Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1066
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/01/29 00:40:39
HOMEBREW Digest #1066 Fri 29 January 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
brewpots (Michael Gildner)
COPS again... (Mike Zentner)
Nitrosamine Garbage (Kevin L. McBride)
dough in correction (Jim Busch)
instructions & gifs (Michael D. Galloway)
re:blond doppelbock (Jim Busch)
RE: doughing-in (James Dipalma)
logic (Rob Bradley)
San Francisco BrewPubs? (Curt Harpold-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer)
WYeast #1084 (Guy McConnell)
re-use slurry (Russ Gelinas)
RE: EBC to Lovibond (James Dipalma)
Isolating pure yeast ("Bob Jones")
Pecheur ("Rad Equipment")
help (SSA92FAJ14)
Bluebonnet Brew-off (George J Fix)
Repitching yeast. (Chris McDermott)
Re: re-using yeast in fermenter (Jeff Benjamin)
doughing in (donald oconnor)
Judges Wanted (Roy Styan)
yeast culture media - formulations by weight ("John L. Isenhour")
HBU-IBU Table, Wort chillers (Bill Szymczak)
propensity pilsner lagering (KLIGERMAN)
My Shuttle Buddy ("Sadvary, Bill")
Scientific American: Absinthe (Tom Rush)
Florida Brewers (G.A.Cooper)
nitrosamines in beer (Lance Encell)
Mai Bock Strike Temp and Chillers (K.W.) Golka" <golka@bnr.ca>
cyser yeast (MARK TARATOOT)
Nitrosamines, Dough-in (Jack Schmidling)
Hop_aroma (Glenn Tinseth)
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, 28 Jan 93 07:48:29 EST
From: mmlai!lucy!gildner@uunet.UU.NET (Michael Gildner)
Subject: brewpots
After some thought I've decided to invest in all grain brewing.
The problem seems to be that the start up costs for the equipment
could be over $100. I can get access to a corona through my
local homebrew club and the cost of converting my cooler for mashing
is minimal. The main cost remains, a large 7-10 gallon brewpot.
So does anyone have any ideas on where to find a good deal on a large
pot? I've been eyeing one at the local "PACE" store recently. It is
a 13 gallon oval shaped "Revere" copper boiler for $80. I was hoping
to find something for under $50.
Any ideas?
Mike Gildner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:20:45 -0500
From: zentner@ecn.purdue.edu (Mike Zentner)
Subject: COPS again...
In regard to the letter from Malcolm Barbour. While I agree that the
show "shows it as it happens", I think the thing that most offends me is
the big zoom-in at the end of the segment on TCJHB. That is NOT "as it
happened", that is a shot done for emphasis to evoke an emotional response
from the audience. It it was going to be done "as it happened", I would have
expected a shot of the criminal being hauled off (if I was there, I know
that's where I would have been looking). Anyhow.....
Mike Zentner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:14:48 EST
From: klm@mscg.com (Kevin L. McBride)
Subject: Nitrosamine Garbage
Sigh... OK, folks, for the N-th time:
We are all going to die some time. This fact cannot be avoided,
though it appears that at least one regular contributor to this forum
believes that he has found the key to eternal life through the beating
of dead horses.
If a glass of Smoked Porter is going to kill me then at least I will
die a happy man.
Next topic. Please.
- --
Kevin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:09:07 EST
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: dough in correction
In the last digest I made the comment regarding dough in
methods in many breweries based on adding malt to water.
It occurred to me last night that many BIG breweries and
small breweries with pretty high tech malt feed systems
do indeed have a spray system where the malt entering the
mash tun is showered with hot water mixing both as they
enter the tun. This is indeed about the best way to
dough in, but I still assert that for homebrewers this
is a bit of overkill. But then, most of you probably
were aware of this anyway.
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:11:27 -0500
From: mgx@ornl.gov (Michael D. Galloway)
Subject: instructions & gifs
Could someone point me towards the HBD issue numbers where the
picnic cooler/mash tun/lauter tun with slotted copper tubing
instructions are? Also, could the person making the gif and jpeg
scans perhaps scan the zymurgy issue cover that has kathy ireland
on it? I would be most gratefull!
Michael D. Galloway mgx@ornl.gov
Solid State Division voice -- (615) 574-5785
Oak Ridge National Lab fax -- (615) 574-4143
Living in the Wasteland (of Beer, that is)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:23:41 EST
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: re:blond doppelbock
In the last digest hosehead@acs.bu.edu (Michael Reinhorn) asks
about making Blond DoppelBock. HE also notes that the bock
from the Chapter house was pretty good. This bock used to
be produced by the now defunct Clement Brewing Co. It was
indeed a fantastic blond doppel, weighing in at 9.5% alcohol by Vol!!
For a try at the brew: Use 100% pale pils malt, possibly adding
a bit of Munich, but this is not required. Push the OG up
to around 1.090. Use quality imported german hallertaur hops.
A double decoction mash would be good. Keep the IBUs in the
20 range. Ferment with a very clean lager strain, keeping the
ferment temp at 48F. After primary for about 1 week, rack to
secondary and slowely (2F per day) drop the temp to 31F. You
may want to do a 2 day diacetyl rest at 39F. LAger at 31F
for at least 6 weeks, 8 is better. Prime with fresh yeast
and wort, or force carbonate. This is not a simple beer
to make well, but can be very rewarding.
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:48:34 EST
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: doughing-in
Hi All,
In the last few digests, an interesting thread on dough-in. Al
Korz writes:
>>For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist
>>(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Adding the grist to
>>the strike liquor will work, but will create much more balled starch
>>than the opposite (see Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer").
Jim Busch answers:
>This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about
>the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed
>to the converse. Ok, so one can get "balled starch", wont it then
>hydrate and become "non balled"? Cant you just stir enough to
>completely mix the mash? ....
>This is one of the "Noonanisms" that I feel is rather un-
>important to the overall beer quality. THere are so many other
>places for brewers to make significant improvements to quality
>in brewing like malt/hops/yeast choices and even water chemistry.
I tend to agree with Jim. Quoting from the source in question:
"More than 10 percent flour is undesirable because it balls or cakes
readily. Balled flour results in unconverted starch that is
inaccessible to enzymes; some would surely wash into the wort during
sparging, causing an irreversible haze in the beer."
So, Noonan says that the problem with balled starch is that it leads
to incomplete converison, and to unconverted starch getting into the wort
and causing a starch haze. While I believe this is true in general, I don't
think dough-in procedure is the determining factor in creating balled starch.
I say this because I always do it "backwards", fill the mash tun with
water at ~130F, add 2-3 pounds of grist, stir thoroughly, repeat until
all the grist has been added. The temperature settles in at ~118F-120F,
just right for the protein rest. I don't have any problems with either
complete conversion or starch hazes, my lagers come out brilliantly clear.
IMHO, a too-fine crush of the malt is far more likely to cause the above
mentioned problems, due to large amounts of flour and pulverized husks.
Comments, please?
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:58:42 -0500
From: bradley@adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley)
Subject: logic
Al in HBD1064:
><For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist
><(which is highly recommended) not vice versa.
Jim in HBD1065:
>This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about
>the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed
>to the converse.
Why stop there? Let's consider the inverse: adding non-water to malt.
How about the contrapositive: adding non-malt to non-water. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:56:03 EST
From: curt@sundc.East.Sun.COM (Curt Harpold-Sun-Vienna VA-Systems Engineer)
Subject: San Francisco BrewPubs?
I'm leaving the relatively brewpub-dry east coast for a few weeks at
headquarters. I'd like suggestions of good brewpubs to visit in the
SF/Palo Alto/Berkeley area.
To avoid getting flamed for wasting bandwidth, you may want to reply to
me by email.
Thanks,
......Curt Harpold curt.harpold@east.sun.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 9:14:29 CST
From: gdmcconn@mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell)
Subject: WYeast #1084
In Digest #1065, Joseph N. Hall asks:
> Finally, on a slightly different topic, has anyone here tried using
> 1084 (Irish) for purposes other than stouts and porters? I feel like
> trying it in bitter and mild ... perhaps it might make a good alt
> yeast, too?
It works great everywhere I've used it. It is my "house yeast" and I have
used it in the following:
a blackberry ale
2 English milds
an Irish Red Ale
I have also used it in 6 different stouts and have the recipe for a 7th
already formulated, waiting for time to brew it. I love its contribution to
beer and all of these I mentioned have been well received by friends and club
members as well. I say go for it!
- --
Guy McConnell gdmcconn@mspe5.b11.ingr.com or b11!mspe5!gdmcconn
"All I need is a pint a day"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 10:12:57 -0500 (EST)
From: R_GELINAS@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: re-use slurry
Re-using yeast slurry is easy, efficient, cost effective, and taste
effective; I do it often. Some things to keep in mind:
1) Sanitation - especially wrt. the very first primary (meta-primary?)
ferment. Anything "bad" you introduce here will be propagated through
all the successive batches. Once you get to the point of using the
slurry, sanitation is *not as* important, because there is such a
relatively enormous amount of yeast being pitched for primary ferment
that other organisms cannot get a foothold.
2) Pitch a large healthy yeast starter for the meta-primary ferment.
3) Use the slurry from the secondary. The primary has trub, hops, and
dead yeast that can add off flavors. However, you may use the primary
slurry if it fits your brewing style. If you are unsure of your
sanitation in transferring from primary to secondary, you may be better
off using the primary slurry.
4) Don't overdo it. All yeasts mutate; some more (and more quickly)
than others. Often the mutation is to become more attenuative (making
a dryer beer). I've found this to be true of Sierra Nevada/Wyeast 1056
yeast; after 3 batches the beer is too dry for my tastes. Whitbread
ale yeast, otoh, had been reported to be able to be re-used many times
(20+ ?) without much change in character.
Try it, you'll like it. Oops, gotta go to work.
RG
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:40:25 EST
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: EBC to Lovibond
Hi All,
In the last HBD, Al Korz writes:
Murray writes:
>I have just found a new supplier for my grain requirements who has data
>sheets on the malt available. Specifically, it mentions a colour rating
>expressed in degrees EBC as opposed to degrees LOVIBOND. What is the conversion>factor between the two units.
>
>Also the product specification mentions the following:
>
>SPECIFICATION PALE MALT WHEAT MALT
>
>Colour 2.7 degrees LOVIBOND 4.5 degrees LOVIBOND
>Total protein eg 11.5% 14.5%
>Soluble protein eg 5.0% 8.5%
>Kolbach index eg 43 (no units) 61 (no units)
>Diastatic power 70 degrees L 160 degrees L
>Viscosity 1.65 cp 1.60 cp
I don't have a conversion, but here are some L/EBC pairs from Siebel's --
perhaps you can figure out your own conversion factor:
Lov EBC
3.21 8
7.83 15
25.7 55
7.87 15
21.65 45
77.5 155
221 500
22.5 55
497.5 1100
557.5 1400
601 1400
Fred Eckhardt's well-known book on beer styles contains an equation
for converting EBC to Lovibond.
EBC = Lovibond * 2.65, less 1.2
Implying that to convert from EBC to Lovibond, add 1.2, then divide by
2.65. Here's what I got when I ran the numbers Al provided:
EBC = 8, L = 3.47
EBC = 15, L = 6.11
EBC = 55, L = 21.21
EBC = 15, L = 6.11
EBC = 45, L = 17.43
EBC = 155, L = 58.94
EBC = 500, L = 189.13
EBC = 55, L = 21.21
EBC = 1100, L = 415.55
EBC = 1400, L = 528.75
EBC = 1400, L = 528.75
Hmmm, a couple of interesting observations here. First, from looking
at the pairs Al provided, it would seem that whatever the conversion
formula is, it's not linear, so I'm not terribly surprised the equation
from Eckhardt doesn't quite hold. Second, there are three pairs where the
EBC rating is the same (15, 55 and 1400), yet the equivalent Lovibond
ratings are different. What gives?
I would be very interested in an accurate method of converting these
units. If anyone knows how to convert the two, please jump right in.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 08:07:46 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones@novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: Isolating pure yeast
Hardy M. Cook ask some questions about yeast culturing.
There exists a agar called "WL nutrient agar" that is great for isolating
pure yeast from wild yeast strains. This agar is green in color. The pure
yeast take up the green color when grown up on Petri dishes and the wild
yeast remain white. I personally have never used the stuff, but have know
about it for years and was looking at some yeasts that were grown up of
the media this last weekend at the Bay Area Brewoff. A friend of mine uses
it to always check his yeast and grows up yeast taken from slants on the
stuff. I like these type of eyeball sort of tests. Maybe some microbio type
out there could post the availablity and cost of the media for those
interested.
Bob Jones
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jan 93 08:20:54 U
From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment@rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU>
Subject: Pecheur
Subject: Pecheur Time:8:06 AM Date:1/28/93
>"Pecheur has previously experimented with a beer
>containing malt whisky..."
I think this is a mistake. They have brewed a beer using whisky malt called
Adelscott which (according to Mr. Jackson) "imparts a very light smokiness." I
have spoken with the US importer about this product in the past only to learn
that they do not plan to introduce it here. Some problem with the labeling.
RW...
Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment@radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61)
UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:41:35 -0500 (EST)
From: SSA92FAJ14@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU
Subject: help
help
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:16:42 -0600
From: gjfix@utamat (George J Fix)
Subject: Bluebonnet Brew-off
I hope everyone caught Bryan's announcement in HBD#1064 of the Bluebonnet
Brew-off which will be held on 5-6 March. The organizing committee has
really worked hard on this one, and it looks like it is going to be a
very interesting and fun conference.
I hope to organize a tour during the conference. This will be carefully
coordinated with the organizing committee so that it does not conflict
with the exciting events they have planned. The conference will be held
in the central part of the Dallas-Ft. Worth metroplex (better known here
as the Arlington metroplex). This is within striking distance of two
commercial breweries (Dallas Brewing & Miller/Ft. Worth), and I hope to
include some interesting homebrewing setups as well. It would be great
to have people on this network join us. Technical discussions tend to
have a lot more meaning when they are done in the context of an actual
brewing configeration.
Anyone interested should contact me via private e-mail.
George Fix
gjfix@utamat.uta.edu
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jan 1993 11:56:16 -0500
From: Chris McDermott <mcdermott@draper.com>
Subject: Repitching yeast.
Repitching yeast.
First off lets clear up the terminology here. Several post in last few digest
have mentioned repitching "trub". In most cases I assume that this was simply
a mistake and what the writer meant was "yeast". However in #1065 Randall Holt
says:
>Made a nice lager in my 50 degree basement, and decided to try
>out the method of trub recycling. First I dumped the trub into
>a sterile pot, and covered it, then washed and sterilized the fermenter
>(I use plastic for the first stage, but only have one usable bucket).
>Brewed up another batch, let cool, and pitched the wort. Okay so far.
While I am sure that this will give him a good quantity of viable yeast, I'm
also sure that it give him of bunch of crap (trub - yeast = crap) that I
wouldn't want to pitch into my beer. So before anyone takes that advise to
heart unadvisadly - the more accepted method, at least in my mind, is to
repitch the sediment from the secondary which should be mostly yeast and should
contain several orders of magnitude less crap.
Also in #1065, Peter Maxwell asks:
>1. If the secondary has been sitting a while (say a week or two) is the
>sediment still viable yeast?
At least some portion of the yeast should still be viable.
>2. After I've racked off for bottling, how long could I safely leave the
>remnants? I thought of just putting back the airlock and leaving it
>untouched until the next brew.
With no food left the yeast will begin to autolzye. This is not good. My
method for saving yeast in this situation is to dilute the sediment in the
carboy with some sterilized water and then dump that slurry into a steril jar
that gets stored it in the refridgerator. The cool temperatures slows down the
autolyzation and should keep the yeast good for a week or more. I use a
pressure cooker to prepare "canned" jars of yeast starters. Using the same
method I make up a few jars of "canned" water that serves to produce a
sterilized jar for storage as well as sterilized water.
>3. If I do 2 above, will it be necessary to "start" the yeast by adding a
>small amount of sterile wort as per WYEAST starters?
Most of the "old" yeast may have died, but again there should remain some
portion of healthy yeast. By using a starter you can insure that you will get
a large population of viable yeast for pitching. I usually assume that the
portion of viable yeast is large enough that I can build up a large starter (1
- 1.5 qt) in a single step, but depending on how old the yeast is you may want
to do it in stages.
_
Christopher K. McDermott Internet: mcdermott@draper.com
C.S. Draper Laboratory, Inc. Voice: (617) 258-2362
555 Technology Square FAX: (617) 258-1131
Cambridge, MA 02149 (USA)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 10:08:19 MST
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: re-using yeast in fermenter
> Ron Karwoski writes about his experiences in pouring new wort over existing
> yeast in the fermenter. My questions relate to doing the same thing with
> the secondary fermenter:
>
> 1. If the secondary has been sitting a while (say a week or two) is the
> sediment still viable yeast?
>
> 2. After I've racked off for bottling, how long could I safely leave the
> remnants? I thought of just putting back the airlock and leaving it
> untouched until the next brew.
The yeast should still be viable even after a long secondary. I believe
that many of the yeast cells go dormant, rather than die (the more
biologically inclined can correct me on this point if I'm wrong).
I suppose you could leave the remnants in your fermenter, but once you
remove the beer, you introduce a lot of air and accompanying microbeasts.
My technique is to pour the sediment into a small sterilized (boiled) jar,
cap it with an airlock, and put it into the fridge. The small CO2 output
you'll get will quickly purge the smaller jar of air, and the colder temps
inhibit any bacterial growth and slow down the yeast activity.
I find that my yeast stored this way will last 2-3 weeks.
> 3. If I do 2 above, will it be necessary to "start" the yeast by adding a
> small amount of sterile wort as per WYEAST starters?
I don't think so. If you have half a cup of thick yeast slurry like
that, you already have more yeast than you would in a 1-qt starter.
I simply let the yeast warm to room temperature until it shows signs of
life again, and then dump it right into my wort.
- --
Jeff Benjamin benji@hpfcla.fc.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium."
- T.S. Eliot
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 11:27:20 -0600
From: oconnor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (donald oconnor)
Subject: doughing in
large breweries dough in by propelling a spray of grist into another
spray of water. the water is typically about 5-8 degrees C warmer than
the desired mash temperature. i'm not sure which approximation
by homebrewers, i.e., either adding the malt to the water or vice
versa is the better alternative. intuitively, i suspect adding the
grist to the water slowly would result in less dough clumps. neither
approach can mirror the uniform temperature and heat exposure of the
entire grist as seen in the commercial brewery. for example,
the grist initially added to the water sees a higher temperature than
the grist added later on. it seems from the recent posts on this subject
that both methods work pretty well.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 09:37:10 PST
From: rstya@mda.ca (Roy Styan)
Subject: Judges Wanted
The Royal Canadian Malted Patrol is holding their annual "Wort You Brewin'?"
competition in Vancouver B.C. on March 6, 1993. If any of you out there are
interested in judging please let me know and I will send you the details.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 11:53:24 CST
From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov>
Subject: yeast culture media - formulations by weight
I've allways done my culturing using liquid media and I'd like to experiment
with agar. I have found recipes that are formulated in units like
'tablespoons of' and, as my agar is not powdered and in several weird foamy
shapes (strings, square tubes etc), I would like to request some agar recipes
using english or metric measures.
Thanks!
John - The HopDevil
john@hopduvel.UUCP
isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:23:51 EST
From: bszymcz%ulysses@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Bill Szymczak)
Subject: HBU-IBU Table, Wort chillers
In HBD 1063 Jim Grady asks about calculating IBU's
from HBU's for comparing recipes. Although his question was
probably answered directly, I've computed the following table
using Rager's article in the Zymurgy Hops edition, and I hope
other hbd'ers find it useful also.
*** IBUs from 1 HBU *** (Rager)
Gravity of Wort
Time(min) 1.040 1.050 1.060 1.070 1.080 1.090 1.100 1.110 1.120
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 .746 .746 .711 .678 .649 .622 .597 .574 .553
10 .895 .895 .853 .814 .779 .746 .716 .689 .663
15 1.194 1.194 1.137 1.085 1.038 .995 .955 .918 .884
20 1.507 1.507 1.436 1.370 1.311 1.256 1.206 1.159 1.117
25 1.806 1.806 1.720 1.642 1.570 1.505 1.445 1.389 1.338
30 2.283 2.283 2.175 2.076 1.986 1.903 1.827 1.756 1.691
35 2.806 2.806 2.672 2.551 2.440 2.338 2.245 2.158 2.078
40 3.403 3.403 3.241 3.093 2.959 2.836 2.722 2.617 2.520
45 4.015 4.015 3.823 3.650 3.491 3.345 3.212 3.088 2.974
50 4.194 4.194 3.994 3.812 3.647 3.495 3.355 3.226 3.106
55 4.477 4.477 4.264 4.070 3.893 3.731 3.582 3.444 3.316
60 4.477 4.477 4.264 4.070 3.893 3.731 3.582 3.444 3.316
Gravity of Wort (Extract Brewer Range)
Time(min) 1.130 1.140 1.150 1.160 1.170 1.180 1.190 1.200 1.210
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 .533 .515 .497 .481 .466 .452 .439 .426 .415
10 .640 .618 .597 .578 .560 .543 .527 .512 .497
15 .853 .823 .796 .770 .746 .724 .702 .682 .663
20 1.077 1.040 1.005 .972 .942 .914 .887 .861 .837
25 1.290 1.245 1.204 1.165 1.129 1.094 1.062 1.032 1.003
30 1.631 1.575 1.522 1.473 1.427 1.384 1.343 1.305 1.269
35 2.004 1.935 1.870 1.810 1.754 1.700 1.650 1.603 1.559
40 2.430 2.347 2.268 2.195 2.127 2.062 2.002 1.944 1.890
45 2.868 2.769 2.676 2.590 2.509 2.433 2.362 2.294 2.230
50 2.995 2.892 2.796 2.706 2.621 2.542 2.467 2.396 2.330
55 3.198 3.088 2.985 2.889 2.798 2.713 2.634 2.558 2.487
60 3.198 3.088 2.985 2.889 2.798 2.713 2.634 2.558 2.487
To use this table estimate (or measure) the gravity of the wort, and
find the number corresponding to the time of boil. Multiply this
number by the HBU's to get IBU's. For example to compare Jim's
two recipe's for an extract pilsener, let's assume a full boil
with a gravity of about 1.050 (and neglect the increase in gravity as
the wort is concentrated). Then recipe 1 yields
5.75 HBU @ 60 min = 5.75 * 4.477 = 25.7 IBU
+ 3.5 HBU @ 15 min = 3.5 * 1.194 = 4.2 IBU
- -------------------------------------------------
29.9 IBU (from the boil).
Recipe 2 calls for
10.0 HBU @ 30 min = 10.0 * 2.283 = 22.8 IBU
which is less than recipe 1. Of course if you are only doing a
partial boil (heaven forbid) the gravity of the boil will be about
1.125 and the IBU counts will be reduced to 21.4 and 16.6
respectively.
In Rager's article the utilization rates
are based on a maximum of 30% at 60 minutes and these numbers should
probably be reduced by about 20% for hop flowers.
In HBD1064 Mike Zulauf asks about immersion in ice-water chillers:
> I am curious if anyone else uses this type of chiller. If so, how
>well does it work? How long does it take to chill 5 gallons of wort to
>a reasonable temperature? How much ice is required? What length of
>what diameter tubing was used?
> Anything else I should know before leaping in and just making the
>thing? Enquiring minds want to know!
I made such a chiller out of 25 ft. of 3/8 od
copper last summer because during
the summer my tap water is 80 degrees F making the counterflow or
immersion in kettle type less attractive. It works great, chilling
5 gallons of boiling wort down to 60-70 degrees F in 15 to 20 minutes.
When you factor in the latent heat needed to melt the ice you will
find that equal amounts of 10 deg F ice and 212 degree boiling
water will come to equilibrium at about 52 degrees F. So as a rule
of thumb you should use about the same amount of ice as the wort
you're trying to cool. I also add about 1 or 2 gallons of cold water
to the ice. You should constantly stir
the ice water while the wort is passing through for the ice water and
wort to more efficiently equilibriate the temperature.
On the other hand since my tap water now is about 52 degrees F I have
also made an immersion in kettle chiller which cools the wort to
about 70 deg F in about 25 minutes. Since we don't have a water
shortage in Maryland, I prefer this method because I don't have to
save all that ice.
Bill Szymczak
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jan 1993 13:37:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: KLIGERMAN@herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov
Subject: propensity pilsner lagering
Subject: Propensity Pilsner Lagering Questions
>I am posting for a friend, but he made the following,
and has a few questions:
>Propensity Pilsner (from Papazian's NCJOHB)
>Wyeast #2007 (I think it's a bavarian lager, but the # is definitely correct.)
>OG: 1055
>Primary Ferment for one week @ 52F.
>Racked to secondary.
>Secondary Ferment is currently on it's NINTH week @ 40F. etc...
>Still getting glugs every 60 seconds from normal 3-piece airlock.
>Is this too long of a ferment?
I have made this beer 3 or 4 times and it is excellent but
the flavor depends on the source of honey. My advice to
you is relax and have a homebrew. Your lagering is more than
ample but you probably have a lot of dissolved CO2 which is
slowly coming out of solution. I would raise the temp. 5 degrees/day
until your beer is up to room temp. and let it either finish fermenting
(doubtful) or degass a bit. Also it would be wise to take a gravity
reading and/or measure the residual sugar to see if the gravity is low
enough to bottle safely.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:58:03 est
From: "Sadvary, Bill" <SADVARY@DICKINSON.EDU>
Subject: My Shuttle Buddy
My Shuttle buddy, Dan Vosel (some of you may know him) sent me a case of
Pabst Blue Ribbon today for my birthday. I thought it was a rather unusual
choice of brew and thus it got me wondering...
The label states:
This is the _ORIGINAL_ Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer. Nature's choicest
products provide its prized flavor. Only the finest of hops and
grains are used. Selected as America's Best Beer in 1893.
A few questions:
1. Why would they specify Original? Did they have forgery problems
at one time?
2. Nature's choicest products, is choicest a word?
3. Prized flavor, would anybody know the prizes awarded? ..besides
a Blue Ribbon.
4. Only the finest of hops and grains. How would I attempt to
duplicate such a beer? Rice would be one, right?
5. Selected as America's Best Beer. What other american beers were
around available in 1893?
If anyone can answer any of these I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
-Bill Skill
sadvary@dickinson.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:31:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Rush <trush@mhc.mtholyoke.edu>
Subject: Scientific American: Absinthe
If anyone is interested and has access to the back issues of SA the
June 1989 issue, pp 112-117, there is an article on the liqueur "Absinthe".
I know this is not a forum for discussion of distillates but bear with
me :-) ... it is well researched and proposes a chilling theory on the
use (abuse) of various herbs particularly Artemisia absinthium the common
herb, Wormwood and other herbs found in herbs gardens(mine)and many
times in herbal outlets(herbalists?).
I understand the herbs in absinthe are distilled *essences* but it is
food for thought when someone discovers an old beer recipe some of
the herbs it could require may contain some powerful compounds which
invite the cautionary phrase "more is not always better".
Other interesting sections touch on relationship of absinthe with
Van Gogh, Degas, Manat, etc.-the "absinthe spoon" which I have seen
but never knew why a spoon would have slots cut thru it. Also a
sidelight on the invention of the alcoholmeter (works like a hydometer),
and a 19th century still. Ironically in the bibliography of the author,
Prof. Wilfred Niels Arnold specializes in yeast research but his
avocation is 19th century medicine and art history. Please do not
consider this as "breaking new ground" it is meant to be read and
taken for face value, I am not a scientist or engineer (liberal arts
and MBA).
Now that I am admitted scientific layperson, would someone be kind
enough to send me the method used to "wash" yeast? I would prefer
a simple explanation where I don't have to put on a laboratory
"white coat" :-) ... Thanks,
Tom Rush
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:01:36 +0000
From: G.A.Cooper@qmw.ac.uk
Subject: Florida Brewers
Guy McConnell asks:
> Do we have any brewers in Central Florida (Orlando, Kissimmee, St. Cloud,
>Lake Buena Vista, etc.) who read the Homebrew Digest? If so, please contact
>me via email. Thanks!
Please talk to (email) me also. I shall be over in Florida with my family
for 2 weeks at Easter - Yes, Orlando for Disney World then the Gulf coast.
Otherwise advice on pubs, breweries etc. would be appreciated.
Geoff
PS. sorry to those who don't like these requests but the brewlist isn't
ready yet. Or is it?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:35:41 CST
From: lencell@unmc.edu (Lance Encell)
Subject: nitrosamines in beer
Just to add a little to the talk about nitrosamines, they are found in beer
and wine, but as has been noted, they are found at very low levels.
They are formed under acidic conditions in our stomachs by the nitrosation
of ingested secondary amines by nitrite (generated from nitrate).
It has been shown that vitamin C prevents nitrosation by competing with the
amines for the nitrite. So everyone drink their O.J. so you get your C's.
Finally, nitrosamines require metabolic activation to exert their toxic
and carcinogenic effects. It just so happens that ethanol increases levels
of the enzyme responsible for the activation of N-nitrosodimethylamine, the
major nitrosamine found in beer. Whether increasing the metabolism by raising
enzyme levels is good or bad regarding toxicity is currently being studied
by a lot of people.
This is great, we all need a little chemistry now and then. Enjoy.
-Lance
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:18:00 +0000
From: "Kevin (K.W.) Golka" <golka@bnr.ca>
Subject: Mai Bock Strike Temp and Chillers
I have read a couple of recipes for Mai Bock that call for a mash
temperature of 150F for 2 hours. This temperature seems too low.
The Mai Bock which we made had a strike temperature closer to 156F and
it turned out pretty much as expected.
With a mash temperature of 150F how do you end up with the
characteristic sweetness of a Bock? There was a pound or so of crystal
malt in these recipes but I wouldn't have thought that this would be
sufficient on its own for the style.
I thought that a two hour mash at this temperature would give you
Mai Dry :). Am I missing something here?
On another note...
I have an immersion wort chiller but a friend of mine is planning on
building a counter flow chiller. Is there a FAQ with pipe diameter,
length and so on?
Has anyone built a counter flow chiller that looks like a coil in a big
coffee can? Advantages/disadvantages over the garden hose method?
Thanks for any info,
Kevin Golka, 613-763-3474
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of NT or BNR.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jan 1993 16:41:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: MARK TARATOOT <SLNDW@CC.USU.EDU>
Subject: cyser yeast
Greetings.
I am going to give my first cider a couple of months in the bottle
and I am sure it will get better. It already seems to be improving
and I am less disapointed than I was at first.
In the meantime, I am in the process of starting a batch of cyser
and am in need of a few comments. The basic recipie is:
~ half a gallon of snowberry honey (5-6 pounds)
4 + gallons fresh cider (mostly macintosh and delicious)
12 oz seneca granny smith apple juice concentrate (no preservatives)
3 tsp acid blend
3+ tsp yeast nutrient
10 campdon tablets
O.G. = 1.082
I have several yeast varieties at my home, and I am wondering which
I should use/start with/finish with/etc. I have:
Pastuer Champagne (red star)
Montrachet (red star)
Epernay 2 (red star)
Ale (williams)
My last cider was made with Epernay 2 and it finished quite dry. I
would like a sweeter beverage, but I don't know if the ale yeast will
poop out too soon (I want to sparkle some of it). Also, I don't
know if the ale yeast will ferment more vigorously and scrub some
of the more subtle flavors from the must. If anyone has information
on the characteristics of the first three yeasts above, I would like
to hear it.
When I rack this, should I increase the sugar (honey) if I go with
one of the wine yeasts?? My first cider started around 1.050.
What about lager yeast? What are the advantages/disadvantages
in using one type of yeast and adding another at a later time
(or starting with more than one type)?
How about juicing some other type of apples and tossing that in
at one of the rackings?
I plan on pitching late tonight or more likely tomorrow morning after
the majority of SO2 has been thrown off, so timely comments would be
helpful.
BTW... the Clinton Ale is Delicous!!
Thanks for the help!
-toot
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 12:25 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Nitrosamines, Dough-in
>From: gjfix@utamat (George J Fix)
>For the record, the highest NDMA level reported was in Bamberg Rauchbier.
It contained 5-15 parts per billon, and not 5 ppm as reported in HBD.
Just testing to see if you read my articles as carefully as
I read yours :)
> This also was the level reported in their malt. The NDMA levels of beer is
typically 9-10 times lower than in the malt used.
One would think that it would be many orders of magnitude lower than the malt
resulting from the dilution by water. Would not the fact that this one is an
exception point to the possibility that they are creating new NDMA (I bow to
your term) in their brewing process?
>I feel it is perfectly legitimate to raise the possibility that beer with
higher than normal nitrosamine levels could be a health hazard. Nevertheless,
there are many aspects of this issue I do not fully understand. For example,
population data shows that Bamberg has one of the highest rates of beer
consumption in Germany (no small feat!), yet its cancer and death rates
are near (and in fact slightly below) the average in Germany...
A dilemma indeed. (Potentially resolved by the suggestion today that, maybe
it's the saurkraut) However, someone decided that NDMA is carcinogenic and
without further evidence, I am not about to waive the condemnation based on
one anecdotal experience. It's a bit like the CDC claiming that mosquitoes
can't spread AIDS because a study done in a swampy town in Southern Florida
showed no higer incidence than the population at large.
>For the record, the Belgium base malts have very low NDMA levels, and
in fact are lower than most US malts.
Their literature claims that all their malts are indirectly kilned and the
major US supplier (Bries) still uses direct fired kilns. No doubt this is
what skews the data.
Personally, I was delighted to find a source of indirect malt that didn't
compromise overall quality and taste. The Belgian malts seem to be the best
of all options. By using them I do not have to care who is right on the NDMA
issue.
>From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
>This is indeed what Noonan preaches. I have always wondered about
the importance and significance of adding water to malt as opposed
to the converse.... This is one of the "Noonanisms" that I feel is rather un-
important to the overall beer quality.
>Maybe I missed something somewhere....
I think what you missed was Rudebusch's reference to "doughing-in" with water
at a tempeature on the order of 175 degs.
Douging-in is the initial mixing of malt with water in such a way as to
assure that it is thoroughly mixed BEFORE the water is raised to ANY strike
temperature. It is done with a small quantity of water at or near room
temperature and the result is what is described in the name, i.e. a dough or
very thick paste. It is more easily accomplished by adding the water to the
malt but the important point is to break up the starch balls before they are
heated up as they can then form clumps that water will never penetrate.
The value of all this can be debated ad nausiam but one point that should be
clear is that it really can not be done with a single step infusion mash.
The amount of water used to doughin, in addition to the grain itself, could
never be brought to saccharification temp by adding the rest of the water,
regardless of the temp. It is a concept that really only applies to kettle
mashing on the stove.
This also explains why brewpubs and micros do not do it. I would also
caution that as micros are in a grey area economically, between large
commercial brewers and home brewers, they are not necessarily the paragons of
technology or quality a homebrewer wants to aspire to. They do lots of
things for reasons of cost that we do not have to be concerned with. The
majors can do things that seem costly but have a positive effect on the
bottom line for other reasons. They also have the option of "adjusting" the
bottom line by adding more water to the "beer concentrate".
>From: KLIGERMAN@herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov
>-nitrosodimethylamine), they are indeed potent carcinogens but their level
in beer is relatively small (ave. 2 ppb) compared to such products as
frankfurters (0 - 84 ppb), fish and fish products (4 - 26 ppb), cheeses (2 -
26 ppb), and various meat products (1 to 80 ppb).
Interesting numbers but so are the ranges. They all have a low end below the
FDA limit for beer. I don't know what the limits are for the other products
but I think we all know that BIG Brother seems as interested in protecting
the economy and big business as they are in protecting the consumer.
Having said that, I guess I have to add, so what? Only a fool would
intentionally choose to eat products with higher levels of carcinogins if
given reasonable choices. In malt we have a choice. If we let the industry
trample our health interests and defend them in doing it, whom have we
served? If we insist on the safest product they can produce, we serve
ourselves.
js
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 17:57:54 PST
From: tinsethg@ucs.orst.edu (Glenn Tinseth)
Subject: Hop_aroma
In a recent issue Darryl Richman laments:
>If only there were a way to describe hop aroma with a number...
Well, Darryl (choir music...) there is a way, and the good folks at O.S.U.
Ag. Chem. (Gail Nickerson) and Blitz Weinhard Brewing (Earl Van Engel) have
published a couple of papers on it in the Journal of the American Society of
Brewing Chemists (Vol. 50, No. 3, 1992). The number you hoped for is called
the hop aroma unit and is Rquantitatively measured as 1 nanoliter per gram of
hops (1 ppm, v/w), of 22 hop oil compounds that have been reported to affect
hop aroma.S The individual measurements of these 22 compounds make up the
Hop Aroma Component Profile (HACP). The researchers hope that the hop
aroma
unit will end up being as useful as the alpha acid % is now.
The 22 aroma-active compounds are divided into three groups, oxidation
products of humulene and caryophyllene, floral-estery compounds, and citrus-
piney compounds. The oil is obtained via steam distillation and taken apart
with a gas chromatograph.
What does this mean to the average homebrewer? Not a heck of a lot, unless
youUve got some state of the art instrumentation hanging around the garage. I
sell hops for a living and have had a *real* hard time getting anything but
vague average values from the brokers. So for a specific lot of hops from a
specific grower (which could be any of many), you are better off relying on
your nose than making any assumptions based on the R1992S crop data.
In the same issue Al (Korz) asks about his hop stats and whether anything
useful can come of them. Here are some common assumptions for hop
RnobilityS: AA % less than 7, alpha/(alpha+beta)=.4-.6, cohumulone <25%,
myrcene content low, humulene/caryophyllene >3, farnesene may or may not
be present. So you can get quite a bit from the numbers you have.
I have a *lot* of other info on hops, hop analysis, Rhoppiness potentialS,
yeah I went a little crazy with my copy card at the library, heck, no one
else reads those beer journals but me. Give me a yell if you want more in
depth hopitude. IUm on the net only on Tues and Thurs.
Glenn Tinseth (The Hop Source)
tinsethg@ucs.orst.edu 503-873-2879
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1066, 01/29/93
*************************************
-------
