---

	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:
  Malt Flavor ("Stephen Alexander")
  Flexible tubing? (Ed Choromanski)
  sight gauges + clogged SureScreen ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Is PBW like Caustic? ("Sandlin, Jonathan Mark - BUS")
  re:keg carbonation (Ronald Babcock)
  4th Annual Brew Debut Call for Entries (Jonshan)
  IRS bottling response ("Roy Rudy")
  Siebel--Yeast culturing question (Harlan Bauer)
  Fast Starts ("Phil and Jill Yates")
  Siebel - Mash thickness ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Wyeast 3942 ("David M. Campbell")
  Siebel: HSA on homebrewer scale ("Dan Cole")
  2nd Notice of BUZZ OFF Competition ("Houseman, David L")
  Re: Keg Carbonation (Mark Rogerson)
  Siebel: Yeast strain's affect on head retention (Steve Jackson)
  Siebel Technical Question ("Houseman, David L")
  Siebel - MMWP (Biergiek)
  Siebel - For Dr. Joe Power (Joe Rolfe)
  Siebel: Mash Duration Question (Loren Crow)
  Schaarbeek cheries (Tom Herlache)
  Hop ID, Rye Beer, Keg Carbonation, Counterphlow Sanitizing (Dan Listermann)
  Siebel... Foam Question (Dan Listermann)
  Re: Newbie Step Mash Questions (Jeff Renner)
  Siebel - cold break/co2 toxicity/protein rests/malt/saccharificat ("Bayer, Mark A")
  phytate, phosphate, water pH ...etc. (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Aerobically grown starters (Dave Humes)


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

2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99
(http://burp.org/SoFB99); Oregon Homebrew Festival 5/22/99
(http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/fest.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99
(http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)

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: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:33:53 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Malt Flavor

Kyle Biergiek at aol.com wants big malt flavors ...

>If this flavor is confusing then you  need to eat some chocolate malt balls
 ...
Wrong  - you don't want to confuse the flavor aspect so you can't add a big
womp of chocolate, protein and sugar !  I can't agree.

>I  have tried the usual techniques to achieve malt flavor with no success:
>
>1) Yeast Strain[...]
Yes - so very odd, but yeast strain makes a remarkable flavor and even body
difference.

>2)  Using imported German Munich malt as the base malt, and adding
Melanoidin
malt.
This would be my first suggestion.

>3)  Decoction mashing and pressure cooking.
Decoction mashing, and even pressure cooking makes a real but subtle
difference.  You seem to be seeking more of a sledge hammer effect.

>4)  Extended lagering.
I never thought this would add to maltiness.  Extended lagering cleans the
flavor profile and may make more subtle flavors stand out better, but it
won't produce the slap in the face flavor you seek.

>Is a malty flavor in my German lagers unachievable at the homebrewing
level,
>is this even too difficult for Dr. Pivo or Fred Garvin?  Please help!

I don't seem to have problems matching the malt profile of Spaten or
Paulaner (on a good day), but then again I don't perceive that these taste
like chocolate malt balls either - OK maybe a little in the Marzen's.

First off - I'm not at all convinced that you understand the flavor "malty".
Open a sack of  good 2-row base malt and stick your nose in it.  That is
"malty", and it doesn't smell predominantly like a chocolate malt ball.  It
is a more refined aroma than raw grain, but has some similarities.  It isn't
particularly toasty tho' maybe a bit, and it isn't particularly sweet, it is
a little nutty, and has a certain 'baked' quality.  Like a loaf of fresh
baked bread it's maddeningly attractive.

If that doesn't do it for you then try the malted oatmeal recipe (I think
Jeff Renner suggested this a while back).  Put a couple tablespoons of
crushed base malt in your oatmeal and leave it to mash at ~140-160F for a
while before completing the cooking. It precludes the need for a sugar
addition and adds a VERY significant malt flavor and aroma.  It tastes a lot
like your mash tun smells on brew day.  That is "malty" too.

To paraphrase Dorothy upon her return from Oz - if you can't find maltiness
in your own grain bin, maybe you never really had it to begin with.


Where do malty flavors come from ?

Some people point to the chemicals maltol, but in fact this is a
caramel-like aroma.  Same thing for caramel and crystal malts - tho' they do
have significant malty flavor too. I once spoke to a raver who insisted that
he really loved whiskeys because it was the only was he could get the
concentrated malt flavor he craved.  Bull___, whiskeys taste is more from
the barrel than the grain - malt flavors are left behind at the still.

Malt flavors are predominantly maillard products or precursors to maillard
products formed from the combination of proteins, sugars, and heat.  There
is also clearly a contribution from heterocyclic  ring products created from
the heating of proteins and sugars, such as pyrazines and furfurals. See the
HBD archive circa 1997 for posts on the topic.  The upshot appears to be
that maillard products of the specific amino acids isoleucine, valine and
leucine are most associated with malty aromas.  The formation rates are
higher at somewhat elevated temps, which is why pressure cooking seems to
work so well.  What is less obvious is that the rates of formation of some
of the related compounds are heavily impacted by the pH and also the amount
of water involved and that they are volatile.

I have on my agenda an experiment that involves acidifying some amount of
wort to about pH 4.0 and pressure cooking.  I have reason to believe that
this will favor production of certain malt flavor and aroma compounds;
alpha-amino ketones.

I suspect that the volatile nature of some of the compounds also means that
they fade as the malt ages, certainly true for crystal.   It would be very
interesting to make some munich at home to see what happens to the flavor
over time.  Maybe some one has done this and can report.

The amount of water available for the reaction also impact the formation
rates of the various products.  It is likely that the flavors available from
kiln-curing nearly dry malt cannot be reproduced later in a mash, pressure
cooker, or a decoction boil.  The alpha-amino ketones mentioned above under
nearly dry heat conditions will condense into pyrazines - some of which are
responsible for nutty, toasted and roast flavors.

The malty flavor and aroma compounds are most likely to appear on the malt
surface and to be reasonable soluble, so G.Fix/L.Bonhams suggestion toward
no-sparge brewing may well concentrate these flavors.  You could probably
concentrate them further by removing the no-sparge runnings earlier from the
mash tun, and allowing the conversion to complete separated from the grist.
Less sugar so no need to dilute the runnings to acheive the proper SG -  yet
most of the good flavor bits.

Some HBers here like to refer to the whole set of products as melanoidins -
but melanoidin really refers to irregular caramel polymers that add color,
not so much flavor.  It's a misnomer, tho a common one.

Now my question:  Who sells Weyermann Munich in sacks and ships to Ohio ?
(preferably close by).  Anyone have an opinion on this malt ?

Steve





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:55:53 -0400
From: Ed Choromanski <choroman at voicenet.com>
Subject: Flexible tubing?

Hi All:

I am (still) in the process of building my two tier brewery.  At this point I am
up to investigating tubing.  Since I need to be able to breakdown my setup I
will be using quick disconnects and flexible tubing.  Since I will using
the pump to move boiling or near boiling wort I will not be able to use vinyl
tubing.  In my search for 212+ F and food grade tubing I have come across the
following candidates:

norprene - food grade, meets FDA, 3A and NSF criteria
silicone -meets FDA criteria

Both are stated as being able to be used in beverage and food service. 
 -Silicone has the upper had on max. temp (450F vs norprene's 275F).  
 -I can get the silicone tubing cheaper.
 -I can get silicone at any length (for norprene I need to by 50ft min).

Are there any downsides to silicone tubing?  
Is there any big advantage to norprene?

Thanks in advance,
Ed



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:47:52
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net>
Subject: sight gauges + clogged SureScreen

There was a question/concern on the wort in a boiler sight gauge
contaminating the brew.  One way to sanitize the sight gauge is to siphon
boiling wort through it during the boil.  I do something similar for the
discharge plumbing from my boiler to the primary.  Maybe connect a long
piece of flex. tubing to the open top end of the sight guage, start a
siphon and put the free end of the flex tubing into a container (I use a
pyrex measuring cup).  When the container gets about full, raise the
container above the level of wort in the boiler and allow most of the wort
to drain back into the boiler via the siphon (don't break the siphon) then
lower the container to refill it with boiling wort.  Repeat. 

 - - - - - - - - 
Jeff report a clogged SureScreen in his boiler during run-off.  Al
responded with his experience and theorized it might have been brittle
whole hops.

I use something similiar to the SureScreen as a manifold in my boiler.
Have only had it plugged once when I used hop pellets.  The last three
batches I've used whole hops rather than the plugs I used to use and
noticed an appreciably faster runoff than I used to get with the plugs.
Examining the spent hops bed revealed why- the spent hops were much
"springier" (i.e. not as "soggy") than those from plugs and hence allow for
a better filter bed.  At least for the finishing hops, I'm now a whole hops
convert.


c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net 
web site:      http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/  



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 15:52:45 -0700
From: "Sandlin, Jonathan Mark - BUS" <SANJM304 at bus.orst.edu>
Subject: Is PBW like Caustic?

	I have heard stories here on the HBD that advise not to use caustics
under CO2 pressure.  My question is, can PBW and Starsan be used under CO2
pressure?  I am hoping that I can pump PBW into kegs by using pressure
rather than a pump.  Can a long soak in PBW break up beerstone and other
hard crubulations off of the insides of kegs without scrubbing?  Thanks
again.

Jon Sandlin
Corvallis,OR 97330



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:01:53 -0600
From: Ronald Babcock <rbabcock at rmii.com>
Subject: re:keg carbonation

In HBD #3035 Jay Spies asks about force carbonation:

I have tried about every method under the sun. I have primed, shaken,
rocked, rolled, used a carbonation stone with all the variables (time,
temperature, pressures, etc...) You get the picture ;^)

The best way I found is to use no carbonation stone no rocking etc. just
let it sit under 30# of pressure at 34F for 14 hours for each volume of co2
desired. I have used this method for better than three years with great
success. This works for me on all my beer with the exception of my Hefe
Weizen. The Hefe Weizen I force carbonate with a little different setup. I
use a carbonation stone with a hose attached to the gas side and force
carbonate the same way as the rest. I leave the stone attached so that
every time I pour a beer the stone helps keep the yeast suspended. This
works almost as well as bottling the beer and swirling the last ounce of
beer to suspend the yeast before pouring the last yummy little bit.

I have found that I get smaller bubbles and better head retention not
rocking. YMMV




Ronald Babcock - rbabcock at rmii.com - Denver, CO
Home of the Backyard Brewery at http://shell.rmi.net/~rbabcock/


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 19:15:41 EDT
From: Jonshan at aol.com
Subject: 4th Annual Brew Debut Call for Entries

Announcing the 4th Annual Brew Debut Homebrew Competition!!!!!!
The event is being held at Hales Brewery in Seattle, WA on June 12th 1999 
10am.
There are prizes for the winners of all catagories and "Best of Show" winner 
will be able to produce 3 barrels of their brew at a local brewery and 
proudly serve it at next years Herbfarm Northwest Microbrewery Festival!

Entry Forms= Standard AHA Entry Forms
Entry Deadline=June 12th
Entry Fee=$6.00
Requirements=2 unmarked 12-16oz brown bottles

Entries can either be dropped off or mailed to :	
Evergreen Brewing Supply
12121 NE Northup Way, Suite #210
Bellevue, WA 98005

For more information, contact Competition Organizer Jon Mendrick at 
425-882-9929 or by email at Jonshan at aol.com.
We are also in need of Judges or stewards, so if you are a recognized or 
certified judge and would like to help please contact either Jon Mendrick at 
the number above or Judge Coordinator, Brent Rannow by email at 
rannow at gte.net.   We look forward to your entries.  Cheers!


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 20:00:33 -0700
From: "Roy Rudy" <royrudy at powernet.net>
Subject: IRS bottling response

>>>>A few questions about bottling my Imperial Stout ...

>>>>1-How long should it ferment in the secondary; Should it be aged in
>>>>bulk or in bottles? (Brewed it on May 1st and racked to secondary May
>>>>8th when vigorous fermentation subsided)

I might not have racked so soon. Was there a lot of trub? That first crop of
yeast would be helpful for fermenting all that sugar.

>>>>>2-How much sugar should I use for carbonation, and will I need extra
>>>>>>yeast when priming?

Keep it the carboy until it the beer is clear. Then add some yeast from the
secondary and 3/4 cup Corn sugar.

>>>>3-At what temperatures should it be conditioned and stored, and how
>>>>long should conditioning take?

Let it age for a couple of months. The cooler the storage the slower it will
age. Shoot for 40-50F

>>>>>This batch's OG was 1.092, and is my first attempt at anything over
>>>>>1.065, so any help will be greatly appreciated.

My best IRS was a Raspberry one.

Roy R







Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 00:47:41 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab at midwest.net>
Subject: Siebel--Yeast culturing question

When stepping up a new strain from slant, my final "flask" is a 3-4
gallon starter used to pitch 1-bbl of wort in the cone of a 7-bbl
cylindroconical fermenter which I then use the following day to pitch
7-bbls.

The container I use for my 3-4 gallon starter is a 1/4-bbl Sanke keg
with the dip tube cut enough to allow a 3-inch stir bar to reside
permanantly (and spin freely) on the bottom of this "yeast brink". Place
the whole thing on a stir plate (I've got a 19-inch) and I have a large
starter in a sterile environment (I've found a way to use the keg itself
as an autoclave).

My questions are these: 

1. Should I aerate continuously? Is air adequate, or should I use O2?

2. What would be the optimum temperature of the starter for ale yeast?
(Assume an initial fermentation temperature of ~68*F)

3. When would be the optimum time to pitch?

4. And finally, on the second day, when I step up the 1-bbl to 7-bbls
(i.e., brew day), should I aerate the wort running into the cone of the
fermenter, or no?

The Siebel Institute should be commended for their kindness and
generosity in agreeing to answer some of our questions. Thank you very
much, this IS a very rare treat indeed!

Harlan Bauer


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 20:07:18 +1000
From: "Phil and Jill Yates" <yates at flexgate.infoflex.com.au>
Subject: Fast Starts

I think it was Marc asking about minimal lag times.
         Marc ,
             The yeast sediment from the primary if used again within a few
days of collection will usually give you a Grand Prix style start, if that's
what you are after. I used to get a bit obsessed trying to achieve this
every time before I realized it just wasn't particularly necessary. Fun to
observe though.
     Cheers Phil Yates.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 06:57:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com>
Subject: Siebel - Mash thickness

Dear Siebel

How about the question of mash thickness having an affect on the
extraction of the grains?  That is a thicker mash will have a higher OG?

I have had two batches of the exact same brew come out with slightly
different OG's but I have never paid any attention to the thickness of the
mash, in the last case it was a wheat beer,  the first one came out at
1.046 and the second one came out at 1.040.  1.040 was my target OG and I
don't know which may have been thicker or thinner?  Is there something
else that may be going on?

 _________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke     Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com
Brighton, Mi          CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:17:17 -0400
From: "David M. Campbell" <David.Campbell at po-box.esu.edu>
Subject: Wyeast 3942


Here is what I could find about Wyeast 3942--Belgian Wheat:

"Estery, low-phenol producing yeast from a small Belgian brewery.  Features
an apple and plum-like nose with a dry finish.  Apparent attenuation 72-76%,
medium flocculation.  Optimum fermentation temperature of 64-74 degrees."

Hope this helps.

Dave


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:26:15 -0400
From: "Dan Cole" <danc at carilion.com>
Subject: Siebel: HSA on homebrewer scale

To the point:

Do you believe that HSA (Hot Side Aeration) is an issue at the homebrewer
scale (specifically, post boil but before chilling and pitching)?

If so, what effects (flavor, stability, etc) should be expected? If not,
why?

Dan Cole
Roanoke, VA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:12:14 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: 2nd Notice of BUZZ OFF Competition

The 6th annual BUZZ OFF is scheduled for June 26th and June 27th, 1999 
at
Iron Hill Brewery in West Chester, PA.   The BUZZ OFF will again serve 
one
of the Qualifying Events for the Masters Championship of Amateur 
Brewing
(MCAB).  Winners in 18 subcategories will qualify to enter in the MCAB
national championship round in early 2000.   See the MCAB website for 
more
details at:   http://brew.oeonline.com/mcab/.   The BUZZ OFF
(http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff/)  is also the home of the
Pennsylvania Club Challenge and the final leg of the Delaware Valley
Homebrew of the Year competition.   The Iron Hill Brewery is in 
Downtown
West Chester, a nice little town to walk around in with several 
excellent
restaurants.  Of course we expect to have activities that will include 
the
other breweries in the area such as Victory.  

Entries (three bottles) are due at Beer Unlimited, Rts 30&401, Malvern, 
PA
19355 by June 19th.  The fee is $5 per entry.  One entry per 
sub-category.
Beer must be brewed by the entrant(s) in their homes; no beers brewed 
on
commercial premises.   Questions about entries should be addressed to 
Mike
Cleveland at Beer Unlimited (610) 889-0905.   Additional information 
about
the BUZZ OFF can be obtained from the BUZZ web site or by emailing Beer
Unlimited at BrewIPA at aol.com. 

We're looking for judges and stewards.  Judging is to start at 9am on 
both
Saturday and Sunday; participants should be present  hour early.   
If you
are interested in judging or stewarding, please contact Bob Thomas
(rwthomas at chesco.com) at (610) 647-6567.   

Additional questions can be directed to the Competition Organizer of 
the
Buzz Off, Chuck Hanning (hanning at voicenet.com) at (610) 889-0396.  

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:16:16 -0500
From: Mark Rogerson <arkmay at flash.net>
Subject: Re: Keg Carbonation

> I use a sintered stainless steel stone, called oddly enough "The
> Stone",
> to force carbonate. It gives probably the finest carbonation and works
> over
> night. The stone is a little pricy, around $25, but I find that it
> does the
> best and most reliable job.

Could you explain the process you use to force carbonate with The
Stone?  To what is the stone attached? The bottom of the liquid out
tube?  Is the keg sealed?  Do you have a stone on every keg in your
refrigerator?  I'm imagining a keg with a 10 ft. head on it.

Me?  I use the "Set the temperature on the 'fridge and the pressure on
the CO2 then take a two week nap" method.  Don't laugh, I can sleep that
long.
- --
Mark Rogerson, HMFIC
Randy Stoat Femtobrewery
Houston, Texas, U! S! A!
http://www.flash.net/~arkmay/Mark/rsf_tour/

Minister of Propaganda
Kuykendahl Gran Brewers
Houston, Texas, U! S! A!
http://www.TheKGB.org/




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 06:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Jackson <stvjackson at yahoo.com>
Subject: Siebel: Yeast strain's affect on head retention

This is a question I asked here several months ago and never received
much of a response for, other than from a few people noting something
similar.

First, the background. I brewed three alts, all using virtually
identical grain bills and hop bills. Each was feremented using a
different yeast strain. Two of the three exhibited excellent head
formation and head retention characteristics. The third could barely
form a head and didn't keep it very long. I've ruled out other causes,
such as excessive protein degredation. The only variable I have left is
yeast.

So, the question: Do different yeasts have an affect on a beer's
heading properties. If so, how, and how does one compensate for this?

 -Steve in Indianapolis

_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:50:27 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Siebel Technical Question

Can you please comment on the positive affect on beer body and mouthfeel
that results from a mash-out in the 165-167oF range due to the destruction
of Beta-amalyse but the retention of Alpha-amalyse at those temperatures?
Additionally there has been a great deal of momily about performing mashouts
(168-170oF) in order to stop all enzyme activity.  What temperatures are
required for effective mashout without creating excessive tannin extraction?
How is this reconciled with possitive affects of enzyme activity at the
upper 160s?  Are there negative impacts (other than lower extraction rates)
of not performing a mash out step but allowing rising kettle temperatures to
produce the same affect?




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:00:37 EDT
From: Biergiek at aol.com
Subject: Siebel - MMWP

There was much banter last year in the HBD regarding proteins in beer and 
their role in producing chill haze.  The long-standing homebrewing mantra 
that HMWP are the primary precursors for chill haze was challenged last year. 
 One of our xpurts quoted his favorite xpurt and stated that this was not the 
case, and it is really the MMWP that are the precursors for chill haze.  So 
which is it, and how does one reduce their effects in causing chill haze 
without filtering?

Haze free lagers are not much of an issue for me since I now filter them, but 
I am still curious.  Thanks in advance for your comments.

Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:10:30 -0400
From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com>
Subject: Siebel - For Dr. Joe Power

I was wondering about the current state of development of fermentation
via Immobilized Yeast on the Mura Delta cermaic matrix?  Pierre
Rajotte was developing this and installed one in a brewpub in
Montreal. Several other breweries had small pilot plants based on
these matrix. I have not talked to Pierre in sometime but I have heard
that the equipment was moved/sold to Labatt. I have been interested in
this for some time now and after having a beer brewed abroad with the
device - it seems commercially viable for small production. 

Has the staff done any tasting comparisons with a normally fermented
beer as opposed to IYR fermented beer?
Any comments on the taste tests?

Thank you Joe - you are a shining star in what was a short brewing
career.

Joe Rolfe
ex-Ould Newbury Brewing


Jethro - thanx for reminding us..


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 10:21:58 -0500
From: lorencrow at earthling.net (Loren Crow)
Subject: Siebel: Mash Duration Question

I have a question for the Siebel staff, and any others who feel inclined to
answer.  Because we want to achieve complete conversion of the starch into
sugars when mashing, I wonder why we don't simply keep the mash at 150F for
three or four hours, or even overnight.  Does a mash that is longer than
necessary for starch conversion have negative effects, is it simply a matter
of wanting to save time, or what?

I'm looking forward to your answer!
Loren Crow




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:15:28 -0500
From: Tom Herlache <tcherlache at facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: Schaarbeek cheries

    Everyone interested in importing Schaarbeek cheries should be aware
that it is almost certainly illegal to simply have someone send you budwood
(or trees) through the mail.  Basically any imported agricultural or
horticultural plant must be certified disease free by APHIS (in the US,
other countries have there own version), and there is a fee for testing.
Testing of woody perenials can take several months, since the only accepted
method of detection of many plant viruses is by grafting to a sensitive
indicator plant.  Therefore, if the process were started now your planting
material would just make it to you for fall planting.
    An alternative to importing new wood would be to check the USDA
germplasm repositories (where, ipso facto, the plants have cleared
inspecton).  They should be willing to release material, but would again
likely charge a fee to cover their expenses.  I think there is a cherry
repository in Sturgeon Bay, WI, and the USDA Plant Genome Resources Unit at
Cornell Univerisity (Geneva, NY) may also have some.  I know the PGRU has
hundreds of grapevine and apple varieties.  Some states--I think California
is one--may also require that the local authorities test your material.  
    That said, I'd like to be on the recieving list if anyone does get
Schaarbeek cheries.  They would go well with my Belgian heritage, and I'm
sure that my father would love to plant one (or two, if they have to
cross-pollinate). 
Tom Herlache
Dept. of Agronomy
University of Wisconsin-Madison


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:58:33 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Hop ID, Rye Beer, Keg Carbonation, Counterphlow Sanitizing

A customer gave me a rhizome that he found growing wild in area of town
that may have grown hops commercially in the last century.  It is about 
10
feet high at this time and I am looking for ways to identify its variety.
 

The leaves at the base had five deeply serrated lobes.  Some had seven. 

The upper leaves have only three lobes and they are also deeply serrated.
 

The bine has five evenly spaced purple stripes about 1/64" wide going up
its length.  Any help would be appreciated!

RYE BEER
I have brewed a number of 100% rye mash beers.  The key is rice hulls.  I

have found that about one sixth of the grain bill weight in rice hulls 
will
give a good lauter.  Just mix them in with the grist before striking.  
Rye
at this level gives a earthy flavor and a "slimey" body.  Lately I have
been using rye to brew low terminal gravity beers for a diabetic friend. 
 I
give it a long, low temperature mash and further cut the final gravity 
with
cane sugar.  The gravity falls from about 35 to 4.  The rye's "slimeness"

preserves a respectable body.

KEG CARBONATION
Jay Spies ( Spies at dhcd.state.md.us) asks about carbonating in kegs.  I 
just
hook the keg to about 30 psi at room temperature, lay the keg across my
knees while sitting in a chair and rock it so that the bubble inside goes

from the bottom to the top and back for about five minutes.  It requires
very little energy and is highly effective.  As far as bubble size goes,
sure the bubbles are large at the beginning, but they will equal the
bubbles in a keg that just sits with pressure in the same time it takes 
to
carbonate it that way.  I don't believe that bubble size is permanent.

Counterphlow Sanitizing

Jerry Daoust ( thedaousts at ixpres.com) asks about sanitizing counterphlow
chillers.  This method has served me quite well and it is not dificult. 

The first thing is to keep the inside clean so it doesn't need much work
later.  To this end I rinse out the chiller with water shortly after I 
use
it using a small funnel and some hose.  I chase the water with iodophor
solution and drain out as much as I can.

When using the chiller, I hook it up to the kettle and let hot wort flow
through it without any water on.  The first cup or so to come out is
disgarded.  I recirculate the wort into the kettle until the copper of 
the
chiller is boiling hot.  This scaldes the inside surface of the chiller. 

The water is then turned on and the beer is chilled.

Dan Listermann       dan at listermann.com 72723.1707 at compuserve.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 13:58:34 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Siebel... Foam Question

What is the correct verb for the collapsing of foam?

Dan Listermann        dan at listermann.com          
72723.1707 at compuserve.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 14:11:31 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Newbie Step Mash Questions

"Ernst, Joe" <joee at gasullivan.com> writes:

>I've been asked by my father in law to make this American Premium Pilsner
>from Cats Meow.

An American Premium Pilsner is similar to a Classic American Pilsner (CAP),
something I know a bit about.  It differs in having higher adjunct levels
(as high as 35%), lower hopping (upper teens IBU), and a gravity probably
no higher than 1.048.

Were you asked to make this specific recipe or was it offered as an
example?  The ingredients seem not particularly well chosen, and the step
mash far too complicated.  You probably could not use boiling water to
raise the temperatures you'd end up with a very dilute mash - direct heat
would be necessary.

I'd suggest some changes:

>> 6 lbs Lager malt (I use 2-row, but 6-row is appropriate for the amount of
>adjuncts)

6-row would certainly be desireable considering the adjunct level.

>> 1 lb Mild ale malt

For what purpose?  It is minimally higher in color, but greatly lower in
diastatic levels.  If you want some color, use Vienna, or just skip it and
use another pound of 6-row

>> 1 lb Rice

OK, but it would do better with a cereal mash than just boiling.  Or you
could use flaked rice.

>> 1/2 lb Flaked barley

Again, I'm not sure of the reason for this ingredient, and it will increase
the likelihood of protein haze.  I'd use more malt, but it would be OK if
you want the grainy effect.  Some German Pilsners are made with "chit
malt," which is essentially the same as raw barley.  I think this is one
ingredient that would benefit from a protein rest, but it doesn't seem
worthwhile.

>> 1 lb Flaked maize

Fine.

>> 4 oz Malto-dextrin powder

Since you are mashing anyway, why not use some carapils malt?  Maybe 1/2 lb?
>>
>> Nottingham Ale yeast (dry -- I know, I NEVER use dry yeast...) or Wyeast
>#2112 California Lager (optional)

If you are going to use fermentation temperatures under 55F, then use a
lager yeast for the real thing.  I am suspicious that 2112 is any better at
warm temps than any other lager yeast.  It is used in steam beer at 60F or
so where it produces an *ale* type beer, not a lager.

>> Procedure:

I think a straight infusion using flaked rice is simpler and sufficient.
Or, use rice and corn meal/polenta/grits and do a cereal mash for both.

>> Boil rice for 30 minutes and add grains and water for mash --

A cereal mash with 1/3 as much malt before boiling will greatly improve
viscosity and probably give better conversion, too.  Or use flaked rice and
skip this step.

>> First rest at 94F for 30 minutes to help breakdown the adjuncts --

Nonsense.  How would this break down the adjuncts?  A mashin at ~100F is
helpful to hydrolyze the enzymes and as an acid rest.  But probably
unnecessary.

>> Raise temp to 122F for 30 minutes for protein degradation --

Except possibly for the flaked barley, you won't need this, and it could be
overkill.  I have done it with 22% flaked corn adjunct, though, with no
trouble,  ie, good head retention and body.

>> Raise temp to 140F for 15 minutes for better head retention and clarity --
>> Raise temp to 153F for 45 minutes for starch conversion --
>> Raise temp to 158F for 20 minutes for complete conversion --

I think you could cut out the middle step - I have.  Or, you could just do
a single rest at 153 or so.

>> Mashout at 168F for 10 minutes -- Sparge w/168F water at < 6 pH --

>How much water should be boiled with the rice, and how much, if any, of that
>water should be
>figured in as part of the strike water volume?

See above for recommendation that you use some malt and rest if at
conversion temps before boiling.  Use one gallon for each 2.5-3 lbs.  grain
(Wahl & Henius).

I'll leave the strike temps. to someone else.  I've never been very good at
hitting these except by my own experience.  You could check the archives.

Good luck

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:24:02 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: Siebel - cold break/co2 toxicity/protein rests/malt/saccharificat

siebel people_

my experience with cold break formation and removal indicates that it is
somewhat fragile and will reform more quickly if chilled wort is agitated.
for example, i recently began slowly (~1 qt/min) draining my
immersion-chilled wort from the boil kettle through a false bottom (whole
hops) and out a spigot to the primary fermentor.  some of the break material
tends to be caught in the kettle by the false bottom and hops, but a
significant portion tends to pass through and will reform in the fermentor.
there is a funnel/fine mesh screen that the wort also passes through
pre-fermentor.

i do not typically whirlpool or wait any significant amount of time from the
moment chilling ends to the start of the wort drain to the fermentor.

i have noticed that if i strongly agitate the wort in the fermentor by
shaking, rolling, and aeration through a .5 micron airstone, that the cold
break will form and precipitate much faster than if i do not agitate the
wort before pitching yeast.

what is the explanation for this phenomenon?  is it simply that cold break
rate of formation is directly proportional to agitation of the chilled wort?
is dissolving air/oxygen also a factor, or is it simply agitation?

also, am i in fact also causing hot break to redissolve during chilling and
some of that is also reforming in my fermentor?

****************
different question: has siebel any stance on the subject of co2 toxicity and
its relevance to small scale brewing?
****************
different question:  what is the siebel attitude toward protein rests and
necessity of same in light of current typical base malt characteristics?
****************
different question:  what is your opinion of the variability in world malt
suppliers' products as it relates to authentic recipe formulation, with cost
taken out of the consideration?  i.e., how close can a brewer get to a
traditional czech pils with north american base malts, etc.?
****************
please critique the following statement:  "i saccharify all my beers at 158
deg. f to promote more body, mouthfeel, and sweetness."

thanks in advance (thanks, j. gump - hey, do you have a seven hump wump?)

brew hard,

mark bayer
stlmo


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 15:25:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: phytate, phosphate, water pH ...etc.



- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu>

AJ continues the phosphate/carbonate thread...

"Alan comments on the mysteries surrounding the phosphate reaction. In
simplified form it is:

                                               H+
H+               Ca++
                                               ^
^                    \
             phytase                      /
/                      \->
phytin -----------> H2PO4-  ---->  HPO4--  ---->  PO4---
 - ------>Ca3(PO4)2

i.e. the enzyme phytase frees inorganic phosphate from organic phytin.
(Thanks to Al K for suggesting this way of diagramming). Some of this
sheds protons to become phosphate (PO4---). In the presence of calcium a
precipitate is formed and this results in conversion of more H2PO4- and
HPO4-- to phosphate throwing off protons along the way. These protons
overcome  the alkalinity (buffering capacity) of the  water and are
responsible for the reduction in pH. It's not really a buffering action.
The more calcium the more phosphate will."

________________________________________________________________________
I can't quite make out this diagram, did it just get offset by my browser?

Firstly, it looks like you are showing protons being released as a result of
the phytase/phytin reaction but I don't think this will be happening. Phytin
(aka "myo-inositol hexakisdihydrogen phosphate" or "InsP6") is basically the 
6-carbon sugar inositol which has a phosphate group esterified to each of the
6 ring positions of the sugar. This is apparently the major storage form of
phosphate for most cereals and legumes (up to 1% to 5% of the grain weight)
so my earlier guess that barley might be using inorganic polyphosphate as the
major storage form was incorrect. Phytin is the enzyme that acts to liberate
phosphate from phytate and, interrestingly enough, seems to be present in many
organisms including we humans! But I digress... though I haven't yet seen the
reaction mechanism for phytase it's a pretty safe bet that it is catalyzing
hydrolysis of the ester linkage using water to attack the phosphorus. Another
possibility is attack of the sugar's carbon to displace the phosphate but in
either case it doesn't seem to me that any net gain or loss of protons will
occur. When water attacks the phosphorus part of the water (OH) will go with
the phosphate leaving group, while the other part (H) will go to the sugar
oxygen thus the overall reaction is net neutral - so I don't believe this part
of the reaction will lower the mash pH. The reaction between the liberated
phosphate and calcium will be liberating protons and it is probably this part
of the reaction that is serving to lower the mash pH. Also interesting is the
fact that, as one might expect, phytate is an excellent chelator of divalent
metal cations such as Zn++ Fe++ and........ Ca++  So, it may be that there is
enough Ca present associated with the phytase itself to effect the pH lowering
once the phosphate is released by phytin. [Another aside - it turns out that
phytate is so good at mopping up and holding onto these metals that if one's
diet contains enough raw grains you can actually suffer from mineral
deficiencies. Apparently this is a big deal to large farms and there have been
attempts to add bacterially derived phytase to feed meals to free up the
metals.] I am curious as to whether or not phytase requires Ca or some other
metal ion to function - anyone know?
  


The three pKa's for phosphate are 12.7, 6.7, and approximately 1.0  so it will
be nigh on impossible for any "PO4---" to form as indicated. At neutral pH 
though there will be close to a 50-50 mix of protonated and unprotonated
oxygen for the one with the 6.8 pKa and this is the one we will be messing
around with in our mashing systems. The oxygen with the pKa around 1.0 will
pretty much always be negatively charged and almost never get protonated. 
_____________________________________________________________________________
 


"Alan comments that he was sparging with alkaline water based on the pH
of 8.5 -9. Note that alkalinity and pH are not the same thing. In fact
the alkalinity of Alan's tap watrer is probably about 80 ppm as CaCO3
which is not very alkaline at all." 
_______________________________________________________________________
When I called my water "alkaline" I was in fact referring to it's pH.

Based on the common nomenclature for aqueous solutions:
	pH = 7.0 is "neutral" (equal concentrations of H+ and OH-) 
	anything below pH = 7 is "acidic" (more H+ than OH-) 
	anything higher than pH = 7 is "alkaline" (more OH- than H+)

When my water has a pH of 8 or 9 it is an alkaline solution regardless of
the reactions or species present that have caused OH- to outnumber H+ 
This is apparently different than the way the term "alkalinity" is  used
by people in municipal water treatment plants, etc...
_______________________________________________________________________



"Adding gypsum to this water will not
reduce the alkalinity nor increase it. It is probably not necessary to
acidify this water for sparge. As it isn't very alkaline the acid
released by the phytin reaction will probably keep the pH below 6 to the
point where the runoff is down to 2 - 4 P. Try it." 
_______________________________________________________________________
Hmmmmm I don't know, it seems that as the sparge continues you will be washing
out the phosphate and phytase. Will it get to the point where there is too
little buffering capacity to maintain a reasonably low pH? I haven't actually
measured it  but I've certainly read many warnings to watch out for this,
especially if you are being really greedy and conducting long sparges some
references even advocate monitoring the sparge pH and to use this reather
than S.G to determine when to halt the sparge. My approach has been to
acidify the water - it takes only a tiny amount of acid and then I don't have
to worry about alkaline sparges at all. 


 -Alan Meeker
Baltimore




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 17:14:32 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Aerobically grown starters

There's been a few posts recently on growing starters that are
allowed some level of exposure to the air to maximize yeast growth. 
When using this technique, a point that I think should be made is
that it is desirable to prepare a starter wort of a higher gravity
than you otherwise would if your starters are grown anaerobically. 
BTW, if I'm getting myself in trouble here, maybe some of our budding
microbiologist friends can help me out.  I always wondered why Wyeast
recommends that starters be prepared with a 1.020 wort.  I would
think that if you give the yeast more food (up to a point) that
you'll get more yeast.  But, in an anaerobic starter, the yeast is
going to run out of O2 before it runs out of its carbohydrate source
unless the gravity is kept low.  That's why you want to pitch lots
yeast with good sterol reserves into your beer.  The yeast will still
continue to divide, but producing offspring with diminished sterol
reserves and eventually weakened cell walls.  You may still end up
with a lot yeast in your starter, but it will be in a weakened state.
 So, I am guessing that Wyeast recommends that you prepare a 1.020
wort to minimize cell growth in a depleted O2 environment.  But, if
you are growing your starters aerobically, then there's no such
limit.  And to achieve the maximum amount of viable yeast, the
starter gravity can be increased beyond the recommendations for
anaerobic starters.  How high can you go?  Don't know.  I used to
follow the Wyeast recommendation and wondered why I was getting so
little yeast.  I tried 1.040 worts grown with an airlock, and didn't
get that much yeast either.  Now, I'm growing 1.040 worts with foil
covering the tops of the flasks and getting lots more yeast.  No, I
haven't taken any measurements yet on yeast volume.  Maybe I'll try
two starters next time since by batch size is 10 gallons and just
grow one with foil and the other with an airlock and track how long
it takes each to ferment out and measure the volume of yeast.

Cheers


Dave Humes                             >>humesdg1 at earthlink.net<<




Return to table of contents

---