Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1007
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 92/11/06 00:22:27
HOMEBREW Digest #1007 Fri 06 November 1992
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Lauter Tuns (Jack Schmidling)
smithwick's (Tony Babinec)
folk wisdom about hops ("Stephen G. Pimentel")
beer in the news (dave ballard)
Re: good brew in Cleveland (Robert West)
when to rack off trub? (Rob Bradley)
SG readings (Peter Maxwell)
Brewing Celis White beer (STROUD)
yeast & trub (Brian Bliss)
pyrex tubes (Carl West)
Carbonation in kegs (David Birkhead)
Lost spices (pmiller)
dry beer (Peter Mentzel)
dry beer (Peter Mentzel)
commercial beers to report alcohol strength? (Tony Babinec)
Diacetyl Rest (Josh Grosse)
Beer in history (David Van Iderstine)
Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 00:00 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Lauter Tuns
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
>From: "Daniel Miller" <dmiller@mailbox.syr.edu>
>I had the opportunity to talk with an employee of the A-B brewery here
in sunny Syracuse at a Halloween party last Friday... , I did find out how
they remove the alcohol from their NA beer. Turns out they use dialysis.
Sorry, wasn't able to get more details. Another data point to experiment
with.
Yah, right. Amazing how many obscure processes they come up with and how they
never have any details on them. The truth of the matter is that they simply
add water till the alcohol content is less than .5% then carbonate it.
>From: R_GELINAS@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
> Jack, the problem with your points/pound/gallon efficiency calculation
is that it doesn't take into account different grains. If you use all
2-row and I use 2-row, munich, roasted barley, rice, barley flakes, and
wheat, we cannot truthfully use p/p/g to compare our efficiency. Some
grains/adjuncts have more possible sugar available than others. The only
true way to compare is to calculate the percentage of the theoretical
true way to compare is to calculate the percentage of the theoretical
maxmimum.
Except that you have to do a separate calculation for each grain type and you
must then compare them to what someone else claims to be the max for each
type and somehow integrate them into an overall average. If someone else
comes up with different numbers, chaos will reign. I am not suggesting that
it is not useful information, I am simply saying it is not a universal
standard.
Finally, it leaves someone else hanging who only has the other number. He
has no way of comparing with what you did. It would be far simpler to state
the p/p/g ratio and as no recipe is complete without a grain bill, the info
is there for those who need it. It is virtually impossible to work backward
from the per cent number.
>From: korz@iepubj.att.com
>> If one goes on to sparge out the mash and makes the measurements again,
one now gets the extract efficiency or the ability to get the converted sugar
out of the mash. This now depends on the lautering system and process and
has nothing to do with conversion or malt type.
>Sure it does. If you only converted 1/2 of the starches, you can only get
1/2 as much sugars out of the grains as you could have if you converted 100%
of the starch. Your extract efficiency is bound by (as you called it) your
conversion efficiency. Your extract efficiency is only as good as your weakest
link which may be either your mashing or your lautering.
I only disagree with the opening sentance. IF you measured the conversion
efficiency before sparging, then the final extraction will measure your
abililty to get the KNOWN sugar out of the tun. I simply separated the whole
process into two separate steps for analysis purposes.
>> The point of all this is that it is unwarranted to criticise a brewer's
> equipment or his process or his materials for extract/conversion problems
> equipment or his process or his materials for extract/conversion problems
> based on end results. There simply is not enough data to make that
> judgement.
>That's why I suggested that brewer's who are getting bad numbers post thier
procedures and ask for comments. 4000 heads are better than one.
I couldn't agree more but perhaps you have forgotten that this started out as
an allegation of a "design flaw" that results in "poor extract efficiency" in
a system that works just fine and suffers from no such problem.
js
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 9:49:33 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: smithwick's
There have been a number of postings lately on Smithwick's, mostly
from Canadian HBDers. I had the good fortune to visit Ottawa recently,
and wandered into the Earl of Sussex. They have a dozen beers on
tap, all from keg, not cask. But, these included Smithwick's Bitter,
John Smith's Yorkshire Bitter, and Stone's Bitter. All were quite good.
Upon returning to the States, I looked up Smithwick's in my CAMRA guide,
and found nothing. Then I looked it up in Jackson, and found Smithwick's
listed under Ireland. According to Jackson, Guinness and Allied Breweries
have formed Irish Ale Breweries, with breweries in Dundalk and Kilkenny.
Smithwick's tasted like a bitter, not an Irish ale. It is a very
drinkable beer. To my knowledge, it is available in Ontario, but not
the States. Maybe some importer will wise up!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:02 GMT
From: "Stephen G. Pimentel" <0004876702@mcimail.com>
Subject: folk wisdom about hops
A bit of folk wisdom from the farmers of the UK...
Snow on Christmas night, good hop crop next year.
------------------------------
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:11 EST
From: dab@donner.cc.bellcore.com (dave ballard)
Subject: beer in the news
Hey now- Two beer-related issues in todays news-
First- Archeologists have discovered a clay pot in Iran that dates back
to 3500 BC. The pot contains "a pale yellow liquid" made from
fermented barley- beer. If this is indeed beer it would be the
earliest signs of brewing found to date.
Second- Some kid in Minnesota followed her science teachers instructions
(allegedly) to mix water, sugar, and yeast and seal it in a plastic
bottle. You guessed it- boom. The mother of the kid says that the
house now reeks of stale beer (you should smell my house lady). Have any
of you ever made the national wire by having one of your brews go bang?
I didn't think so...
dab
=========================================================================
dave ballard
dab@cc.bellcore.com
=========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 08:06:13 PST
From: esri!deadcat!robert@uunet.UU.NET (Robert West)
Subject: Re: good brew in Cleveland
>Greetings. I'm headed for a computer conference in Cleveland and would love
>recommendations on where to find good brew in the area. Thanks in advance
The Great Lakes Brewing Co. is a pretty good place to go for beer and a meal.
The address I have is 2516 Market St in Cleveland.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:46:48 -0500
From: bradley@adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley)
Subject: when to rack off trub?
In HBD #1005, Peter Maxwell asked about trub and racking off it,
prompting several replies in HBD1006. My usual brewing procedure
(for ales) is to make 5.5 gallons and brew in a bucket primary
leaving the beer on the trub. I rack off the sediment into a 5
gallon carboy, typically on day 4 or 5, and get a full 53 or 54
bottles, unless I add a lot of dry hops. I'm generally pleased
with the results.
As has been pointed out (in 1006 by Al Korz as well as others in earlier
issues) trub contains nutrients which can be be beneficial in the
initial, aerobic phase (respiration). As well, I have found the trub
doesn't compact very well, so that even after a few hours (much less 30
minutes!), racking either carries a LOT of trub to the new vessel or
leaves a LOT of good wort behind. So, after various attempts racking
off the trub in 1987 and 1988, I stopped worrying.
In 1990, I experimented racking off the trub in the 12-24 hour range.
I believe this was recommended in the HBD around #600. I didn't notice
any particular improvement the first couple of times and then I got a
batch with an INCREDIBLE, UNDRINKABLE amount of diacetyl. End of
experiment. Back to racking on day 4.
I would be interested to hear the experience of others:
* as to how completely one can get rid of the trub when racking within
the first few hours, and
* racking after respiration.
Cheers,
Rob (bradley@adx.adelphi.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:20:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Maxwell <peterm@hpdtlpm.ctgsc.hp.com>
Subject: SG readings
The idea of taking SG readings on successive days to determine when
fermentation is essentially complete sounds a good one. Up until now I've
simply waited for bubbling to cease. I'm nervous about continually opening
the secondary fermenter to siphon off a sample, and I tried putting the
hydrometer in the fermenter but couldn't read it properly.
The thought then occurred to me : why not take a sample at the time the wort
is being transferred and simply keep the hydrometer sitting in this, taking
a reading each day? The assumption is that the sample has all the same
characteristics as the main batch, including fermenting yeast and will
continue the same way. My question is: is this reasonable? Will such a
small volume continue fermenting at the same rate as the main brew?
Comments, opinions, past experience?
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:53 EST
From: STROUD <STROUD%GAIA@leia.polaroid.com>
Subject: Brewing Celis White beer
So, you want to homebrew a witbier, eh?? Well, five members of the Wort
Processors who recently attended the Dixie Cup also had the good fortune to be
taken on a personal tour of the new Celis Brewery in Austin. The hosts,
including Pierre Celis himself, were most gracious and were very open about the
brewing procedures used in their beers, especially their terrific witbier,
Celis White. I was able to gather the following information:
The grist is made from 50% Belgian 6-row malt & 50% Luckenbach hard red winter
wheat. After being milled it undergoes a simple infusion mash at 149 deg. F
for 1 hour (no protein rest!). The mash is sparged, then the wort is boiled
for one hour. The hops (Saaz, Cascade) are added only for the last 15 minutes
of the boil. We were not told the hopping rate, but it must be very low. The
spices (coriander and orange peel -pulverized in a hammer mill) are also added
for the last 15 minutes of the boil, at a rate equivalent to 2 gms coriander
and 2.1 gms orange peel per 5 gallon batch. After the boil, the beer is
whirlpooled to remove hot break, then is chilled and transferred to the
primary. OG is in the range of 12 Plato.
The Celis wit yeast is then pitched and the beer fermented in the
high 60's F for 7 -10 days, then transferred to a secondary, and a strain of
lactobacillus is added and allowed to work until the pH of the beer drops to
4.4.
The beer is then pasteurized; dextrose and yeast (same yeast as primary) are
added, and the beer is allowed to condition.
Celis White should be available in Boston and California in the near future;
the yeast in the bottle should still be viable, assuming that it haasn't been
killed off sitting in some hot Texas warehouse.
I hope that this helps you brew your own wit beer!
- Steve Stroud
PS - the Celis Brewing Co. had brewed a Grand Cru just before our visit, and
it was happily fermenting away in the primary. We were told that it was all
barley, no spices were used, OG was about 18 Plato, and the Celis White yeast
was used. It should hit the Texas market around Dec. 1.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 14:14:27 CST
From: bliss@csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss)
Subject: yeast & trub
>1. How important is it to rack off the sedimented hot and cold break?
> Miller and Papazian both indicate it's optional but recommended. Is
> there a real difference in taste?
Other people in this forum have done blind taste tests, and
the consensus is that it is very important to rack off the trub,
especially if you don't use a blowoff. (don't ask me why the two
factors are connected) I think it makes a big difference, even
when using a blowoff.
>2. Is the presence of trub likely to interfere with fermentation and cause
> it to get stuck?
No. In fact, the presence of the trub will actually help the yeast
during the aerobic phase (but does it produce off-flavors in the process?).
As to whether or not you should rack before, during, or just after the
aerobic phase is still an open question. (I rack before)
>3. I read that the recommended practice is to pitch the yeast then wait 30
> minutes or longer, then rack off the trub before fermentation starts. Why
> not simply let the wort settle for a while after it's been cooled and
> then rack into the fermenter? This means one less step.
Many people simply siphon off the trub from the brew kettle, and it
works just fine. I don't because I can't see through my brew kettle.
My 6-gal fermenter is taller and narrower than my brew kettle (i.e.
making for a smaller layer of wasted clear wort on top of the trub),
and I can see exactly what I'm doing.
>4. When the yeast is initially pitched, does it go into suspension? My
> fear is that if I pitch and then rack very soon afterwards I'll be
> leaving some of the yeast behind.
Yes, you do leave much of the yeast behind, but the yeast that falls out
of suspension isn't as healthy as the yeast that stays in suspension
(and plenty will stay in suspension).
>5. Is there anything wrong in racking after fermentation has commenced?
> Is this too late?
A vigorous starting yeast (i.e. whitbread ale) will mix the trub
back into solution, and even if there's still a good layer of trub
on the bottom and not much has been mixed back into solution, your
siphon will keep stopping from the expelled CO2. Aside from that,
the aerobic phase is complete at this time and the trub layer has
already affected the yeast growth. Again, as to whether this is bad
is still an open question.
>6. Initial aeration is important for yeast growth. Is aeration while
> racking off the trub to be avoided? How long after pitching does
> additional aeration become bad?
Siphoning off the trub is an ideal time for the added aereation.
The yeast use up all the O2 in solution during the aerobic phase;
as soon as they run out, they switch to anerobic fermentation.
Re-aereating can induce the aerobic phase again. It's best to
aereate liberally, perhaps shaking the fermenter several times
over the first few hours, but once the anerobic phase has started
O2 should not be introduced into the wort.
- ------
> Is there any hope for this beer? Will the yeasty flavor dissipate
>over time? What could have caused this problem? Was it the yeast,
>a sanitation problem (bacterial infection), or something completely
>different. Thanks for any advice.
Give the bottles a week or two in the fridge, to get the yeast to
settle out of solution and for a nice hard cake on the bottom.
(and be careful when pouring). Since the beer is still quite young,
chances are that an incorrectable case of yeast autolysis has
not yet occurred.
- ------
>>A rollermill (such as the modified Mercado Mill or yes, the infamous
>MALTMILL) is virtually essential to getting a good crush with a minimum of
>flour.
I own a MALTMILL (well, 1/3 interest in one), and am a satisfied customer,
although switching to it from the Corona did not have as big an effect
on the sparge as I had expected. I just like its speed, the fact that
my arm isn't ready to fall off when I'm done, the fact that the little
dust produced is kept in the bucket with the grain, and the extra couple
of SG points/lb that it buys you.
>> >The EM system runs clear after only a few ounces are drawn off initially
> and continues to run clear even after thorough stirring of the mash.
But how clear is "clear"?
- ------
on a totally non-brew topic...
>| Republicans understand the importance
>| of bondage between a mother and child.
>| -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Did you hear that the first thing George Bush did after voting
was to go out and buy a quail hunting license?...
bb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 11:58:53 EST
From: eisen@kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West)
Subject: pyrex tubes
Bill Szymczak asks:
>I am also interested in buying some pyrex test tubes...Does anyone have
>a better (cheaper) source for such items.
Try American Science & Surplus
item# 22362
catalog# 67
page# back cover
package pkg (24)
description culture tube, 15mm x 125mm
price/package $5.00
Their phone# is (708)475-8440
They have a minimum $10 order and minimum $4.50 shipping charge
The tubes are Pyrex.
The catalog is fun, check it out.
Carl
WISL,BM.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 11:19:42 PST
From: sybase!daveb@Sun.COM (David Birkhead)
Subject: Carbonation in kegs
In HBD #1003 Robert Haddad writes:
>Granted that draft beer should not be as carbonated as the bottled
>kind.
>Nevertheless, I have not yet been truly happy with the level of
>carbonation in my kegged brew. I have lately tried to chill it a
>little more, but while that improved things somewhat, the brew is
>still somewhat still...
>I have kegged stout, and various other ales. I prime the beer with
>1/2 cup of corn sugar per 5 gal cornelius keg (with about 4.5 gal of
>brew in it). The pressure in there by party time is about 25lbs.
You might want to try using CO/2 from a cylinder.
There are 2 ways of doing this.
1) Charge up your keg to about 45 psi and shake it for about
5 miniutes. Let it sit cold over night and it is ready to serve.
Pros:
This will give beer in about 12 hours.
Cons:
This method gives you courser bubbles
(more similar to the bubbles in calistoga water vs perrier).
2) Charge up your keg to about 45 lbs. and let it sit cold for about
48 hours recharging it about every 12 hours. About 2 hours before
serving bleed off the pressure to serving pressure.
Pros:
This gives you beer that for my money can not distinguished
from naturally carbonated beer. The bubbles are small and
you get a good head on your beer from a keg.
Cons:
It takes a little longer
(iIf this is a problem then why are you making beer ;-)
Good luck,
Daveb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:52:52 CST
From: pmiller@mmm.com
Subject: Lost spices
I had an interesting experience last weekend while I was washing
up a carboy which I had used for primary fermentation of a spiced
ale:
I had made a spiced ale using spices (obviously) and orange zest.
I dumped the spices in the brewpot about 10 minutes before the
end of the boil. The aroma that those ingredients created during
the boil was wonderful and strong.
The batch of beer ended up being about 4 gallons which I fermented
in a 5 gallon carboy using a blowoff hose. Because of all the
extra head space, though, a lot of 'gunk' ended up on the carboy
shoulders that would have normally been forced out of the hose.
When I went to clean the carboy, I noticed that wonderful aroma
again as soon as the hot water hit the 'gunk'. The obvious
conclusion is that a lot of my spices didn't stay in the beer.
I know that I wouldn't have noticed this if I hadn't happened to
make a 4 gallon batch and I just wanted to bring it to everyone's
attention.
The problem, as I see it, is that vigor of fermentation could
change the 'spiciness' characteristic of my beer in the future
if I continue to use this method. An active fermentation will
blow a lot of spices out the hose while a quiet one will result
in most of the spices staying in the beer. Now, if you're
already making wonderful spiced beers with great consistency, then
skip to the next article, otherwise here are three ideas to improve
homebrewed spiced beers:
1) Don't use the blowoff method. Ferment in a 6 or 7 gallon
carboy and you'll retain everything you put into the beer. [This,
of course, will be unacceptable to the people who swear by the
blowoff method to remove fusel alcohols, etc., but it's your
call...]
2) Boil the spices longer to capture the spice flavor directly
in the wort. [The problem with this is that you could lose all
your spice aroma due to the extended boil.]
3) Boil the spices and what-not separately in a small amount of
water to make a spiced 'tea', cool, and dump the 'tea' into the
secondary to flavor your brew.
I like 3) the best due to the disadvantages that I pointed out for
1) and 2). I think I'm going to try this next year, but I'll
probably have to reduce the spice level somewhat. Has anyone ever
tried this approach and how did it work for you?
Phil Miller
pmiller@mmm.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:02:41 -0800
From: Peter Mentzel <mentzel@u.washington.edu>
Subject: dry beer
Some time ago I remember reading several postings about "dry beer."
I cannot seem to find them now, but I would very much enjoy hearing
from anyone who has brewed a dry beer or has a recipe for one.
Please send mail to my email address.
Thanks!
Peter Mentzel
(mentzel@u.washington.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 15:02:41 -0800
From: Peter Mentzel <mentzel@u.washington.edu>
Subject: dry beer
Some time ago I remember reading several postings about "dry beer."
I cannot seem to find them now, but I would very much enjoy hearing
from anyone who has brewed a dry beer or has a recipe for one.
Please send mail to my email address.
Thanks!
Peter Mentzel
(mentzel@u.washington.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 18:30:51 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: commercial beers to report alcohol strength?
I don't have the news clip in front of me, but earlier this week it
was reported that Coors won a court ruling permitting the reporting
of alcoholic strength on its packaging. The article suggested that
Coors wants to do this to dispel a perception that its beers are
"weaker" than the competition's. Allegedly, commercial brewers are
(were) forbidden from reporting alcoholic content because of
"prohibitionist" concerns that the consumer would gravitate to the
stronger beer in a quest for drunkenness. Yet, spirits and wine
have known alcoholic contents! I welcome the reporting of alcoholic
content as a step toward "truth in packaging."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 23:10:50 EST
From: jdg@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us (Josh Grosse)
Subject: Diacetyl Rest
A couple of HBDs back, a question was asked about the purpose and technique
for implementing a diacetyl rest.
Purpose:
To reduce the level of diacetyl (butter/butterscotch flavor or aroma), a
ketone, below the taste threshold. Most often done with lagers. Diacetyl
is produced by yeast, but given time (and temperature) the yeast can reduce
diacetyl to flavorless diols.
Technique:
After fermentation completes, the wort's temperature is raised from lager
fermentation temperature (approx 48-54 F) to room temperature, and held there
for 24 hours or so, prior to racking to secondary.
References: Miller's "The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing" and Fix's "The
Principles of Brewing Science."
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Grosse jdg@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 21:14:07 EST
From: localhost!davevi@uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine)
Subject: Beer in history
An A.P. story, seen in the Boston Globe, 11/5/92:
- ---
Find in Iran suggests beer from 3000 B.C.
-----------------------------------------
New York - Hey, Sumerians, this brew's for you!
Scientists say they have found the earliest known chemical evidence
that ancient people quaffed a few beers: yellow deposits on the inside
of a jar more than 5,000 years old.
Tests suggested that the deposits were calcium oxalate, a substance
that settles when barley beer is stored or fermented, the researchers
said.
[Gee, didn't the digest *just* decide that vinegar was the way to go
on those unsightly deposits?]
The finding supports other evidence of beer at the same time, around
3500 B.C. to 3100 B.C., at the same archeological site in western Iran
and at several sites in Iraq, study co-author Patrick McGovern said.
McGovern, an archeological chemist at the University Musuem of
Archeology and Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, reports
the work with Rudolph Michel of the museum and Virginia Badler of the
University of Toronto in today's issue of the journal Nature.
Badler said researchers had already found that barley was common at
the site.
The jar came from the same room at the site where researchers had
found evidence of wine in other vessels.
- ---
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1007, 11/06/92
*************************************
-------
