---

	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:
  enzymes/long mashs. ("Stephen Alexander")
  Diabetes and Beer: A data point. ("Dr. Pivo")
  Mazer Cup pictures (Jason Henning)
  Water Analysis, Ball Tap ("Jeff Beinhaur")
  Pale Ale Excerpt (Paul Gatza)
  wort chillers (BrewInfo)
  Dr. Pivo (BrewInfo)
  Vacuumated. ("Dr. Pivo")
  Dry hopping/low gravity ("Eric McIndoo")
  Sanitizers and bugs (Joe Rolfe)
  .../Some diabetes/beer meanderings ("Stephen Alexander")
  First Time Partial Mash (Matthew Comstock)
  Aussie Hop Rhizomes Search ("Mark Ellis")
  Sanitary storage ("Eric R. Theiner")
  More on Cleaning Tap Lines ("Eric R. Theiner")


Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!

Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at
http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier!
Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99.  Details on the HBD Competition
Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier!

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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 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!

Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"

Back issues are available via:

  HTML from...
        http://hbd.org
  Anonymous ftp from...
	ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
	ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org 
  (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be 
  reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless 
  EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
  CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
  unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
  author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
  reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the 
  author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
  any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
  appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
  above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
  commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
  newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
  attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)

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


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


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:53:23 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: enzymes/long mashs.

HBD 3001.

Bret performed a  nice experiment that demonstrated that their 152F mash had
sufficient enzyme activity left to convert starch in a reasonable amount of
time.  Bret says ... "The issue, again, is time not the temp of the mash".
It's a bit like saying you are interested in how far your car can go on a
tank of gas, but aren't interested in the rate of fuel consumption vs speed.

The *activity* of the enzyme, all enzymes, generally
increases with temperature.  A common rule of a 2X increase in activity with
a 10C increase in temperature is applied - but that is really just a rule of
thumb.  What this means is that each amylase molecule is capable of snipping
more 1-4 glucose bonds per second at a higher temperature than at a lower
temperature.  A technical enzyme term called 'turnover rate', or 'specific
activity' measures the number of enzyme catalyzed reactions per second per
number of molecules will occur under specified conditions.

The other consideration is the number of functional enzyme molecules present
over time. Enzymes lose their shape and structure and their effectiveness
(denature) when they are over excited by kinetic energy.  This happens at
all temperatures - but like 'activity' the rate increases exponentially with
temperature.  There is no specific magic temperature at which all
beta-amylase ceases to function.  You lose beta amylase at 30C and at 70C -
just at vastly different rates.  The rate of denaturing increases much
faster than does 'activity' (faster than 2X/10C).  This loss is often
characterized by a *half-life* figure for enzymes vs temp.  Other conditions
must be accounted for because enzyme stability is effected by thickness of
mash, availability of co-factor ions and a bewildering array of other
effects.

The two effects above, activity and half-life loss, must be considered
together in evaluating the total enzymatic catalysis of a mash (conversion).

One problem in Marc Sedam's excellent follow-up is this: "[...as ] the
temperature rises the enzymatic conversion of substrate increases.  In fact,
for barley beta-amylase this conversion hits its peak a few degrees before
the enzyme denatures.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I seem
to recall that the maximum activity (Kmax?) is at 62C, followed by a near
complete removal of activity via irreversible denaturation at 65C".

There is no magical denaturing limit temp.  And specific activity will most
likely increase right up to the boiling.  Any "optimal" mash temp re: a
particular enzyme is entirely and completely dependent on the mash *time*
available. You must balance the *activity* against the *half-life* time. The
optimal beta-amylase(BA) temperature for a 1 minute mash might be around
90C(194F) (see below)!  The BA denatures fast at
that temp, perhaps the half-life is 2 or 3 minutes - but long enough for
a 1 minute mash.  On the other hand the BA optima for an overnight mash
might be 50C (BA's half-life isn't so wonderful even at 60C).  You should
ignore any mash enzyme "optima" figures that don't explain their conditions
and especially  time involved - they are meaningless.

Marc also suggests that sugar improves enzyme stability by trapping water
molecules and making them unavailable.  I agree completely *BUT* starch and
particularly amylopectin molecules trap water much more effectively than
simpler sugars - so enzyme stability should decline due to this factor as
the mash proceeds - not increase.  There are other factors like substrate
stabilization and product inhibition and stabilization at work here too.

So how stable are the amylases ?

In a rather interesting paper in JIB v97, pp85 demonstrates
for a 1.25qt/lb, 65C/149F mash the half-lives are:
BA - 16 minutes
AA - 42 minutes

At 75C, the half lives are roughly 14/16 minutes for BA/AA.
   (tho' the BA figure looks high/anomalous)
At  80C, the half lives are 7min/14min
At 85C, it's 6min/12min and
At 90C, it's <5min/7min.

The figures above, aside from the 65C ones which are more accurate, are
estimated from graphs given, but should be treated as upper bounds on
half-life.

The paper goes on to show a dramatic drop in fermentability (apparent
attenuation) of the worts produced above 70C (loss of BA).  The amount of
starch in the resulting wort didn't rise dramatically until the 85C/185F
mash temp was reached (loss of AA).
- --
What does it all mean for overnight mashing ?

Iodine tests, as used by Bret only tests for amylose segments on the order
of 15 glucoses or greater and alpha-amylase alone is entirely capable of
reducing starch to this size.  In the JIB paper above BA retains only ~7% of
it's initial activity level after 1hr in a 149F, 1.25qt/lb mash.  We expect
about 2% BA remaining after 90min.  It will clearly do worse in Bret's
hotter mash.  AA retained about 40% of it's initial activity at 1hr in the
149F mash which because of the great abundance of AA (see below) is plenty
to convert Bret's starch.

A VERY important consideration is that a pound of barley malt in the
experiment above [stock Halcyon ale malt] contains sufficient BA activity to
convert about 3.5 pounds of starch in a 65C 1hr mash, but the same pound of
malt has enough AA to convert 88lbs of starch (1HR at 65C) !  Obviously there
is a lot of variation between malts, but the bottom line is that  mashing is
all about onserving your BA - you've got AA to burn.
- --
How fast does Apparent Attenuation(ApA) drop with mash temp ? In one study
ApA dropped from a reference level at 63C(145F) around 76% AA to 69%AA as
the 1hr mash temp went to 67C(153F) but dropped quite quickly thereafter
hitting just 30% ApA in a  75C(167F) mash.  Fermentability like this low
figure (ApAs in the 25-30% range) are available from the AA activity alone.
The question that I can't answer is why anybody would want low
fermentability beer when it is pretty well known that dextrins aren't the
key to body.

My biggest concerns w/ overnight mashing are overextraction of phenolics,
and creation of  lactic infection flavors.  Otherwise Marc gives sound
practical advise.  Overnight mashing is something like a TV dinner - a
compromise of quality for the sake of convenience.
===

No Sparge vs sparge ?
I suggested long ago that the difference might be that some substance
leached during sparging actually masked some of the positive flavors.  There
is precedence for flavor masking effects due to phenolics.  I now believe
that the malty flavors associated with the soluble furans and pyrans on the
surface of the kilned malt are largely put into solution during the mash and
carried away in the first runnings.  Later runnings dilute the good malty
early running flavors. It's a guess.

 -S





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:08:52 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se>
Subject: Diabetes and Beer: A data point.

I recently posted something in response to a thread on "Beer and
Diabetes".

Alcohol in general is not good for diabetics (it makes their blood sugar
go down, and diabetes is more a condition of "starving the periphery of
sugar"-- high blood sugar levels are just the result of the starve).

What I have long been curious over, is how much real food energy there
is in the "residual sugars" in beer.  Sure, there are carbohydrates to
be measured there, but can we get at them? Are they useful as food, or
do they just go through like the things that "go very fast through a
goose"?

I reasoned that first the exzyme system in the barley (the one that we
use to
mash) breaks down about 75 percent of them... the rest are "so-called"
dextrin limits - complex sugars that their enzyme system just can't get
at. Of this 25 percent or so that the grain can't handle, only about
5 percent of those are being got at by the yeast.

So I wondered if these remaining dextrins were anything that we can deal
with in any better manner than the enzyme systems of the grain and the
yeast.

I've asked myself this many times.
I've asked this question publically.
I've asked my mommy.

I've never gotten an answer.

I decided it was time for a little 'spurment.

I took some stout and lager and mixed it (there just could be reason to
believe that we have different carbohydrate compositions due to the
degree of roasting).  I then boiled away the alcohol, and concentrated
it to an SG of 1040.

I shot for this density, because that should be about 10 percent sugar
by weight (explanation following).

I thought a good way to see if I'm getting anything out of this at all,
was to replicate the conditions for testing for "lactose intolerance".

Sufferers of this unfortunate condition, do not have the enzymatic
capability to deal with the sugar "lactose", and it runs straight
through, pulling water with it causing the dribbly toots.

Since the energy "currency" of the blood stream is "glucose", one does a
"lactose load" (50 gms/ 0.5 liter water) on a fasting subject, and then
monitor their blood glucose according to a protocol to see if they are
getting any of it.

With my "beer concentrate", I then had 50 gms of dextrin per half litre,
which was a "dextrin load", and chug-a-lugged it after fasting over
night.

The following are my blood sugars:

fasting = 4.1
15 min  = 5.5
30 min  = 7.0
45 min  = 6.8
60 min  = 4.9
90 min  = 3.1

As such, my original suspicions that "there was nothing there to be had,
that the yeast hadn't already got at" seems to be wrong.

I was pulling a fair ammount of sugar out of there, and I'm glad to see
that if I'm not smarter than a yeast cell, I can at least do SOMETHING
better than them.

I just might add that good science should be "double blind" and this was
"quintuple peeping", since I did all from experiment design to analysis,
and was even the subject.  Might also mention that this is a sample size
of "1".

None the less, I'd leave these words for the diabetic:

There is free sugar to be had in beer.  I can't say how much of these
dextrins we can actually get at, as I'd have to stick some tweezers up
my backside and do an assay of my gut mucosa to find that out, and I'm a
bit reluctant to do that.  Alternately a measure in a "calorimeter"
would be handy, but I don't have one of those in my cellar ( actually, I
HAD one, but with a bit of welding, I turned it into a lagering tank).

Alternately, alcohol does make the diabetic hypoglycemic (their blood
sugar levels dip), and they should intake some carbohydrate when
imbibing... I just can't say how the ammount in beer stands in
proportion to need.

Lastly, the most important development for diabetics, since someone
figured out how to wring some insulin out of a pig pancreas, is the
development of accurate monitoring equipment for the home.

With these, the diabetic is no longer totally dependent on their
doctor's advice, but can become their own "expert" on their condition.

I suggest you do that.... it'll be more valuable than a ton of
speculation, and tell you exactly how YOU react.

Dr. Pivo

PS The Coca-Cola company has nothing to fear from my "beer
concentrate".  That stuff was positively disgusting, and very nearly
made an immediate return trip, which would of course, have spoiled both
the experiment and my shirt front.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:22:45 GMT
From: huskers at voyager.net (Jason Henning)
Subject: Mazer Cup pictures

Hello-

The Seventh Annual Mazer Cup Judging was done last of February and into
March. I took pictures at the judging and made a couple web pages.
There's a list of the winners and a picture of the Mazer Cups. And a lot
of pictures of guys drink and evaluating the meads. 

http://my.voyager.net/huskers/mazer.html

Congrats to Terry Estrin of Vancouver, BC  for his Best of Show "Black
Currant - Fireweed Melomel".

Cheers,
Jason Henning

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:05:01 -0400
From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur at email.msn.com>
Subject: Water Analysis, Ball Tap

Two questions to the knowledgeable (no matter who they might be).
One - I requested a water analysis from my local water company (I know that
what actually comes out of my faucet may vary but I'll assume by not very
much). Allow me to post some of what I think are the more significant
numbers for comment. I have always boiled all of by brew water but would
like to avoid that as it adds to the total brew time (she with all powers
has not rewarded me with any "beer bullets" yet so I need to watch my time
involved in the process). Any suggestions would be appreciated even if it
means I need to continue to boil the water (at least this way I can explain
the extra time to "her"). I brew all-grain 10 gallon batches for whatever
that's worth. All measurements are mg/L.

    Fluoride - 0.96
    Nitrate - 3.3
    Chloride - 48.2
    pH - 7.6
    Sodium - 15
    Sulfate - 21.3
    Alkalinity - 50-100
    Hardness - 100-210

Two - I have a two faucet tap system with one usually dedicated to home brew
and the other to local micro brews. For the micros, I have been purchasing
the 1/6 kegs (a great size to share the fridge with the home brew) that use
a standard ball tap. My one ball tap seems to have developed a problem. It
acts as if the keg is kicked even when I attach it to a new, full keg. In
other words all I seem to get is foam. I've taken it apart (as much as I
knew how to) and cleaned it thinking that it might just be dirty but to no
avail. Does anyone have any suggestions or are there any diagrams available
on the construction of these taps?

Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA
Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:12:40 -0600
From: Paul Gatza <paulg at aob.org>
Subject: Pale Ale Excerpt

Dave Humes was curious about the Zymurgy Pale Ale piece. The piece in
question is an excerpt of the book. As such, my ability to alter the
piece is limited. I agree that the piece has less of flow through the
topics. At times in the past we have asked authors to submit articles
related to the book topic rather than an excerpt. The lack of
flexibility is the downside of cross-marketing with an excerpt. I
believe the promotion of brewing books in Zymurgy is important to
promote the technical and fun aspects of the hobby, and generating
interest in a particular style makes more people likely to attempt to
brew it at home.  An upside it is inexpensive to publish an excerpt (and
often of excellent quality), which is particularly important at a time
when all homebrewing magazines are having difficulty with generating the
advertising revenue of several years ago. With fewer brewing books on
the horizon, there will be less excerpted content and more
style-specific articles in our pages. As always, ideas for Zymurgy
content are welcome. Please direct them to me.  
- -- 
Paul Gatza
Director
American Homebrewers Association	(303) 447-0816 x 122
736 Pearl Street			(303) 447-2825 -- FAX
PO Box 1679				paulg at aob.org -- E-MAIL
Boulder, CO 80306-1679			info at aob.org -- AOB INFO
U.S.A.					http://www.beertown.org -- WEB


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:14:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: wort chillers

A week or two ago, someone posted that their 50-foot chiller is "too
efficient" or something like that and that they had to add boiling
water to get to pitching temperatures.  They also suggested that others
make only 25-foot chillers.

This has been bouncing around in my head for a day or two and now I
know why... I meant to post that there is no such thing as a "too
efficient" chiller.  This was obviously a counterflow chiller because
if it was an immersion chiller (the kind I use), the person would have
simply run hot water through it to raise the temperature.  A really
efficient chiller is a great thing to have... you simply run the cooling
water through *slower* next time and you'll get warmer wort (this was
for an ale, I'm pretty sure).  When you make a lager, slow the wort
down and run the cooling water as fast as it will go.  I have gotten
wort down to 50F with 45F water.

The other thing to consider is where you are in the world... if you
are in the warmer climates you want a really long chiller and probably
need a second-stage (a second coil of tubing which you immerse in ice
water) to get even a decent ale pitching temperature in the summer (put
the counterflow chiller in first and then the ice bath).  You can even
use an ice bath in an immersion chiller too... a second coil that goes
*before* the main (immersed) coil to cool the chilling water in an ice
bath.

I suppose this will start a thread on which chiller is better or which
is more efficient... I suggest that everyone first read AJ deLange's
and Dan McConnell's excellent articles in BT and Zymurgy, respectively.
Dan's was a two-parter, one on immersion and one on counterflow.  AJ's
may have been a two-parter also... I don't recall.  These should answer
just about every FAQ about chillers and they are very detailed articles...
far more detailed than we could be here in HBD.  Dan's compared the
cooling times for various commercial chillers.  I used the data from
all these articles for designing my 35-foot, 1/2" copper immersion
chiller.  For my water (40-ish in the winter and 50-ish in the summer),
I felt that this was the best compromise of cost, size and efficiency.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:37:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: Dr. Pivo

Dr. Pivo writes:
>(psssst. as a brief aside. If I read this forum enough, I'm sure I'd
>find out that even the production of DMS is a "mistake".....bloody silly
>Bavarians).

To say that most HBD readers have been taught that diacetyl is a fault
in all lagers (I have posted several times (that which has been confirmed
by the illustrious Dr. Pivo) that Bohemian Pilsners have noticeable amounts)
might be true, but I don't think that they learned it *on* HBD.

Now to say that the HBD community thinks that DMS is a fault in lagers
is very unfair.  In fact, I've posted several times that DMS is a component
of many of the best Koelsches, as well as most pale lagers!  I'm beginning
to grow tired of Dr. Pivo's insinuations that the HBD is just a bunch of
sheep that keep repeating the same incorrect things.

The HBD, if you read this forum enough, is probably the best collection
of brewing minds in the world.  In addition to the well-read experts
in brewing (at least a half dozen commercial brewers, by the way, and
at least a dozen that I know to have taken classes at the Siebel Institute),
there are also experts in many other fields (biology, chemistry, mechanical
engineering, law, refrigeration, botany, computing, electrical engineering,
geology, microbiology, toxicology... I'm afraid I can't even begin to
name them all).  There are rank beginners who have brought up innovative
new methods.   At the least, it's the beginners' questions that form
the backbone of this entire forum!

So, we appreciate the insight that you bring to the HBD, Dr. Pivo, but
if you really think us all a bunch of dummies, then why do you bother
posting your wisdom which is so far over our heads?

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 20:52:28 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se>
Subject: Vacuumated.

There has been some worries projected of late about such horrifying
things as "imploding kegs".

I am here to state emphatically that "that won't happen" in the examples
cited.

some physics:

"Nature abhors a vacuum... but only to the tune of one atmosphere."

The machines used to create near vacuum conditions can be pretty
horrendous, and the units used to measure it are pretty stupifying as
well, but they are both heading to the limit "zero".

You can't create "negative" pressure.

Once you suck all of the molecules out, you can't stretch "nothing".

That means that even if you did create a perfect vacuum (never been
done) then all you get to is "zero" pressure.

Les'see, that's zero on the inside, and one atmosphere on the outside
(14.7 psi to you Transatlantians).... not a great pressure
differential.,,, hardly corny keg crushing conditions (unless you've got
one made out of aluminium foil).

Another way of looking at it, would be to close your keg with air, and
dive down about 10 meters (30 footsies) underwater.  Then you've got 2
atmosphere on the outside, and 1 on the inside.... neither will your keg
implode there.

What will very likely happen is, as the one poster pointed out, your
poppets would leak.

With my kegs I'm quite sure they would, as I am quite loathe to replace
them (I have never found a replacement for just the gasket part, and it
gripes me to replace a perfectly good little "lunar landing module" just
because its hat is worn out.... some of mine leak with "zero
differential")

The difficulty in understanding the concept of a vacuum may be
illustrated by the following "thought experiment":

- ----
A friend runs into his neighbors house and shouts:

"Quick.  You've got to help me.  My wife has been vacuumated!"

To which the neighbor replies: "'Vacuumated?' What's that?"

"She had just dried herself off after a shower, when she slipped on a
bar of soap.  Both her legs went flying straight up in front of her, and
she fell down right on her... um, her "place", so hard that she stuck to
the bathroom floor!"

The neighbor walks over to take a look and sure enough, they can't budge
her.  He then begins to  knead her about the ends of her breasts, and
other, even more intimate places, when the friend says:

"What are you doing to my wife, man?"

To which the neighbor replies:

"Just trying to get her wet enough so we can slide her over the drain."

- ----

Now, I want no-one missconstrueing this "thought experiment" as "rude".

Neither do I want anyone to think of it as funny.  Don't you DARE laugh.

This was a serious attempt to describe the powers and limitations of a
vacuum.


Mostly, I don't want anyone worrying about "the scenario of the
imploding keg".

Let's just add this one to the VERY long list of "imaginary worries for
the home brewer".

Dr. Pivo


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:56:18 -0600
From: "Eric McIndoo" <emcindoo at micron.net>
Subject: Dry hopping/low gravity

Dry hopping:
    I just recently transfered my first IPA to the secondary and added 1/2
oz of Cascade pellets.  The pellets immediately spread over the surface of
the wort stayed there.  Will the hops settle out or will I have to stir the
wort to break the surface tension of the wort to initiate settling.

Low gravity:
    My first all grain batch (prior to the IPA above) finished with terminal
gravity of 1.004 from a starting grav. of 1.054.  This was probably due to
the low saccharification temp of 151 for 1.5 hours and the use of a 1 qt
starter, but I had no idea it would get this low.  Could this be from an
infection (didn't taste like it at bottling) or perhaps just bad luck?  BTW,
the grain bill was 7# Briess 2-row, 1# 40 crystal, and 1/2 # Carapils for 5
gallons.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:44:56 -0400
From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com>
Subject: Sanitizers and bugs

Gump said....
"I am certainly no scientist, but for me the ability of a sanitizer to
effect and neutralize a pathogen indicates an ability to neutralize
the beer spoilers....which aren't always pathenogenic......."

I was under the impression that NO pathenogenic 'bugs' can live in
beer?  Bugged beer might at best make your body feel a little off.


Dont know where the thread of 10 min vs 5 min of xx ppm iodine contact
is going, but here is my slant on the subject of sanitizing...probably
alot of QD so be alerted...but this is how alot of commercial brewers
do the job.

What normally happens in brewery cleaning cycles, from the time your
equipment (mostly applicable to fermentation gear) is clear of the
inital heavy bio/mass/films.  You want to hit the equipment with a hot
high ph cleaner. IMHO the hotter (180F for 20min works for me) the
better.  This is the first line of defense, sure something might
survive under some remaining deposits, but we have really only started
to cause mortal damage.  Next you would do a acid rinse swinging the
ph to the low side.  PBW from memory is the switched (acid first then
cleaner).  Either way with this type of cleaning routine, not much can
and will survive if done properly. You have wacked the bugs with heat,
high and low ph - your almost done now.

The issue many brewers may have is - I will clean it today so I can
brew into it next weekend.  This is not the optimum situation by a
long shot. The bugs that you have damaged but not destroyed in the
cleaning phase now have a good amount of time to potentially recover.
(at least this is what I have been told - another urban brewing
legend/QDA).  Some industry blurbs also indicate (with all kinds of
charts and science) if the equipment sits idle for more than 24hrs or
so you should re-clean (heat treatment at the very least) prior to
using.  To go one step further - prevent bugs from adapting to an
environemnt switch in a chlorinated product (CTSP or other) into the
cleaning process on occassion.  I used to apply this method to the
soak buckets (gaskets/valves/clamps etc).  This week soak in iodine.
next week CTSP. (this came from a retired Canadian brewmaster).  I
have not seen any brewing bugs that can survive the attack of heat,
ph, iodine and chlorinated product.

As for rinsing the sanitizer prior to use - something about that
bothers me to this day - unless you have sterile water, why would one
want to potentially introduce another set of unwanted visitors in to
the process?  Sure most common water bugs are not wort/beer spoilers
but the whole idea just seems like a risk, and the total volume of
sanitizer left on the surface is very small compared to the volume of
beer in the tank.  My advice - just let it drain for 30 minutes before
filling.  The only time I ever got unwanted flavor from iodine was
with a spec'd "low foaming iodine" used with CIP/spray ball.  It
foamed up quite a bit and crap never came totally out of the tank. But
then again what the hell do I know.

Good Luck and Great Brewing
Bahamas bound
Joe Rolfe


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:15:49 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: .../Some diabetes/beer meanderings

North American Society of Nitpickers wishes to inform George (Veit'zen boy)
DePiro that the Hindenburg was a dirigible not a blimp. ;^)
===
Posted but bounced long ago ...
The always interesting Dr.Pivo writes ...

>Three big boo-boos though:
>>  glucogenic pathways
 ...
>You might be able to convert fats to glucose on paper, Steve, but the
>human body can't do it... That's what keto-acidosis is all about, and
>why the brain gets starved in hypoglycemia.

Humans cannot use the more direct fats to carbs paths that plants can.  But
pathways exist and are important for survival.  Gluconeogenesis is real and
you probably do a little of  it every night and between meals.

The brain, unless adapted to starvation over a long period , can only  use
glucose as an energy source.  The brain alone uses about 120gm  of glucose a
day and yet the human body only  stores a about 450gm of carbs as
 glycogen - less than a 4 day supply for  the brain alone ignoring the
bodies other glucose needs.  By day four of starvation  the brain can
switch to use a little ketone, but still needs 80gm of glucose per day.

So why  don't people black out and die by day 5 or 6  of starvation
conditions from hypoglycemia when all the body carbs are clearly gone ? How
do  people survive up to two months of starvation when at day 40 and beyond
the brain still requires 25gm of glucose per day and the body carbs have
been gone for weeks ?  It's because gluconeogenesis in humans is real.

Pathways -
Lactate, e.g. from muscular exertion, can be reoxidized to pyruvate then
 -> oxalocetate->phosphoenolpyruvate
 -> glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate
 -> fructose1,6-biphophate
 -> glucose.
This is probably the main gluconeogenic pathway when you are not drinking
alcohol.

In parallel glycerol from fat residues becomes
 ..  glycerol
 -> glycerol-3-phosphate
 -> dihydroacetone phosphate
 -> fructose 1,6-biphosphate
 -> glucose.
Perhaps the second most important pathway.

Many additional pathways exist, for example amino acids can be broken to
pyruvates and/or oxaloacetate which then proceed as in the first  pathway.


>2 VERY important points are missed though.
>
>#1 What is a dextrin limit for a human?  We basically have the same
>enzymatic engineering for starch reduction as yeast.  [...]

I did mention in my post that much of human digestion of complex carbs  is
accomplish via non-enzymatic acid hydrolysis in the stomach rather  than
enzymatic hydrolysis.  Some branched carbs don't degrade particularly  well
under either acid or human enzyme attack - but such is life (sic).

I too  would be interested in seeing how much of which carbs can really be
absorbed by humans - still it's clearly much more than yeast .

>[...] How many of these dextrins are utilizable  as a food source?

Note that this is a general problem with caloric labels, not just with beer.
A lab calorimeter can and does measure calories unavailable to human
digestion.

>That we are not great at getting at whole varieties of saccharides, is
>documented by the fact that whole classes of tri-saccharides are
>affectionately titled "flatulence factors", since foods with large
>ammounts of these (say, beans) pass through our guts unmolested.

Actually many of these dextrins are consumed by the complex mix of flora in
our intestines.  There is a huge amount. (I'll omit the quantitative
scatological measures). The energy requirements for those bacteria to grow
and prosper is a normal part of our human total caloric intake calculation.
Beer dextrins may or may not raise your blood sugar level, but they are not
wasted.

Alpha-galactosidase (Beano)  which strips a terminal alpha-linked Galactose
molecule off a glycoside has been shown to reduce flatulence.  I must admit
ignorance about where these alpha-linked galactose sugars come from in the
diet.  They must exist in beans and cabbage.  Is it effective against beer
dextrins ?  I don't know.  I've always associated beer flatulence with live
yeast turbidity rather than dextrins - but the ultimate cause is not clear
to me.

Homemade sauerkraut (thanks to John Schnupp of HBD for the no-brine recipe)
gives remarkably little intestinal rumbling compared with commercial
product. Do my kraut fermentor bacteria consume the troublesome glycosides
in advance ?

>As Steve points out, starch is not just starch. Spuds (or "potatoes"
>according to my sources at Quayle College) are loaded with lots of
>simple 1,4 amylose strings that we merrily hack to bits, while ...

A question for the staff at Quayle U - many grains are available in
"waxy" varieties which have remarkably low amounts of amylose and
lots more amylopectin.  Is the same true for waxy vs "mealy"
potato[e] varieties ?

>[...] then it probably makes no difference whether you intake
>alcohol as beer, or equivalent amounts of alcohol in Vodka.... it would
>probably create the same insulin demand.

I also suspect this is true or almost so - the extractable carb content of
normal beers may be almost low enough to ignore. But the lactate  produced
from alcohol does directly supply energy and so indirectly displace glucose
use.  So you need to account for the  caloric value - not the carb value of
the alcohol as you would with fat  and protein.

Controlling BGL is a balancing act and the method needed to  balance ethanol
intake are not entirely clear - it appears to both  decrease BGL and also
supplies caloric value.

>Alcohol is amazing stuff
I think we all say that in different ways.

a pleasure meandering with you Dr.P,
Steve







Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com>
Subject: First Time Partial Mash

Greetings
OK, so it wasn't all grain, but I tried my first
partial mash last weekend with a 'brown ale'.  This
was to be a batch sparged recipe.  5 pounds pale malt,
1 pound crystal malt, and 1/2 pound chocolate malt
were milled with my Phil-mill.  The crushed grains
were put in a large, coarse mesh grain bag and
submersed in about 1.5 - 2 gallons of 170-175 F
preboiled water in my 3 gallon cheap stainless kettle.
 I had added 1 tsp gypsum to the kettle water.  After
stirring, the temperature was 150-155F.  I stuck the
kettle in the oven.  I stirred once after about 30
minutes.  The T was still 150-155F.  After 1 h I took
the kettle out and lifted the bag to slip a plastic
collander under it and set the bag-loaded collander on
top of the kettle to continue to drain.  I used a
racking cane and plastic tubing to siphon the 'first
runnings' to another container.  I got about 1 gallon
of 1.091 wort for this first extraction.  Then I
dropped the grain bag back into the kettle and dumped
in about 2 gallons of 150-160 F water, for the sparge
part of the batch sparge,and stirred.  Another 1 tsp
of gypsum had been dissolved in the sparge water. 
With T=150-155F I put the kettle back in the oven for
10 minutes.  After this, instead of initially lifting
the grainbag out into the collander again (the first
time was very messy), I just stuck the racking cane
along side the grainbag to the bottom of the kettle
and siphoned out the liquid until the vacuum broke. 
Then I lifted the bag out as I did before into the
collander and sucked out the rest of the liquid with a
reestablished siphon.
The 'second runnings' ended up about 1.5 gallons at a
gravity of about 1.031.  I went on as usual with the
rest of the batch, adding 2.5 pounds light DME to fill
out the gravity of the batch and 1 pound of dark brown
sugar as per my original recipe.  Hopping: 1 oz.
Northern Brewer (60 min), 1/2 oz. NB (30 min), and 1/2
oz. NB (15 min)....  Used Nottingham dry yeast.  The
all-extract batch was very good and I have high hopes
for this one.
I am new to thinking about %efficiency and comments
are desired.  Also, I like the idea of using a kettle
for mashing AND lautering, but am afraid of drilling a
hole in my kettle (Easymasher) and I don't want to buy
anymore gadgets right now anyway.  And, I don't really
like the idea of transfering 4 gallons of very hot and
sticky oatmeal-like stuff to a 'zapap' lauter tun. 
Anyone else try the grain bag/siphoning out of kettle
thing I did?  Has anyone tried improvements on this
idea - like some kind of false bottom you can stick
the racking cane through?  Basically, I want
Easymasher results/benefits without an Easymasher.
Like I said, I don't want to buy any new gadgets, like
a cooler to mash in, but I've got an extra bottling
bucket.  Anyone care to comment on using a grain
bag/bottling-bucket mash/lauter tun?  I know
insulation would be important.  Suggestions or tips? 
Would the plastic spigot on the bottling bucket be ok?
 Also, there would be a lot of dead space between the
bottom of the spigot and the bottom of the bucket - a
lot of wort.  The 'inside' portion of the Easymasher
has a downward-bent tube so that you can reach the
bottom, I guess.  Anyone try to connect things to the
few plastic threads of the inside part of the bottling
bucket's spigot?  Could I fashion a strap-on tube (is
that a sleazymasher?) to hit the bottom in the same
way.  More questions than results, but I'm finally
making beer (partially) from malted grain not just
malt extract.Right on!
Matt in Cincinnati.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 06:43:12 +1000
From: "Mark Ellis" <mellis at gribbles.com.au>
Subject: Aussie Hop Rhizomes Search

G'day All,

Hey if there any Aussies on the list who have hops other than Cluster
growing, could you drop me a line. I am dying to try some other varieties.
You will be handsomely rewarded!!

Cheers

Mark E. in Oz
Melbourne




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:25:34 -0700
From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic at skantech.com>
Subject: Sanitary storage

Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 09:12:57 -0600
From: John Adsit <jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us>
Subject: Sanitizing Question

John Adsit asks about the wisdom of leaving sanitizing solutions in
pots, carboys, kegs, etc. over time.

Well, some sanitizers don't have components to support organic growth.
Inorganics such as bleach, acid sanitizers, and peroxygens don't provide
any nutrients, so even after they're gone, you can count on a sanitary
container-- provided it has remained closed.

Most common iodophors use a surfactant to deliver the iodine, and once
the iodine has evolved or precipitated, it becomes an excellent culture
media.  But, again, the micro organisms must be introduced, so it
shouldn't be a problem with a closed container.

So, in a nutshell, if you have something clean and sanitary, it should
remain that way as long as you don't introduce new things (via air-flow,
changing the water, etc.).

Rick Theiner
LOGIC, Inc.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 18:25:44 -0700
From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic at skantech.com>
Subject: More on Cleaning Tap Lines

Curt Abert gives this advice on tap lines:

> I have one of those 'keggerator' refridgerators, but replaced the
single-tap
> tower with a 3-tap tower.  I usually clean/flush the lines *at least*
once
> a month, and every time a keg runs dry.  I fill an empty keg with 2
gallons
> of hot water, add 2 Tbs. of One Step, slosh the keg around well to
dissolve
> the sanitizer, and flush each beer line (disconnecting and
reconnecting the
> lines to the keg with sanitizer).  I initially flush a quart or so
into a line,
> disconnect and move on to the next.  This leaves some sanitizing
solution
> in the line.  After flushing each line twice, I empty the sanitizing
solution
> from the keg, refill with hot water, and flush each line again.  One
Step is a no-
> rinse sanitizer, but I rinse anyway.

As the developer of One Step, I can speak with some authority and agree
with Curt's procedure as far as rinsing goes.  Vinyl tap lines are made
from a very soft polymer and even the low alkalinity of One Step may
(note the _may_) cloud the lines if you store them with One Step in
them.  I've found this by gradual experience with my jockey box.

So rinse and store your lines with potable water (generally speaking,
tap water) inside.

Rick Theiner
LOGIC, Inc.





Return to table of contents

---