---

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


Contents:
  Peat flavor in beer ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Marga Motorization, ("David R. Burley")
  visit to Little Apple (kathy)
  La Fin du Monde.... (Jim Cave)
  UPS Shipping Beer ("Houseman, David L")
  Re: Decoction Theories Put to Test (Rob Kienle)
  Wheat caramel (Kit Anderson)
  CO2 and LP regulators (Jason Henning)
  Decoction mashing (George De Piro)
  colloids and zeta potential (Dave Whitman)
  Fourth Annual BUZZ Off Results (Robert.MATTIE)
  Baking Bottles ("Val J. Lipscomb")
  Bad Homebrew...lawn fertilizer? (MonksEnvy)
  Brewing coffee, add Hops for DE-bittering !! (Steve Alexander)
  Bottles,Bottles ("Stephen Jordan")


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

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

Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org

Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:

  Anonymous ftp from...
	hbd.org	/pub/hbd	
	ftp.stanford.edu	/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
  E-mail...
        ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with 
                                   the word help for instructions.)
  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


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


Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:43:56 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Peat flavor in beer

In response to the recent peat flavor thread: so far I've seen no mention of the
obvious way to get peat smoke flavor in beer - Hugh Baird peated malt.  You do
have to mash it.  I used it in a scotch ale - it worked well.  Really strong at
20% of the grist.  Delicious, but not for those who dislike Scotch.  No
affiliation, etc, etc.

For the extract brewer, as AlK mentioned, home-smoked crystal is probably the
only reliable way.  Could you use the common home smoking method, but instead of
wood chips, use peat moss?  Is common Canadian Sphagnum the same, flavor-wise,
or would you want fine Scottish import moss?  Of course, you'd have to moisten
the moss before adding it to the barbecue, or have burnt crystal.  It seems like
a partial mash might be easier.
 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:48:04 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Marga Motorization,

Brewsters:

Eric Fouch comments on the motorization of the Marga Mill from Italy.  I
also have one of these mills which I motorized with my power drill after
cutting and filing down a bolt into a "T" shape to fit into the crank slo=
t.
 I screwed my mill down to a 2'X2' X 3/4" pressed wood board with a 2"x4"=
 =

hole in it.  The hole allows the ground grain to drop into a plastic
dishwashing basin which is attached underneath the board with "c" clamps.=
 =

The 18-24" washbasin supports the whole operation. The drill is supported=

at crank hole height with two or three 1X2" boards nailed to the base boa=
rd
on which it lays horizontially.  The drill is not fastened down firmly to=

act as a means of dealing with the possibility of temporary jamming by
tough grains.  Works well.  Heavy plastic sheeting taped around all
openings except the hopper prevents dust from flying around and guides th=
e
milled grain through the hole and into the basin.  The provided hopper is=

small, so I increased hopper volume by taping a bottomless, gallon plasti=
c
milk bottle upside down and cut appropriately to the hopper. I also cut
(actually melted with a soldering gun) the slot in the hopper wider and
larger.  Works great.  My motor must be faster as I can double mill 10# i=
n
about 15-20 minutes.  Like Eric, I set the milling nip to a coarse openin=
g
and then a narrow opening for the two step milling process which is much
faster than a single narrow nip milling and it produces "commercial"
results in the milled malt.  Measure the nip with a spark plug gap gauge.=


Eric's interpretation of the word "flakes" as used in the instructions is=

incorrect.  There is no gelatinization of the grains and none is claimed =
by
the manufacturer.  "flakes" simply means chunks of grain and not flour
 ( which is one of the purposes for this mill when the third roller is
employed).  I use this flake setting with pearl barley before
gelatinization to get more complete access of the enzymes during mashing.=

In the "flake" mode it cuts the grain into about 3 or 4 pieces. But bewar=
e,
barley is tough!!

I have to give this little mill high marks as it is well built and
completely adjustable, making it easy to mill all kinds of malts and grai=
ns
and produce professional multi-roller mill results with multiple passes. =
No
affiliation.  Yadda, Yadda.
- --------------------------------------------------------------

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:39:31 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: visit to Little Apple

A 100th annual family reunion (the Mellenbruchs'--grandfather Henry was
a prohibitionist) took me to Kansas and the 94 degree heat and a failed
car AC couldn't keep me from driving to Manhattan KS thru the beautiful
Flint Hills tall grass prairie and visiting brewer and fellow HBD'r Rob
Moline.  

His busy schedule was altered to act as a gracious host.  The GABF gold
medal for his barleywine was well deserved as a smooth, smooth brew.  He
shared a sample of a peated porter that should do very well.

I sampled the spectrum of Little Apple and especially enjoyed the
Prairie Pale Ale as it is probably my favorite style. All were right on
style and well above the quality expected from the typical brewpub.  He
does operate in a hostile brewing conditions which he inherited, but the
beers were excellent. He took the time to discuss brewing and marketing
philosophy and the food at the pub was excellent.  

Thanks and if you travel to the Sunflower State,  its worth a stopover
in Manhattan, KS.  The three growlers packed in ice made it back to
Michigan.   Cheers,  jim booth,  lansing, mi


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:24:47 -0700
From: Jim Cave <cave at psc.org>
Subject: La Fin du Monde....

	"La Fin du Monde"  or in Anglaise "The end of the world"  is an =
absolutely brilliantly oustanding beer.  At a recent Microbrewers =
festival, I had to keep coming back to try it because I couldn't believe =
that such an effort had been pulled off in North America.  The art work =
on the bottles by Unibroue is very well done too.  One of the problems =
with Quebec separation would be that this beer would be an import and no =
doubt subject to additional tarrifs.

	Apparently one of the owners is a Quebec rock musician.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:52:48 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: UPS Shipping Beer

Hummm....if it's illegal for UPS to ship beer as some of their agents
have stated, then I wonder why they're quite willing to ship the Beer of
the Month cases that I've received?  They don't seem to have a moral or
legal delima in taking their money and shipping it to my home where kids
can get to the packages left on the porch.    George DePiro was well
right in suggesting the correct approach is be careful in mailing
addresses for competitions that denote that beer, glass and alcohol are
involved then lie.

Dave Houseman

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:53:09 -0500
From: Rob Kienle <rkienle at interaccess.com>
Subject: Re: Decoction Theories Put to Test

To respond to a couple of queries and comments posted regarding my
decoction scheme: 

Scott Murman describes an "un-decoction" sequence wherein the decoct
portion is begun separately from the rest of the mash and
converted/boiled by itself. This sounds interesting to me (not quite as
interesting as the German blonde routine but what the h***) though I
wonder; when performing a more traditional sequence, one leaves the bulk
of enzymes and unconverted starches in the main mash when performing the
decoction. A small amount of unconverted starches are carried into the
decoction, converted and then boiled. But is there any drawback to
having half the mash "self-decocted" with *all* its enzymes and all its
*converted* starches present? Just wondering. 

Steve Alexander writes that he has found a 40/58/70 (no 122/50 rest)
schedule produces clear beers with Durst malts. A couple of other people
have also asked privately about the impact of my grain bill. Not sure if
I posted it originally, but it was about 64% Pils; 30% DWC Munich; 5%
Wheat, and 1% Black Patent. Now according to Hoptech, the Pils was DWC
malt that happened to come from Hugh Baird. If that's true, then pretty
much the entire bill came from Belgium. There's been much discussion
here regarding the 122 vs 135 rest, but a fair amount of concensus
insofar as that Belgium malts are one of the few that *do* benefit from
a lower rest. As I said, in a previous batch that used the same malt but
omitted that rest, I ended up with a pretty huge amount of break
material in the primary that was *not* present in this batch that used a
brief 122 rest. In another previous batch that used Durst malt instead
(no 122 rest) I again ended up with about 20% break material. (I should
point out that the Durst batch is still aging and I'm not sure of its
final haze potential. The first batch I *have* tested and it's
definately cloudy.) 

One other difference in the third (decoction) batch was that I prolonged
the settling time after the boil to about 15-20 mins before racking (not
a siphon but a false bottom drain). Not sure that would really explain
the situation to satisfaction. I should also point out that, strangely
enough (to me, anyway) virtually all the fluffier break material (yeah,
there were two "types" of break: one thick, and one "fluffy" and thin;
anyone know what that means?) in the two previous batches disappeared
within 24 hours as fermentation began. 

I guess there were at least three things I was trying to prove or test:
one was whether making sure that the main mash was maintained below sac
temps during a decoction would really aid in conversion (the answer was
yes); another was to see what affect the 122 and/or 135 rest has on
different malts (the jury's still out but it seems to me, thus far, that
a *limited* 122 rest may yet be beneficial); and the third was whether
our ability to mediate temperatures without relying on decoction
additions can either shorten or otherwise simplify the process (the
answer was yes). 

- -- 
Cheers4beers,
Rob Kienle
Chicago, IL
rkienle at interaccess.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:24:54 -0400
From: Kit Anderson <kitridge at bigfoot.com>
Subject: Wheat caramel

I found some caramel wheat malt in a homebrew shop and bought a pound. It
tastes like something for breakfast. Anybody ever use this stuff?

- ---
Kit Anderson	
Bath, Maine	   <kitridge at bigfoot.com>		

I suppose that it's theoretically possible for a Yankee to
make decent barbecue. But it sure ain't a pretty thought!
                                        -Smokey Pitts


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:59:29 -0700
From: Jason Henning <huskers at cco.net>
Subject: CO2 and LP regulators

Luke Morris <Luke.L.Morris at woodside.com.au> suggest using a lp gas
regulator with a co2 system. I think it's a terrible idea to mix
equipment like this. Especially when the correct stuff is so available.
Any gas suppier will be able to get regulators for about any range and
for the correct gas your looking for. The only saving grace about this
set-up was the lp regulator was after the co2 regulator.

> **Another warning***
> This is not a traditional technique.  Nor is it endorsed by CAMRA, I 
> suspect.

Hardly. The whole point of real ale is that it breaths the air from the
publicans celler and takes on a life of it's own. It has to be serve
before it goes sour. Each celler and each pub has it's own flavor
impact. CAMRA doesn't allow for any breathing filters or devices. That's
half the problem. Stouts and porter don't sell fast enough to be served
like this. So it's squeezing these less popular styles out.

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:04:18 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Decoction mashing

     Hi all,
     
     Ing. Hubert Hanghofer questions the necessity of achieving starch 
     conversion during the decoction.  I agree that it is not necessary to 
     wait until conversion is complete, but I believe that some conversion 
     must be allowed to occur.
     
     Today's highly modified malts don't need to be decoction mashed to 
     achieve high conversion efficiency.  The main reason to decoction mash 
     is to develop melanoidins, to produce a product with a deeper, richer 
     malt flavor.  Sugars are reactants in this process (Maillard and 
     caramelization reactions).
     
     If saccharification is omitted, will there be enough sugars in the 
     decoct to fuel the Maillard and caramelization processes?  Perhaps 
     enough sugar is produced while heating the decoct through the 
     saccharification range, I don't know.
     
     A while back I asked the collective how much and what type of sugar 
     (simple sugars or polysaccs.) was necessary to maximize the 
     melanoidins produced during the decoction boil.  Nobody really knew.  
     Anybody out there now that knows?
     
     I typically rest the decoction for 20-30 min. at 154-160F (68-71C) and 
     then move on to boiling (it is difficult to obtain precise temperature 
     readings in the thick decoction mash in my system).  The main mash 
     rests at either 104F (40C) or 133 (56C).  I don't have any problems 
     with over-cleaving of proteins in this way.  Like Ing. Hanghofer, I 
     usually pull the decoction as soon as the mash hits 133, rather than 
     resting the entire mash there.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:10:34 -0400
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at ot.com>
Subject: colloids and zeta potential

In HBD#2449, Steve Alexander asks for clarification about just *what* I was
talking about...

>I don't understand Dave Whitmans comment on yeast suspension as a
>colloid nor the concept of the "zeta potential".  Can you explain Dave ?

Well, this comes from mixing chemistry, brewing, and talking in a public
forum.

<warning: long block of grossly oversimplified chemistry begins>

Colloids are finely divided solids or liquids suspended in a liquid phase
(typically water) in a thermodynamically stable way.  Classic examples of
colloids are silica sols, milk, or latex polymers.  Yeast cells are in the
size regime normally considered colloids, are suspended in water, and
(during active fermentation) seem stable with respect to floculation.  I've
always thought of them as colloids, and it has helped me understand a lot
of yeast behavior during brewing. 

In the absence of some form of thermodynamic stabilization, collodal
particles would stick to each other and floculate into large blobs - like
curdled milk, cold break or floculated yeast. (Surface area costs you free
energy; when the particles stick together and fuse, it reduces the total
surface and thus lowers free energy).

Typically, aqueous colloids are stabilized by having a surface charge.
Like charges repel, so if all the particles carry the same charge, they
don't want to stick together.  Zeta potential is a measure of the intensity
of the electric field induced around the particle by this surface charge.
Large positive or negative zeta potentials give stable particles.  Yeast
normally has a negative zeta potential.

Zeta potential is strongly influenced by the ambient pH.  The usual pattern
is for the zeta potential to become more positive at lower pH.  For many
particles, there is a magic pH ("the isoelectric point") where the zeta
potential passes through zero.  At this pH, the particles are very
unstable, and easily floculate.  Milk curdles because souring (i.e. acid
production) lowers the pH, and drives the negative zeta potential of the
colloid towards zero.

You can also floculate a colloid by dumping in some particles or a polymer
with the opposite zeta potential - opposite charges attract, and everything
sticks together in big blobs.  Cold break is a floc of two polymers with
opposite zeta potential (-polyphenol and +proteins).  The protein gelatin
helps floculate yeast because at at brewing pH it has a positive zeta
potential, while yeast has a negative zeta potential.

In the CO2 toxicity debate, I speculated that dissolved CO2 would drive the
pH low enough to bring the yeast near it's isoelectric point, and thus
induce premature floculation.  Someone else pointed out that pH doesn't
change all that dramatically during fermentation, and so I let this theory
die, the innocent victim of one too many experiments.  I'm now an advocate
of the "bubbles induce mixing" theory of CO2 pseudo-toxicity in weakly
nucleated fermenters. <grin>
- ---
Dave Whitman
dwhitman at ot.xxx   (change xxx to com for replies)

Return to table of contents


Date: 26 Jun 97 17:01:25 -0400
From: Robert.MATTIE at sb.com
Subject: Fourth Annual BUZZ Off Results

The Fourth Annual BUZZ Off was held on June 22, 1997 at the Victory Brewi=
ng
Company in Downingtown, PA.  This year, the BUZZ Off had over 440 entries=
 --
currently the fourth largest AHA sanctioned competition in the United Sta=
tes. =

The BUZZ Off is the result of a year's worth of planning and hard work, o=
ur
thanks to the volunteers, judges, stewards and sponsors that made this ye=
ar's
competition possible.

The Best of Show went to Jay White, Wilmington, Delaware.
The PA Club Challenge went to BUZZ, Malvern, PA.
The Delaware Valley Homebrewer of the Year went to Alan Folsom, Warringto=
n, PA.

Please see the BUZZ Off Web site for additional results:
 http://www.voicenet.com/=AFrpmattie/buzzoff

(note: the character in front of rpmattie is the tilde.  Some mailers cha=
nge the
character to something else) :-(


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:18:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay at NetXpress.com>
Subject: Baking Bottles

Yesterday,S. Murman wrote:

>The repeated heating and cooling fatigues the bottles too much in my
opinion.
>I know some of you will chime in and say you've been doing
it that way since 1906 and never had a problem, but I'm just reporting
what I've experienced.

Well, not 1906 (maybe '07 or '08) and at 350F,rather than 250F. I,too,
have noticed a *lot* of surface cracking on 12 ounce,returnable, "Long
Necks". However, I have a large bunch of US champagne bottles that have
been in use for at least 4 years with *no* visible damage. Perhaps the
champ bottles,engineered for higher pressure originally, are tempered
so that they withstand the baking better. I pretty much stopped using
the "Long Necks" anyway,since the champs are 24 ounce and I don't 
remember ever having only one beer(besides the shorter bottling process).

As to the necessity of sterile bottles,I can't see that it hurts and
I've not had a bottle borne infection since I started baking bottles.
BTW, I've also never had a bottle crack,fracture,burst or whatever.
As in all things brewish,YMMV.

Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio 




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:35:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: MonksEnvy at aol.com
Subject: Bad Homebrew...lawn fertilizer?

I have heard that some people use beer to control grubs and to green up
lawns.  Since commercial fertilizer is not recommended during the hot months
of summer, I would like to hear from some people who use beer to green their
lawns.  How much do you use? What adjuncts?  What is the "active" ingredient?
 What insects does home brew control?

Private E-mail is ok.  

Greg Mueller
Monk's Envy HB



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:08:37 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Brewing coffee, add Hops for DE-bittering !!

I'm involved in reading some 2271 pgs of texts on phenolics and tannins
right now and I'm just getting to the point where I can answer a few
basic questions on the topic relevent to brewing.  Phenols like many
aspects of brewing are rife with contradictions - phenols are sweet,
bitter and astringent; phenols are carcinogenic and cancer preventative;
phenols are used by bacteria and fungi and also fungicides and
bacteriacides; phenols are oxidative and reductive.  What is intriguing
is the number of odd little effects in which phenols are involved. 

Stupid Hops Tricks -

One interesting effect is that some phenolics actually mask bitter
alkaloid flavors.  It has apparently been known for some time (25+
years) that tea phenolics actually mask the bitterness of the tea
caffeine.  It has been demonstrated that removal of certain phenolics
from tea by polyamide separation or enzymatic reduction leaves a drink
that has substantially increased bitterness - corresponding to the
amount of caffeine.  Galloyl-phenolics - those containing gallic acid
groups are the specific phenolic class involved in this effect.  The
gallo-phenol+caffeine component tastes tangy rather than bitter.

It's been known for a very long time (~175 ys) that hops contain these
gallic acid groups in its phenols while malt does not.  Back a year or
so ago there was a thread about adding half a dozen hops cones to the
drip basket of a pot of coffee for flavor. I recently (re-)tried this
using tettnang hops for a critical tasting and - yes! - the resulting
coffee was very remarkably non-bitter and did have a noticeable
tangy-orangy tea-like background flavor in addition to the coffee+hops
flavors and aromas.  My original hopped coffees used high alpha american
hop varieties which produced more rough, bitter and terpene-like
flavors.

Every now and then someone asks about brewing a beer containing coffee. 
The obvious implication is that if hops are added, the desirable
edgy-bitter caffeine flavor will not come thru and will be tranformed
into a more tangy tea-like flavor.
- --

Considering the ubiquity and importance of phenolics in plants
(including barley and hops) and beverages (should at least include beer,
wine, cider/perry/ciser, tea, colas, scotch, bourbon and some water
supplies) it's surprising that the role of phenols in brewing hasn't
received more attention.

Steve Alexander

"Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know", Lao Tsu,
'Tao Te Ching' #56, 550 B.C., earliest review of HBD content ;^)



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:39:27 -0400
From: "Stephen Jordan" <komusubi at together.net>
Subject: Bottles,Bottles

I hope I dont get slammed for this but here goes...
I'm really getting tired of spending three hours bottling my beer and have
been thinking about taken the plunge into kegging. My problem is I know
very little about it, expence what type of equipment and how long does the
beer stay fresh once it's kegged?
I am looking forward to any and all info.
Thanks 
A sort of new brewer from Vermont
SRJ


Return to table of contents

---