---

	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:
  Mash, Mashout,Sparge temperatures and lauter pH,washing, (Dave Burley)
  RE: chill haze ("Joe O'Meara")
  brewkettles ("Joe O'Meara")
  POBS II  (part 4) ("Alan Meeker")
  RIMS ("Matt Hollingsworth")
  AC motor speed regulation (patrick finerty)
  windscreens for burner.. (hal)
  POBS II (part 5) ("Alan Meeker")
  Water ("Strom C. Thacker")
  Re: Dave Burley's reply to yeast starters (JDPils)
  Florida (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
  cloning brews (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
  Parti-gyle brewing (Brad McMahon)
  re: sparge monitoring, Czech methods ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  starch (Marc Sedam)
  Iron in brewing ("Alan Meeker")
  Kudos to Lynne ("Paul Smith")
  Re:brewing book, POBS, plambic (Jim Liddil)
  cider ("Nigel Porter")
  Re: more czech notes (Jeff Renner)
  geography/esters ("Bayer, Mark A")
  Re: starch (Jeff Renner)
  Decoction & hopbacks ("Jim Busch")
  Iron and Aluminum pots (Jonathan Peakall)


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

* Entries for the 18th Annual HOPS competition are due 3/24-4/2/00 
* See http://www.netaxs.com/~shady/hops/ for more information

* 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th
* More info at:  http://www.hotv.org/fest2000

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 FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req at hbd.org.

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



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


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:24:52 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Mash, Mashout,Sparge temperatures and lauter pH,washing,

Brewsters:

Del says that Fix says the 170F maximum sparge temperature is due to
preventing tannin extraction and asks if I haven't read Fix's books. I
plead guilty to not having read all of Fix's books as, in many cases,  I
read the original or nearly original technical sources before Fix ever
wrote a word. I don't know if George really said that keeping the
temperature below 170F was to prevent tannin extraction or not, but the
real reason is to prevent forming a starch haze, since the alpha amylase
begins to poop out as it begins to get denatured and can't remove any
starch which gets released from the hard ends of the malt as the
temperature gets raised above this.

This final mashout raise in temperature has several reasons. 1) One is to
improve the efficiency of the mash by utilizing as much of the available
starch ( perhaps because it has a different gelatinization temperature and
needs a higher temp to get solubilized)  as can be extracted in the time
limits of the mash, 2) decrease the lauter viscosity to improve the rate of
extraction, 3) knock out beta amylase to stabilize the attenuation of the
wort and 4) denature other enzymes such as beta glucanases - which can
affect lauter viscosity, clarity of the beer and efficiency. It is a
mistake to just focus on the saccharification enzymes alone as many do when
discussing the mashout.  

If Jim Busch said that Beta amylase can survive to 167F, I'd have to ask
him for the conditons and for how long and for his reference source. I am
sure some of it survives as its unimolecular disapperance is likely
negative exponential vs time in nature, so some always survives ( function
never goes to exactly zero) in this kinetic model , but in practical terms
how much and for how long?

Typically, the practical saccharification [forming sugars] range ( where
beta amylase has an impact and alpha amylase is active and you are above
the gelatinization temperature [ around 149F] of most barley starch)  is
given as 150 -158F. Higher enzyme pilsner and paler barley malts can push
this practical range higher to around 162F, as we often see in the German
literature and practice.

I Have yet to find a source that gives beta amylase lifetime in a wort as a
function of temperature in a simple plot ( but would love to see it). I am
sure it is an extremely difficult measurement in practical worts, but the
best implications from existing data that I have seen suggests about 15 -
30 minutes at 158F and perhaps 2 hours or longer at 150F. At the higher
temperature the rates are higher and compensate to some extent, but not
completely,  for the shorter lifetime. This is why wort attenuation
potential varies with mashing temperature.  Lifetime and rates of reaction
are dependent on wort stiffness and sugar concentration and other wort
conditions. 

Measuring the pH of the lautered wort is not an acceptable method for
monitoring the efficiency of the extraction as the sparge water, depending
on the source, being put in at the top can be reacting with the wort,
overpowering the buffers near the end of the lauter and you can still have
sugar in the grains and the pH can be above 5.8 or whatever and you will
get increased tannin extraction.  Much better to add acid to the sparge
water to drop its pH to 5.6 or so and monitor the effluent from the lauter
tun with Clinitest or specific gravity. Monitoring the pH is a good idea
just to be sure you are not extracting tannins, but it is not a good method
to ensure extraction efficiency as Del suggests.

Del, just to be clear, I am not attacking you personally as your crack
about SteveA being next to jump on your submission might suggest to some.
When I realized that I had so many comments on your earlier <long and far
ranging> epistle, I realized it might look like some kind of attack, but
judged that you would understand it was not. I tried to point out during my
comments that  many of your suggestions and techniques  are correct. I am
just commenting on your interpretations and extrapolations which some may
find misleading and I find incorrect without further explanation.
- --------------------------------------------
Todd Larson has a conical fermenter and wonders about keeping recovered
yeast and wants to ignore the advice to wash yeast. You  can ignore this
and get away with it sometimes, but remember that the beery yeast you
collect has lots of food for bacteria. So if you are going to keep it for a
while, I suggest a wash.  It really is easy. Cool the slurry in the fridge,
drain off the beer, pour in some cold boiled water, back in the fridge,
repeat a couple of times in the next few days and pour into a beer bottle
and cap. Keep in the fridge.
- ---------------------------------------------
William Tobler asks about the etiquette of submitting a beer from a recipe
he garnered from the web or maybe Charlie Pap or somewhere else. Yep it is
OK.  As you saw from the national brewoff none of the beers made from the
same recipe were exactly the same. It is not a bad idea to give the
originator some of the credit, however, but only if you win the gold
medal!.
- ---------------------------------------------
Lynne agan thanks for your fine information. 

"party gyle" is spelled parti-gyle most often.  Meaning, as you suggested, 
a portion ( a part)  of a boiled but unfermented wort from various kettles
is blended to form beers of different strengths after fermentation from the
same brewing session.  This was used in the old days more often to produce
full beers, table beers and small beers from the same batch. Now it is most
often used in brewpubs and in homebrewing in the US and the like to make a
barleywine and regular lower alcohol beer from the same batch.
- ---------------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley 


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:27:56 -0800 (PST)
From: "Joe O'Meara" <drumthumper_2000 at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: chill haze

"Chris Schmidt" <Chris.Schmidt at bannerhealth.com>
Wrote:
>Any suggestions on how to clear up a chill haze?  

Lager it at about 35 F for three weeks, the chill haze
will drop out




=====
Joe O'Meara
Mad Dwarf Brewery (AKA my kitchen and coat closet)
ICQ # 60722006
http://homebrew.4mg.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:30:02 -0800 (PST)
From: "Joe O'Meara" <drumthumper_2000 at yahoo.com>
Subject: brewkettles

Fellow HBDers,

I've been toying with the notion of drilling a hole in
my 5 gallon stainless steel brew kettle and attaching
a spigot.  Any suggestions?

=====
Joe O'Meara
Mad Dwarf Brewery (AKA my kitchen and coat closet)
ICQ # 60722006
http://homebrew.4mg.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:32:12 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: POBS II  (part 4)

POBS II  (part 4)

Yeast Biology/ fermentation
- ---------------------------

Overall, the presentation of glycolysis is clearer and more complete than it
was in POBS I.  For each step the relevant enzymes are presented as well as
their respective cofactors which helps the reader see the improtance of
these substances. However, more quantitative details would have been useful
here. For instance, Fix says that "calcium is inhibitory to yeast growth in
excess" but gives the reader no clues as to what concentartion of calcium
constitutes an "excess."  Likewise, the presence of adequate zinc is
"crucial" but how much is necessary and at what level might zinc become
inhibitory?

In several places Fix confuses the cell wall with the cell membrane. Sterols
are not important constintuents of the cell wall and do not serve to
modulate the cell wall's permeability though sterols do serve these
functions in the cell membrane. Also, it is the membrane where the sugar
transport proteins such as the maltose permease are located not the cell
wall. The cell wall itself is made up of only 3 main componenets :
glycosylated proteins, beta glucans, and chitin. The cell wall does play a
major role in the process of flocculation and more certainly could have been
included on this important topic.

It is stated that as fermentation slows, sterol levels drop to 0.1%. This
seems to imply that sterols are decreasing as a /result/ of the slowing of
fermentation but this is putting the cart before the horse. Sterols may
indeed become  growth-limiting in a sterol-free anaerobic environment since
they will become diluted out as the population increases in sizebut sterol
levels drop as a consequence of cell division not fermentation rate.

The "birth scar" theory of yeast multiplication is one carry over from POBS
I that is especially unfortunate as it was out of date at the time of its
inclusion in the first edition. In fact, it is not even stated correctly.  A
birth scar is located on the /daughter cell/ following division not the
mother cell. What yeast mother cells accumulate on their cell walls is
called a "bud scar."  The bud scar theory of yeast aging was discredited
long ago. While bud scars do serve as useful markers for the replicative
"age" of a yeast mother cell they almost certainly do not contribute
significantly to the decrease in fermentative capacity of aged yeasts.

Respiratory-deficient yeast mutants are not characterized by "Their ability
to respire in an oxygen-saturated carbohydrate medium."  As the name
implies, respiratory-deficient mutants are /defective/  in their ability to
perform arerobic respiration.





Return to table of contents


Date: 23 Mar 2000 11:44:51 -0800
From: "Matt Hollingsworth" <colorart at spiritone.com>
Subject: RIMS

I have some specific questions regarding RIMS in general and a specific 
model in particular.

Advanced Brewing Technology produces a RIMS setup that I'm looking at.  Any
concerns, comments, problems or advice are welcome.  I am NOT a tinkerer,
though, and am not going to make my own system, so please don't send me
advice on how to construct my own system.

Some questions:

Do RIMS pumps work without introducing oxygen into the mash?

This particular setup has a mash paddle at the bottom of the keg that turns
at 3 1/2 rpm, stirring the mash for even temperature.  Their literature says
it won't introduce O2, but is that true?  I mean, it may not introduce air,
but will it cause the air that's already in the wort to be agitated causing
HSA anyway?

Another thing; I thought one of the benefits of RIMS was that it was
recirculated for quite a long time, which results in a very clear runoff.
Seems to me the paddle eliminates that by stirring, but I guess you can turn
it off towards the end and recirculate for a long time after that to get
clear wort.

Anybody on here that uses this sytem or any other, please gimme some insight
as to what you're happy with and what you're unhappy with.  I may invest in
one of these, but I don't want to if it's going to result in bad, oxidized
beer.

Thanks in advance for any help.  You can either e-mail me directly or post
here.

Cheers!

 -Matt


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:01:08 -0500 (EST)
From: patrick finerty <zinc at zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca>
Subject: AC motor speed regulation

howdy folks,

i have a question for the electrically inclined. i recently obtained
an AC motor from a discarded piece of lab equipment. the motor works
great (it already had a 3-prong plug connected to it) and looks brand
new. it is 1/2 hp and 3180 rpm. 

i want to use this motor to drive my Valley Mill. obviously, 3180 rpm
is too fast and the speed needs to be reduced to 300 rpm or lower. i
see two ways to do this. the first would be to use a couple of pulleys
linked by a belt to reduce the speed. as far as i recall from my
physics classes, all i need is a 10:1 ratio for the radii of the two
pulleys. this is actually a pain in the ass since it seems hard to
find (from the McMaster-Carr site) pulleys that are bigger than 9
inches and smaller than 1.5 inches.

the other solution is simply to reduce the speed of the motor. i don't
know if this is possible. clearly it's possible to reduce the current
going to an AC appliance such as a light using a dimmer (rheostat i
guess). however, i don't know if this applies to a motor or not.

so, is it possible to reduce the speed of this motor? will a simple
rheostat do the trick?

also, if anyone knows of a good source for pullies in Toronto, i'd
love to hear about them.

 -patrick in toronto
- -- 
       "There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
 Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer
	      finger pfinerty at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key
		 http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:41:59 -0600
From: hal <hwarrick at springnet1.com>
Subject: windscreens for burner..

I just have a old piece of sheet metal
that I bent into a tube that wraps around the
burner base. Only have a 7" open area for
the propane connection. It fits snugly to
the bottom of the brewkeg.


Hal Warrick



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:54:15 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: POBS II (part 5)

POBS II   (part 5)

Beer flavor and quality:
- ------------------------
Within the section on bacteria and bacterial metabolism there is this
peculiar statement; "In fact, a case can be made that the small number of
bacteria that cause flavor problems in beer actually increase its nutritive
value. For example, the version of brewer's yeast sold in health food stores
contains nontrivial levels of gram-negative rods and cocci"  If such a case
can be made it is apt  to be mighty weak! The health food store example is
likely an indication of the less stringent quality control processes
involved in the yeasts' production.

Fix cites Budweiser's apple-like tone as an example of an ester's
(presumably ethyl hexanoate) contribution to flavor. Every other source I've
ever seen (including Fix's own AOBT) attributes this characteristic of
Budweiser as being due to its acetaldehyde content. Indeed, the BJCP study
guide lists Budweiser as an example of acetaldehyde for taste training.

In describing mechanisms for fusel alcohol production one could easily get
the wrong impression that the only products of the Ehrlich pathway are the
oxoacids derived from wort amino acids. Fig. 3.2 is especially misleading in
this respect.  The deamination of the amino acids is simply the first of
three enzymatically-catalyzed steps that make up the Ehrlich pathway.

The chemical flow diagram (Fig. 3.3)  illustrating the pathway of diacetyl
formation but is somewhat confusing. The acetolactate intermediate is shown
arising solely from acetaldehyde. Also, this acetolactate is a precursor for
the amino acid valine which is included in the diagram but no indication is
given of this connection, an important one as it has implications for the
formation of diacetyl. The pathway for valine formation from acetolactic
acid is later given (Fig. 3.4) but shows only one of the two intermediates
in the sequence.

Some of the graphs in the section on fining agents seem inconsistent or are
mislabeled. For instance, in Fig. 5.1 which charts the formation of chill
haze over time there is essentially no new chill haze formation seen till 5
weeks out,  yet Fig. 5.2  shows a steady increase in chill haze over this
same time period even though PVPP has been added as a fining agent in this
case. Then, in Fig. 5.3 one sees a /greater/ increase in tannoid levels over
time for the sample with the most added PVPP.





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 20:48:24 -0500
From: "Strom C. Thacker" <sthacker at bu.edu>
Subject: Water

I recently received a mineral analysis of my local tap water, and I'm 
hoping one of the water experts out there can give me some guidance 
on its suitability for brewing various beer styles.

There are lots of items listed, so I'll try to limit it to the ones 
that seem to be discussed most (all but pH are measured in ppm):

Alkalinity		28.5
Calcium		3.6
Chloride		13.9
Chlorine, free	0.08
Chlorine, total	2.05
Hardness		12
Magnesium	0.722
pH		8.9
Sodium		20.1
Sulfate		6.7
Total dissolved solids    70

Should I be worried about the relatively high pH?  Does anything else 
seem out of balance?

Thanks,

Strom Thacker
Newton, MA


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:23:45 EST
From: JDPils at aol.com
Subject: Re: Dave Burley's reply to yeast starters

Dave,

Thanks for the input.  I think you are correct and these starters are fine, 
just not text book in appearance.  I also think when buying extract their are 
many variables.  In response to your suggestions I have the following 
information.

1)  Check for sugar content - On one starter I did this with a hydrometer and 
the gravity went down to 1.030 from 1.060 in two days.  I also have an LED 
thermometer on one of my 1 gallon starter jugs.  

2)  Check for yeast build up - Yes this did occur and when agitating the 
container foam rises up as well on all starters.  The starter is also very 
cloudy.

3)  Wait longer between stepping up - I agree with fresh yeast from the brew 
shop, but I would still expect yeast from a previous batch to work faster.  I 
usually wait two days on the initial step from a standard Wyeast pack

4)  Final Gravities - Yes for the most part I am OK here but I would like to 
see higher attenuation on the munich style lagers.  This may be totally 
unrelated to the yeast at this point in my process and I am alos looking 
elsewhere.

5) Sanitation - From what I have read this is the recommended amount.  I have 
done this for 11 years now, so while I appreciate the suggestions of other 
sanitizers, I will wait to change this.  I have several other improvements I 
would undertake first in my brewery first.

6)  Amylase Enzyme - I used this on 1/2 gal of double bock to see if I could 
reduce the gravity further and it did from the mid 20's to 14.  What this 
proved to me when I added the yeast from this to a container of starter is 
that the enzyme broke the dextrins and/or other unfermentable sugars down to 
fermentable ones.  Initially this starter behaved like the others but then 
after several days really took off.  

Two questions on amylase enzyme are:  1)  Does this meet the German Purity 
Law and 2)  Is the reaction a function of amount added or will a very small 
amount break down an indefinate amount of dextrin?  I like the idea of using 
it to drop my final gravities by 10% on Munich beers.

Thanks again for the advice.

Cheers,

Jim Dunlap
Woodinville WA

  





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:11:21 +0100
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
Subject: Florida

Hello,

I'm making a trip in West, South and East Florida next month (April / May)
and would like to know if there are any breweries or brew-pubs in the area,
which are not mentioned on the Internet, but I shouldn't miss?
Private E-mail OK:  hoorns at hopbier.myweb.nl

Greetings from Holland, Hans Aikema
http://www.hopbier.myweb.nl/





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:47:18 +0100
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
Subject: cloning brews


William Tobler wrote >My feelings are that you should only submit a beer
that is original, but I may be in left field<

In my opinion you can enter a competition with any beer you brewed yourself.
On my website about beerrecipies, I made a remark that I think it is
inpossible to clone a beer. I think there are to many uncertainties
(different raw materials, different water, different equipment, different
way of work, different .....). So I see a recipe as a guide or source of
inspiration. 

Greetings from Holland, Hans Aikema
http://www.hopbier.myweb.nl/





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:33:23 +1030
From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Parti-gyle brewing

In HBD 3279 Lynne O'Connor wrote:

>Couple of more details about Fullers brewing.  They 'party gyle' which I
>think basically means  Chiswick, London Pride, and ESB are all made from the
>same mash or kettle.  Perhaps someone could explain party gyle.

No problem. Parti-gyle really quite simple. It is the art of making a
few beers 
from one grist. It is an old technique where you "mash" three times or
sometimes more.
After the first mash you pull off a beer of approx 1100, then the tun is
refilled
and drained to get a beer of approx 1070-80 and a third time to get a
beer of 1040-1050.

Randy Mosher wrote an in-depth article in Brewing Techniques March/April
1994 which is still
available at
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.2/mosher.html

I also wrote about it in HBD #3097 but not to such detail. I stil
haven't done it, if anyone has
let us all know how it went!

Brad McMahon
Aldgate, South Australia


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:13:20 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: re: sparge monitoring, Czech methods

Alan says->>As far as I'm aware, the rise in pH is simply an indicator of
the fact that
phosphates (the major buffering species in the mash) have been
significantly
leeched out of the grain bed. I don't see how this is any better or worse
an
indicator of when to end the sparge than using specific gravity.<<

   Neither better or worse was my point exactly. Both the pH and SG can be
used to indicate when the buffers have been too diluted to avoid tannin
extraction.  But if the sparge water is acidified then the pH becomes void
as an indicator was the point I was making. In practical terms, nearly 100%
of brewers have a hydrometer, proabably less than 25% have a pH meter.
Which intrument will produce the most good for the most brewers? After all
it would take 2 bags of  grain saved to pay for a pH meter. I have one and
use it after the fact just to confirm, what I had already decided by
tasting the wort, was the correct 'end of run-off'. It did take a few brews
using the pH meter to learn what the wort tastes like at SG 1008 to be able
to do that with confidence.

 .......................................
Lynn brings us an enlightening report from overseas, but I wonder....
>>First Wort Hopping (moving last hop addition to first wort) is not
practiced in Czech Republic but the first hop addition is indeed before
kettle so that boil is reached about same time lauter is finished.  First
hop
addition coincided with putting heat to kettle.  So first hops weren't
boiling for at least 45 minutes.  <<
  Sounds a lot like first wort hopping to me. Unless I misunderstand your
post of first wort hopping.
FWH is where hops are added to the kettle while the wort is run-off and
steep during the lauter. 
The difference may be just semantics, but you didn't mention any hops added
at the end of boil, during the whirlpool or in the hop back (theirs sounds
like a hop strainer). This is a recent topic and there isn't a lot of info
on FWH so I expect a little confusion, I not trying to rip on you; it is
nice to have a first hand report on their methods. Is it a "national pride"
that makes them say "FWH is German, we do it different here," ? Nor am I
ripping the Czech brewers, I haven't met a Czech beer I didn't like :-) It
is nice to know they follow my same practice of 3 equal hop additions. My
practice developed out of laziness, one hop calculation, add that amount 3
times. Hmm, maybe I'm part Czech. 

(mental note: no more double espresso for breakfast.)
     Del 


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:05:51 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: starch

Jeff Renner wrote:

You're right that corn and rice starch will not gelatinize
at mash
temperatures.  However, there are several factors that make
the whole
picture not as simple as that.  First, starch granules are
ruptured in the
milling process and this makes them available to solulize in
water, which
is what gelatinization is.  I coarsely mill my rice in a
Corona mill into
"grits," maybe 1 mm pieces.  Secondly, I suspect there may
well be
enzymatic processes going on other than amalytic that make
the mash more
liquid.

At any rate, you can see it get more liquid (do use
sufficient water) with
time.  "<snip>

Jeff, I'm not sure that the granules are ruptured much in
milling.  In fact, most milling (especially corn) is
designed specifically to avoid rupturing the granules.  That
would increase the viscosity of the milling process and, to
be scientifically accurate, "muck things up".  The mash
could appear to get more liquid due to the uptake of water
during starch granule swelling (thickening mash) and
eventual release of that water again as the starch granules
gelatinize.

If you were to measure the viscosity of a pure starch mash,
it would start low (dispersion of granules in liquid), peak
as the granules swelled (you can hold it here with low
amounts of water), then a drop to a final viscosity of the
gelatinized starch in solution.  The final viscosity won't
drop down to the baseline.  Of course in a brewing mash the
amylases are working all the while, which helps both
gelatinization and lowering of overall viscosity.

Does anyone else want to visit Phil's pool room?

Cheers!
Marc
Baron of Gelatinization


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:23:12 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Iron in brewing

I try to avoid iron like the plague in my brewing. However, it is
interesting to note that, according to Michael Jackson, DeKoninck is
actually boiled in a /cast iron/ kettle!! Go figure.

 -Alan Meeker




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:27:09 -0600
From: "Paul Smith" <pksmith_morin at msn.com>
Subject: Kudos to Lynne

Kudos to Lynne O'Connor for some wonderful "on the scene" reportage and
independent thought over the course of time.  For my money, a pence of
practice beats a ton of text any day of the week!

Paul








Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:34:19 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at VMS.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re:brewing book, POBS, plambic

I ordered the hornsey book from amazon.com  $50.

I read the POBS2 right after it came out.  Alan Meeker is right about the
errors and omissions.  Poor job of proofing in my view.  For the price
there are better books to be had.

> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:42:55 -0500 (EST)
> From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net>
> Subject: Souring A Fruit Beer
> 
> 4335	Lactobacillus delbrueckii
> 4733	Pediococcus cerevisiae
> 3278	Belgian Lambic blend
> 3112	Brett. bruxellensis
> 3526	Brettanomyces lambicus
> 
> >From reading the descriptions of each of these, the 3526 sounds like the
> best choice. I'd like to hear about experiences with each.
> 

Descriptions are one thing, actual results are another. I suggest you do a
careful reading of the LD archives.  Either brett (actually dekkera) will
cause sourness.  This can be *somewhat* controlled by oxygen levels as
this leads the yeast to produce acetic acid.  I have had results all over
the board using each and all of the above as well as the
pediococcus bacteria from Rodenbach.  YMMV.


Jim Liddil
North Haven, CT






Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:35:50 -0000
From: "Nigel Porter" <nigel at sparger.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: cider

>Two out of three.  The West Country style is certainly still/dry, but if
>you're getting "murky" cider you'd do better to look elsewhere.  It 
>will likely be unfiltered and un-fined, which means that it won't be
>"bright",

Agreed that ciders vary in their clarity, but there are some that are 
definitly murky - not necessarily at fault though.

>Nigel, you're laying it on a bit thick.

Yes I was...

>Yes, you'll find cider in some interesting and old places, but if it 
>looks dubious or dirty you're probably going to be disappointed.  
>We've tried places that are off-the- path and a bit "funky" as we'd 
>say...some of them have good cider
 
Agreed that sometimes you find a really rank cider, but not too often.

Have you tried Kent ciders, totally differernt from the west country 
type? It's amazing the number of farms in Kent that just seem to 
have two crops hops & apples .

Nigel
Guildford, UK


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:41:03 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: more czech notes

Lynne O'Connor <stpats at realtime.net> writes more about her trip to Europe
(and thanks, Lynne, for these great reports).  Some questions and comments:

>First Wort Hopping (moving last hop addition to first wort) is not
>practiced in Czech Republic but the first hop addition is indeed before
>kettle so that boil is reached about same time lauter is finished.  First hop
>addition coincided with putting heat to kettle.

The fact that the description of FWHing being the moving of last hops (or
half of them) to the wort before boiling is only the way it has been
recently described in its rediscovery.  If you were to come onto the
practice without knowing that this addition was with hops that had formerly
been added near the end of the boil, you would think it was just the first
addition.  (Now I'm not at all sure I've made myself clear).

>So first hops weren't
>boiling for at least 45 minutes.

This confuses me.  FWHs are steeped at lauter temperature (~76C) for the
time of the lauter, I suppose typically 60-90 minutes, then the boiled with
the main hops.  Does PU begin heating the runoff as soon as it is collected
or do they wait until the lautering is over?  When does the wort begin to
boil?  Are the first hops added 45 minutes before the kettle is full?
Please clarify.

About yeast:

>Pilsner Urquell has their own as does Budvar.

Many years ago I read somewhere that PU used three different strains of
yeast in separate batches which were later blended.  One was tuti-fruity, I
can't remember the characteristics of the others.  Can you confirm this?

>I'm not sure but I think you can hit 3C in most home fridges at the
>lowest setting.

My lagering fridge (a fairly new Whirlpool budget model a friend got rid
of) maintains 0 to -1C at a setting of just under 3 on a scale of 1-5.  My
old one (avacado green, 35 years old at least), which has gone to another
brewer, would freeze a keg if I wasn't careful.

>I know there has been just a little discussion about diacetyl in Czech
>beers ;-)

How much diacetyl does fresh PU have?  I would guess at least some, but not
at the levels of "Diacetylator" that we get here.  Is it a noticeable part
of the profile if you look for it?

Thanks again for your reports.

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, 24 Mar 2000 07:38:38 -0800
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: geography/esters

collective homebrew conscience_

as a uiuc alum, and a native of gallatin county, illinois, something struck
me (OUCH) in joel plutchak's recent post:

>Brewin' and computin' in south-central Illinois

don't you mean east-central illinois? are you from the chicago area? i ask
only because while i attended uiuc, chicago area natives commonly shared the
belief that champaign was "southern" illinois. of course, those of us who
came "up" to champaign (from egypt) believed we were surely within sight of
santa's dwelling.

and so the push for rennerian coordinates must be strengthened. (c-u is
roughly 02:09:44S, 04:32:03W)
************
beer question:

does the potential for ester and other byproduct formation, as a function of
temperature, decrease as a fermentation progresses? in other words, if i
have a pilsner fermenting strongly at 50 degf, and the temperature rises to
say, 58 degf, on the 4th or 5th day, am i still running as great a risk of
ester formation as if i had started the ferment at 58 degf?

brew hard,

mark bayer
stl mo
rennerian (03:38:21S, 06:30:48W)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:42:33 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: starch

At 9:05 AM -0500 3/24/00, Marc Sedam wrote:
> I'm not sure that the granules are ruptured much in
>milling.  In fact, most milling (especially corn) is
>designed specifically to avoid rupturing the granules.

Thanks for these thoughts.   I'm only guessing about what happens in a
cereal mash of uncooked corn or rice.  The part about damaged starch
granules is from my reading of bakery science texts.  It is apparently
starch so liberated that is acted upon by the amylase that is added to
flour.  This provides sugars for yeast to feed on during long fermentation
(rising).  So in wheat flour damaged starch is desireable.  Of course, when
I mill my rice in my Corona, I don't take any care to do anything except
mill the stuff!

So this raises the question, why do my corn and rice mashes get sweet after
a 20-30 minute mash, before I boil them?  There is evidently some starch
that is gelatinized and then converted.  This also leads to some Maillard
reactions in the boil.

>That
>would increase the viscosity of the milling process and, to
>be scientifically accurate, "muck things up".

Viscosity of the *milling* process?  Is that a typo?  I don't understand.
Milling is a dry process; I think of viscosity as referring to liquids.
Can you elaborate?

I've just checked the only reference I have on the subject, Chapter 11
"Corn Dry Milling: Processes, Products and Applications" by Alexander, R.J.
in _Corn: Chemistry and Technology_ (sorry I don't have more info on the
text, it's from a photocopy of the one chapter my friend Christine the rice
scientist sent me - did you know that there are PhD's in cereal
chemistry?).  Nothing is mentioned about avoiding starch granule damage,
but this could be inferred by the fact that milling strives to attain the
largest possible chunks of pure endosperm (grits).  It would be where the

I must confess, however, that I am groping here.  I'm not sure, for
instance, how pure corn starch is refined, but I think it's by washing, and
I also think that this must be undamaged granules or the starch would be
soluble and not just stay in suspension.

>If you were to measure the viscosity of a pure starch mash,
>it would start low (dispersion of granules in liquid), peak
>as the granules swelled (you can hold it here with low
>amounts of water), then a drop to a final viscosity of the
>gelatinized starch in solution.  The final viscosity won't
>drop down to the baseline.  Of course in a brewing mash the
>amylases are working all the while, which helps both
>gelatinization and lowering of overall viscosity.

But doesn't pure corn starch get thicker, not thinner as you boil it, and
stay that way?  I wouldn't think the amylases would be working during the
boil.

I've just found this from _Rice: Chemistry and Technology_ , Chapter 17,
Rice in brewing, Yoshizawa, K and Kishi, S., 639 (also from a chapter
photocopy Christine sent me so I have no further info):

"Before being combined with the main mash, cereal adjuncts containing
starch in its native form have to be boiled ... to cause the starch to
swell, gelatinize, and partially liquify, which renders them susceptible to
attack by malt diastatic enzymes during mashing.  A small amount of ground
malt (5-10% of the total adjuncts) is usually added to the cereal cooker to
make the starch granules more fluid."

Also from p. 640 about milling:

"Breweries are often advised to install a rice mill that is able to grind
rice grits to a uniform, small size.  A typical result of screening
analysis after grinding is 2% on No. 14 (>1.40 mm), 34% on No. 18
(1.01-1.40 mm), 43% on No. 30 (0.61-1.00) and 21% fines (<0.60)."

Note that this is about what I said in my previous post that I aim for (~1
mm).  I would think that starch granule rupture would occur in milling to
this size, especially in the fines, but I have no evidence of this.  The
text does not mention anything about it.

Also, as a sidelight, regarding my writing that short and medium grain is
preferable (pp 640-641):

"... the long grain U.S. rice is seldom used in brewing because of its
gelatinization and viscosity problems in the cooker. ... The chemical
composition and cooking characteristics of the rice are different from
variety to variety.  The growing area also has a significant influence on
the chemical composition and cooking characteristics of rice.  For example,
the acceptable California short grain varieties are not always
acceptablewhen grown in southern states and vice versa."

The chapter also has a great bibliography.  One cource looks particularly
good:  "Coors, J. (1976).  Practical experience with different adjuncts.
Tech. Q. Master Brew. Assoc. Am. 13:117-119."  If anyone is able to get me
a copy of this I would be most appreciative.

Does all this make me a librarian?  ;-)

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, 24 Mar 2000 10:53:56 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: Decoction & hopbacks

Lynne has been posting some very interesting info on both pils and 
ale techniques, thanks!  (funny though how the stories change, 
Fullers in '93 assured me they were all malt with no maize but the 
party gyle technique whereby the first runnings are used for ESB and 
second for London Pride and third for Chiswick Bitter are in synch 
with what I was told too).

<Basically they have a hop-back type vessel to remove whole hops
<between kettle and whirlpool.  This vessel is enclosed and it
<basically has a wire basket inside.  I'm not sure of size but it's
<much, much smaller than kettle.

Pretty much required if you are using whole hops and a whirlpool.
At Victory Brewing we do this too, we cast out 25 BBLs of wort into a 
hopback that is about 1.3 BBLs.  Even with this size its hard to fit 
all the low alpha hops in that we use to make Prima Pils.  But then 
not many pils are made into the 50 BUs range from all low alpha hops!
(Prima actually has a higher quantity of hops than HopDevil despite 
being lower BUs, but then HopDevil gets a good boost from PNW hops of 
about 11% AA).

<Are any of the US manufacturers making lauter tuns with a drain 
<above the screen? Is anyone making an enclosed hop-back for 
<brewpubs?  I think I saw one advertised from an eastern US or 
<Canadian place (pugsley?)?

Back in '95 when Ron and Bill were planning Victory Brewing we had 
a good relationship with Century Mfgr of Ohio as they had made all 
the tanks for Dominion brewing where Ron worked at the time.  Century 
allowed Ron and Bill to work onsight with the tank/sudhaus engineers 
for a few days working out changes to the standard lauter tun from 
normal US versions.  A couple of features were incorporated into the 
brewhouse that has served us very well over the last 4 years.  The 
lauter tun is a flat bottomed design with six wort outlet ports, each 
port with a reducer valve inline which feeds a common closed wort 
receiver.  Compare this with the typical design that is not flat 
bottomed, uses 1-3 wort take off points and feeds an open grant where 
oxygen can be in contact with the sweet wort.  Another feature is the 
large piping and pumps that allow full mash transfer between the 
combi mash tun/kettle and the dedicated lauter tun.  This is 
essential for proper multi-decoction mashing.  Sadly, Century is no 
longer in business but we are still working with the original 
owner/engineer for more tanks but they have to be fabbed elsewhere 
now.  (the new tanks are a cool story in themselves, they are hybrid 
tanks with the best features of open fermenters combined with the 
ease of carbonation and CIP features of a closed fermenter.  Picture 
a somewhat squat unitank with two manways above the beer level.
The manways open out so you can open them and skim yeast.  After 
skimming off the top fermention yeast you can close it up, spund the 
tank to develop carbonation, drop the temps with gycol and wait for 
the conditioning period to complete.  Move the beer and CIP tank, 
repeat.  Lagers tend to taste smoother when open fermenter and then 
moved into conditioning tanks IMO).

The closed hop back made by Pugsley systems is called a hop 
percolator.  It is a cylindrical vessel of somewhat small size 
whereby hops are packed in and hot cast out wort transits prior to 
passing through the heat exchanger.  Most pugsley systems I know of 
use pellet hops in the kettle, not sure if pellets or whole are used 
in the percolator.

BTW, any decent brewery that is focusing on lager beer production 
should invest in a glycol system that is capable of holding the lager 
tanks to -1C.  Its all in the design/loading of the systems.  Low 
temps are critical (and over pitching is the norm at our micro) for 
good lager bier.

Prost!

Jim Busch


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:06:15 -0800
From: Jonathan Peakall <jpeakall at mcn.org>
Subject: Iron and Aluminum pots

Jim wrote:


>>The use of aluminum is no longer argued as numerous
tests establish that except for reacting negatively
with the caustic cleaners that the commercial boys/girls
use, it brews beer extremely well. In fact
traces of copper are more problematic healthwise then
elemental aluminum.  I'm in the market for a new brewing
pot and going aluminum is my path.

While it may well be true that aluminum poses no health threat, there is
at least one disadvantage that I have found with using aluminum kettles.
They don't clean really well. If one scrubs it truly clean, the water
used for washing turns gray and tastes metallic. And once, after
deciding to clean it real well, I made pasta at a BBQ in which a
metallic tang could be detected. And yet, stuff builds up in the kettle
that one would like to remove. As well, pits are starting to appear in
my usual boiling kettle. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning aluminum
out of hand, I have used two 15 gal aluminum pots for years, producing
almost 250 gallons of great beer last year alone (I brew with two other
friends, sort of a collective brewery). I'm just saying that one should
only use the soft side of a sponge for regular cleaning, then every once
in a while scrub the  at #$% out of it once in a while, and then boil some
water and dump it before brewing.

I personally just went the converted keg route for my boiling vessels.
And am stoked to have something I can scrub as hard as I like. However,
I wouldn't have if it had cost me a lot, but I was fortunate enough to
run across the kegs, and know a competent welder who works for
reasonable prices. In all, including lids, valves, each kettle cost me
less than $50. And I hate to admit it, but I love the way my RIMS system
looks all stainless...

RaidR's sig file said:

>>"Give a man a case of beer and he drinks for a day,
>>Teach him to brew and he drinks for a lifetime"

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And so true.....






Return to table of contents

---