HOMEBREW Digest #2509 Thu 18 September 1997

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		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

  EBC units (Fredrik Staahl)
  Boiling iodine samples (korz)
  Brewery Redesign (Dana Edgell)
  AHA stuff ("Louis K. Bonham")
  Last 122F,Wyeast Kolsch ("David R. Burley")
  HEPA Flter source ("David R. Burley")
  Kegging Answer Summary ("Ernst, Joseph G.")
  raw wheat Wit + goods mash = NOT (Mark E. Lubben)
  Pectic enzyme (korz)
  Beer for dinner? ("MICHAEL L. TEED")
  re:Cloudy Wort (mash under sparge water) (Charles Burns)
  mash thickness and enzyme activity (korz)
  Re: AHA "guidelines" ("Jeff")
  Iodine testing for starch (Michael W Bardallis)
  Re: Barleywine recipe (Hamish Gregor)
  re: AHA "Guidelines" (Dick Dunn)
  Brewfest? (Stephen Jordan)
  Wyeast 1968 (Dave Whitman)
  LABCO, AHA Guidelines ("David Johnson")
  LABC Barleywine Bitterness ("Brian Wurst")
  Pre/Post boil SG ("Alan McKay")
  BJCP Exam ("Houseman, David L")
  AHA Guidlines ("Alan McKay")

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 brewery at realbeer.com 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: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 19:12:45 +0100 From: Fredrik.Stahl at abel.math.umu.se (Fredrik Staahl) Subject: EBC units Last week I posted a question about the new EBC colour measuring procedure, which is carried out at the same wavelength as SRM. I got some answers on the Swedish brewing list from a homebrewer, Robert Bush, who is setting up his own malting business here in Sweden. I thought that some of you might be interested, so I hope he doesn't mind me posting some of the info here. There are four standard methods for analysing barley, malts, hops, adjuncts, worts and beers: 1. Institute of Brewing Recommended Methods of Analysis 1991 2. Analytica - EBC, Fourth Edition, 1987 3. American Society of Brewing Chemists (ASBC) 4. Middle European Brewing Analysis Commission (MEBAK) ASBC is used in the US and Mexico, middle European countries use both EBC and MEBAK, northern Europe (like Sweden) use EBC and Great Britain use both EBC and IOB. On spec sheets from the UK the colour figures are usually given in EBC, even if the IOB method is used. The difference in procedure is that the IOB use an infusion mash and EBC a step mash. There are also other minor differences in mash procedure. The EBC method use the same wavelength (430 nm) as SRM, and this should be the method used for some years, since the latest issue of Analytica-EBC is from 1987. So provided your spec sheet is newer than 1987 (which should be the case unless you are brewing some kind of fossil beer), the formula EBC = 1,97 x SRM should be adequate. Hope this helps someone. /Fredrik - -------------------------------------------------------------- Fredrik St{\aa}hl Tel: int + 46 90 786 6027 Math. Dept. Fax: int + 46 90 786 5222 University of Ume{\aa} E-mail: Fredrik.Stahl at math.umu.se S-90187 Ume{\aa}, SWEDEN WWW: http://abel.math.umu.se/~fredriks On tap: Old Pickled Hen *** Nemo saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit *** - -------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:40:42 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Boiling iodine samples Dave writes: >On that same subject AlK says: > >>So, if you are doing an infusion mash, but boiling your samples for >>the iodine test.............. can liberate starch that you simply can't >>get at in the mashtun. Why would you want to boil the sample >>anyway? Don't you simply want to know if the starch that was = >>released to the liquor was converted or is there still some in solution?= > > >Well for one thing, the majority of the > malt starch is not gelatinized and is not > "released to the liquor" since it is very poorly > soluble. I disagree most strongly. If this were the case, then infusion mashing would not have any starch to convert to sugars. No, malted barley starch gelatinizes at 64-67C (147-152.5F) according to MBS ed.2 p.225 (which, incidentally is why long rests at 140F will not result in a lot of beta amylase activity... not much for it to work on). > The whole point of boiling the = > sample is to gelatinize the starch and get it > into solution where it can react with the iodine. > I find the application of the iodine test to > infusion mashes to be inconclusive = > and often incorrect. I believe that what you are thinking of is not gelatinization, but rather the bursting of starch granules in the steely tips of the malt. Undermodified malt has a significant amount of starch trapped at the tip (the end opposite where the acrospire grows) and this is why 50 years ago Germans and Bohemians *had* to use decoction mashing (which includes boiling parts of the grist) to get reasonable yield. Fully modified malt (which most modern malts are) still have small amounts of this starch that is trapped in the tip. There is no point in boiling your sample to extract this inaccessable starch ***UNLESS*** you are going to boil your mash too. Even in decoction mashing it is foolish to boil the sample because what you care about is the soluble starch in the mash *not* the trapped starch. Test for whatever starch was released by your decoctions -- DON'T extract *additional* starch which is not available to the enzymes in your main mash! Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 11:46:03 -0500 From: Dana Edgell <edgell at quantum-net.com> Subject: Brewery Redesign I have a few more questions for the HBD collective as my homebrewery is undergoing a complete redesign in equipment and methodology. I apologize for the number and if they seem basic but I am questioning many of my previous methods in an attempt to increase my efficiency and quality of beer at the same time. Grain Grinding: 1) I was given a Corona mill for Christmas many years ago (before all these roller mills were available) and still wish to use it (for now). Does anyone have a convenient design for a mount/cover for the corona which will collect the grain without a mess and with minimum grain dust in the air? The Hot Liquor Tank (HLT): 1) Is there any reason not to fill the HLT with water out of the Hot tap? Will the hot water pick up significally more metals/gunk from the pipes or hot water heater than the cold water? 2) Has anyone ever used a garden hose to fill their HLT? I wish to move my brewing out of the kitchen to my balcony but I will have to run a hose out there to deliver my water. Will a "drinking quality" hose give any plastic flavor to the water? What if hot tap water is used? 3) Should I boil the HLT water first then let it cool back down to the desired temperature? If free chlorine leaves water just left to sit out a couple of days, will heating the water up to 168F drive off the free chlorine without boiling? Should I leave the HLT uncovered to facilitate this? Should I still boil to get rid of carbonates? My carbonate levels aren't that bad and unless you have a second tank to siphon into won't the carbonate residue redissolve when you add acid to adjust the sparge water pH? Finally, is de-oxidating the water a good enough reason to boil first? 4)When delivering the hot water from the HLT to the Mash/Lauter-Tun does one need to worry about about HSA? We have heard much about the evils of HSA when mashing (especially with a RIMS) and yet I often see drawings of sparge arms which spray the water down upon the grains from on high, undoubtably spashing, causing bubbles and dissolving oxygen? Mash/Lauter-Tun: I originally wanted plenty of room for big batches but I currently do 5 gal batches and probably won't do large batches for a while (I can't use my big gas burner). My current mash-tun is a huge 60qt cooler. This results in a quite shallow grain bed. I collect the wort with a very long rolled s.s. screen (large easymasher-type) which goes the whole length of the cooler. I suspect that my geometry leaves a lot of grain in dead zones where there is not a lot of water flow. 1) Is there any reason the s.s. rolled sreen shouldn't run the entire length of the cooler. The offcial EasyMasher(TM) is quite small. 2) Is my very shallow grain bed a problem? I am thinking of switching to the more common round beverage coolers. Any specific sugestions on sizes and makes would be appreciated. 3) Would a small volume pump (not RIMS throughput) be of use recirculating to help even out the mash bed temperature and clarify the wort? That's enough questions for now. TIA, Dana - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Edgell edgell at quantum-net.com Edge Ale Brewery http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale San Diego home of the Water Treatment Workpage Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:06:09 -0500 From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: AHA stuff I've been purposely keeping the bulk of my AHA comments out of the HBD (check the r.c.b. archives if you're interested in some of the more recent developments), but a couple of recent posts here bear comment. Regarding Dr. Fix's "dumbing down" of his Koelsch recipes to accommodate the AHA style guidelines, Dave adroitly observes: > If GEORGE FIX has to dumb down a recipe to meet an AHA > guideline, something is very, very wrong, and I say it > sure as hell ain't George's concept of what constitutes > Koelsch! That ain't half the problem. What does it say about the AHA when it *fires* Dr. Fix from its Board of Advisors after he criticises some of Karen Barela's actions? What does it say about the AHA when Dr. Fix has now "washed his hands" (his words) of that organization? I've known George for years, and, like Dave, George has been decidedly apolitical when it comes to the various controversies surrounding the AHA. (I'm sure George gets more than enough political BS in his administrative duties at the university.) If things at the AHA have gotten so bad that even Dr. Fix -- who has worked closely with the AHA for years and has donated huge amounts of his time and effort -- is now ditching that organization, then it should be very clear that the AHA has major problems. Finally, Jim Liddil asks whether anyone has seen the AOB's 1996 Form 990. Given that the AOB has, once again, refused requests for copies (both mine and Jim's), I guess one of us will have to do another FOIA request. (So much for the "New, More Responsive" AHA. Of course, if my sources are correct and Charlie's 1996 AOB salary went up by over 50% (reportedly up to "between $150,000 and $200,000"), I'm not surprised that Charlie wants to make it as hard as possible to investigate this matter.) As for alternatives to the AHA, on style guidelines we already have an excellent one: the BJCP. A growing number of competitions are opting to BJCP categories and style guides rather than the AHA's, and I encourage all competition organizers to consider doing so. As for alternatives to other aspects of the AHA, stay tuned . . . . Louis K. Bonham lkbonham at phoenix.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:57:58 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Last 122F,Wyeast Kolsch Brewsters: Thanks to Charles Rich for succinctly summarizing the 122F hold issue. There are times when this hold is necessary and others when it is not and even detrimental if carried on for a long time as he indicated. Head production is not the only thing to worry about when developing a temperature hold = scheme and the scheme is grist dependent. Do not discount the 122F hold out of hand. - ------------------------------------- Nathan Moore asks if Kolsch yeast from Wyeast does the part. I can answer yes, as I have tasted Kolsch in Cologne (Koln) and related brews in Dusseldorf. This yeast produces a beer which is light and fruity when young and tastes like I remember it one summer there by the cathedral in Koln as I ate my eisbein. It also lagers nicely and reminds me more of Dusseldorf. = But these are just observations based on a few visits to a few brewpubs ( dating back a few centuries ) - unlike the German bus driver I met in Koln whose hobby was drinking beer - and the tally marks on his paper coaster showed he was an avid hobbyist. = After finishing work, he would spend one evening a week in Koln and another in Dusseldorf - just drinking the local beer. He said his wife of one year didn't mind. I use Saaz hops predominantly and just finished a batch with Hallertauer Mittelfruh which is lagering and which I have yet to taste. I like this yeast since it is tolerant of higher = summer fermenting temperatures for "lager" = style pale malt beers, being a yeast which appears to have both top fermenting and bottom fermenting properties to some extent in that it does leave a yeast cap on top and cleans up upon cool lagering.. You should try some batches with 10% wheat = malt as part of the pale malt grist and others without wheat to get some idea of the range of this style of beer. George Fix recommended = first wort hopping (FWH) , which I have yet to try. - -------------------------------------- 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: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:57:49 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: HEPA Flter source Brewsters: Ken Schwartz wants to build a laminar flow hood for his yeast ranch and needs a cheap = source of HEPA filters. Try the vacuum cleaner store. = HEPA filters are a big item these days = and you can take your pick of designs. - ---------------------------------- Scott Murman writes: "Al" =3D=3D Al Korzonas <korz at XNET.COM> writes: with respect to PBW film formation: Al> If you use an acid-based sanitizer (like one of the Iodophors Al> *with* phosphoric acid -- no, not all have the phosphoric acid Al> added -- or peracetic acid) you can soak for weeks... the acid Al> will take the calcium carbonate off in a flash. I'm confused by the extract of Al's comments and wonder about the comment "soak for weeks" Actually calcium phosphate is very insoluble. It may work for thin films of calcium carbonate by replacing the carbonate and forming a loose insoluble powder. For heavy coatings, I recommend = hydrochloric acid (dilute muriatic acid - = glasses and gloves please!) or hot acetic acid ( not peracetic) acid for removing calcium carbonate. - ----------------------------------- 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: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:16:40 -0500 From: "Ernst, Joseph G." <ernstjg at Maritz.com> Subject: Kegging Answer Summary HBD readers, Last week I asked some questions about kegging. Thanks to all for your help - especially Al, Jim, JG (who added a nice Hendrix reference: Hey Joe, (Whatcha doin' with that beer in your hand?!)) Jason and Spencer. Thought I'd summarize the email responses. 1. Best products/methods for keg cleaning/sanitizing Survey Said (Ala Richard Dawson): Clean with TSP or B-Brite, sanitize w/ Iodophor - rinsing optional, one vote for boiling water sanitizing, NEVER use chlorine of course. Joe did: B-Brite, Iodophor, quick hot (not boiling) rinse. I left iodophor solution in dispensing hose and let the first yeasty beer rinse it out. 2. Tips on using the keg as the secondary to avoid double racking Survey Said: Only issue is possibility of sediment. A yeasty beer or two was tolerable to some, not others. Simplest advice - rack when primary is clear, make sure to leave sediment behind - i.e. don't get greedy for that last bit of green beer out of the primary and end up getting sludge! Joe did: Racked into keg when primary was clear/done percolating. First beer was a little yeasty, but since then they've been fine. 3. Kegging procedures - e.g. do keggers generally fill the keg with CO2 via the liquid out tube to force O2 out of the keg before racking or is this not worth the trouble? Survey Said: Don't fill w/ CO2 first, rack quietly (no splashing), always purge headspace. Joe did: I dumped CO2 in first, but only because of my environment. I did not want to disturb the primary, so I had a less than preferred siphoning arrangement which left my hose 20" short of the bottom of the keg. I ran the green beer down the side of the keg and figured putting CO2 into the keg first would reduce O2 problems with any splashing. Purged headspace. 4. Pressurization - am I better off force carbonating or priming this first keg attempt Survey Said: Force carbonate. In short, everyone was saying: There's no brew like a homebrew, no homebrew like a fresh homebrew and no fresh homebrew like a fresh homebrew right now. Joe Did: Force carbonated 70 F beer with 28 psi, slightly agitating for 15 minutes. 5. I have heard that keeping the CO2 tank in the fridge is a bad idea, as it may liquefy and/or throw off the pressure in the keg - what's your consensus? Survey Said: CO2 is liquid at room temperature. Cooling the tank is not a problem. Condensation in/on/amongst the regulator is the problem, as it can cause damage such as rust. Joe Did: Left the CO2 outside the fridge. For now, I just connect the gas line when drawing a pint. I will get brave one day and drill holes in my fridge for the gas and liquid out lines. Any suggestions on how to pick a good spot to drill into a fridge so you don't hit something vital? (it is a 10 cu ft sanyo - got a floor model for about $250 and it has room for 2 kegs + supplies :-) Happy happy happy!) Results: I am enjoying my first kegged homebrew. The raspberry wheat is tasty - a little sweet, a little too raspberry and definitely underhopped, but I went with the straight kit, and that I can adjust. I am dispensing 40F beer at 11 PSI and the head is perfect - about an inch or inch & 1/4 after the pour. The dog really likes the way the picnic tap drips a bit after the pour! The brew is hazy, though. Isn't it common for wheat beers to be hazy/cloudy or am I just remembering my last Boulevard Unfiltered Wheat? Is chill haze more prevalent in wheat beers? Oh rats!...I wonder how much it has to do with the fact that I forget to put irish moss in the boil...Doh! Thanks again for everyone's assistance! Joseph G. Ernst ~ G. A. Sullivan ~ Ext: 7-4936 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:20:00 -0400 From: mel at genrad.com (Mark E. Lubben) Subject: raw wheat Wit + goods mash = NOT I tried a wit last weekend. In my attempts to be fairly authentically I used 45% raw white wheat + 5% oatmeal. I got nervous about gelatanizing it with just a step infusion 122F/152F and running out of amylase. I decided to do a US "goods" mash like the megabrewers do for rice and corn. I had good result in the past for both. I mashed at 1 quart per pound with 20% of my malted barley. I originally planned to do 105F/125F/160F. The stuff resembled a mix of wallpaper paste and farina with a handful of barley thrown in! Trying to stir 3 gallons of that in a 4 gallon pot without sloshing it on the burner or burning my hand was hilarious (NOT). I only charred half the bottom of the pot and gave up at 125F. The glue encapsulated the burnt smell, so I quick recalced my infusion temps and ended up with the combined mash doing: 70 minutes at 126F (while I heated my step-mash water - poor planning) 100 minutes at 148F (no more room for 185F water) The good news is it converted and the glucans seemed to be tamed so it sparged easily! Bad news - the unboiled wort was "read through it" clear. My cultured Hoegarden yeast seems to have taken off though. It will either turn out wonderful or headless with all that craziness. I have new respect for Martin Lodahl who reported in the HBD (+CM3) of doing a triple decoction wit! Moral - Don't try a goods mash with a high % of raw wheat. It is too sticky and prone to scorch without ALL your malt. Keep It Simple Stupid - do a 122F/152F step infusion with 50% of the wheat malted. Even easier is Rajotte's recipe using flour and wheat malt. Mark Lubben By the way, I may be getting old Celis here in the NE, but I think the Hoegarden beer has a nicer complex yeast character. The conditioning yeast seems to be the original, so my 4 bottles cost me about $3 if I deduct the cost of a yeast pack. :) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:40:52 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Pectic enzyme Eric asks about pectic enzyme. What you propose sounds good, but you must be careful to keep the whole lot rather cool. Pectic enzyme breaks down quite quickly even at room temperature, so to get it to do its business before it denatures, don't buy it unless it is refrigerated, keep it refrigerated, don't add it to hot wort/fruit, and try to keep the fermenter in a cool place. My *guess* would be to keep it between 60 and 65F. As for amylase, somewhere in my memory I faintly recall that "amylase enzyme" was only one of the two, but can't recall which. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 15:30:36 -0500 From: "MICHAEL L. TEED" <MS08653 at msbg.med.ge.com> Subject: Beer for dinner? .int homebrew at hbd.org Greetings from a lurker... Our homebrew club LAHGER of Oconomowoc WI is considering throwing a beer dinner and we are seeking advice and/or recipes from people who may have done so in the past. Any advice would be greatly appreciated by a bunch of newbies. Mike Teed Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 97 13:41 PDT From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: re:Cloudy Wort (mash under sparge water) An inch of water above the grainbed will not cause cloudy wort. It will actually keep a little weight on the grain to keep the bed from being disturbed. The cloudy wort was starch that never got converted (most likely). What was the grain bill? I have the same setup as you. The equipment set up this way really has at least 2 major problems with it. 1) Depth of grainbed. When doing 5 gallon batches with 10-12 lbs of grain, you are right, the grain bed rarely exceeds 4 inches in depth. This is about half of what a grain bed should be for proper sparging. The only thing you can do to alleviate this (without equipment changes) is to recirculate a couple of gallons to clear up the wort (of bits and pieces of husk and other grain stuff). I know, everyone writes about recirculating a couple of quarts but I've always had to do a lot more. Alternatively increase the grainbill by 40% and do a no-sparge brew. 2) Spaces between and around the copper manifold. This is not a false bottom so the grain gets down in between. If you do a protein rest at 135F or thereabouts and then raise the temp by infusing or decoction, there is a lot of grain down on the bottom of the mashtun between the pipes that may never get the temperature raised. Heat rises and its damn hard to stir the grain on top enough to get good temperature dispersion, nearly impossible to get the stuff on the bottom stirred up into the upper layers. If you're not careful to work hard to get that stuff stirred up, you won't get it into saccarification range and you end up with starchy goo at the bottom. If this happens, the first 2 gallons of wort will come out looking like milk. Take this wort back into the mashtun without adding any sparge water and gently mix it up into the grain bed. Cross your fingers and wait 20-30 minutes to see if you get conversion before starting the real sparge. It works for me. One of these days I'm gonna improve my equipment so I can apply heat directly to the mashtun. Charley (watching my first pilsner in the son of ferm. chiller) in N. Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 16:49:10 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: mash thickness and enzyme activity A few days ago, there were two posts about mash thickness and enzyme activity. I believe that the authors were partly right, having omitted an important factor. Mash Enzymes 101 (if you already know this, skip to "Back to the Subject"): The reason that we can change the amino acid/protein balance and fermentability in our beer is because there are several enzymes at work in producing wort and they all have varying amounts of sensitivity to heat. As the temperature increases, the more heat-labile (heat sensitive) enzymes denature (are destroyed) faster than the more heat-stable ones. First, the enzymes have to make it to the mash tun. Some are denatured during malting. I suspect that not only that 50 years ago malts were less modified (germination was interrupted by kilning *sooner*) than in modern malts, but also modern malts have some enzymes that appear to have been denatured (for all practical purposes) during malting. More on this later. Next, we have to understand that inside the malt there is a mixture of proteins and carbohydrates of various sizes and complexities. Most of the carbohydrates are starch. In well-modified (or fully modified) malts (ones in which the germination has been allowed to go pretty far before kilning), a lot of the large proteins have been broken down into amino acids (which are important for yeast nutrition, but can cause off flavours if there are excessive amounts of them in the wort), peptides ("small proteins") and medium-sized proteins. It is the peptides and medium-sized proteins that give beer much of its body and most of its head retention. The purpose of mashing is to break the starch into fermentable sugars (such as maltose, hexose, and sucrose, for example) and unfermentable dextrins (of varying sizes), and to break big (long, actually) proteins (which cause haze and break material) into amino acids, peptides, and medium-sized proteins, *if necessary* (i.e. if it has not already been done by the maltster). Incidentally, most malts these days benefit very little from protein rests. I use them for the malts that give me excessive hot and cold break. It's not so much that the break is bad, but rather: 1. I lose a lot of wort trapped in the break (both in the kettle and in the fermenter: choosing to leave behind the break during racking), and 2. I would rather have these proteins give my beer head retention and body (in most styles). (With careful choices of malts and mash temperatures, I've been able to make a 1.035 Dark Mild that only has about 3.2% ABV but tastes like it's a 1.045 OG beer!) There are primarily two groups of proteolytic (protein "cutting") enzymes in the mash: peptidases and proteases. Peptidases are more heat-labile than proteases and therefore a protein rest around 135 or 140F will denature most of the peptidases rather quickly and most of the proteolysis will be done by the proteases. When you have a protein rest in the range of 113 to 122F, both peptidases and proteases are in action. Peptidases cut amino acids off the ends of longer proteins, therefore they create more of these small "pieces." Proteases simply chop big proteins in the middle and therefore create some small proteins, but mostly they make more medium-sized proteins. Similarly, we have the same effect going on with alpha and beta amylase. There are primarily two diastatic enzymes in the mash: alpha-amylase and beta-amylase. Beta-amylase is more heat-labile than alpha-amylase and therefore a rest around 158 or 160F will denature most of the beta-amylase rather quickly and most of the starch breakdown will be done by the alpha-amylase. When you have a rest in the range of 147 to 152F, both alpha- and beta-amylases are in action for some time. Beta-amylases cut maltose molecules off the ends of starches and dextrins, therefore they create a more fermentable wort. Alpha-amylase simply chops starches and dextrins in the middle and therefore creates some fermentable sugars, but mostly they make dextrins which are not fermentable. Back to the Subject: Both DeClerck and Malting and Brewing Science (MBS) say that more heat-labile enzymes are protected from being denatured by stiffer (thicker, i.e. less water more malt) mashes. Although neither book says this explicitly, I read this as: stiffer mashes favour the more heat-stable enzymes over the more heat-labile ones. In other words, peptidases would be favoured over proteases and beta-amylase over alpha-amylase. Mind you, I don't expect there to be massive differences, but rather I *suspect* that a thinner mash at 124F may result in a simimar protein profile as a stiffer mash at 128F. To phrase it a different way: I believe that stiffer mashes *benefit* the more heat-labile enzymes *more* than they benefit the more heat-stable ones. Before you go and apply this same process to alpha- and beta-amylase (as I did in two private emails), there is another process (which actually has a stronger influence) in effect: the concentration of sugars has an inhibitory effect on the amylases [MBS ed.2 p.290]. Subsequently, since liquifaction (what alpha-amylase does) and saccharification (what beta- amylase does) take longer, the heat-lability of the beta-amylase now becomes a bigger factor again and the beta-amylase denatures before the wort becomes as fermentable as it could. Therefore, the most fermentable worts are made from slightly less than the thickest mashes [MBS ed.2 p.287]. Regarding the differences in malts between now and 50 years ago (note that although the English translation of DeClerck's Textbook of Brewing was printed in 1958, most of the research was done between 1935 and 1950 and a good deal of MBS's data comes from research done in the 1950's and 60's... furthermore, MBS has a decided "British slant" which means higher-kilned British malts) I theorized earlier that enzyme levels have changed too. Besides the fact that agricultural techniques and fertilizers have improved and the fact that better control of kilning equipment must be available now, I gather this primarily from DeClerck's statement: "Kolbach has shown that it impossible to diminish the amount of high-molecular weight nitrogen [protein] in wort by a prolonged protein rest at 45-50C [113-122F], since in proportion as low-molecular nitrogenous compounds are formed at the expense of more complex bodies, which have already passed into solution, new complex nitrogenous matter is taken up from the undissolved residue in the malt. [ToB p.265]" He also says: "Petidases are more thermo-labile than proteinases [proteases] and they are almost entirely destroyed at kilning. [ToB p.264]" Both of these statements are counter to what I have experienced (even with malt labeled "Pale Ale" (DeWolf-Cosyns)) and what has been posted in the HBD [Bliss, et al.]. I'm convinced that most of the malts labeled "Pilsner" or "Lager" and at least some of the malts labeled "Pale Ale" have plenty of peptidase... certainly enough to make a difference in the protein makeup of our worts when we include protein rests. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:02:55 -0400 From: "Jeff" <spamjwalls at redrose.net> Subject: Re: AHA "guidelines" > This is not the first example that has been noted about problems >with the AHA guidelines. I don't much care about the political >contentiousness that has arisen regarding the AHA, but when it comes >to the nuts and bolts of beer in this way, it makes me think enough >is enough. An alternative is called for. Who's with me I am. But where to start? Jeff Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 23:56:08 EDT From: dbgrowler at juno.com (Michael W Bardallis) Subject: Iodine testing for starch Hey, folks, Dave Burley, in his post on iodine testing, is missing Al K's point about boiling the sample under test, which is: If you gotta boil the sample to liberate the starch, that starch is not going to come into solution under normal infusion mash conditions; thus its existence is irrelevant. [>On that same subject AlK says: [>So, if you are doing an infusion mash, but boiling your samples for [>the iodine test.............. can liberate starch that you simply can't [>get at in the mashtun. Why would you want to boil the sample [>anyway? Don't you simply want to know if the starch that was = [>released to the liquor was converted or is there still some in solution?= [Well for one thing, the majority of the [ malt starch is not gelatinized and is not [ "released to the liquor" since it is very poorly [ soluble. The whole point of boiling the = [sample is to gelatinize the starch and get it [ into solution where it can react with the iodine. [ I find the application of the iodine test to [ infusion mashes to be inconclusive = [and often incorrect. [As you indicated, you are happy with your [ intuition and experience to tell you when to [ terminate the saccharification and therefore [ never do the iodine test anymore. Perhaps = [the inconclusiveness of this test applied to [ an infusion mash was a contributing factor. [ I suggest you give my method a try and you [ will find that with a properly milled sample, = [held long enough, = [you will not get a positive starch test Cheers, Mike Bardallis "How I wish I was in Sherbrooke now!" Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 15:43:17 +1000 From: Hamish Gregor <hgregor at hermes.net.au> Subject: Re: Barleywine recipe Whatever the merits of Mr Loub's position, it is hard to see any need for him to resort to downright rudeness in clarifying it. Hamish Gregor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ hgregor at hermes.net.au Hamish Gregor Hazelbrook, NSW, Australia ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Return to table of contents
Date: 16 Sep 97 23:54:46 MDT (Tue) From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: re: AHA "Guidelines" nathan_l_kanous_ii at ferris.edu wrote: > Dave Draper brings up the issue of the AHA Kolsh "guidelines" and their > apparent inaccuracy based upon George Fix's attempts at duplicating real > examples of this style. I would like to second the motion and highlight > similar discrepancies between the AHA guidelines for Alt beer and the > analysis of commercially available Alt beers in Germany... I'll grant you these, no problem...but if you think the AHA guidelines for these beer styles are strange, some time take a look at the categories for cider. They're downright goofy. Just to illustrate - the categories are still, sparkling, New England, and specialty. New England has nothing to separate it from the other categories. There's no English farmhouse, which is about the most obvious standout you can find. Adjuncts are allowed in all styles, in spite of the most obvious concept that cider is *fermented*apple*juice*, period. But there are limitations on alcohol content which could be exceeded by ciders without adjuncts. And so it goes...if any AHA competitions find good ciders, it is certainly due to the valiant efforts of the judges and not to the guidance of the guidelines. - --- Dick Dunn rcd, domain talisman.com Boulder County, Colorado USA ...Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 07:13:49 -0400 From: Stephen Jordan <komusubi at together.net> Subject: Brewfest? Does anyone have any info on the Fall Brewers Festival to be held at Strawberry Banke in Portsmouth NH.? I looking for any info such as times, what type of things will be going on there, etc. etc. Thanks Private E-mail ok. SRJ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 08:27:50 -0500 From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> Subject: Wyeast 1968 In HBD#2508, Paul Henning asks about Wyeast #1968: >It is easy to see that the yeast is highly flocculant from my first >starter. I'm uncertain how to handle this during fermentation. Do I >gently stir the yeast back into suspension with an appropriately >sanitized device? I do my primaries in a 6.5g carboy. Is this a >candidate for dropping? While #1968 is definitely flocculant, I've had good luck without extra aeration. I just swirl the fermenter to bring it up into suspension a few times. If you're doing a 5 gallon batch in your 6.5 gallon carboy, it should swirl readily. By the way, I love this yeast; my previous bitters were mostly made with 1056 (TOO clean) and 1028 (just didn't like the flavor profile). In the same issue, Ian Wilson opines about food irradiation: >Actually, the microwaves are not radiation as in atomic radication. They >are radiation as in radio waves, etc. The small size of the wavelength >allows the wave energy to penetrate the food and excite the small water >molecules within the fodd. This excitation or vibration is what causes the >heat rise because of friction. > >Iradiating food to sterilize it uses radioactive soucres to bombard the >food with atomic radiation. The radiation kills the "wee nasties" in much >the same way as the victims of the atomic bomb. > This is all true, but perhaps misleading. Food is irradiated with cobalt-60 sources, which produce gamma rays. While "nuclear" in source, gamma rays are just electromagnetic radiation ("light") as are microwaves, albeit of MUCH shorter wavelength. Other forms of "atomic radiation" are energetic particles emitted by the radiation source. As Ian states, microwaves work by exciting water molecules in food. The energy of the microwave is tuned to match the rotational energy of water, for efficient energy transfer. Gamma radiation works by knocking electrons out of chemical bonds, shattering molecules. It's much less descriminating than microwaves or conventional heating. While the hysteria around food irradiation is largely misplaced, there are valid reasons to test for safety each type of food to be irradiated. The indescriminate nature of gamma radiation could CONCEIVABLY form toxic byproducts through high energy chemical processes. I know of no documented cases of this, but I personally would recommend standard food safety testing of any new material being irradiated. Similar irradiation is used to sterilize disposable surgical garments. There are some pretty funky aromas generated in the sealed garment packages after irradiation, that I definitely wouldn't want in my beer. <grin> - --- Dave Whitman dwhitman at rohmhaas.com "Opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Company" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 20:32:07 -0500 From: "David Johnson" <dmjalj at inwave.com> Subject: LABCO, AHA Guidelines Fellow brewers, I had intended to stay out of the non-brewing dialog about LABCO. But the corporate response has inspired me to break my silence. (I've never been very good at that anyway). First let us say that our friend is out of there and I presume safely. Although I am not a lawyer, I would guess that the law favors the employer as it does on most issues of intellectual property. In any event, further discussion (which might be construed as SLANDER), is likely to harm our friend and not help him. We are obviously dealing with a situation where there is a considerable amount of acrimony. We do not want to stir up someone who has the attitude of LABCO's GM. Remember, he probably can't get back at us but he can find Rob and I don't know how much he might try to do to him. I know from personal experience that unfounded legal actions can be just as painful (and expensive) as any other. I don't believe we know this man well enough to say he won't go after our friend. Please let this die! I like the suggestion that we have a HBD rendezvous. Perhaps this could be wherever Rob sets up shop. I think that we could promise at least one night of full attendance on site. We could arrange for some of our more learned members to give small talks. This might be able to be reported in the local press and generate some free publicity for Rob. A copy of any article should be forwarded to LABCO's GM. On a brewing related note, I'm glad to see that Brian is reading our discussion about style guidelines. I would think that the AHA probably has a task force to review the style guidelines and these would be updated periodically. I, personally, would like to see more in-depth descriptions of the styles. When trying to develope a recipe, I usually turn to Tim Dawson's Beer styles guidelines at: http:/www.mv.com/ipusers/strange/styles.html It is more helpful than the AHA guidelines but might not help win any awards since most contests use the AHA guidelines. I understand that changing the guidelines with any frequency would make it more difficult to keep the judges up-to-date, but I feel that the judges have already shown their diligence by becoming certified and would be willing to be responsible for keeping up. Dave Johnson Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:07:53 -0500 From: "Brian Wurst" <brian at catamaran.netwave.net> Subject: LABC Barleywine Bitterness Thanks to Mike Bell for posting the LABC owner's flame! I always suspected I was a pickle-minded idealist geek without a life, but its always nice to have some realist confirm it. As customer-oriented as he professes to be, it is hard for my idealist brain to fathom his less-than-diplomatic response. Ideally, everyone's a potential customer. Realistically, I doubt I will ever be one of his after that. I was thinking about printing out his diatribe and using it in place of hops to bitter a barleywine...would my beer be ruined by the extreme bitterness? Way too freaky for even me, Brian Wurst (brian at netwave.net) Lombard, Illinois "Nature has formed you, desire has trained you, fortune has preserved you for this insanity." -Cicero Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:22:05 -0400 From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com> Subject: Pre/Post boil SG I do this regularly. If you know your volume and SG before the boil, it's just a simple formula to predict post-boil gravity. For me, before the boil I have 26 litres. After the boil I have 19 litres. So you have SG(post) = SG(pre) * 26 / 19 If you have 7.5 gallons before hand, and 5 afterwards, then it's : SG(post) = SG(pre) * 7.5 / 5 There will be some loss in your kettle, and soaked up by hops. So you can expect the realy SG(post) to be .001 to .002 below what you calculate here. But it certainly puts you right in the ballpark. -Alan - -- Alan McKay Nortel Enterprise Networks Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations PC Support Prime Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 10:42:12 -0400 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: BJCP Exam For those of you living in the PA, NJ, or NY areas who would like to take the BJCP exam, retake the exam or know of anyone who would like to take the exam (please pass this along in that case), there will be a BJCP Exam given on November 1st at 5:30pm at Hop and Vine in Morristown, NJ. If you are interested, contact Julianne Targan, (201)993-3191 at Hop and Vine. Julianne has space for 12 examinees for this exam. Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 09:52:09 -0500 From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com> Subject: AHA Guidlines Hmmm, it seems to me that if the AHA guidelines don't properly describe the majority of beers brewed in Cologne (regardless of whether or not any of them are imported into North America), then there would most certainly be something wrong with the guidelines. I'm with you Dave, for what it's worth ... -Alan - -- Alan McKay Nortel Enterprise Networks Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations PC Support Prime Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/18/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96