---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********


Contents:
  Re: Zymurgy Haze Article (John Palmer)
  Safale S-04 (darrell.leavitt)
  Progress of fermentation ("A.J. deLange")
  Scottish Export Ale Questions (Jonathan Royce)
  Hop Drying & Packing ("David King")
  Re: Malt Rice Beer ("Colton House")
  Fly (continuous) versus Batch Sparging ("the Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty")
  Batch sparge (Tim & Cindy Howe)
  Chill Haze - Glass vs Plastic (Tim & Cindy Howe)
  White Labs WLP007 (Randy Ricchi)
  Re: My First Brew (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Zymurgy Haze Article ("Chad Stevens")


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           The HBD Logo Store is now open!             *
*            http://www.hbd.org/store.html              *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.

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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock (janitor@hbd.org)



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


Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:30:51 -0700
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: Re: Zymurgy Haze Article

Thank you Chad for your kind words about my most recent Zymurgy article 
on Haze formation. It was very difficult to write -- there is so much 
information out there and most of it is so targeted to large scale 
commercial brewing that it was hard to find the relevant bits and paste 
it all together to get a cohesive article out of it. (I tip my hat to 
Ray Daniels for his help.) Glad you liked it!

The passage you reference does need qualification:
 > You state on page 30, third column, second paragraph of your Beer Haze
 > article, "I interpret this to mean that any protein rest for your 
mash or
 > enzyme clarifiers in your wort are probably not a good idea.  In 
addition,
 > misuse of the right clarifiers can also be trouble."

Which is why this sentence precedes it:
"However, more recent studies (2, 3) show that the proteins are similar 
enough that any attempt to eliminate haze forming proteins via enzymes 
or non-specific protein adsorbing additives like Bentonite will also 
affect the head retention and body of the beer."

First let me qualify the whole section by saying that I *was thinking* 
about papain (papaya protease enzyme) and the use of protein rests on 
modern, fully modified malts, when I was writing these paragraphs. 
"A-ha!" you say, "of course, that is obvious..."
Too bad I forgot to write that down though, eh? I was trying to form a 
bridge between the thought that haze could be combatted, and the 
thought that too much prevention could be a bad thing. Thus, I go from 
using Irish moss to precipitate haze-contributing proteins, to 
haze-active proteins not being terribly different than foam-active 
proteins, to misuse of (the wrong sort of clarifying techniques, like) 
mashing rests and papain, to the (more specific) "misuse of the right 
clarifiers" like Irish moss.

A protein rest during mashing is *generally* not a good idea because 
*generally* the grain bill will consist of fully-modified malts (ie. 
very few large proteins left) and therefore proteins are not the 
principal haze formers, rather it is the polyphenols that are more of 
the problem. And thus a protein rest will *generally* cause the 
over-reduction of proteins, resulting in thin body and poor head 
retention. However, if you are brewing a wheat or rye or oatmeal beer, 
then a protein rest is probably necessary for lautering considerations, 
and indeed may be warranted for aesthetics like clarity too.

Reading the abstract for the Sorensen article in MBAA Tech Quarterly, 
it looks like the LTP1 is denatured during the boil and then becomes a 
foam promoter. In other words, I don't see any mention of a protein 
rest being necessary to produce or activate it.  Modern malts should 
provide all the FAN that a wort would need without a protein rest, and 
a beta-glucan rest at about 100F should not generate much protease 
activity. Glucan is a polysaccharide (typically cellulose), not a 
protein.

Thanks for a great question, I hope I have answered it (or obfuscated 
it) to some degree of satisfaction. ;-)

PS. And if you have a chance, get ahold of Charlie Bamforth's Beer Haze 
article from the ASBC Journal 57 (3) 1999. What a piece of work that 
is! It was my main reference for my article and he does a laudable job 
of describing the Haze landscape.

John Palmer
john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 07:40:03 -0400
From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu
Subject: Safale S-04


On 7/27 I brewed a pale ale, using 2 re-ydrated packets of Safale s-04,..
but I could not put into secondary until yesterday (8/31) due to a long
trip.

The flavor was less than pleasing when I sampled a bit as it went into
secondary.  The gravity had dropped from 1.054 to 1.016, and the 
fermetation temperature was in the low 70's F.

I think that it may have been on the yeast too long, as the flavor is ,...
oh,..rubbery?  not phenolic, as I can best determine...but I am unsure as
how to best describe it.

I know that there is not much to go on in this description, but does it 
seem that cold conditioning the carboy could help?  I can take it down to 
37-38F if this will help...

Anyone have any suggestions?  It is the first time that I have used dry 
yeast in years, so I am uncertain as to what, if anything, to do...

Happy Brewing!
 ..Darrell



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:11:58 +0000
From: "A.J. deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Progress of fermentation

If I'm reading the bubble thread correctly, the desire is to know how 
far fermentation has progressed quantitiatively. If that is correct, why 
not just measure the true extract periodically? That is a direct measure 
of the amount of extract remaining and, when differenced with the 
original extract, the amount consumed.

A,J,



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon,  1 Sep 2003 08:30:44 -0700
From: Jonathan Royce <jonathan at woodburybrewingco.com>
Subject: Scottish Export Ale Questions

On the brew schedule for this winter is a Scottish Export (80-shilling) ale.
I've read quite a bit about this style and have tried several commercial
examples, one of my favorites being Belhaven. However, most texts and
information that I find on the web seem to focus more on Scotch ales, rather
than the lower gravity exports, and thus I have several questions:

1) Is a 90-minute+ boil appropriate for an Export ale?
2) Is it appropriate to caramelize the first gallon or so of runnings by
reducing it to a quart in a separate boil?
3) If caramelizing is appropriate, is the small boil typically hopped, or is
the larger volume (but lighter gravity) boil the recipient of the hops, with
hops quantity reduced to account for the lower gravity?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

Jonathan
Woodbury Brewing Co.
www.woodburybrewingco.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:00:29 -0400
From: "David King" <dking3 at stny.rr.com>
Subject: Hop Drying & Packing

Thanks, Mark.  Good insight on drying issues.  I think I over dried a batch
in my garage rafter setup, they broke all apart when trying to pack them
into jars.  The bigger issue is how tightly to pack them, but I guess that's
just going to be by feel.

         Dave King



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:10:46 -0600
From: "Colton House" <coltonhse at btl.net>
Subject: Re: Malt Rice Beer

"My question is - has anybody tried mashing with amylase enzymes."

Only one response from this question - thanks for taking time out Linus and
good luck with your new brewery in Nashville.

Since my posting on HBD #4325 I read an article in the Economist magazine of
12th July about SAB Miller's Nile Brewery in Uganda and quote below about
it's introduction of a "new kind of clear lager called Eagle last December
which has been wildly successful and has already become Uganda's second
favorite beer. It's appeal is that it looks and tastes like a rich man's
beer but is closer in price to the traditional local brews"

"There are two main reasons for its affordable high quality. It is made from
sorgham instead of imported barley. But the real breakthrough is a
pioneering method of brewing that avoids the long and costly malting
process. Nile Breweries convert the starches in sorgham by adding cheap
industrial enzymes to the mash giving a cost saving of 10%."

"Even brewers in rich countries may one day be tempted to abandon malting
for a 10% saving on manufacturing"

Any comments?

Alan Colton
Swamp Water Brewery of Belize
Web Page: http://www.coltonhouse.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 11:44:43 -0500
From: "the Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey at swampgas.com>
Subject: Fly (continuous) versus Batch Sparging 

In HBD #4337 George de Piro asks:
> I'd be interested in hearing the possible advantages of 
> batch sparging.

The only real advantage batch sparging has over continuous sparging is
that (in general) batch sparging requires less attention on the part
of the brewer. While I'll grant you that a properly adjusted gravity
feed or pump system will get you the same thing, I use neither of
these, primarily due to space limitations and a desire for simple
setup and break-down on brew day.

Naturally, batch sparging WILL require two rounds of recirculation, as
opposed to the single recirc required when sparging is continuous.
However, I find this step only takes me a few minutes at most, since
with my current lauter system I get (crystal) clear runnings after a
couple of pints (I might do a quart if I'm feeling patient, but it
really isn't necessary.)

Batch sparging basically allows me to do other things while the sparge
proceeds. This might be yard work on a weekend (helps keep up the
spousal support for brewing) or real work on a weekday (beer is good,
but so is income).

My efficiency is typically in the low 80s, although I've occasionally
seen 85-86% or as low as 79%. I've never been too clear as to why
others have recommended increasing the grist when batch sparging. I
think there may be some confusion out there as to the difference
between the terms "batch sparge" and "no-sparge". Obviously, the
latter requires more grist. 

It's possible that some folks just batch sparge without taking the
first runnings at all -- which seems like a bad idea to me. Perhaps
this would account for the perceived efficiency hit? Dunno.

Hope that helps -- tafkaKs
====
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:01:50 -0400
From: Tim & Cindy Howe <howe at execulink.com>
Subject: Batch sparge

Adam Wead asks about batch sparging....

I've been batch sparging for about 5 years now (well over 100 batches), 
mostly ales, and have been very pleased with the results. As has already 
been reported, efficiency is not an issue - I typically get around 75%. 
I've found that a sparge "rest" of 20 minutes greatly improves the end 
result, although I don't have an explanation for this - I brew by art, not 
by science, but I've often wondered if I'm conducting a second "lesser" 
mash with my sparge. One poster suggests that a "slow" drain is required, 
but I typically let it drain as fast as my 9/16" hose will carry it, 
re-circulating the first litre or so that runs cloudy. If your crush is 
really fine and you experience stuck sparges, a slower drain would be 
suggested, but the only time I get a stuck sparge is when the slots in my 
manifold are overdue for a cleaning.

Does George de Piro have too much time on his hands? ;o) I farted around 
with the plate-on-top adding sparge water with a pyrex cup method once, and 
decided that there HAS to be a better way. Phils gadgets work well for the 
gadgeteers, and for the rest of us that have other things to do, batch 
sparging does the job admirably.

Cheers,

Tim Howe
London, Ontario





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 20:12:28 -0400
From: Tim & Cindy Howe <howe at execulink.com>
Subject: Chill Haze - Glass vs Plastic

As chill haze is up for discussion again, I thought I'd share an 
interesting thing that happened with a batch I made last winter.

I decided to try my hand at lagers, so I brewed a few simple batches using 
only 2-row for the grain bill, while varying the yeast and/or hops, with an 
IBU of around 70. My lagering room consisted of an unheated spare bedroom 
with the window left open, which held steady at 13C/54F. The batches that I 
fermented with Nottingham & bottled in PET bottles turned out well - clear, 
reasonably crisp, perhaps a little heavy on the hops. The batches that I 
fermented with Wyeast 2272 (North American Lager) and bottled in PET 
bottles all had chill haze. Predictable, really, as I fermented near the 
top end of the range, and I had no way of cold conditioning (short of 
putting a few bottles in the fridge for a month).

But here is the interesting point - one of these batches was partially 
bottled in glass bottles (Grolsch  growlers) and the rest in 600 ml PET 
bottles. The PET bottles exhibited chill haze (at fridge temperature, not 
at room temperature)  but the glass bottles had NO chill haze at any 
temperature. Has anybody else experienced this, or have an explanation for 
it? Both types of bottles have sat at room temperature (20C/68F) for about 
6 months, but other batches that were consumed earlier have suggested that 
the chill haze was present in the final product, so I must assume that the 
haze has dropped out of the glass bottles while remaining in the PET 
bottles. FWIW, I "batch" bottle, so it can be assumed that priming rate 
etc. are consistent in each type of bottle.

I'm going to try and replicate the experiment this winter, but I'm 
interested in any comments/observations that others may have.

Cheers,

Tim Howe
London, Ontario



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 20:53:47 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us>
Subject: White Labs WLP007

Can anyone give me a better description of White Labs WLP007 Dry English 
Ale yeast than what is on the White Labs website? Basically, all the 
website says as far as flavor profile goes it that it's "dry", and 
attenuates well.

What about fruitiness? Minerally character?

I like the idea that it doesn't floc out as quickly as some other english 
strains, but I would want it to be malty, fruity, and have no mineral 
character. TIA.

Randy Ricchi
Hancock, MI




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:43:20 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: My First Brew

Kevin Wagner <kevin.wagner at watchmark.com> writes

>    Last night I opened the first bottle of by first brew. It is a German
>Wheat Ale extract kit and was, err... unremarkable.

What kind of kit did you use?  Do you know if it was fresh?  Dull 
beers can result from many different causes.  Old malt extract is 
one, oxidation during processing is another.  A good supplier will 
help in the first case, avoiding splashing and aeration at all points 
except with cool wort at pitching will help in the second.

>It has almost no hop aroma or flavor - almost cloy. I used 
>Hallertauer pellets in muslin, 1oz at 15min and 1oz at 45min of a 
>60min boil. Not enough? Wrong timing?

Sounds OK.  You don't want much hop aroma or bitterness in a German wheat beer.

>    - The OG was 1.04 and FG is 1.02, an ABV of 2.75%. I expected 4 to 5.
>It's texture is very thin. Did I rack and/or bottle too soon?

It would help to know what yeast you used, and how you pitched it. 
This is not usual or good.

>    - There are tiny irregular bits that do not settle. Is this break
>material? Can I filter it ahead of fermenting?

It might be, but don't worry.  Filtering is not practical or a good idea.

>    On an up note, it has a lovely color and very nice carbonation.

That's good!

>    I'm ready to start my next batch and would like the next one to be
>better, any relevant tips?

Do some reading.  There are lots of good books.  You don't even have 
to buy one - HBDer John Palmer has the first edition of his "How To 
Brew" online at http://www.howtobrew.com/.  Then you can decide 
whether or not to buy the hard copy.

Cheers

Jeff
- -- 
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 20:08:04 -0700
From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net>
Subject: Re: Zymurgy Haze Article

I have the Bamforth "Beer Haze" paper; yes a must read.  And I don't think
you needed to qualify the clarifying agent (papain, pvpp...) assertion; I
agree completely.  In fact I'll help you further support it:

www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/sheehan.htm

Sheehan et al. found that silica hydrogel, chillproofing enzyme, and tannic
acid adsorb, denature, or bind both protein Z and LTP 1 between 3 and 16%.
So yes, the tradeoff for clear beer via these methods is a diminution of
foam stability, no question.

It's the protein rest thing....  I guess I need to qualify where I'm coming
from a little bit.  I do a lot of funky beers.  I use adjuncts all the time
and make a lot of home malted (often 100%) wheat beers.  Not to mention
Budvar undermodified for my pilsners; yum yum!

But yes, I can make an ESB with 100% commercial highly modified malt in a
single step infusion and have it come out reasonably clear.  What I have
found however, is that I can make the same beer, with a five or ten minute
rest at 122, and it comes out crystal clear, without using any finnings, and
it seems to have slightly better head retention.

www.regional.org.au/au/abts/2001/t4/osman.htm

Osman et al. discuss FAN in wort.  What the paper does not come out and say
explicitly is that new readily modifiable varieties of barley pass up to 50%
of the hordein fraction to wort.  Older, less readily modifiable barley
cultivers traditionally passed in the neighborhood of 25% of hordein to the
wort.  It is the proline fraction of hordein which is chiefly responsible
for the protein side of the chill haze equation.  So if in modern malts,
more of this fraction is passing to the wort, and this is why Budmillercoors
are having all of the chill haze problems they have had over the last few
years (and I understand this is becoming an increasingly major issue), would
it not stand to reason that a little protein rest might not be a bad thing
to experiment with?  Not to mention the obvious benefits when using
substantial adjunct additions.  I guess my nit is that I keep hearing from
every quarter, that a protein rest isn't necessary anymore.  I don't know
that it is necessary, but I think in many cases judicious use of a protein
rest can do more good than harm.

Despite the fact that I manage to make clear beers (without Irish Moss or
anything else) with good head retention, what I haven't been able to answer
for myself is how this affects mouthfeel.  For example, I can make an
oatmeal stout in one of three ways:

1. Do a mini-mash with a pound of base malt and a pound of well gelatinized
oats for a fifteen minute 122 rest then add to the main mash which is
essentially a single step infusion.

2.  Do a straight single step infusion with the oats added at the beginning
along with all the rest of the grist.

3.  Do a single step infusion with the gelatinized oats added at lets say,
15 minutes from knockout.

Which method will provide the best oaty mouthfeel?  I know the first method
will give me the least chance of a stuck sparge and a little better head
retention.  It's been my feeling however that the mouthfeel (which is what
we are after with an oatmeal stout) isn't quite as good with the protein
rest and is best with the oats added at the end of the mash.  What I need to
do is brew three batches at the same time and do a blind taste test.  Anyone
experimented with various oatmeal stout brewing methods?  Preferences?

As an aside, of the 40 some odd endoproteolytic activities that have been
isolated, those which act on prolamine (this includes hordein) appear to be
most active at 104, those that act on glutelin at 122, and those that act on
globulin most active at 140.

www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/osman.htm

Beta glucanases being most active at 95-113 certainly fall within some
protease territory.

Thanks for the cogent commentary,

Chad Stevens
San Diego



Return to table of contents

---