HOMEBREW Digest #2531 Wed 15 October 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

  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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/15/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96