---

	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:
  assorted all-grain questions (Mike Uchima)
  Philosophy of Brewing: Art vs. Engineering (Lorne P. Franklin)
  RE: Gout & Beer (Barry DeLapp)
  kegging ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Pre-Gelatinized Grains (Darrell)
  Re: Small Kettle vs Big Beer (Al Korzonas)
  Re: simple cider questions (brian_dixon)
  Personal recriminations (Samuel Mize)
  Re: Water analysis (errata) (brian_dixon)
  Club-Only question (The Holders)
  Re: ferulic ... not for my-ic (Steve Alexander)
  Ferulic, Feurlic (Steve Alexander)
  Cold Brews ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  re: Boiling point vs altitude. (Dick Dunn)
  cider (re: The Jethro Gump Report) (Dick Dunn)
  Whitelabs Yeast ("Jim Pierce")
  Re: Kinney and his warnings..... (Joe Rolfe)
  Emergency Strainer ("Michael Kowalczyk")
  Honey for Priming ("Michael E. Dingas")
  2L soda bottles (Dana Edgell)


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: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:01:27 -0500
From: Mike Uchima <uchima at mcs.net>
Subject: assorted all-grain questions

Al said:
> Matt--
> [snip]
>
> >3) I have a five gallon brewpot so I was either going to do a four 
> >gallon batch or do a partial boil. I know there was some discussion 
> >and tips recently about partial boils with all-grain brewing. I tried 
> >to search for it but was unsuccessful. Can someone point me in the 
> >right direction?
>
> Can you borrow a 10-gal pot for the day?  How about another 5 gallon kettle
> and split your hops between the two kettles?  You need to take at least
> 6.5 gallons of runnings and then boil that down to 5.5 gallons (you'll
> lose 1/2 gallon to hops and cold break) to get 5 gallons in the fermenter.

Splitting the boil works reasonably well.  I have a double-oven stove,
which doesn't have room for a pot larger than 5 gallons.  (Yeah, I
know... time to get a propane cooker...)  I do a split boil, on the two
front burners.

But, to answer Matt's original question, yes partial all-grain boils
*are* possible.  I've done a few 5 gallon batches this way, in a single
5 gallon pot.  The basic drill is to use more grain, to compensate for
the low extraction efficiency you'll get with this approach; collect
about 4 gallons of runoff (which will boil down to about 3); and top up
to 5 gallons in the fermenter.  This approach is somewhat wasteful of
grain, but hey grain is (relatively) cheap.

You'll need to tweak things once you figure out your overall extraction
efficiency with this approach.  To start with, try using 25% more grain
than you'd use if you were doing things the "normal" way.  You'll also
need to bump up the bittering hops a bit, to compensate for the lower
hop utilization (due to the higher gravity boil).

Andy Ager asks about doing his first all-grain batch:
> Questions: 1) Mash water should be about 17-20 degrees hotter than 
> desired mash temp., right?  I'm shooting for a 156F mash, so water 
> at 173-176 should do the trick, right?

It depends somewhat on what temp the grain is at to start with, and how
much heat the walls of your mash tun abosorb.  IMO, it's better to
undershoot than overshoot.  I'd actually suggest having the strike water
a little cooler than this, then bringing the temp up with small amounts
of additional boiling water as necessary.  Once you've done it a couple
of times, you'll have a better feel for how your system behaves, and
will be able to get away with cutting things a lot closer.

> 2)  At 1.25 qts/lb., mash would be a touch over 10 qts of water.  Sparge
> volume would be about 4 gallons?

Probably closer to 5-1/2 or 6.  Quite a bit of water will remain trapped
in the grain... crushed malt soaks up water like a sponge.

> 3)  If I let the mash go for about 75 minutes, it should be OK, no?  I
> don't really want to worry about pH on the first one -- that can wait until
> the 2nd or 3rd try.

I've done something like 50 all-grain batches, and I *still* don't
bother checking mash pH.  I usually add a little lactic acid (1/4 tsp)
to my sparge water, but that's about it.  If (like me) you're using
Chicago water, you really shouldn't have too much to worry about in the
pH area...

> Well, that's it.  May Ninkasi be with me!

Congrats... all-grain is a real blast!

- -- 
== Mike Uchima == uchima at mcs.net ==


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:12:05 -0400
From: lachina at mindspring.com (Lorne P. Franklin)
Subject: Philosophy of Brewing: Art vs. Engineering

Joe Yoder made the interesting observation that homebrewing relies most on
the engineering thought process.  Nice point, but too myopic, I feel.

Consider a statement on the seemingly unrelated topic of digital culture
that I just read in "The New Breed of Cyberpundits (_Upside_, November
1997, p. 192):  Steven Johnson writes, "Any professional trend-spotter will
tell you that the worlds of technology and culture are colliding. . . . But
it's not the collision itself that surprises--it's that the collision is
considered news. You'd think the life of da Vinci or Edison would be enough
to convince us that the creative mind and the technical mind have long
cohabitated."

And clearly, homebrewing employs both the creative and the technical
talents of the brewer's mind.  And in fact, they are the same talent.

Brewing with the whole mind,


Lorne


"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad
to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time. . . ."

- --Jack Kerouac



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:01:08 -0400
From: Barry DeLapp <mss at pictorl.com>
Subject: RE: Gout & Beer

Andy Walsh gives a nice summary of Gout and Beer, but the subject is not

as clear cut as he makes it out.  I have had severe gout attacks, read
experts who say the exact opposite from each other, and I now rely on by

my own experiences:

1. Standing on my feet at a trade show and walking around a golf course
tend to set off gout attacks.  I try to avoid the former.  I have never
found a correlation between beer or food with my attacks and some
authors say "some people can be helped by low purine diet" but that diet

has little impact on most suffers.  Others experts say to maintain a low

purine diet.

2. You do not have to take allopurinol for the "rest of your life".  My
father stopped having attacks altogether at about 60 (over 15 years ago)

and no longer takes the medicine.

Best I can say is that gout is not the same in all individuals.  If I
found out beer caused attacks, I would drink mead, wine, cider or
whatever didn't (and I wouldn't mind experimenting).  Not being able to
walk for a month is a serious problem.

- --
Barry DeLapp
MSS Software

(610) 648-3980
(610) 648-3983 fax
http://www.pictorl.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:27:52 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: kegging

You wrote:
>My problem is simple. When I fill up a pint from my keg fridge I
>get a pint full of foam. ...
>Trying to be a good netizen I went to the hdb archives and searched
>on foam. Sure enough, AlK was there with the skinny. Just as I thought
>I'd remembered, the foaming is a result of the delivery pressure at
>the faucet. <rant> This is the second time that one of the homebrew 
>stores I patronize has let me down. When I bought the beer line the
>person said, "how much beer line do you need?" and I said "gee, I don't
>know, it'll only take three feet to go from the keg to the faucet 
>even with the door open" and I was promptly given three feet. </rant>

if you're really peeved at the hb store, you might want to print a copy 
of the archive stuff you found and this note and give it to the owner.  

I wonder about what I'm doing right in serving from a keg.  I've seen
the data on pressure drop per foot of tubing and how that depends
on the i.d. of the tubing.  I believe the data.

But I never have a problem and don't worry about pressures.  I have
three feet of 3/16" tubing with cobra taps.  I usually carbonate by
cranking the PSIs up to 30 or so and shaking.  after a few days near
33F (and some extra shaking) I'm getting fairly carbonated beer.  I
don't like too much carbonation, so I'm pretty happy at this point.

I don't have the CO2 in the fridge; I top up the carbonation when I
serve.  I usually top up to 20 psi, maybe 17 or 18 or so.  I get a rush
of beer into the glass, but the beer quickly settles into a glass of
beer with a nice head.  I get a little of the settling effect as that
seen in guinness, but of course it settles much faster.  

I'm not planning to change my procedures, but is there a difference
between a door mounted tap and a cobra tap?  Is the door tap
more picky about the pressure at the tap?

          - Bryan

            gros at bigfoot.com
            Oakland, CA

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 15:45:38 -0600
From: Darrell <darrell at montrose.net>
Subject: Pre-Gelatinized Grains

I spoke with the good folks at Briess Malting Co., and got the scoop on
this "Pre-Gelatinized" thing.  All of you who told me that no boiling
was necessary were absolutely right, but no one seemed to know why, or
what it meant.

So,  here's the story:  Pre-Gelatinized grains have the moisture content
brought way up, then they are roasted, not enough to brown them, but
they are basically Torrefied.  Then, they get flaked (rolled).  This
makes all of the starch available for the mash.  Simply relying on the
heat of the rolling process (like rolled oats, etc.) to do the
gelatinization does not necessarily completely gelatinize the grain, and
you may have problems.

- --
Darrell Garton
Montrose, CO



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:50:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Re: Small Kettle vs Big Beer


Charlie writes:
>[My question]:Does he really need to split the _hops_ between two
>kettles? Can he get pretty much the same hop utilization and character
>by boiling all the hops in one kettle and just the left over 2-3 gallons
>of wort in the other kettle? That way he doesn't have to lose so much
>wort in the second kettle (half gallon each kettle instead of only 1/2
>gallon).

I don't see why he would lose 1/2 gallon twice.  The losses in the kettle
are due to wort trapped in the break and hops.  Granted, there might be
less break in the unhopped kettle (because hop tannins contribute to
break formation), but losses to hops will be half as much in each kettle
if you split the hops, no?

As for utilization, while there are no formulas that currently account
for utilization losses due to the amount of hops added, I'm sure that
this is a factor.  That there is nothing in the professional literature
is not surprising... what professional brewer with the assets to do
this kind of research would be interested in 50, 60, or 70+ IBU beers?

There is a solubility limit given virtually any solute and solvent and
I'm sure that alpha acids in wort are no exception.  Also, as I've posted
before, I'm pretty sure that solubility is not a step function -- it's
an asymptote (chemists, help?) so that as we increase the hop rate, I
would be very surprised if there is not a gradual decrease in utilization.

Back to break formation for a second... I know that it has been posted
in the HBD, that break formation is helped along by hops.  I don't
recall at the moment whether the pro texts confirm this.  In Brewing
Science, Vol. 3, Moll noted, however, that there was less haze made from
beer that was made from wort that was boiled without hops relative to both
"lightly" and "moderately" hopped worts.  Mind you, our high-protein
boils may *require* more polyphenols than commercial brewers' worts,
so this may not be true for us (clearly, more research is needed).

However, this is really a moot point in our case, because the hops will
be in the wort one way or another... whether they are all in one kettle
or split between two kettles.  I would split the hops between the two
kettles.

Al.

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

My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
     http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 15:37:00 -0700
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: simple cider questions

[snip]
>My partner has some cider fermenting away. We have some simple
questions
>about cider-making. She is using an old book, which says to stir the
cider
>twice a day whilst fermenting. Is this required? I'm kind of hesitant
to
>keep opening the fermenter & risking infection.

Not necessary, and IMHO not recommended.  Maybe the author used an
extremely flocculent top-fermenting yeast and had to rouse it back into
solution a lot or something ... or maybe someone told *them* to do that
and it seemed to work, so why not?  But you're right.  Even though cider
isn't as bad as beer wort at taking on new infections, it is not
self-preserving until the alcohol by volume (abv) gets at or above 6%.
I'm not saying to make a cider that strong if you don't want to, but be
aware of this fact.  It won't hurt to leave it alone and not open it, as
you mentioned.

>The book also says to rack after 5 days. We are using a wine yeast
which
>takes ages to ferment out. When should it be first racked ?
>Thanks,
>Bruce Baker.

Not necessary, but won't hurt.  I make fine ciders with no racking at
all.  Also, the cider will likely take a minimum of a month to finish
fermenting.  I just let it sit in a 60-61 F (average temp) for 2 months
and then bottle it.  I do like a sparkling cider, but find that using
3/4 c. corn sugar like most beers would use is too much.  I use 1/2 c.
corn sugar, boiled and added in the same way that I do for beer, then I
bottle.

Brian



 .......................................................................

Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 17:31:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Personal recriminations

I recently responded sharply to a couple of messages.  Since they
were public, I felt (and feel) that it was fair to do so publicly.

In no way did I intend to characterize or insult the SENDER of those
messages.  I purely intended to address their text.  If anyone thought
otherwise, I apologize.

Sam Mize
- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 97 17:35:24 -0700
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Water analysis (errata)

>>I have received a fax with the water analysis from our City counsel.
>[snip]
>>This software ask for CO3 but I cant find it on the fax.
>>Is it under a different name ? Can I work it out somehow ?
>>The local city counsel is clueless and cant help me.

[snip]
>The easy method?  Multiply your "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3" by 0.60 and
>enter that number into Brewer's Workshop as "CO3".  The step-by-step
way
>of doing it the accurate way is described next.  If your carbonates or
>alkalinity or hardness is express in some other way, post back here to
>the HBD (or email me) and we can get the number for "CO3" figured out
>for you.

I made a mistake!  I forgot that when expressing the carbonate ion
concentration "as CO3", that because nearly all the carbonate exists (at
reasonable pH's) as HCO3 (1 Eq/M) and that CO3 is 2 Eq/M, that the total
ionic carbonate concentration should be reported as exactly twice what I
said in my original post!  My apologies ... something was bugging me
about the post and I looked into my water reports, did some
calculations, looked at A.J. deLange's work, and realized what I did.

Anyway, I want to restate the "Easy Method" as "Multiply your alkalinity
as mg/L CaCO3 by 1.2" instead.  I also correct another minor mistake in
step 5) below that tunes things in a bit.  So, there's a couple of
corrections if you are interested and they are all in step 5).  And I
corrected the terminology in steps 4) and 5).

Brian

- -------------------------------
Example:

Assuming you have the pH and "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3", here's an
example showing the calculations, and what you should enter into
Brewer's Workshop:

    Given) pH is 7.8, Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3 is 128

Problem) Find HCO3 as mg/L HCO3

Solution) 

1) Calculate the following three magic numbers:

   r1 = 10^(pH-6.37)  = 10^(7.8 - 6.37) = 26.9153
   r2 = 10^(pH-10.25) = 10^(7.8-10.25) = 0.003548
   d  = 1 + r1 + r1r2  = 1 + 26.9153 + (26.9153)(0.003548) = 28.0108

2) Calculate the mole-fractions (more magic numbers):

   %H2CO3 = 1/d = 0.0357, or 3.57% of the carbonates is H2CO3 in
solution
   %HCO3   = r1/d = 26.9153/28.0108 = 0.9609, or 96.09%  " " HCO3 in
solution
   %CO3     = r1r2/d = (26.9153)(0.003548)/28.0108 = 0.003409, or
0.3401% " " CO3 in sol'n

   Note that only 0.3% of the available carbonates exists as CO3 at pH
7.8, and that as the pH is dropped, even less will be in solution ... it
all turns into HCO3!

3) Find the concentrations of HCO3 and CO3 in mg/L of CaCO3.  For this
you need the alkalinity equation (world standard nowadays):

   Alkn = <<HCO3>> + 2<<CO3>> + <<OH->> - <<H+>>, where <<species>>
means "Species as mg/L CaCO3".

3a) Find the concentration of OH-, e.g. <<OH->>:

   [H+]  = 10^-pH = 10^-7.8 = 1.5849 x 10^-8, We'll ignore this later
because it is so small

Then because [H+][OH-] = 10^-14,

   [OH-] = 10^-14/[H+] = 10^14 / 1.5849x10^-8 = 6.3095 x 10^-7 M or
6.3095 x 10^-4 mM

To express the [OH-] in "mg/L CaCO3", multiply by the gram molecular
weight of CaCO3:

   <<OH->> = 6.3095 x 10^-4 mM x 100.0892 mg/mM = 0.06315 mg/L as CaCO3

4) Find the total carbonates as mg/L CaCO3, ignoring the contribution of
H+ as previously mentioned:

   Total ionic carbonates =  Alkn - <<OH->> = <<HCO3>> + 2<<CO3>>, or

   Total ionic carbonates = 128 - 0.06315 =  127.9368 mg/L as CaCO3

5) Find the total carbonates "as mg/L CO3" instead of "mg/L CaCO3".  Do
this by finding the total carbonates, then by finding the HCO3 and CO3
individual concentrations, then by converting them to <CO3> as shown:

   Total ionic carbonates = 127.9368 mg/L as CaCO3

   Total carbonates = (total ionic carbonates) / (0.9609 + 2*0.003409) =
132.2046 CaCO3

   <<HCO3>> = 0.9609*132.2046    = 127.0354
   <<CO3>>   = 0.003409*132.2046 = 0.450686

   <HCO3 as CO3> = 2 * (127.0354*60.0092/100.0892) = 152.33011
   <CO3 as CO3>   = 0.450686*60.0092/100.0892        = 0.270212

    <Total ionic carbonates as CO3> = 152.33011 + 0.270212 = 152.6002
mg/L CO3

  You'd enter "152.6002" into Brewer's Workshop.  The "Easy Method"
results in 153.6.  So, the conclusion is that for "reasonable pH's",
there is nothing wrong with using the easy method!

   

 .......................................................................

Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 19:14:22 -0700
From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com>
Subject: Club-Only question

A question for the collective concerning AHA Club-Only competitions and
the way YOUR club chooses the brewers that represents the club.

Does your club:

A. Have a blind tasting of the submitted brews by everyone in attendence
at the monthly meeting.

B. Have a judging committee that evaluates the submitted brews.

C. Club does not participate.

D. Other

Please send me email responses ONLY, and I will post a summary. If you
would like to include your club name so there are no duplications of the
info, that would be appreciated.

Get 'ta Brewin!

Wayne Holder
Long Beach Homebrewers


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 21:11:50 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: ferulic ... not for my-ic

References: <199710100403.AAA06925 at brew.oeonline.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

For some reason my post response to George FIx was not accepted.  Let's
try again ...

George Fix writes ...
>I still disagree with Steve Alexander vis the Ferulic acid 
>issue. It is true that ale strains like the Chico yeast
>will produce phenolic tones under certain circumstances.
>In fact, I have just completed a consulting project were
>exactly that has happened. In this as well as other examples
>I have seen, the problem was ultimately traced to minor yeast
>mutation. 

As I read the JIB paper cited below, this may not be so uncommon.  DNA
sequences capable of being hydridized to the POF1 gene are 'highly
conserved' in brewing yeast which did not express the decarboxylase
enzyme property.  The genetic hardware is present waiting for a mutation
or hydrization.  The point is that a significant number of ales yeast  -
*non-mutant* - according to limited studies *DO* decarboxylize ferulic
acid to 4VG in moderate amounts - same as wheat beer yeasts. Just how
are you certain that this was a mutation?

>The key point here is that since the phenolic
>products have such low thresholds they will be detectable
>regardless of the mashing schedule used. 

This is NOT the case presented in the paper McMurrough et al of Guinness
Research, JIB 102:327-332, 1996.  They state that mashing can be used to
control the final levels of 4VG and cite an examples using a
non-wheat-beer ale yeast ...

Two otherwise similar worts are prepared using differing mash schedules,
(Wort 'A' includes rests at 45C and 52C):
EOB = end of boil, EOF = end of fermentation

The flavor threshold for 4VG is about 0.3mg/L.

        ferulic at EOB    4VG at EOB         4VG at EOF
Wort A     6.6          0.28            0.70
Wort B     1.4          0.05            0.14

The mash schedule caused a tremendous difference in ferulic levels
(4X+). The boil caused a thermal degradation of some ferulic to 4VG;
0.28mg/L of 4VG in wort A, and the 0.05mg/L in B.  During fermentation
wort A increased by 0.42mg/L 4VG, while wort B increased by 0.09mg/L.
This increase precisely matches the ratio of free ferulic acid in the
wort [0.09/0.42 ~= 1.4/6.6].  In other words, because of the differing
mash schedule, beer A is at 2X the flavor threshold for 4VG while beer B
is at one half the flavor threshold.  Mash schedule can control 4VG
flavor.

This paper notes that intermediate 4VG producers (like wheat beer yeasts
and 4 of 19 ale yeasts) may have their 4VG proclivity controlled
effectively by mash schedule.  Of the wild yeasts and infectious
organisms, some, like S.bayanus are very strong 4VG producers, while
many others are moderate level producers similar to wheat and these ale
yeasts.

>Thus what concerns me
>the most is that Steve is diverting attention from the central
>practical issue, namely the quality and condition of the 
>pitching yeast, to a remote point that is not going to make a 
>real difference in the flavors of the finished beer.

I'm not sure I understand this.  Taking 4VG from half the flavor
threshold to twice the flavor threshold doesn't sound like a "remote
point that is not going to make a real difference in flavor" to me.  I
think that this is pretty close to what I have tasted in some ales and I
don't care for it.

I went too far here in one sense. Decrease in  ferulic acid isn't a cure
for substantial infections and the (hopefully) miniscule levels of
infection that haunt most brewpots should not have threshold level
effects on 4VG either (otherwise there are other serious consequences to
contend with).  4VG appears to be an admitted product of some otherwise
normal (not mutant) ale yeasts and appears controllable by mash
techniques.  

Ferulic acid has also been shown to have several negative effects in
beer flavor aside from decarboxylation to 4VG (see M.Dadic, "Phenolic
and Beer Staling", MBAA Tech.Qtrly. 11:140). They claim that ferulic
will actively form carbonyls (diacetyl, X-nonenols, very low flavor
thresholds) with or without oxygen.  Other papers show ferulic will
decarboxylize to 4VG in acid beer at ambient temperatures.

Ferulic is one of the few phenolics over which we can exert some
specific control, and it's effects are mostly negative as I read the
literature.  It's major plus is that it is a mediocre anti-oxidant, but
there are much better ones in a typical beer.

To recap:  Ferulic acid has no particularly desirable quality impact in
normal ales and lagers (wheat beers and lambics excepted).  It's levels
can be significantly reduced by avoiding 43C-45C rests.  Ferulic acid
itself, even at quite high levels, does not have a damaging effect on
flavor - but it can lead to negative flavors indirectly.  Ferulic acid
*may* enhance some staling reactions.  Most seriously, excess ferulic
will, in all probability, cause above threshold levels of 4VG
(clove-like spicy flavor) when fermentation is accomplished with certain
ale yeast strains which are not normally identified with wheat beer
fermentation.  High wort levels of ferulic acid can also thermally
degrade into flavor threshold levels of 4VG due to the boil and also
degrade into 4VG due to acid beer storage conditions.

I am not making a blanket condemnation of 40C-45C rests, but brewers
should be aware of the possible consequences of these rests on ferulic
acid levels and thus beer flavor when designing a mash schedule and
selecting yeast.

Steve Alexander



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:56:46 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Ferulic, Feurlic 

George Fix wrote ...
(G.Fix spelled Ferulic as Feurlic in HBD #2527, nb for archive
searchers)

>I have been asked about the effect of residual feurlic acid on
>finished beer flavor. This compound has a relatively high flavor 
>threshold and is essentially tasteless. 

Threshold has been reported as 660 mg/L as compared with a normal range
of 1 - 10 mg/L in typical wort.  So ferulic acid is essentially
tasteless.

>The following article
>asserts that it and selected polyphenols (in their reduced
>tate!) also serve as effective antioxidants. This article
>appeared in the latest issue of the ASBC Journal:
>
>  Walters, et al, "Comparison of (+)-catechin and feurlic acid
>  as natural antioxidants and their impact on Beer Flavor Stability"

I haven't been able to read the article but here is an abstract ...
 -snip-
Comparison of (+)-Catechin and Ferulic Acid as Natural Antioxidants and
Their Impact on Beer Flavor Stability. Part 1: Forced-Aging. M. T.
Walters (1), A. P. Heasman, and P. S. Hughes, BRF International, Lyttel
Hall, Nuffield, Surrey RH1 4HY, U.K. (1) Corresponding author. Phone:
+44 (0) 1737 822 272. Fax: +44 (0) 1737 822 747. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem.
55(2):83-89. Accepted February 11, 1997. Copyright 1997 by the American
Society of Brewing Chemists, Inc.

Several potential antioxidants have been screened for antioxidant
activity using five assays. Based on these assay results (+)-catechin
and ferulic acid were shown to have useful antioxidant properties.
Various concentrations of (+)-catechin and ferulic acid were added to
beer using a full-factorial experimental design. The beers were then
forced-aged by heating to 60C for 24 hr. Markers for flavor stability
were monitored by measuring carbonyl formation and by measuring
UV-active compounds separated by reverse-phase high-performance liquid
chromatography (RP-HPLC). Significant relationships between the chemical
markers and (+)-catechin and ferulic acid concentrations were determined
by backward stepwise multiple linear regression. (+)-Catechin suppressed
the rate of formation of some carbonyl compounds, whereas ferulic acid
increased the rate of formation of others. Both (+)-catechin and ferulic
acid influenced the rate of formation and loss of some UV-active
compounds separated by RP-HPLC. (+)-Catechin and ferulic acid appeared
to be acting independently. Keywords: Antioxidants, Carbonyl compounds,
(+)-Catechin, Ferulic acid, Flavor stability.
 -snip-

Please note the quote ... "(+)-Catechin suppressed the rate of formation
of some carbonyl compounds, whereas ferulic acid increased the rate of
formation of others.".  As I mentioned in my previous post (hopefully
accepted) there is an older reference [Dadic et al, "Phenolic and Beer
Staling", MBAA Tech Qrt 11:140, 1974] to ferulic increasing carbonyl
formation including diacetyl.  Typically carbonyls have very low flavor
thresholds and negative flavors as well.  Also it's hard to estimate how
relevent the result above is since the temperature (60C/140F) is
atypical.  Still it is an antioxidant.

>From Pratt & Hudson, "Natural Antioxidant not Exploited Commercially",
Elsevier, pp171, 1990, ferulic acid is only a mediocre antioxidant
compared to other phenolic acids like caffeic and chlorogenic, also to
Aglycones like quercetin, and to catechin.  Ferulic is on par with
coumaric which is the other major monophenol in beer - but well below
some of the minor cinnamic acids and flavanoids.

>It is to be emphasized that this study (which was done at Nutfield in 
>the UK) used pure yeast cultures. Weizen strains, wild and/or mutated
>yeast will create 4-vinylguaiacol in perceptible amounts from even
>subliminal feurlic acid levels.

And from the Guinness JIB article some ale yeast may produce perceptible
amounts as well.  Also the 4VG levels produced by such an ale yeast can
be  controlled by controlling the ferulic level via the mash.  Actually
with a 45C and 52C rest added, the *BOIL* produced near perceptable
levels from the excessive (4.5X) amount of ferulic extracted from the
malt.  Acidity levels in beer will also increase the spontaneous
(thermal) decarboxylation of ferulic to 4VG.

> Witness the clovy weizens found
>in many brewpubs using domestic malts and a single high temperature
>rest.

I think this ignores the fact that wheat contains an extremely high
percentage of its phenolic acids as ferulic acid - about 90% is ferulic!
This compares with 18-40% figures for barley.  The ferulic is primarily
bound to arabinoxylans in the aleurone cell walls of wheat and barley. 
Ferulic is also subject to extraction from the aleurone just as other
phenol-glucosides are - particularly in the exposed aleurone of the
huskless wheat.  The enzymic release is just particularly effective and
controllable.  Also total phenolic acids (not total phenols) in wheat
(from 2 sample assays I have) is as high as the highest barley figures
and several times higher than some brewing barleys.

>From what I read -

1/ 4VG flavors *should* to be controllable by controlling ferulic levels
when using wheat-beer yeasts and ale yeasts which decarboxylate! 
Demonstrated in one case.

2/ It would be hard to control these levels when using wheat or wheat
malt since it appears from a couple examples to have from 2.5X to 9.5X
the amount of ferulic acid content as barley, and the aleurone layer
where it is bound is more accessible.

3/ High ferulic acid level do not in themselves impart a flavor, and do
act as anti-oxidants, but may have deleterious flavor effects re
carbonyls. "It has been found that ferulic acid markedly increases the
formation of carbonyls under both high and low air conditions.  Moreover
ferulic acid and quercetin were found to be active promoters of diacetyl
formation in aging beer." [Shaidi&Naczk, "Food Phenolics", Tecnomic
Press 1995].

Tell me again why I should load my beers with ferulic acid ???

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 22:34:53 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Cold Brews

I'M ALE'in asked:

 "all my bottled beer is stored outside in my shed after conditioning indoors
3-4 weeks.  With winter coming on and the temps starting to drop below 45 and
lower will this have any adverse effects on my Ale's."

As long as it doesn't get enough below freezing to freeze the beers, it
shouldn't harm them any more than previous variable shed temperatures.  Think of
it as cold lagering. 
 
 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington

Return to table of contents


Date: 11 Oct 97 00:18:55 MDT (Sat)
From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Boiling point vs altitude.

Ian Smith (sorry, Ian, but you don't have a reply-able email addr) asks:
> Does anyone know at what temperature water boils in Boulder, CO. altitude 
> 5360 feet ? I would prefer a chart, table or equation if possible. I 
> would like to calibrate my thermometers so the value should be as 
> accurate as possible (within +/- 0.1 deg C ???).

1.  Elevations within Boulder range over something > 800 ft., so you can't
    state it to +/- 10 ft.
2.  For accuracy, you would have to take barometric pressure into account.
    This can cause a variation equivalent to several hundred feet of alti-
    tude.  In other words, if you calibrate an altimeter today, then wait
    until the weather changes, it may be off by several hundred feet.
3.  Ambient temperature also affects boiling point...and as a second-order
    effect, so does humidity!

The net here is that you can't get anywhere near the accuracy you want
unless you're trying to make a long-term study of it.  And, while I respect
your curiosity, this is rather disconnected from brewing.

As a rule of thumb, boiling point drops about 2 deg F for every thousand
feet.  You might as well figure 202 F for Boulder and be done with it.
This is rough enough that you can say 1 deg C per thousand feet, call it 95
C for Boulder.
- ---
Dick Dunn       rcd, domain talisman.com       Boulder County, Colorado  USA
   ...Simpler is better.

Return to table of contents


Date: 11 Oct 97 00:57:42 MDT (Sat)
From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: cider (re: The Jethro Gump Report)

Rob recounts a conversation with Bert Grant:

>  But, he also said that he wished the ATF would get rid of the law
[presumably the law that allows production of cider with no federal tax
or regulation]
>...as
> there apparently have been deaths attributed to these small roadside
> farmer's cider...

I thank Rob for reporting on this, but I have to say that I'm disappointed
in Bert Grant.  I would have thought he'd had enough hassles with over-
zealous ATF enforcement that he wouldn't want to encourage more bizarre
laws.  The exemption for cider has been a tiny window of sanity in an
impenetrable wall of regulation.

>...The problem is that some producers include the use of
> apples that have fallen from the tree, and are scarred and in some cases
> have rotten portions, and have laid on ground which may have been
> fertilized with animal manure, and in this manner, introduce E-Coli to the
> product.

It is true that this can be a problem for unpasteurized fresh juice.
However, the criticism is off-base for normal fermented cider:
  1 Fermentation will kill off E coli.  The problem is fresh juice, not
    fermented cider.
  2 You have to be below drooling-stupid to take windfalls from a dual-use
    orchard.
  3 Wisdom and size of production are unrelated.  Recall that last year,
    Odwalla had a serious E coli problem.  They are not small roadside
    farmers!  They're well-respected, relatively careful health-food
    producers.  It just happens that they got screwed by their supply
    process...in their case, it was exactly because they are large (too
    large to oversee all aspects) that they ran into trouble.  If you think
    the problem comes from small farmers, or that large producers are
    immune to problems, you probably also believe that McDonalds makes the
    best hamburgers in the world, Microsoft makes the best software, E&J
    Gallo make the best wine, and Budweiser is the best beer.  Think about
    it.
  4 BATF regulation can't touch the sources.  A bruised/cut rotting apple
    on an orchard sward is outside their purview.
- ---
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: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:11:43 -0700
From: "Jim Pierce" <jimpierce at ibm.net>
Subject: Whitelabs Yeast

Charles Writes...

>Check out http://www.whitelab.com
>This guy sells to alot of the brewpubs and micros here in San Diego. His
>standard packages are pitchable quantities for 5G batches so you don't need
>to make a starter. He also does pitchable amounts from 1BBL to 15BBL or
>more for a lot cheaper than Wyeast.
>His prices are *very* reasonable and he'll ship.
>Charles

If you want a "jip" then go to Whitelabs! I have personally experimented
with their yeast and in every single case, the Whitelabs "starter" is in
need of a starter! I have talked with other brewers in my area which concur
that you *MUST* culture a starter with Whitelabs so-called "pitchable
yeast." In dialogue with other brewers, and from personal experience, if you
pitch the Whitelabs "pitchable" slurry you WILL have a 12 hour to 18 hour
lag phase in fermentation! You might as well pitch Wyeast straight from the
packet! I think Whitelabs has a long way to go in producing a pitchable
slurry. Until then, do your self a favor and culture up the Whitelabs yeast.

Cheers!
Jim Pierce


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:24:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net>
Subject: Re: Kinney and his warnings.....

 i could not agree more with kinney, except for one thing

i did not know there were ANY good lawyers...? i thought they were all 
scumbags of the first order, right up there with bankers and distributors....
(but that is only my biased opinion and a few others...)

but seriously.....if you decide, as a homebrewer, to enter the commercial
world, be prepared for some eyeopenings....entry level brewers do not
make a lot of money....maybe $8-10 an hour.  most breweies want an
internship (read no pay) before hiring. with all this ptential litigation
about recipes (i know of one locally - in New England - that may be heating up)
and ownership, i would not doubt that very soon the brewer will sign all kinds
of "employee contracts"  before hiring on.

most want a siebel or better training level.  most places will not allow 
you the chance of "playing" with a recipe. in better designed breweries
an idiot could run it, you need only to be able to tell time, write/read, and
count. (from what i have heard from stories here - it seems like the suits and
money bags are figuring this out now....hence good brewers who do not cover the
a$$ get the boot.) i found a good sum it up statement from a brewing text 
once, sorry dont remember who said it but it is very fitting:

"The pioneers get the arrows - the settlers get the land" 

kinney and robs experiences (to put it mildly), is not uncommon, although
i did not have the "fun" they had - i can see what kinda crap can happen when
owners and money bags get together.  my story is less interesting and 
i still am in denial over the whole mess of crap that happened. but when
i went from owner/brewer to more of money chaser, i hired a brewer, this guy
was probably the best i could have found anywhere.  i trusted this guy with 
my life.  i did give the chance to "play" with recipes, and the chance to
pick a style and brew it.  it worked out good for us - we were very small.
i wish i could have paided him double the amount i could afford. this is 
not the normal case in most larger breweries.

in the long run the name of the game is the same - business is business,
s**t happens and rolls down hill, brewers seem to be near the bottom just above
the bottling crew and shiipers, but atleast brewers get some boots to wear.

anyway good luck to kinney and rob, 


Joe Rolfe 
jrolfe at mc.com
onbc at shore.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:51:10 -0700
From: "Michael Kowalczyk" <mikekowal at megsinet.net>
Subject: Emergency Strainer

Recent talk about the phils phalse bottom prompted me to share a use for 
it that I came up with in an emergency.

I chill using an immersion chiller and was siphoning using a phils psiphon 
starter.  I had problems with the break material and hops clogging the 
siphon one day.  Just couldn't get the siphon going, so I poured the whole 
thing through my lauter tun with the phils phalse bottom.   Worked pretty 
well for 3 brews and I considered buying an extra bucket and phalse bottom 
just for this, but thought the sanitation might not be what it should be, 
plus its awkward.  When sanitizing after using for lautering I had to use 
a pin to get the grain out of the teeny tiny holes.   It was a PITA, but 
it worked.   Also the plastic false bottom floats so I used my racking 
cane to hold it down while I poured the wort in.  Hops clogging is another 
PITA if you can't hold it down just right.  I woke my wife at 3am one solo 
brew session to hold the false bottom down while I poured the wort (told 
you she's a saint!).  One nice thing about using this setup is you really 
get a lot of wort out of the hops. Another nice thing is it drains fast!  
I put one of those plastic spray thingies on the end of the tube and got 
pretty decent aeration too.  I'm still not sure why I wouldn't recommend 
it every time, it just seems like too many chances for infection.

BTW, I tried using an easy masher for straining, but it clogged too 
easily.  I now use a copper tube ring with holes drilled in it.  Works 
pretty good.  

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 11:29:17 -0400
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Honey for Priming

I've received 1/2 dozen responses to an original post regarding the =
necessary amount of honey for use as a priming agent. This is one of the =
great things about this digest. People sharing ideas and experiences =
just for the sake of sharing! Homebrewers must indeed be a special =
breed.

All of the information is useful for one reason or another if not to =
demonstrate that there are many answers. Sometimes you receive =
conflicting data such as how fast honey ferments (one said fast, another =
slow).

The speed of fermentation is certainly a valid issue when considering =
why my beers aren't gushers. Here, I'm afraid, I must admit to an =
abominable behavior. You see, I usually taste my beer during the first =
week after bottling to see how things are progressing. From there it's =
all downhill! I don't think any of my previous batches have lasted more =
than 40-50 days after bottling. They have all been consumed before fatal =
gushers could express themselves!!=20

And my current inventory is weighing heavily upon my mind since I've =
been trying (with moderate success) to keep away from it and allow a =
more lengthy conditioning period.  However, since a fellow brewer stated =
that I might get gushers later as the honey ferments longer, I now find =
myself in the sad state of afairs whereby I must consume my entire =
inventory before impending disaster strikes! Whoa is me...

On the bight side, I'm saving all responses and posting them near my =
beer so that my wife understands the time contraints under which I must =
now function. Alas, poor Weizen...I brewed it well.=20

So now I retreat into the diminishing light, glass in hand. Let't pop =
another...

TO:  Al K.

In response to your questions: 1. I fill to about an inch below the rim =
using a spring-loaded bottle filler. 2. How long does the beer last? I =
guess that's been addressed, huh?. 3. My beer conditions on a carpeted =
floor in a spare bedroom.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:25:58 -0500
From: Dana Edgell <edgell at quantum-net.com>
Subject: 2L soda bottles

HBD,

 Would like to try saving some beer in 2L soda bottles but after rinsing
they still seem to have a strong "soda pop" odor. Any suggestions on how to
remove this odor?

TIA,
Dana Edgell
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
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

---