looked my equation up last night and here it is:

SG(corrected to 60F) = SG(as read) + 1.05 - 0.114T + 0.001628T^2

SG is in points, i.e. 1.050 is written as 50.  Temperature is in degrees F.
 Using this formula, a reading of 50 pts at 90F gets converted to 54 points
at 60F.  Every time I've checked by allowing high temperature samples to
cool, the prediction is accurate within my ability to read the hydrometer.

As I mentioned in my original post, I suspect this formula may be
hydrometer dependent, but don't know this for a fact.  If you use it, I
would recommend double checking a few readings by allowing samples to cool
to confirm that the equation has good predictive power with your hydrometer.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 13:55:06 -0500
From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Vitamin C in Beer

Just a quick empirical observation on vitamin C in beer. I wanted to see if
my beer was oxidized relative to commercial beer and so measured the ORP of
two samples. I did OK. I then stuck an aeration stone into the sample and
gave it a shot of O2. Unsurprisingly the ORP went through the roof. Amused
by this I dropped in a vitamin C tablet and the ORP went through the floor
 - well below where it was originally. I never sat down and did anything
even quasi scientific about this (it's on a long list) but the initial
observation was that ascorbic acid is a pretty good reducing agent.

A. J. deLange
 - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.

- --> --> --> To reply remove "nosp" from address. <-- <--



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:21:16 -0600 (CST)
From: David Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Calling Dallas area homebrewers

Dear Friends,

Hello again after a very long time out of the proverbial loop.  After many
twists and turns on the Path of Fate, I and my new sweety have arrived in
Dallas, Texas, where I am happy to have finally landed a Real Job after
the three years I spent in Sydney. Of course, one of the first things I
need is contact information on the local homebrewing scene, so any brewers
out there in the area, please email me. I need to know where the best
suppliers are in the area, and which brew clubs are active and how to
contact them.  I'll be most interested in things to the north of
downtown-- my position is at U. T. Dallas, in Richardson, and my residence
is in Plano. 

Many thanks, and apologies for the tangential relation of my post to
actual brewing...

Cheers, Dave in Dallas (formerly Dave in Sydney, and before that, Dave in 
Bristol)

ddraper at utdallas.edu

"...That's right, you're not from Texas...but Texas wants you anyway..."

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:03:49 +0000
From: "Michael Dowd" <mikedowd at geocities.com>
Subject: correct category/sub-category for Grand Cru?


This may seem like a silly question, but here goes anyway:  I have a 
Belgian Grand Cru (similar to Celis Grand Cru, flavored with orange 
and coriander) which is pretty good, and which I thought I might 
enter in a couple competitions.  However, there isn't a sub-category
within Belgian ales in which it would fit well.  Should I enter it as 
a Classic Style Herb and Spice Beer?  What would be the best 
category/sub-category for it?

Thanks,
              Mike
Mike Dowd
Yeastie Boy Brewing
mikedowd at geocities.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:18:33 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Decoction mashing

Say... George's question about having simple sugars around for melanoidin
formation seemed logical to me, but then after a few more posts on the
subject, it dawned on me:

What's the difference between boiling a decoction and boiling the runnings
in the kettle when it comes to melanoidin formation?  Is there any?  Wouldn't
the amino acids and simple sugars go right into the kettle if they didn't
combine into melanoidins in the mash?

Comments?



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:23:54 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Decoction ... malliard reactions ...

Charles Rich writes ...

>By the way my next experiment with decocting is going to be to cook the
>bejeezus out of my decoc fraction in a pressure canner after its

Great experiment Charles - please please please post the results, and
don't be afraid to note your subjective opinions on aroma and taste.
"Any clod can have the facts, but having an opinion is an art".
 - Charles McCabe, SF Chronicle.

In my experience of pressure cooking wet raw grain as a medium for
mushroom spawn (hmmm - beer and mushrooms, mushrooms and beer) I would
expect a very substantial increase in the malliard products produced
in a the pressure cooker. But .....

I've also been collecting info on non-enzymatic browning and flavor
for a post (maybe ready Thursday or Friday), and I've come across some
good info on the rate at which different classes of enzymes are
consumed at different temperatures.  The amino radicals available at
100C differ from those available at 120C (about 15psi in a pressure
cooker) so you *might_possibly* get additional flavors and aromas.

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:19:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mark D. Johnson" <mdjohnso at cs.millersv.edu>
Subject: Need help for a paper I'm writing...


Okay, as an easy way to make my education a little more fun, I chose a
topic of "Extract -vs- All-Grain homebrewing for the Beginning
Homebrewer", and I am going to compare things such as cost, ease of
brewing, quality of beer, etc.  I've tried searching the web, but I find
it to be fairly scarce of all-grain information.  Can anyone point me in
the right direction?  Or better yet, does anyone have any information to
share? (I promise I'll cite you in my paper!  Or else my prof will fail
me!).

And since I haven't found anything on this topic, I guess I'll convert the
paper to HTML when i'm done with it.  (Wow, actually something usefull on
my web page!)

Thanks for any help,

Mark

P.S.  I have not done an all-grain yet (due to lack of space) so anything
about the subject will help.


Return to table of contents


Date: 1 Apr 1997 12:34:06 +0600
From: "Craig Rode" <craig.rode at qmcin4.sdrc.com>
Subject: Briess Pale Ale

I was in a brewshop last weekend, trying to decide between a bag of schrier 2
row and a bag of briess 2 row.  I've always used schrier, but have heard
opinions that briess is superior. (About 50% of the people I talked to
preferred schier over briess....).  Anyway, I noticed a bag tagged "Briess
Pale Ale" in a stack, and when I queried the owner, he said it was a new malt
from Briess, domestically grown english malt.  He said he thought it might
have been Maris Otter.  He had no malt analysis handy, but told me the Briess
rep told him it was "maltier" than their regular 2 row. Three questions for
collective:
(1)  Have you heard of this stuff?
(2)  Have you tried it, and how does it compare to english malt?
(3)  What IS the difference between Schrier and Briess regular 2 row?
Opinions, guesses, rumors, and folklore appreciated.
Craig Rode (aka Milwaukee Brewer), in Milwaukee where SPRING IS HERE!


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:23:21 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR at saros.com>
Subject: Decoction: Pressure cooking is excellent

Hola HBD'ers

This friday I experimented with pressure cooking a decoction fraction to
see if it would produce a good browning reaction.  I anticipated a lot
of benefits from pressure cooking vs. hand-stirring a boiling decoc and
I'll get into the details below but, briefly, it does do a much better
job of cooking evenly with absolutely no scorching.  It's a simpler
production process and much faster (lazy, good), with no chance of
hotside aeration from the cooking.  It's also a significantly more
efficient use of heating energy, propane in my case.  I'd guess it uses
less than a fourth as much as maintaining an open boil.  Better still,
my arm isn't tired.   Since I continually stir a stiff fraction to avoid
scorching, I would never cook the boiling fraction for forty minutes as
I could this time, and Best-Of-All, I've never gotten such a massively
rich flavor in the decoc fraction.

First, I wanted to see if pressure cooking the decoc was feasible. I had
also wanted to address an issue that George De Piro had brought up
recently regarding whether cooking a fraction with more simple sugars
was better than a more dextrinous fraction.  I disqualified my simpler
sugar part of this experiment though, because I don't feel I'd gotten as
good a conversion as possible.  My conversion temperature kept falling
from 149F (65C) to 140F (65C). I brought it back to temp and repeated
this twice more before quitting it in disgust (femto-brewing, Feh!).  I
don't think as much starch was made available for conversion in this
portion as with the dextrinous sample since starch gelatinizes at 148F
(65C) and it kept falling below this.  The dextrinous portion was very
well converted, however.  Here's what I did.

1) Measured 8 oz. crushed (250g) Belgian Pilsner into a two 1-quart (1L)
mason jars and added 21oz (620ml) water to each to simulate a moderate
1.33:1 (qt/lb) mash.  This is thinner than any decoc fraction I'd
normally boil, but I wanted to develop a good conversion before boiling
to also test the dextrinous vs simple sugar question.  I also expect
that this would cook (brown) poorer than a stiffer decoc fraction so it
could stand as a torture case.  In a grain bill with poor diastatic
power, I would pull a decoc this thin so I could get as much work out of
the enzymes during the mini-rest as possible, before they were denatured
in the boil.

2) Doughed in at 105F (40C) and in a water bath I brought both jars'
contents to 135F (57C) and rested for twenty minutes to allow the enzyme
systems to go into solution, the protein benefits of this rest were
irrelevent for this test, though.  pH 5.2, Temps were measured in the
mash, not the waterbath.

3) Heated the waterbath with both jars to saccarification temperatures.
I removed the simple-sugar jar at 149F (65C) and put it inside an
insulator (now see why it kept falling?) took the remaining jar to 156F
(69C) and rested for thirty minutes.  It was very sweet.  The other,
after two more tries was sweet but still had some starchy flavor
remaining.

4) Covered the jars with aluminum foil to prevent spluttering grains
from clogging the pressure relief valve of my pressure canner, and
placed them inside the canner along with about 1/2" of water to produce
steam in the vessel.  I cranked up the heat until the canner vented
steam for about five minutes (this evacuates the air inside) and then
brought the canner to 250F (121C) at 15 lbs (6.8K) and reduced the flame
to a tiny, temp-maintenace size for twenty minutes.  Reduced pressure
and tasted.

Both jars were the same degree of dark tan.  Both jars were tasty but
still had a slight, raw starch flavor.  The simple sugar jar more so,
most likely because it still had more starch remaining after sugar
conversion.  I wouldn't sweat this too much since in practice the
starches would be given back to a viable enzyme pool on returning the
decoc to the mash.  Both produced a whiff of DMS on lifting their foil
lids but that dissipated quickly and didn't show in their taste after
stirring up.

I specifically tasted for tannin flavors and found none.  This was a
particulary crummy grind too.  The brewstore (not my usual) used a
coffee grinder and I had to put it through at "Perc" and then at "Drip"
grind before getting a reasonable crush.  The husks were torn to shreds
by that time.  If any batch would yield husk flavors this one had the
opportunity.

I returned them for another twenty minutes at the same temp and
pressure, and this produced a truly great decoc.  They were now both
darker still, between the color of corrugated cardboard and brown wood.
Both tasted fully cooked, with the dextrinous jar tasting much better
than the simpler sugar jar, but remember that that comparison may not be
completely valid.  However it does show that a dextrinous fraction (my
practice) produces a really great result when cooked this way.  I
subscribe to the school of thinking that says decocs produce "better"
malt flavor not "more" malt flavor.

To use this in brewing I would pull the stiffest practical fraction of
grain into my three-gallon cheapo canning pot and put it, covered, into
the canner and cook for at least forty minutes at the above temp and
pressure.  After cooling it with an immersion chiller back to 135F
(57C), the temperature that the rest of my mash is resting at, I would
add it back and take the whole mash to whatever sugar conversion temp is
appropriate for the beer.

The double-boiler, pot within the canner, approach is pretty important
to keep from scorching the grains.  Their pot rests on a stand a little
above the bottom of the canner, and effectively doesn't go above 250F
(121C) but if you were to put them directly into a pressure cooker the
direct firing would certainly burn them on the bottom.  It's the nature
of pressure cooking that food doesn't scorch if not in contact with the
heating surface.  The whole volume of liquid water and vapor acts like a
cooking surface at 250F so it cooks evenly.  There's also no risk of
hotside aeration while cooking since there's no air in the vessel after
steam purging.  I'm sold.

I'll never go back,
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:25:41 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR at SAROS.COM>
Subject: Decoction reposte

To keep the message size down I'm posting this separately.

Re: Dave Burley in HBD #2386:

>Malts that do fine in single malt infusions - AKA
>pale Ale malts already have plenty of protein and parking at the protein
>rests at 135F will produce perhaps more Mid-Mw protein than desired. This
>could lead to excessive chill haze.
 doubt you could get too much MMWP in a beer -- they contribute so
much.  A rest at 135F for any still-diastatic barley malt bill helps
develop these, a lager bill more so than an ale bill, but more body,
more mouth feel, better head retention in any beer is good.

>BTW it is not the purpose of the decoction to "cook" the malt, but rather
>to carry out a reaction that proceeds rapidly at the boil and ultimately
>produces melandoins, gelatinization of the starch is a side benefit If
>sufficient enzyme capacity is available in the main mash.
1) Sounds like cooking to me.
2) gelatinization of starch occurs with heat, enzymes have nothing to do
with it.
Since decoc fractions aren't really needed for controlling temperature
steps, the only remaining reasons to do them are for flavor improvement,
to present more starch for conversion, and the ability to present
dextrins to a still labile beta-amylase pool (if desired), which
develops even more simple-sugars.  Quickness is not wanted here.  The
more cooked, the better tasting.

>High temperature saccharification (  at 158F which I favor) in the main mash
>may suffer in this case because of a diminished beta concentration at the
>outset of the saccharification step. 
A diminished beta concentration at the outset of the saccharification
step won't interfere with alpha-amylase activity.  The reverse holds
true since beta-amylase develops more simple sugar from dextrins than
from starch, but isn't natural, although can be acomplished artificially
as with a decoc.

>Keep on brewin'
Yes!

Cheers,
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:33:26 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Decoction -extract efficiency/Malt Analysis


George De Piro posted that he didn't experience better extraction from
decoction mashing.

Back in my extraction efficiency obsessed days I did see a significant
improvement when decocting - 10% to 15%.  Today I stop sparging sooner
and take care to not overcrush the malt.  My efficiencies are still
pretty good, but the results taste even better.

Measuring efficiency is important, particularly when changing brewing
hardware, malts or methods - efficiency isn't the goal.  BTW check
George Fix's 40-60-70C masshing paper.  In it he extracts 30.4
pt-gal/# in a pale ale mash - a HB efficiency in the low 80% range.
If it's good enough for GeorgeF ...

>     Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could obtain malt analysis specs so 
>     that we'd know for sure what we are working with?  Do you small pro 
>     brewers get spec sheets?

I have found that Breiss at least is unwilling to talk to amateur
brewers - they'll push you off to your retailer who must in turn get
numbers from the distributor in a process that may take weeks.  The
first maltster to put up a fax-back or a web site with figures will
certainly get my attention.

In the mean time, Charley Burns noted in a private email that Culver
City Home Brewing Supply Co. has some good analysis numbers for Durst,
Gambrinus and Great Western malts on their website and they promise
more.	http://www.brewsupply.com/

I also noticed that Fred Waltman of Culver City HB posted to HBD last
May listing a bunch of analysis figures for Gambrinus.  It's nice to
see a HB shop so interested in supplying information.  Aside from
abusively using their website as an information source, I have
absolutely no affilation with Culver City HB.  These guys carry
Breiss, Durst, DeWolfCosyns, Baird, MFB, Great Western and Gambrinus
malts - an impressive array of hops varieties too.

Steev Alexander


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:54:57 -0500
From: Rust1d <rust1d at li.com>
Subject: Mishmosh

* Randy Ricchi talks about a film on his wheat beer: *

>By the way, I have a weizen in secondary right now and there is a film on
>the surface of the beer.

I made a batch of cider (11/16) with 4 gallons of fresh pressed cider and
Wyeast 3068 Weihenstephan Wheat. After primary fermentation this tasted
excellent, very appley in aroma and flavor. After a couple of months a film
has developed on the surface of the cider. This is a very thin layer that is
skin like. A sample taken reveals a very nice tasting cider but much drier
that previously (but not vinegar). Is there anything I should be concerned
with? appLambic? On the subject of non-traditional cider yeasts I also made
a batch of cider with Wyeast 3944 Belgain White which is terrific, dry and
very tart (but w/o a strange film).

* Randy Erickson replies regarding sanke fermenters: *

>I would clean the inside like any other fermenter, i.e. carboy brush, tsp,
>b-brite, bleach solution, etc.  If you use bleach, don't overdo the
>concentration or the contact time, and rinse well.

I ferment in sankes that have the tops chopped and ball valves located about
1.5 inches from the bottom. Having the top cut out really helps. This
enables you to skim krausen and reach inside when it is time to clean. I
sanitize by putting a cup of water in the bottom, covering with a lid and
hitting it with 220K BTU from my king kooker for 5 mins. Leaving the valve
open at the bottom helps to steam clean it as well. I cover the keg with a
trash bag (small kitchen type fits very snug) to keep intruders out. The bag
will inflate for a couple of days and then deflate when primary ferment is
complete. This is the time to harvest yeast and secondary.

* Randy Reed talks about cold water *

> Am I the only person who has used cold tap water for my brewing water?

Being the outdoorsbrewer that I am, I don't have access to hot water (except
the time last winter when the hose was frozen and I ran one off the bathroom
sink. What a good wife I got). I get all my water from a garden hose (w/no
off flavors). One great equipment tip for you hose brewers. I have a jet
carboy washer that broke so I cut the end off with a pipe cutter. I use this
on my hose (with an on/off fitting) to fill kegs hands free. With its curved
shape it hooks right to side. This also make cleaning the under the top of
my kettle, fermenters and cornys a breeze because of the higher pressure.

Next week I'll concentrate on posts from people named Scott.

* The 135F protein rest *

With this much discussed 135F protein rest, is it necessary to still dough
in at 60-70F? or should the first infusion of liquor bring the mash to 135F?
Are the lower rests (below 122F) overkill with todays malts as well?

I finally have a valid e-mail address once again: rust1d at usa.net

Thanks for the BW,

John Varady                     http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing                The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Lafayette Hill, PA              * New email address ***> rust1d at usa.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 12:02:31 CST
From: Brian Bliss <brianb at microware.com>
Subject: Re: hot water


>Now a separate question: Is there any general reason we wouldn't fill our 
>mash and sparge tanks from the Hot Water tap? Microbrewies take water from 
>a hot water tank which keeps the water at a high temperature at all times. 
>Am I the only person who has used cold tap water for my brewing water? Any 
>pros/cons? My water heater is a gas unit.

yes - you'll get a much higher calcium concentration due to deposits in your
water heater (or so I've heard).  The general rule of thumb in cooling is
never to use hot water directly, use the cold and heat it up.  I filter
all my water through a charcoal filter which is for cold water only, so
I've got an extra reason.

After I've filtered it, it is dubbed "pure" enough so that I can easily
adjust the ion concentrations via the recommendations in the special
issue of zymurgy on water.

Doing this resulted in the third biggest improvement in my beer.  #1 was
doing a full boil and chilling quickly. #2 was going all grain.  I rank
using liquid yeast way down on the scale at #4, but then again, my dry yeast
brand of choice was whitbread, which ain't that bad.  #5 is decoction mashing.
#6 is standing on my head and guzzling a barleywine just before mash-in,
chanting the ancient beer scriptures...

I digress -

bb


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 12:20:03 CST
From: Daniel Juliano <dan at starfire.ne.uiuc.edu>
Subject: history of Styrian Goldings

In Mark Garetz's book  _Using Hops_ he says that Styrian Goldings
originated from English Fuggles, and that they are therefore not Goldings 
at all.  In George & Laurie Fix's VOM book they state that English (Kent) 
Goldings came from Styrian Goldings.  Does anybody know the definitive
history of Styrian Goldings, and how this variety is related to English
Goldings and/or Fuggles?  
- --
Daniel Juliano
Urbana, IL 
dan at starfire.ne.uiuc.edu 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:50:07 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR at SAROS.COM>
Subject: Decoction - replies

To keep the message size down I'm posting this separately.

Thanks very much to Steve Alexander for pointing up errors in my
Fahrenheit-Celsius conversions. I am mortally embarrassed.  Temperatures
I've given in Fahrenheit can be taken as my intended temperatures.
Celsius degrees had been done by hand on a four function calculator
(hey, it has great boolean and bitwise operators).  I've just taped to
my monitor a laboratory ruler with an side by side  F-C scales which
I'll refer to henceforth.  mea culpa..

Re: Dave Burley in HBD #2386:

>Malts that do fine in single malt infusions - AKA
>pale Ale malts already have plenty of protein and parking at the protein
>rests at 135F will produce perhaps more Mid-Mw protein than desired. This
>could lead to excessive chill haze.
Personally, I doubt you could get too much MMWP in a beer -- they
contribute so much that is desirable.  A rest at 135F for any
still-diastatic barley malt bill helps develop these, granted a lager
bill develops more than an ale bill, but more body, more mouth feel,
better head retention in any beer is good.

>BTW it is not the purpose of the decoction to "cook" the malt, but rather
>to carry out a reaction that proceeds rapidly at the boil and ultimately
>produces melandoins, gelatinization of the starch is a side benefit If
>sufficient enzyme capacity is available in the main mash.

I would guess that originally it was only for temperature steps, but
what you're describing sure sounds like cooking to me. If decoc
fractions aren't used for controlling temperature steps, the only
remaining reasons to do them are to render more starch available for
conversion (possibly unecessary); the ability to present dextrins to a
still labile beta-amylase pool (if desired), which develops even more
simple-sugars; but otherwise, most importantly, for flavor improvment.
Quickness isn't wanted here -- the more cooked, the better tasting the
decoc. 

>High temperature saccharification (  at 158F which I favor) in the main mash
>may suffer in this case because of a diminished beta concentration at the
>outset of the saccharification step. 
Eh? This doesn't read correctly. A diminished beta concentration at the
outset of the saccharification step won't interfere with alpha-amylase
activity.  The reverse could hold true though, since beta-amylase will
develop more simple sugar from dextrins than from unbroken down starch.

Cheers,
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)

Return to table of contents