HOMEBREW Digest #2450 Fri 27 June 1997

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

		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

  Peat flavor in beer ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Marga Motorization, ("David R. Burley")
  visit to Little Apple (kathy)
  La Fin du Monde.... (Jim Cave)
  UPS Shipping Beer ("Houseman, David L")
  Re: Decoction Theories Put to Test (Rob Kienle)
  Wheat caramel (Kit Anderson)
  CO2 and LP regulators (Jason Henning)
  Decoction mashing (George De Piro)
  colloids and zeta potential (Dave Whitman)
  Fourth Annual BUZZ Off Results (Robert.MATTIE)
  Baking Bottles ("Val J. Lipscomb")
  Bad Homebrew...lawn fertilizer? (MonksEnvy)
  Brewing coffee, add Hops for DE-bittering !! (Steve Alexander)
  Bottles,Bottles ("Stephen Jordan")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 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 homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:43:56 -0700 From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com> Subject: Peat flavor in beer In response to the recent peat flavor thread: so far I've seen no mention of the obvious way to get peat smoke flavor in beer - Hugh Baird peated malt. You do have to mash it. I used it in a scotch ale - it worked well. Really strong at 20% of the grist. Delicious, but not for those who dislike Scotch. No affiliation, etc, etc. For the extract brewer, as AlK mentioned, home-smoked crystal is probably the only reliable way. Could you use the common home smoking method, but instead of wood chips, use peat moss? Is common Canadian Sphagnum the same, flavor-wise, or would you want fine Scottish import moss? Of course, you'd have to moisten the moss before adding it to the barbecue, or have burnt crystal. It seems like a partial mash might be easier. -Grant Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei Des Moines, Washington Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:48:04 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Marga Motorization, Brewsters: Eric Fouch comments on the motorization of the Marga Mill from Italy. I also have one of these mills which I motorized with my power drill after cutting and filing down a bolt into a "T" shape to fit into the crank slo= t. I screwed my mill down to a 2'X2' X 3/4" pressed wood board with a 2"x4"= = hole in it. The hole allows the ground grain to drop into a plastic dishwashing basin which is attached underneath the board with "c" clamps.= = The 18-24" washbasin supports the whole operation. The drill is supported= at crank hole height with two or three 1X2" boards nailed to the base boa= rd on which it lays horizontially. The drill is not fastened down firmly to= act as a means of dealing with the possibility of temporary jamming by tough grains. Works well. Heavy plastic sheeting taped around all openings except the hopper prevents dust from flying around and guides th= e milled grain through the hole and into the basin. The provided hopper is= small, so I increased hopper volume by taping a bottomless, gallon plasti= c milk bottle upside down and cut appropriately to the hopper. I also cut (actually melted with a soldering gun) the slot in the hopper wider and larger. Works great. My motor must be faster as I can double mill 10# i= n about 15-20 minutes. Like Eric, I set the milling nip to a coarse openin= g and then a narrow opening for the two step milling process which is much faster than a single narrow nip milling and it produces "commercial" results in the milled malt. Measure the nip with a spark plug gap gauge.= Eric's interpretation of the word "flakes" as used in the instructions is= incorrect. There is no gelatinization of the grains and none is claimed = by the manufacturer. "flakes" simply means chunks of grain and not flour ( which is one of the purposes for this mill when the third roller is employed). I use this flake setting with pearl barley before gelatinization to get more complete access of the enzymes during mashing.= In the "flake" mode it cuts the grain into about 3 or 4 pieces. But bewar= e, barley is tough!! I have to give this little mill high marks as it is well built and completely adjustable, making it easy to mill all kinds of malts and grai= ns and produce professional multi-roller mill results with multiple passes. = No affiliation. Yadda, Yadda. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com = Voice e-mail OK = Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:39:31 -0500 From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: visit to Little Apple A 100th annual family reunion (the Mellenbruchs'--grandfather Henry was a prohibitionist) took me to Kansas and the 94 degree heat and a failed car AC couldn't keep me from driving to Manhattan KS thru the beautiful Flint Hills tall grass prairie and visiting brewer and fellow HBD'r Rob Moline. His busy schedule was altered to act as a gracious host. The GABF gold medal for his barleywine was well deserved as a smooth, smooth brew. He shared a sample of a peated porter that should do very well. I sampled the spectrum of Little Apple and especially enjoyed the Prairie Pale Ale as it is probably my favorite style. All were right on style and well above the quality expected from the typical brewpub. He does operate in a hostile brewing conditions which he inherited, but the beers were excellent. He took the time to discuss brewing and marketing philosophy and the food at the pub was excellent. Thanks and if you travel to the Sunflower State, its worth a stopover in Manhattan, KS. The three growlers packed in ice made it back to Michigan. Cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:24:47 -0700 From: Jim Cave <cave at psc.org> Subject: La Fin du Monde.... "La Fin du Monde" or in Anglaise "The end of the world" is an = absolutely brilliantly oustanding beer. At a recent Microbrewers = festival, I had to keep coming back to try it because I couldn't believe = that such an effort had been pulled off in North America. The art work = on the bottles by Unibroue is very well done too. One of the problems = with Quebec separation would be that this beer would be an import and no = doubt subject to additional tarrifs. Apparently one of the owners is a Quebec rock musician. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 11:52:48 -0400 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: UPS Shipping Beer Hummm....if it's illegal for UPS to ship beer as some of their agents have stated, then I wonder why they're quite willing to ship the Beer of the Month cases that I've received? They don't seem to have a moral or legal delima in taking their money and shipping it to my home where kids can get to the packages left on the porch. George DePiro was well right in suggesting the correct approach is be careful in mailing addresses for competitions that denote that beer, glass and alcohol are involved then lie. Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 10:53:09 -0500 From: Rob Kienle <rkienle at interaccess.com> Subject: Re: Decoction Theories Put to Test To respond to a couple of queries and comments posted regarding my decoction scheme: Scott Murman describes an "un-decoction" sequence wherein the decoct portion is begun separately from the rest of the mash and converted/boiled by itself. This sounds interesting to me (not quite as interesting as the German blonde routine but what the h***) though I wonder; when performing a more traditional sequence, one leaves the bulk of enzymes and unconverted starches in the main mash when performing the decoction. A small amount of unconverted starches are carried into the decoction, converted and then boiled. But is there any drawback to having half the mash "self-decocted" with *all* its enzymes and all its *converted* starches present? Just wondering. Steve Alexander writes that he has found a 40/58/70 (no 122/50 rest) schedule produces clear beers with Durst malts. A couple of other people have also asked privately about the impact of my grain bill. Not sure if I posted it originally, but it was about 64% Pils; 30% DWC Munich; 5% Wheat, and 1% Black Patent. Now according to Hoptech, the Pils was DWC malt that happened to come from Hugh Baird. If that's true, then pretty much the entire bill came from Belgium. There's been much discussion here regarding the 122 vs 135 rest, but a fair amount of concensus insofar as that Belgium malts are one of the few that *do* benefit from a lower rest. As I said, in a previous batch that used the same malt but omitted that rest, I ended up with a pretty huge amount of break material in the primary that was *not* present in this batch that used a brief 122 rest. In another previous batch that used Durst malt instead (no 122 rest) I again ended up with about 20% break material. (I should point out that the Durst batch is still aging and I'm not sure of its final haze potential. The first batch I *have* tested and it's definately cloudy.) One other difference in the third (decoction) batch was that I prolonged the settling time after the boil to about 15-20 mins before racking (not a siphon but a false bottom drain). Not sure that would really explain the situation to satisfaction. I should also point out that, strangely enough (to me, anyway) virtually all the fluffier break material (yeah, there were two "types" of break: one thick, and one "fluffy" and thin; anyone know what that means?) in the two previous batches disappeared within 24 hours as fermentation began. I guess there were at least three things I was trying to prove or test: one was whether making sure that the main mash was maintained below sac temps during a decoction would really aid in conversion (the answer was yes); another was to see what affect the 122 and/or 135 rest has on different malts (the jury's still out but it seems to me, thus far, that a *limited* 122 rest may yet be beneficial); and the third was whether our ability to mediate temperatures without relying on decoction additions can either shorten or otherwise simplify the process (the answer was yes). - -- Cheers4beers, Rob Kienle Chicago, IL rkienle at interaccess.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 09:24:54 -0400 From: Kit Anderson <kitridge at bigfoot.com> Subject: Wheat caramel I found some caramel wheat malt in a homebrew shop and bought a pound. It tastes like something for breakfast. Anybody ever use this stuff? - --- Kit Anderson Bath, Maine <kitridge at bigfoot.com> I suppose that it's theoretically possible for a Yankee to make decent barbecue. But it sure ain't a pretty thought! -Smokey Pitts Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 02:59:29 -0700 From: Jason Henning <huskers at cco.net> Subject: CO2 and LP regulators Luke Morris <Luke.L.Morris at woodside.com.au> suggest using a lp gas regulator with a co2 system. I think it's a terrible idea to mix equipment like this. Especially when the correct stuff is so available. Any gas suppier will be able to get regulators for about any range and for the correct gas your looking for. The only saving grace about this set-up was the lp regulator was after the co2 regulator. > **Another warning*** > This is not a traditional technique. Nor is it endorsed by CAMRA, I > suspect. Hardly. The whole point of real ale is that it breaths the air from the publicans celler and takes on a life of it's own. It has to be serve before it goes sour. Each celler and each pub has it's own flavor impact. CAMRA doesn't allow for any breathing filters or devices. That's half the problem. Stouts and porter don't sell fast enough to be served like this. So it's squeezing these less popular styles out. Cheers, Jason Henning (huskers at cco.net) Big Red Alchemy and Brewing Olympia, Washington - "It's the water" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 14:04:18 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: Decoction mashing Hi all, Ing. Hubert Hanghofer questions the necessity of achieving starch conversion during the decoction. I agree that it is not necessary to wait until conversion is complete, but I believe that some conversion must be allowed to occur. Today's highly modified malts don't need to be decoction mashed to achieve high conversion efficiency. The main reason to decoction mash is to develop melanoidins, to produce a product with a deeper, richer malt flavor. Sugars are reactants in this process (Maillard and caramelization reactions). If saccharification is omitted, will there be enough sugars in the decoct to fuel the Maillard and caramelization processes? Perhaps enough sugar is produced while heating the decoct through the saccharification range, I don't know. A while back I asked the collective how much and what type of sugar (simple sugars or polysaccs.) was necessary to maximize the melanoidins produced during the decoction boil. Nobody really knew. Anybody out there now that knows? I typically rest the decoction for 20-30 min. at 154-160F (68-71C) and then move on to boiling (it is difficult to obtain precise temperature readings in the thick decoction mash in my system). The main mash rests at either 104F (40C) or 133 (56C). I don't have any problems with over-cleaving of proteins in this way. Like Ing. Hanghofer, I usually pull the decoction as soon as the mash hits 133, rather than resting the entire mash there. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:10:34 -0400 From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at ot.com> Subject: colloids and zeta potential In HBD#2449, Steve Alexander asks for clarification about just *what* I was talking about... >I don't understand Dave Whitmans comment on yeast suspension as a >colloid nor the concept of the "zeta potential". Can you explain Dave ? Well, this comes from mixing chemistry, brewing, and talking in a public forum. <warning: long block of grossly oversimplified chemistry begins> Colloids are finely divided solids or liquids suspended in a liquid phase (typically water) in a thermodynamically stable way. Classic examples of colloids are silica sols, milk, or latex polymers. Yeast cells are in the size regime normally considered colloids, are suspended in water, and (during active fermentation) seem stable with respect to floculation. I've always thought of them as colloids, and it has helped me understand a lot of yeast behavior during brewing. In the absence of some form of thermodynamic stabilization, collodal particles would stick to each other and floculate into large blobs - like curdled milk, cold break or floculated yeast. (Surface area costs you free energy; when the particles stick together and fuse, it reduces the total surface and thus lowers free energy). Typically, aqueous colloids are stabilized by having a surface charge. Like charges repel, so if all the particles carry the same charge, they don't want to stick together. Zeta potential is a measure of the intensity of the electric field induced around the particle by this surface charge. Large positive or negative zeta potentials give stable particles. Yeast normally has a negative zeta potential. Zeta potential is strongly influenced by the ambient pH. The usual pattern is for the zeta potential to become more positive at lower pH. For many particles, there is a magic pH ("the isoelectric point") where the zeta potential passes through zero. At this pH, the particles are very unstable, and easily floculate. Milk curdles because souring (i.e. acid production) lowers the pH, and drives the negative zeta potential of the colloid towards zero. You can also floculate a colloid by dumping in some particles or a polymer with the opposite zeta potential - opposite charges attract, and everything sticks together in big blobs. Cold break is a floc of two polymers with opposite zeta potential (-polyphenol and +proteins). The protein gelatin helps floculate yeast because at at brewing pH it has a positive zeta potential, while yeast has a negative zeta potential. In the CO2 toxicity debate, I speculated that dissolved CO2 would drive the pH low enough to bring the yeast near it's isoelectric point, and thus induce premature floculation. Someone else pointed out that pH doesn't change all that dramatically during fermentation, and so I let this theory die, the innocent victim of one too many experiments. I'm now an advocate of the "bubbles induce mixing" theory of CO2 pseudo-toxicity in weakly nucleated fermenters. <grin> - --- Dave Whitman dwhitman at ot.xxx (change xxx to com for replies) Return to table of contents
Date: 26 Jun 97 17:01:25 -0400 From: Robert.MATTIE at sb.com Subject: Fourth Annual BUZZ Off Results The Fourth Annual BUZZ Off was held on June 22, 1997 at the Victory Brewi= ng Company in Downingtown, PA. This year, the BUZZ Off had over 440 entries= -- currently the fourth largest AHA sanctioned competition in the United Sta= tes. = The BUZZ Off is the result of a year's worth of planning and hard work, o= ur thanks to the volunteers, judges, stewards and sponsors that made this ye= ar's competition possible. The Best of Show went to Jay White, Wilmington, Delaware. The PA Club Challenge went to BUZZ, Malvern, PA. The Delaware Valley Homebrewer of the Year went to Alan Folsom, Warringto= n, PA. Please see the BUZZ Off Web site for additional results: http://www.voicenet.com/=AFrpmattie/buzzoff (note: the character in front of rpmattie is the tilde. Some mailers cha= nge the character to something else) :-( Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 17:18:26 -0500 (CDT) From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay at NetXpress.com> Subject: Baking Bottles Yesterday,S. Murman wrote: >The repeated heating and cooling fatigues the bottles too much in my opinion. >I know some of you will chime in and say you've been doing it that way since 1906 and never had a problem, but I'm just reporting what I've experienced. Well, not 1906 (maybe '07 or '08) and at 350F,rather than 250F. I,too, have noticed a *lot* of surface cracking on 12 ounce,returnable, "Long Necks". However, I have a large bunch of US champagne bottles that have been in use for at least 4 years with *no* visible damage. Perhaps the champ bottles,engineered for higher pressure originally, are tempered so that they withstand the baking better. I pretty much stopped using the "Long Necks" anyway,since the champs are 24 ounce and I don't remember ever having only one beer(besides the shorter bottling process). As to the necessity of sterile bottles,I can't see that it hurts and I've not had a bottle borne infection since I started baking bottles. BTW, I've also never had a bottle crack,fracture,burst or whatever. As in all things brewish,YMMV. Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:35:28 -0400 (EDT) From: MonksEnvy at aol.com Subject: Bad Homebrew...lawn fertilizer? I have heard that some people use beer to control grubs and to green up lawns. Since commercial fertilizer is not recommended during the hot months of summer, I would like to hear from some people who use beer to green their lawns. How much do you use? What adjuncts? What is the "active" ingredient? What insects does home brew control? Private E-mail is ok. Greg Mueller Monk's Envy HB Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:08:37 +0000 From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Brewing coffee, add Hops for DE-bittering !! I'm involved in reading some 2271 pgs of texts on phenolics and tannins right now and I'm just getting to the point where I can answer a few basic questions on the topic relevent to brewing. Phenols like many aspects of brewing are rife with contradictions - phenols are sweet, bitter and astringent; phenols are carcinogenic and cancer preventative; phenols are used by bacteria and fungi and also fungicides and bacteriacides; phenols are oxidative and reductive. What is intriguing is the number of odd little effects in which phenols are involved. Stupid Hops Tricks - One interesting effect is that some phenolics actually mask bitter alkaloid flavors. It has apparently been known for some time (25+ years) that tea phenolics actually mask the bitterness of the tea caffeine. It has been demonstrated that removal of certain phenolics from tea by polyamide separation or enzymatic reduction leaves a drink that has substantially increased bitterness - corresponding to the amount of caffeine. Galloyl-phenolics - those containing gallic acid groups are the specific phenolic class involved in this effect. The gallo-phenol+caffeine component tastes tangy rather than bitter. It's been known for a very long time (~175 ys) that hops contain these gallic acid groups in its phenols while malt does not. Back a year or so ago there was a thread about adding half a dozen hops cones to the drip basket of a pot of coffee for flavor. I recently (re-)tried this using tettnang hops for a critical tasting and - yes! - the resulting coffee was very remarkably non-bitter and did have a noticeable tangy-orangy tea-like background flavor in addition to the coffee+hops flavors and aromas. My original hopped coffees used high alpha american hop varieties which produced more rough, bitter and terpene-like flavors. Every now and then someone asks about brewing a beer containing coffee. The obvious implication is that if hops are added, the desirable edgy-bitter caffeine flavor will not come thru and will be tranformed into a more tangy tea-like flavor. - -- Considering the ubiquity and importance of phenolics in plants (including barley and hops) and beverages (should at least include beer, wine, cider/perry/ciser, tea, colas, scotch, bourbon and some water supplies) it's surprising that the role of phenols in brewing hasn't received more attention. Steve Alexander "Those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know", Lao Tsu, 'Tao Te Ching' #56, 550 B.C., earliest review of HBD content ;^) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:39:27 -0400 From: "Stephen Jordan" <komusubi at together.net> Subject: Bottles,Bottles I hope I dont get slammed for this but here goes... I'm really getting tired of spending three hours bottling my beer and have been thinking about taken the plunge into kegging. My problem is I know very little about it, expence what type of equipment and how long does the beer stay fresh once it's kegged? I am looking forward to any and all info. Thanks A sort of new brewer from Vermont SRJ Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/27/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96