HOMEBREW Digest #5088 Wed 08 November 2006

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
Visit http://www.northernbrewer.com  to show your appreciation!
               Or call them at 1-800-681-2739

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

  Amarillo hops (Fred L Johnson)
  fruits and vegetables ("Peter A. Ensminger")
  Time and Temp ("Rob Moline")
  Brewing Tools for the Palm Pilot ("Dirk Bridgedale")
  Flavour intensity transformations of c6-c10 ethyl esters ("Fredrik")
  Sorry Bernd (MICHAEL MECKEL)
  Steve's Mystery Illness ("Graham L Sanders")
  home roasted special b (Raj B Apte)
  Attenuation, etc Part I ("A.J deLange")
  Attenuation, etc Part II ("A.J deLange")
  Bacteria and Methanol alcohol ("Michael Kolaghassi")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there. 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@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning, and Spencer Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:02:07 -0500 From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson52 at nc.rr.com> Subject: Amarillo hops I've finally gotten my first opportunity to brew with Amarillo hops and I'm looking for a nicely balanced recipe that features this variety. I know many of you would recommend a highly hopped IPA to show off these hops, but I have been too often disappointed with my highly hopped brews, so I'm really looking for something a little more tame. Any suggestions for an American Pale Ale? What if I just substituted these hops in my Sierra Nevada clone recipe (which is usually quite good)? Fred L Johnson Apex, North Carolina, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:28:09 -0500 From: "Peter A. Ensminger" <ensmingr at twcny.rr.com> Subject: fruits and vegetables Hey now! I have always appreciated that botanists and cooks/chefs have different opinions about fruits and vegetables. For a botanist (I am one! BS & PhD), a fruit is the product of a ripened ovary *and associated parts* [see Gleason & Cronquist, 1991, "Manual of Vascular Plants" and a gazillion other sources]. Thus, the pumpkin, strawberry, watermelon, gourd, banana, fig, lingonberry, pepper, and tomato are all fruits to a botanist. In the kitchen, I treat the pumpkin, gourd, pepper, and tomato as vegetables. Now that we're past pumpkin season and Thanksgiving season beckons, how about some ideas for making a "cock ale"!?! Cheers! Peter A. Ensminger Syracuse, NY Apparent Rennerian: [394, 79.9] Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 03:26:38 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Time and Temp Time and Temp Steve asks about time and temp in an improved high grav brew First barley wine attempt and a lovely lushly dense sweetness of 24 P wort, converted by Nottingham, to a tangled trap of razor blades in barbed wire! Thankfully we kept at it, encouraged by visiting brewers who knew more than we did. The beer was brewed 12.31.05, took the silver for B-wine at the 96 WBC in June, then the Gold at the GABF @ the end of September. Ferm as @68 F, and secondary was at 35 F, in spin-side Grundies, unpressurized, only a bit of aluminium foil sealing the CIP inlet. Finings were AB Vickers Dry-Fine, and the batch was force carbed to what I guess was 1.9 vols CO2...I didn't know how to use, much less own a Zahm and Nagel! The beer continued to mellow for several years, though one could detect a sherry like note attributed to yeast lysis...mot unpleasant, but notable. I think Siebel called it at 10.54 ABW when they analyzed it in 98. The only known bottle, perhaps is still in Bosco's in Nashville...maybe it's gone now, but that would be interesting to try. Cheers! Gump Rob Moline "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" - -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 11/7/2006 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:01:02 -0800 From: "Dirk Bridgedale" <dirk at bridgedale.net> Subject: Brewing Tools for the Palm Pilot This is just to get the word out. I have submitted a new application at www.palmgear.com. Tools by BrewPartner. If you try it out, I would like some feedback. Thank you!!!! Dirk Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 21:38:43 +0100 From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com> Subject: Flavour intensity transformations of c6-c10 ethyl esters On the possible candidate role of the ethyl esters of the 6-10 carbon fatty acids, Steve points out that these acids are nasty as well. They have been described as fatty, soapy, goaty. So one may suspect that when their esters are hydrolysed, the result may not be very nice either, so it is valid to ask, how there can be overall "improvement" if we just trade in one bad thing for another one? That's a great general point, but lets take a look at the flavor thresholds... As is often thresholds tend to vary between papers, but the paper from Vanderhaegen(1) and company I referred to in the other post the thresholds of these esters are (Ester) (FT) ethyl-hexanoate 0.2 ppm ethyl-octanoate 0.9 ppm ethyl-decanoate 0.5 ppm About the acids we see(2) for water(They are presumably higher in beer) (Acid) (FT) hexanoic acid 3-5 ppm octanoic acid 3-5 ppm decanoic acid 3-10 ppm To get a better picture what these ppm numbers means in terms of real flavor, the better unit for analysis is the flavour treshold unit (FU), I assume introduced by Meilgaard, which is the concentration relative to the flavour treshold of respective compound. FU = 1, means the compound is at the threshold and FU > 1 is obviously more significant than FU < 1. Since during hydrolysis we trade in one acid molecule for each ester molecule we split, we get the following relation for the differential shift of flavour intensities. d[Acid].FU/d[Ester].FU = - M.acid/M.ester * FT.ester/FT.acid (M.x is the molarmass; FT.x is the flavour threshold) We now get [I make pessimistic esimates and take the threshold to be only 3 ppm on all acids! the numbers are probably higher due to masking, since the above acid values are for water, not beer, but this would further strengten the following conclusion] d[hexanoate].FU/d[ethylhexanoate].FU ~ -0.05 d[octanoate].FU/d[ethyloctanoate].FU ~ -0.25 d[decanoate].FU/d[ethyldecanoate].FU ~ -0.14 So what does this mean? This means the stochiometry of hydrolysis combined with the flavor tresholds implies that if the flavour intensity of ..ethylhexanoate decreases 2 FU, the hexanoate intensity will increase 2 * 0.05 ~ 0.1 FU. ..ethytoctanoate decreases 2 FU, the octanoate intesity will increase 2 * 0.25 ~ 0.5 FU. ..ethyldecanoate decreases 2 FU, the decanoate intesity will increase 2 * 0.14 ~ 0.3 FU. So it seems that when you look at the numbers in these cases... the relative increase in goaty,sweaty (undoubtedly following the ester hydrolysis as pointed out) is probably small on the relative scale, and this is the exploit to trade a significant reduction in ester flavour, against at least a less significant, or possibly even insignificant in some cases, increase in fatty, goaty flavours, so it seems to me it's less of an issue that one might have intuitively suspected. So I would still want to keep these esters on the list of possibilities. But that said there are of course other candidates. (1) http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu/fst611/Papers/Vanderhaegen%202003.pdf (2) http://www.leffingwell.com/odorthre.htm /Fredrik Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:07:00 -0800 (PST) From: MICHAEL MECKEL <michael_m21234 at yahoo.com> Subject: Sorry Bernd Steve, I may agree with you concerning pumpkin beers, but I have to strongly disagree with your contention that pumpkin makes a second rate pie! If you have an opportunity, stop by my bakery (Fenwick Bakery) and you will have the chance to try a pie which is much better than merely second rate <G>. >Steve Alexander writes: > They make dandy jack-o-lanterns, second rate pies > and marginal cattle > fodder. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 08:15:10 +1000 From: "Graham L Sanders" <grahamsanders at rawnet.com.au> Subject: Steve's Mystery Illness G'Day All Alexandre wisely noted >>>>>Now, I'm sure he'll chime in (it's been a while, though, so he might be buried under some mangoes)<<<<< Yes I still lurk, and like some mysterious creature I have come into the light to grace this board. Actually it was more of a case that with all these Australian legends dropping off the perch faster than Russian vodka drinkers, I thought I was in the firing line, So I have been keeping myself under the radar. Still I have been managing to cheat death lately, kicking the second worlds deadliest land snake recently, (in bare feet), and doing home made impeller repairs to my beer pump. But it was wisely written>>>>> but Gram Senders from the oh-zee craftbrewers podcast had a series of things to say about gluten-free beer.<<<<< And yes I did quite in depth report over a number of program for those unfortunates who cant drink "normal beer" for what ever reason. We over here lead the world in Gluten Free Brewing, even have German brewers coming over to learn, as well as an increasing wealth of gluten free malts. I myself have made a Budgeree Lager out of 50% raw millet that was a real hit at a local folk festival. Mind you, those hippies would have drunk anything I recon. So it certainly can be done. Try http://radio.craftbrewer.org and look thru past programs. Also >>>>I for one would love to hear about an actual rice beer. How does a RicePA sound? :-)<<<< Thats ok but I have made rice beer, but thats another story. Shout Graham L Sanders oh The salties up here are getting bad. They are breeding up to such an extent they are now swimming in the open ocean and cruising off the local beaches here. Could you imagine a Florida or California beach with a type of shark alert, but its 3 metre crocs instead. Still, they will help keep the stingray numbers down. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:15:39 -0800 (PST) From: Raj B Apte <raj_apte at yahoo.com> Subject: home roasted special b Hi All, I've been reading about and practicing home grain roasting. I start with pale and can produce passable malts up to chocolate. Now I'm interested in crystal. Graham Sanders claims: http://oz.craftbrewer.org/Library/Methods/Sanders/roasting.shtml that Special B is just dark roasted crystal malt (with the starting crystal malt dampened). Has anyone done this? How close does it get (Graham was doing it because of low availability; I'm interested for economy and freshness). Is there any decent reference on producing different malts? I've looked through the usual and only come up with general comments, not specific techniques. thanks, raj What is it we're not forgetting? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:43:24 +0000 From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: Attenuation, etc Part I After the postings on attenuation last week Fred and I agreed off line that I'd post something on the subject and here it is. The best format seemed to be a bunch of definitions followed by a brief discussion of how some them are used to estimate alcohol. The definitions follow, not in alphabetical but in what I hope is logical order. I believe the basics are here. Some may find the Plato units unfamiliar. As they are a measure of mass brewing scientists use them a lot. It is not that they prefer them. It is that their use is required in many calculations. Brewing scientists also use specific gravity where appropriate. Home brewers, OTOH, greatly prefer specific gravity points and try to use them to replace Plato units directly which works approximately. Formulas for calculating Plato from specific gravity and conversely are given here and using them all the Plato based formulas can be expressed in terms of specific gravity or even just points. If I put all those in here this thing would be three times as long. Density: The mass of something divided by its volume. As volume depends on temperature the temperature must be specified. For example, the density of water at 20 C is 0.998203 grams per cc. The density of ethanol at that same temperature is 0.78924 grams per cc. Specific gravity: The ratio of the density of something (at a particular temperature) to the density of pure water (at the same or another temperature). The specific gravity of water at 20C relative to water at 20C is 0.998203/0.998203 = 1.000000 20/20 with the "20/20" indicating that both densities were measured at 20C. The specific gravity of ethanol is 0.78924/0.998203 = 0.790661 20/20 but 0.78924/0.997769 = 0.791005 20/4 as the density of water at 4C is used in this latter case as the reference. A subtlety with respect to specific gravity is that if one fills a bottle with the substance to be tested, weighs it, refills the same bottle with the reference substance and weighs that the ratio of the weights is same as the ratio of the densities because the volume is the same in both cases - almost. The two weights are slightly off because of the air displaced by the bottle. The result is called the "apparent specific gravity". If adjusted for the air displacement the ratio becomes the "true specific gravity" or "specific gravity in vacuuo". This is not something home brewers worry about but analysis laboratories do. Plato Degrees (P): Plato degrees express the weight of sucrose in a solution as a percentage of the total weight of the solution. For example, if 10 grams of sucrose are placed in a flask and water added until the weight of water plus sucrose equaled 100 grams the solution would be 10% sucrose w/w or 10 degrees Plato. This unit was named after the head of the German government commission which precisely measured the specific gravity of sucrose solutions of specified strength in w/w or Plato units. These tables are the basis for the EBC and ASBC tables currently used to tie specific gravity to degrees Plato i.e. sucrose concentration. Sucrose was used because it is easy to work with and has specific gravity vs. concentration profiles very similar to the sugars actually found in wort. It is important to understand that Plato degrees are not just another specific gravity scale though there is, through the tables, a one for one correspondence between specific gravity and Plato. This fact makes it possible to make hydrometers which are marked in Plato rather than specific gravity. These are popular with advanced home and professional brewers. The formula P = (((135.997*S -630.272)*S + 1111.14)*S -616.868) gives the degrees Plato for the specific gravity (20/20) S and replaces the ASBC tables. This formula has the blessing of the ASBC and is, thus "official". It is valid for S up to 1.083. The simpler "Lincoln Equation": P = (463-205*S)*(S-1) is plenty good for most applications (maximum error 0.005P) and can be inverted (approximately) easily by S = 1 + P/(258.6 - 0.8796*P). Exact inversion of the Lincoln equation is possible by multiplying it out and solving the resulting quadratic for S. The same can be done for the ASBC formula but, as it's a cubic, it's a bit messy. It's easier to calculate a few values around the answer and interpolate (or use Excel's Solver or a root finder). Specific Gravity "Points" Points are defined by 1000*(S -1) where S is the specific gravity. For example, a wort with S = 1.0492 would be said to be of strength 49.2 points. Home brewers prefer points to Plato degrees often using them as if they, like Plato degrees, are indicative of the amount of extract in solution. This can be done because they are, approximately, indicative of the amount of extract. Each degree Plato corresponds to about 4 points in the region around 1.040 SG (10 P). Thus, if an approximate answer is sufficient, points can be used in place of degrees P where a ratio is involved (such as an attenuation calculation) because the 4 factor cancels out. In other cases, convert specific gravity to degrees P using the ASBC formula or Lincoln equation given above. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:48:38 +0000 From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: Attenuation, etc Part II Balling/Brix degrees: Ostensibly the same as Plato degrees in that they express the strength of sugar solutions as % w/w. The Plato tables represent corrections to these earlier scales. Extract: All the things dissolved in wort including the sugars, the minerals and the soluble hops constituents. In using the Plato/EBC/ASBC tables brewers are modeling extract as if it were all sucrose. Original Extract (OE, P): The amount of extract in a wort at the time of pitching of the yeast. Determined by measuring the specific gravity of the wort at 20/20 (or converting the specific gravity measurement to 20/20) and using the ASBC tables to determine the equivalent Plato degrees or by using a density measuring device (hydrometer, density meter) calibrated directly in degrees Plato. True Extract (TE): The amount of extract remaining at the end of fermentation. Determined by removing the alcohol from a known volume of the beer (by evaporation or, more usually, during the distillation in which case the alcohol is recovered and used to determine the beer's alcoholic strength), restoration to the original volume and measurement of the specific gravity of the resulting solution. This is then entered into the tables to obtain the Plato degrees i.e. the percentage of extract in the solution. The volume of the solution is then multiplied by the specific gravity of the solution to obtain the weight of the solution and this is multiplied by the Plato degrees divided by 100 to obtain the weight of extract in the solution. This is the amount of extract which was in the beer before evaporation so the specific gravity of the beer is multiplied by the volume to obtain the beer's weight and this is divided into the weight of extract to obtain the fraction of extract in the beer. Multiplying by 100 gives the True Extract in Plato degrees. Because the volume is the same before and after evaporation it is only necessary to multiply the Plato value of the solution by the specific gravity of the solution and divide by the specific gravity of the beer. Apparent Extract (AE): If the specific gravity of beer is measured the relationship between specific gravity and extract is thrown off by the alcohol produced by the fermentation. One can still, however, enter the ASBC tables or use the formula to come up with an extract number. This is the apparent extract. True Attenuation, Real Degree of Fermentation (RDF): The reduction in the amount of extract over the course of the fermentation of the beer. If a beer has an original extract of 12 Plato and finishing (True) extract of 3 Plato then 9/12 of the extract have been consumed and the True Attenuation is 75%. RDF = 100*(OE - TE)/OE. Apparent Attenuation, Apparent Degree of Fermentation (ADF) The reduction in the apparent extract over the course of the fermentation of the beer. ADF = 100*(OE - AE)/OE. Note that this can be more than 100% if a beer (or more likely a mead) finishes with a specific gravity below 1. Alcohol by Volume (ABV): The number of cc of alcohol in 100 cc of beer. This is often indicated as %v/v. To convert to alcohol by weight (ABW) multiply by the density of alcohol at 20C and divide by the density of the beer at 20C. This gives the same result as multiplying by the specific gravity of alcohol at 20/20 C (0.791 ) and dividing by the specific gravity of the beer (20/20) because the density of water cancels. Alcohol by Weight (ABW): The number of grams of alcohol in 100 grams of beer, often indicated as % w/w/. To convert to alcohol by volume multiply by the specific gravity of the beer (20/20) and divide by the specific gravity of alcohol at 20/20 C (0.791). Calculation of Alcohol concentration: When we brew beer we do it with the conviction that 2.0665 grams of "extract" (sugar) will produce 1 gram of alcohol, 0.9565 grams of CO2 and 0.11 grams of yeast mass. Thus if we have a volume of beer weighing 100 grams and containing A grams of alcohol (it is A% ABW) there must have been (2.0665*A + n) grams of extract in that volume initially with n being the number of grams of extract in that volume which did not convert to alcohol. n is the TE. This volume of beer originally thus weighed 100 grams (the weight of the water, alcohol and unconverted extract) plus A*0.9565 + A*0.11 (the weights of the CO2 which escaped plus the weight of the yeast which fell to the bottom of the tank) i.e. 100 + 1.0665*A. Thus the wort originally contained (2.0665*A + n) grams of extract per (100 + 1.0665*A) grams of wort and the "strength" of the wort, in % weight per unit weight (OE), is P = 100*(2.0665*A + n)/(100 + 1.0665*A). The utility of this formula is seen if it is solved for A giving A = (P-n)/(2.0665 - 0.010665*P). Thus if we know the true extract and the original gravity we can calculate the amount of alcohol produced based on simple conservation of mass. This formula is appealing in that it is based on nothing more complicated than conservation of mass but it is of little practical utility because one must know the True Extract, n to use it. A lesser annoyance derives from the fact that we usually speak in terms of ABV and the formula gives ABW. Methods for conversion were given in the definitions. Note that the form of the formula is A = g(P)*(P-n) i.e. the change in extract level multiplied by a function of the OE, g(P) = 1/(2.0665 - 0.010665*P). There is a similar formula, A = f(P)*(P-m) where f(P) = ((P*1.0788E-5 +0.0017091)*P + 0.39661) and m is the Apparent Extract which also gives the ABW but which requires nothing more than a finished beer hydrometer reading converted to Plato. This formula is not based on conservation of mass alone but also on Ballings experimental observations. As such its results are approximate. My last effort, a barley wine, was predicted to have, by this formula, an alcohol content of 9.0% ABV and measured 9.6%. The TE based formula predicted 9.9%. Why? Though conservation of mass is inviolable there is no guarantee that exactly 0.11 grams of yeast will be produced by 2.0665 grams of extract. Judging from the amount of yeast thrown by this fermentation (I've never seen so much) more than 0.11 grams extract went to yeast production and, therefore, not to alcohol. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:43:25 +0000 From: "Michael Kolaghassi" <kolaghassi89 at hotmail.com> Subject: Bacteria and Methanol alcohol Hey guys, I was just wondering if its a big problem or chance that some bacteria could be in my batch of mead metabolizing some of the sugars and making poisonous methanol alcohol along with the yeast producing ethanol alcohol. I also wanted to know if letting the mead sit at room temperature for a long time without disturbing it could maybe let mold grow in it or something. Just wanted to know if it was a big health risk and stuff with different bacteria metabolizing the sugars into methanol and the mold issue. Thanks, Michael K. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/09/06, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96