Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1082
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/02/22 00:23:53
HOMEBREW Digest #1082 Mon 22 February 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Irish Red Ale (Guy McConnell)
Re: HELP! Can bottle carbonation take a long time? (ali)
Several (Norm Pyle)
pH Meters, Sparge, MM and Extracts (Joe Rolfe)
Re: Length of Carboy Aging (bryan)
Re: stuck conditioning (Paul dArmond)
Fermenters (George J Fix)
Gelatin Finings ("Dean Roy" )
Yeast mutation (Jacob Galley)
London Pubs and Breweries (John E Haas +1 201 386 4376)
2 Stage Fermentation (James Thompson)
Re- Meeting with Pierre Cel ("Rad Equipment")
Re: 2 stage fermantation and bottling (Eric M. Mrozek)
The real reason we brew (Eric M. Mrozek)
carbonation/priming/DMEvsLiquid (korz)
sadistic bestial necrophilia (Ulick Stafford)
queries (Kirk Anderson)
dryhopping/books (korz)
I heart the listermann sparger (Andy Kurtz)
labels for laser printer (Andy Rowan)
Malt question (Al Richer)
Survey & Signature (James Thompson)
Sankey Lock Ring Tool Availability??? (William M. Seliger)
mead digest (Leo Woessner)
Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
IMPORTANT NEWS -- PLEASE READ
-----------------------------
There will be nobody reading mail sent to homebrew-request during the
period Feb 8 through approx. Feb 28. This means that any requests for
changes or cancellations will not be handled until the end of the month.
Subscription requests will continue to be handled automatically, and the
digest will continue to be sent automatically, barring any computing
device catastrophes. So if you send a message here and get no immediate
reply, or if the digest stops suddenly, please do not panic. Just be
patient.
ps. and please try to behave yourselves while I'm gone ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 9:30:02 CST
From: gdmcconn@mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell)
Subject: Irish Red Ale
Considering that I am at least partly responsible for starting (as well as
carrying on) this thread, and that this (non?)style is near and dear to my
heart (as well as my palate), I decided to poke around in my copy of Michael
Jackson's 1977 "World Guide to Beer" to see what I could find.
In the section on "Classical Beer Styles" under the "(Burton) Pale Ale"
heading:
"...a lively beer, faintly acidic, with a strong tang of hops...also
sometimes known as 'India Pale Ale'...France has 'Irish Russett Ale', a copper
colored beer..."
Also, in the section on Britain and Ireland, he mentions that Lett's at
Enniscorthy, county Wexford, the last small independent brewery in Ireland,
ceased to produce its popular ales in 1956. The company has kept up to date
its brewing license. Enniscorthy-style beer can be produced under license in
France by Pelforth. There is a picture of two beer labels on that page, one
from Ireland and one from France. The one from Ireland reads:
"G.H. Lett & Co., LTD., Enniscorthy Ruby Ale"
The one from France reads:
"George Killian's Biere Rousse Brassee Par Pelforth" While the signature on
the label under the horse's head is "George Killian Lett". In the fine print
at the bottom it says:
"Biere Brassee Par Pelforth Selon De Procede de Fermentation Haute
(Irish Top Brewing) De George Killian Lett".
While this certainly does not indicate that "Irish Red Ale" is considered a
style unto itself, it does indicate that there exists (or existed) a type of
Irish Ale with a distinctively red coloration, possibly brewed only in one
area of the country. It would also appear that this type of beer is no longer
produced in Ireland.
I checked in the section in U.S. breweries to see if there was any mention
of Coors buying the Killian's name but this book was written prior to that.
It says that "while most major U.S. breweries brew multiple types of beers,
Coors is adamant that they only need one; their Coors Banquet Beer".
Based on this, I stand by my assertion that "Irish Red Ale" is a type of
beer (perhaps "style" is not the correct word) that has been revived by micros
and homebrewers in much the same way that porter was. My initial thought was
that "Irish Red Ale" was a relative to, or perhaps a decendent of, a British
beer style (I thought maybe Special Bitter or ESB). While that may indeed be
the case, it seems that the evidence I found would indicate that it is
distinctly Irish in origin though perhaps similar to IPA in character. I still
found no direct reference to the type of grain used, hopping rate, or strength
of this elusive brew but maybe further research will turn something up.
- --
Guy McConnell gdmcconn@mspe5.b11.ingr.com
"And the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad, so I had one for dessert"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:04:55 EST
From: ali@hicomb.hi.com
Subject: Re: HELP! Can bottle carbonation take a long time?
>
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 14:06:43 -0800 (PST)
> From: Peter Maxwell <peterm@aoraki.dtc.hp.com>
> Subject: HELP! Can bottle carbonation take a long time?
>
> I have a problem with my latest batch regarding virtually no bottle
> carbonation. Before going further, here are the specifics of the brew:
>
[ Some stuff describing process deleted ]
>
> 4 days later, after storing at 68, there is virtually no carbonation. The
> cap hissed a very little on opening, but the beer tastes REALLY flat,
> subjectively only marginally, if any, more than there was when it was bottled
>.
I believe you should let the beer sit in the bottle a little longer.
You should wait about eight days (or so I've been told). Just because
you only made 3 gallons doesn't mean you wait half the time.
> In an experiment I have "modified" three bottles but would like comments as
> to whether this is the right thing to do or not:
>
> add 1/4 teaspoon extra sugar directly
> add 1/16 teaspoon (roughly measured) of dried yeast directly
> put 1/4 teaspoon of dried yeast in 25 ml water to rehydrate and pour 5 ml of
> slurry into a bottle
>
Great experiment. I would love to hear how it came out.
Also, I have a question of my own: I would like to put fruit flavor
in my beer. I am strictly an extract brewer (for now). Is this easy
to do? When should I add the fruit flavor (for example, apple)? What
form should the fruit flavor take (diced apples, whole apples, apple
kool-aid?)? I appreciate any help.
Thanks,
Shaheen
- --
Shaheen H. Ali ali@hicomb.hi.com, !hicomb!ali
System Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products,
1601 Trapelo Rd., Waltham, MA 02154 (617) 890 0444
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 07:30:28 MST
From: pyle@intellistor.com (Norm Pyle)
Subject: Several
Some random ramblings:
Steve brings up several very valid points in the extract vs. all-grain
debate. I will explain my motivation for recently going all-grain: FUN.
I have more fun brewing with grain than with extract. Everything else
(lower cost, more time, less/more control, etc.) is secondary. All
homebrewers clearly have more fun brewing beer than people who just go to the
store and buy it. I have more fun brewing mine with grain. No big deal;
just brew it and have fun (right, gak?)
I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about clear beers. It
seems all of the big boys are planning to make them but the people who
really know beer don't think they'll sell (no color = no taste = no alcohol
= no sales), or so the logic goes. The interesting part to me was the
method for removing the color: charcoal. They dump a load of charcoal into
the beer, filter it out and voila!: clear beer. Any volunteers to ruin a
perfectly good batch of hb in the name of science? (not me) P.S. I expect
it would be much more difficult to remove the color from a deep amber ale
than a piss-colored well-known American swill beer. I'll bet Guiness
doesn't try to make Guiness Extra Stout & Clear.
Thanks for setting me straight on Miller, Ulick. Its been several homebrews
since I read it...
Joe, I'd be glad to participate in your ale/lager taste test. I don't
pretend to be able to add much to the discussion, but it sure would be
interesting for me. I live in Longmont.
Just had a Vail Pale Ale last night. It had a wonderful sweet, malty base
with a quite well-balanced hop kick to finish it. I've never had a 22 oz.
bottle disappear so quickly. In fact, it was so good I immediately went to
the store and liberated another.
Cheers,
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:13:06 EST
From: Joe Rolfe <jdr@wang.com>
Subject: pH Meters, Sparge, MM and Extracts
hi all,
whew what a subject (forgot, yeast re-pitch, Belgian Ale Book Comments).
on the subj of pH meters - i recently got one from HANNA (shucks found out
it is made in italy :0). anyway does anyone have one of these? do you
notice a fluctuation between hot and cold temps of the same sample? i am not
sure if mine is defective or what, pH varies by .5 (even after letting it sit
in the non-ambient temp sample for 1-2 mins)....the probe was calibrated with
the 7 and 4 solutions minutes before....and soaked in a conditioning solution
for 30 mins as recomended.... does any one have the temp diffs for pH?
on sparge water - i am just beginning to go all grain (not because i feel
less than a whole brewer - but for cost reasons and control over the end
product). i am looking for inputs on what types of acids people use to
knock down the pH of the sparge and comments on the results brought into the
final product (flavour, aromas, color or anything).
on the js MM, i have been using it - mostly on MF crystal - it does produce
a good crush, no tearing (to speak of ) of the husks. the thruput may
not be high enough for my purposes (at least in a manually operated mode) but
both myself and another larger scale brewer are going to put a motor on it with
a good sized hopper (in and out). anyone done any motorizing of these? what
rpm did you find best (too fast the grains just roll or fall out of the sides).
my 1/2 cent on extracts vs grain - what ever works for you. i think it
has been said that yes - you too can make a good beer from extract and grain.
one thing i have found in using the extract to date - you have a hell of a time
controlling color of the final product. if your looking for the same color
it seems very difficult (at least for a very pale to pale colors). the extract
does brown over time ( i have yet to figure out MF date coding). i have even
seen some difference in SG/lb/gallon of between 3 and 8 pts. again if you try
as i do to produce the same product over and over - it makes it less "cookbook"
like.
i finally got a re-pitch to work. i had problems with stucks and in
conversations with Mike Sharp and SHeri Almeda the major problem was O2
and areation. i never had a problem re-pitching small batches (5-10 gal) but
larger batches (even when over-pitching) got stuck. pH of the wort was fine
(5.2 +/- .2). no major temp changes in the yeast.. started warming the yeast
up days in advance. yeast never sat for more than 5-7 days in 40F temps.
so if in doubt areate the hell out it. i used an oiless compressor with
.2 ucron filter and connecteded to the bottom valve of the fermenter. a hose
dropped into the wort should do fine if you can get it to the bottom for top
opening vessels. but always use a filter to get "sterile air". i have also
heard that using pure O2 is not very good - most bottles o2 contains an
additive used to prevent "stuff" growing (for hospital use), it is very
explosive and too much purew o2 can be toxic to yeast..... although i have
heard that divers O2 should be fine.
as i have posted in the past - i will be travelling to montreal to see pierre
rajotte within the next few weeks - the offer still stands about those people
who thought the book "missed the mark", "lacked" wahtever... or was good in
whatever....both sides of the comments are desired...
so far i have posts from
Brian Bliss, Jim Liddil, Jim Busch (hi jim!), Conn Copas
have not gotten any specifics from Martin Lodal (not to put you on the spot:)
but in LD 11 for Thur Dec 10 -you mentioned "but many experienced and capable
brewers don't feel he succeeded in communicating it" [it being info on
brewing beglian ales]. between you and Conn - this was the impetus to get the
questions answered....
so martin - do you have any comments?? do any of the other brewers you talked
to have them? these can be direct comments of questions that could be
answered to remove the vague areas. as i said and pierre has agreed to
answer any questions, you post them, i hand carry them and respond to
all en-mass....
my god - what a long winded mess i have made - sorry for the wsted bandwidth
i have not posted in a while....i feel better now:)
good brewing (how ever you do it)
- --
joe rolfe
jdr@wang.com
508-967-5760
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 08:31:33 PST
From: bryan@tekgen.bv.tek.com
Subject: Re: Length of Carboy Aging
I brewed an Ale a couple of years ago that had a "stuck" fermentation. It
was in the winter in a unheated bedroom. After a couple of months in the
secondary I kind of forgot about it and it didn't get bottled till it was
6 or 7 months old. It was great. It didn't carbonate quite as much as I
thought it should have, but that didn't bother me. The ale was a nice amber
with no haze and very little yeast in the bottom of the bottle.
Bryan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 09:29:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul dArmond <paulf@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Subject: Re: stuck conditioning
Peter Maxwell says his brew isn't conditioning in the bottle. I've had
similar hassles. Is there any visible sediment in the bottles? This is
the best gauge (other than opening a bottle) of how the yeast in the
bottle is doing. My guess is that the yeast count at bottling was to low.
In my case, I think this was due to fining with Polyclar. Now I swish the
racking tube around the bottom of the secondary to pick up a little of the
yeast sediment. I have also added 1/4 tsp of dry yeast to the bottling
bucket.
That's for later, this is for now: Peter, shake all your bottles and lay
them on their sides in a warm (70F) place. Shake every day, until there
is visible yeast in suspension. I got this trick from The Cellar in
Seattle. I think it works by exposing more yeast surface area. I did
this on a batch of Kropotkin Anarchist Ale and it had good carbonation in
three weeks. This was after it stayed flat for a month. Let us know how
it all works out.
Paul.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 11:12:21 -0600
From: gjfix@utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: Fermenters
The following are answers to private e-mail from Cush Hamlen. My response
to cush@msc.edu bounced.
>A quick question on your posting today on fermenter geometry: If I follow
>you right, DeClerk (sp?) found a shallow container to be better. However,
>is seems to me that a large surface area is just begging for increased
>likelihood of contamination (of course, this is a mute point for closed
>fermentors). Is he concerned, then, about geometry as it relates to
>circulation of wort during fermentation?
You are absolutely right about bacteria. Those using open fermenters
have to be very careful here. Anchor has theirs in an enclosed area that
is under a positive pressure, and where sterile air is circulated.
>If one assumes that the circulation imposed by the CO2 rising through the
>liquid is akin to uniformly heating the base of a container, then the
>mean number of convection cells is greater for a container with a small
>depth to area ratio. This is the typical Rayleigh-Bernard convection
>pattern (Gee...can you tell that a great deal of my research has been
>in fluid-dynamics? :-) ) The result of increased number of convection
>cells would be greater contact of unfermented sugars with yeast.
>Is it then concern about convectin pattern in the fermenter that drives
>the conclusion that 'shallow is better'?
You are exactly right here as well. There is a nontrivial temp. gradient in
a tower type fermenter which drives the Rayleigh-Bernard convection cells.
This has been observed empirically, and in addition numerical simulations
have been done using the (incompressible) Navier-Stokes equations at
appropriate Reynold's numbers which confirm this as well. I have the most
relevant references on file at home. I would be happy to send you this
list if interested. In modern commercial brewing, stirring devices are
added to the tower fermenters to keep yeast in suspension along the length,
and to level out temperature gradients. I still do not like these type
of fermenters, and they are usually only used when horizontal space comes at a
premium.
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: 18 Feb 93 12:42:13 EST
From: "Dean Roy" <DEAN@alpha.uwindsor.ca>
Subject: Gelatin Finings
Can someone tell me if there is any difference between the gelatin finings
sold in homebrew stores and the plain unflavored gelatin you can buy at the
supermarket. I have a supply of the supermarket variety and was considering
using some on my latest batch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dean Roy | Email: DEAN@UWINDSOR.CA |
| Systems Programmer | Voice: (519)253-4232 Ext 2763 |
| University of Windsor | Fax : (519)973-7083 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 12:14:45 CST
From: Jacob Galley <gal2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Yeast mutation
Jim Busch writes:
> Also, most brewers would never suggest reusing yeast from a beer of
> such high OG (1.085). This level of alcohol could definetly lead to
> pour yeast performance and/or mutation problems. In general, a OG of
> 1.050 or less is optimum for yeast propagation.
I've been wondering about this for a while. Just how does high alcohol
induce mutation? I'm assuming it's just natural selection for more
attenuative individual yeast cells. If so, is this necessarily a
problem? Can strange esters / by-products / flavors be created by this
kind of random mutation due to high-alcohol stoarge media (ie slurry)?
If adverse mutations occur, can't they be detected in the starter? Is
there something I'm missing?
Have another beer,
Jake.
"JUST DO IT yourself." <------------- Jacob Galley / gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 13:32:07 EST
From: whjeh@hogpa.ho.att.com (John E Haas +1 201 386 4376)
Subject: London Pubs and Breweries
I'll be in London and Southern England for a week
in March and I'm wondering if anybody can recommend
some pubs and/or breweries to visit. I'm sure I've seen
this here before but at the time it didn't seem worth
saving.
Thanks in advance,
Ted
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 11:40:39 -0800 (PST)
From: James Thompson <sirjames@u.washington.edu>
Subject: 2 Stage Fermentation
In response to Mark Elliott's questions about adding priming sugar to
secondary:
The method I was taught, which works great, is siphoning the secondary
ferment into another vessel -- to which you have already added the priming
sugar -- just prior to bottling (to get it off the secondary
trub/sediment). Since the priming sugar is added to the new vessel
first, it is thoroughly mixed during the transfer. You really wouldn't
want to mix up the sediment into your beer just before bottling, I should
think!
If this is clear as mud, and others don't explain more clearly, feel
free to e-mail me directly, and I'll explain step-by-step the method I use.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Feb 93 12:45:30 U
From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment@rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU>
Subject: Re- Meeting with Pierre Cel
Subject: Re: Meeting with Pierre Celis Time:12:36 PM Date:2/18/93
I'd like to echo Bob Jones' comments about spending some time with the White
Brewer of Austin. I spent an hour or so with Pierre at the Toronado in San
Francisco on Wednesday afternoon. He is a very easy person to drink with. I
felt very comfortable trading beer stories over a pint of his white. Pierre was
interested to hear about our discussion groups here on-line and pleased that we
had such good reports of his beers from Boston and other locations. I think
homebrewers have a new friend in Austin.
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: Thu, 18 Feb 93 12:52:08 PST
From: mrozek@gandalf.etdesg.TRW.COM (Eric M. Mrozek)
Subject: Re: 2 stage fermantation and bottling
In HBD # 1080, Markham R. Elliott asks:
2.) How important is it not to aerate the wort during the
transfer from primary to secondary.
3.) By leaving behind the sediment, won't there be a
tremendous (significant) amount of viable yeast left behind?
...
1.) What am I missing here? Do I accept putting all the
precipitate back into suspension and into the bottles, or,
2.) Is there a method of mixing the priming sugar/equivalent
without disturbing the junk in the secondary?
This is my bottling procedure:
1) Make up the priming solution by boiling a mixture of about 3 cups of the
beer in the secondary and 3/4 cup corn sugur or 1 cup of malt extract.
2) Carefully pour (avoid splashing/oxidation) the priming solution into a clean
tertiary (originally the primary).
3) Rack the beer from the secondary onto the priming solution.
4) Immediately bottle the primed beer.
This procedure leaves behind the sediment and achieves uniform mixing of the
priming solution with the beer. Although most of the yeast has been separated
out at this point, I don't worry about it. There is still plenty of viable
yeast in suspension as long as you're bottling within 3 weeks of brewing.
As for oxidation, your biggest concern should be with hot wort. At fermentation
temperatures the effect is reduced by orders of magnitude. But as long as you
are using a racking tube to siphon the beer off the sediment, why not avoid a
little splashing and make the best beer you can?
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 13:54:56 PST
From: mrozek@gandalf.etdesg.TRW.COM (Eric M. Mrozek)
Subject: The real reason we brew
Steven Tollefsrud writes in HBD #1080:
>While it was refreshing to see a few all-grain brewers come to
>the defense of the extract brewer, I have yet to see one come
>out in favor of extract brewing over all-grain brewing.
>...
>If I were an all-grain brewer
>who had made all the investment in equipment and time, I too would
>find it difficult to admit, afterward, that it wasn't worth it.
In my post to HBD #1078, I stated that I brew both extract and all-grain.
Although I didn't explicitly say "I am in favor of extract brewing over
all-grain brewing," I hope I implied that extract brewing is perfectly
acceptable. It simply comes down to what your goals are and how you choose to
meet them. If there are snobs (whether a'g'ers or EXTRACTERs) who criticize
the choice of others, all I can say is, *** Give people information, but let
them choose their own goals and means ***.
>One of the most common reasons given by all-grain advocates for
>taking the plunge is for greater control over what goes into the beer.
>But .. inconsistancy ... make me shy away from having such "control"
Greater control in all-grain brewing isn't the same thing as having a
process that is "in control". A'g'ers have more control available to them
because they can choose the mashing procedures and temperatures, sparging
temperatures and times, and many other variables. Having more control (read:
choices, parameters, variables, tweak points, etc.) means it DOES take more
work to stay in control. I think everybody's FIRST goal is to have fun with
a hobby that interests you. If you want good beer, use good extract. If you
want to play with these other controls, then play.
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 15:48 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: carbonation/priming/DMEvsLiquid
Peter writes:
>1/2 cup corn sugar was boiled in some water, poured into a carboy and the
>secondary siphoned into it. Bottling was done from this mixture. At the
>time of bottling I noticed it was particularly clear - almost all suspended
>cloudiness had fallen to the bottom of the secondary.
>
>4 days later, after storing at 68, there is virtually no carbonation. The
>cap hissed a very little on opening, but the beer tastes REALLY flat,
>subjectively only marginally, if any, more than there was when it was bottled.
I usually wait at least a week to 10 days before expecting carbonation.
That a beer appears clear (not clouded with yeast) only means that the
yeast count has dropped below 10,000 cells/ml (I THINK -- I don't remember
if this is the right number -- perhaps someone can verify/correct?). There's
still lots of yeast in suspension and should be plenty to carbonate your
beer unless you gave the yeast a temperature shock, in which case it may
take a bit longer.
***********************
Markham writes:
> This past weekend I finally aquired a second 5 gallon glass
>carboy. After three successful single-stage extract brewings, I
>feel comfortable enough to take what I feel is the next step up the
>brewing ladder: Doing a two-stage fermentation. Additionally,
>this will be my first go at using no sugar in the process, except
>for what appears to be the standard use of 3/4 cup for priming.
The sugar-freeness will improve your beer a lot more than the secondary.
> As I understand the procedure, after the respiration phase has
>completed, and the blow-off tube has cleared, I am to siphon the
>fermenting brew into the secondary fermentation vessel (with as
>little aeration of the liquid as possible), leaving behind whatever
>sediment is on the bottom of the primary vessel.
You can, if you wish. Many a prize-winning ale has been done with single-
stage fermentation. I personally feel, that a secondary is only needed
for long ferments like lagers and thus I only use a secondary for lagers.
Note that respiration occurs before any activity can be seen. Perhaps
what you mean is "after blowoff ends" which is perhaps 1/2 to 1/3 of the
way through the fermentation phase.
> 1.) Must the transfer to the secondary be done immediately, or
>is there a safe window of a day or two?
To gain the maximum benefit (which is to get the beer off the trub)
you want to go to the secondary right after blowoff ends, but if the
whole ferment is going to last only a week, I feel that the added
risk of infection and aeration are not outweighed by the benefits
of using a secondary. Personally, I feel you're better off using the
second carboy to make another (concurrent) batch.
> 2.) How important is it not to aerate the wort during the
>transfer from primary to secondary.
If active fermentation is still ongoing, then it's less (but not much
less) important. The CO2 escaping from the beer will scrub out much
of any oxygen you add. If fermentation is over, then I feel it's more
important. Just do your best and don't worry too much.
> 3.) By leaving behind the sediment, won't there be a
>tremendous (significant) amount of viable yeast left behind? My
>observations of the fermentation process show that the CO2 rises
>from the precipitate at the bottom of the carboy, not from the
>material in suspension.
There's still plenty of yeast in suspension and although I don't have
a clear answer to why you see the majority of the CO2 coming from
the sediment, I'm quite certain that the yeast in suspension does
most of the work. Note that when by beer is actively fermenting, there
so much yeast in suspension that the beer looks like chocolate milk
and I can't see much more than 1/2 inch into the fermenter.
> Now, all my primings to this point have been by adding a
>measured amount of corn sugar to each bottle, then filling the
>bottle, capping, conditioning ... enjoying (er, sort of). Hey,
>what can I say, I followed the directions that came with the
>extract, and those supplied with the microbrewery kit ... how was
>I to know. Beat me, whip me, make me write bad checks! I'm trying
>to reform myself.
Don't be so hard on yourself. If you like the way your beer has been
turning out... great! However, we all have room for improvement
and the difference between a great brewer and a good one is one that
is constantly trying something new, whether it be a new procedure or
a new ingredient or a new style. I feel that you'll get better consistency
and less chance for infection if you bulk prime (what you are suggesting
in the next paragraph).
> If I understand the literature, about 3/4 cup of sugar/sugar
>equivalent should be boiled in water or sterile wort, then added to
>the contents of the secondary, cooled to the temperature of the
>remaining 5 gal liquid (is it still called wort at this stage?),
>bottled and conditioned as usual.
Boil the priming sugar in water, not sterile wort. Sterile wort has
fermentables in it too and you want to use just the 1/2 to 3/4 cup
of corn sugar (dextrose) for priming OR a measured amount of sterile
wort... not both. It's called green beer at this point -- fermentation
is over, so it's not wort anymore.
>
> It would seem that if I add anything to the remianing 5 gal
>liquid in the secondary, and mix, all the precipitate will go back
>into suspension and consequently be bottled. If I don't mix, what
>will be bottled will not be consistantly primed. I was under the
>impression that one of the advantages of doing a two-stage
>fermentation was to eliminate as much particulate from the bottled
>product as possible.
>
> Questions:
> 1.) What am I missing here? Do I accept putting all the
>precipitate back into suspension and into the bottles, or,
You're missing the priming vessel (aka bottling bucket). No, don't do
that -- siphon the beer onto the priming solution in another sanitized
container, stir very gently and then bottle from that vessel. I use
another carboy since the narrow neck is a smaller opening for nasties
through which to float in via the wind.
> 2.) Is there a method of mixing the priming sugar/equivalent
>without disturbing the junk in the secondary?
Yes. See above.
> 3.) Noting that the 3/4 cup is not carved in stein, if I
>substitute dry malt extract for corn sugar, do I use the same 3/4
>cup? What if I substitute liquid extract?
I've never used liquid since dry extract is easier to store partially
opened. Dry malt extract is only about 80% fermentable, so if you
use it in place of corn sugar, increase weight used by 20% or so.
Malt extract syrup is about 20% water, so increase the weight used
by another 20% over dry malt extract.
> 4.) Lastly, if I use (for conversation sake) a 3 pound can of
>a hopped liquid extract, and want to use dry malt extract (instead
>of a second un-hopped can of liquid or [gasp!] sugar) to finish
>off the ingredient list, what would be a reasonable amount of DME
>be to use as a baseline starting point for future experimentation?
As I mentioned above, the liquid is partly water, so if you substitute
dry for liquid extract, cut back by about 20% by weight. NOTE THAT
LAAGLANDER DRY MALT EXTRACT IS LESS FERMENTABLE THAT MUNTON & FISON,
SO EXPECT A HIGH FINISHING GRAVITY AND A SWEETER BEER. I use Laaglander
intentionally to make my Young's Special London Ale clone. It would
be good for other high FG styles like Scotch Ale or Sweet Stout.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 17:10:59 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: sadistic bestial necrophilia
I think all we all grainers should get down on our knees and
pray to Steve Tollefsrud for showing us the light by
telling us we are all inferior
to the extract brewmeisters, but are afraid to admit it
because we are embarrassed about the expense in equipment and
time we spend to produce beer when the mighty extract brewers
produce award winning brew in a couple of hours.
The error of out ways, spending less than half what the mighty
extract brewers spend on malt superbly extracted by professionals,
controlling mashes so poorly
that the quality must be less consistent that the sugary, corn
syrupy, overdark extracts. And we never know what extract we'll
get like the extract brewers, given the superb consistency of syrup
(Alexanders?), or TG from attenuative dried extracts (Laaglander) on
the market. Thank you for pointing this out to us. We can now
plant plants in our lauter tuns, donate our mills to charity, and
get most of our Saturday afternoons back again to spend $20 for
6.6lb of malt extract that isn't for pale wussy inferior beers
we make now with grain.
A repentant all grainer,
Ulick Stafford
s
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:34:43 -1100
From: Kirk_Anderson@wheatonma.edu (Kirk Anderson)
Subject: queries
Hello everybody from a new reader, but brewer for 6-7 years, in near-total
isolation. Hence discovering the HBD was a mind-blower. I'll resist the
temptation to comment on recent flare-ups between extracters and
all-grainers. How's that for self-restraint? A few questions please.
1) hydrometer reading: at the highest level the wort climbs up the
instrument, or at the bottom of the curve? I've been reading at the
highest part. Crude experiments with plain tapwater at 60 degrees suggest
I'm right.
2) I've counted on Papazian's book for ages. Must I buy the new revised
version? What do I get that's new (besides an index)?
3) Since Charlie mis-defined krausening (and I thought I'd been krausening
all this time and I've only been wort-priming! with great success too),
please someone give the real definition.
4) Go ahead-convince me that Wyeast is worth the extra investment. I'm all
ears.
5) Anyone tried the Brew Werk 'Abby Beer' kit? How was it?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:30 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: dryhopping/books
Ulick writes:
>got me thinking. Traditionally (i.e. Germany, Bohemia) lager
>finishing hops are added at the end of the boil, although reading
>George Fix's Brewing Science book last night he mentioned that
>dry hopping may also be better for lagers. I wonder when would be best -
>perhaps the whole lager, or add after krausen dies and let them sit in the
>primary for the second week prior to lagering? I am not a fan of dry hopping
>as I have had trouble clearing dry hopped beers, but my stema beer that never
>cleared tasted just like Anchor. Anyone anyclearing suggestions
>that are Reinheitsgebot?
Personally, I dryhop virtually all my beers, but then again most of them
are pale ales. I have never had problems clearing my dryhopped beers --
they all turn out crystal clear without *any* finings. Perhaps you should
look elsewhere (besides dryhopping) for your clarity problem. For the
record, I use whole hops for dryhopping because they float and I just siphon
the beer out from under them. I dryhop when fermentation has gotten down
to the 1 bubble/minute range and let the beer sit with the hops for exactly
seven days (more or less appears to reduce bouquet).
>
>Norm Pyle considers Miller to be a lager book. I dispute that. It is a
>good introductory text on producing many basic beers with typical American
>Malts. Noonan, dispite being error riddled, is a lager book. It covers
>the essential of lager brewing much better. Hell, Miller recommends priming
>with corn sugar. What is Miller's Continental Pilsener book like?
I feel that there are errors in Miller's "Complete Handbook of Homebrewing"
albeit not as many as in Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer." I feel Charlie's
NCJoHB is the most error-free, although I have a few sticking points with
that too (like not recommending a strain of yeast -- I feel the yeast has
more to do with the flavor then virtually anything else -- certainly more
than which brand of extract!). Miller's "Continental Pilsener" is a good
book with relatively few errors (IMO), but not as *great* as Guinard's
"Lambic" or the Fixs' "Vienna."
**********************
RANDY writes:
>How long can a batch stay in the carboy (after racking once) before
>bottling? Any stories out there of amazing feats like 6 month storage?
Sure, but taste it before you bottle. If it has gone bad and you hate the
taste, then don't bother.
>I used Wyeast American Ale and it was a slow starter, and even slower
>finisher, but the FG is around 1009. Due to lack of time it has been
>basically ignored. I don't want to say exactly how long it has sat, but
The slow finisher scares me a bit. I've found 1056 to finish quite quickly
and suddenly. Now don't get worried, but the slow finish may be related to
the slow start, namely, that during the slow start, something else got in
there. But fear not. Taste it and trust your tastebuds -- they won't
steer you wrong.
**************************
Cush writes:
>I have observed that every single brew that I have dry-hopped has ended
>up with, apparently, a higher carbonation level in the bottle compared
>to non-dry-hopped brews with the same amount of priming sugar. The result
>is brews with a nice-healthy head. Not necessarily gushers....but one DOES
>need to pour somewhat quickly after cracking the cap!
>
>Has anyone else noticed this effect? Any guesses as to the cause?
>
>There has been some discussion lately about apparent slow fermentation in
>the secondary following dry-hopping. The two possibile causes that have been
>proposed are 1) the hops act as nucleation sites for dissolved CO2, and
>2) bacterial contamination on the hops. Any thoughts as to which of these
>two causes the higher bottle conditioning? (I am still not convinced that
>some bacteria, or more likely wild yeast, are not carried in on the hops).
I haven't had this kind of effect and have brewed perhaps 40 dryhopped
beers in the last two years. It took me a long time to convince myself to
dryhop (I was afraid of contamination) and eventually two things (both
suggested by the HBD):
1. when you dryhop, the beer already has very little sugar left, quite
a bit of alcohol and the antibiotic effects of the boiling and flavoring
hops, and
2. what self-respecting yeast or bacteria would live on hops!?! It's not
like it's a grape skin or a cup of raspberry puree... I think that hops
would tend to carry no more microbiota than the area that they have been
stored in contains (i.e. the dust in the area is just as likely to infect
your beer during bottle filling as the dryhops).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 18:10:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Andy Kurtz <ak35+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: I heart the listermann sparger
I know there have been some postings in the past about the LS, but it
worked out so well for me that I thought I would plug it once again.
The LS (for those of you who don't know) is merely two 5 gal. plastic
tubs. One is for holding sparging water; the other is a lauter tun (it
has a neato false bottom insert). Both are drilled near the bottom and
have lengths of plastic tubing inserted in them. The tube coming out of
the water container is terminated with a couple of lenghts of pvc pipe
fitted perpendicular to each other so that they sit atop the lauter tun.
Water is sprayed onto the mash via a small brass pipe connected to the
pvc (and the plastic tubing, of course). As water flows through the
tube, the brass pipe whirls around fan-like, spraying water slowly and
evenly across the grain. The grain bed is never disturbed and the water
level is easy to regulate by keeping an eye on how fast the water shoots
through the "fan" and out of the lauter tun.
My extracts have gone from a dismal 1.035 (for 8-10 lbs of grain!!) to
over 1.060! It cost me about 40 bucks, but IMHO was well worth it (I'm
sure y'all who are handy would be able to make something like this for
much less -- but hey, I'm into convenience).
andy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 18:13:16 EST
From: rowan@ocean.rutgers.edu (Andy Rowan)
Subject: labels for laser printer
Has anyone found a good solution to the challenge of trying to
print labels for beer bottles on a laser printer?
I've got some ideas for things I could do up on the computer
and print out, but I'm afraid if I use the usual mailing label
type labels, I'll never get them off the bottles again.
Any ideas?
=================================================================
| Andy Rowan | You don't know what I'm |
| Cook College Remote Sensing Center | talking about? Don't |
| Rutgers University | worry, everyone tells |
| rowan@ocean.rutgers.edu | me I don't either. |
| (908) 932-9631 | |
=================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 14:29:31 EST
From: richer@desi.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Al Richer)
Subject: Malt question
I am a bit confused as to the differences between 2-row British and 2-row
American malts. I have a homebrew supplier that is happy to sell me Klages
as suitable for British styles (bitters, pale ales, stouts...) and tells
me that the major difference is that the American 2-row will convert faster.
Well.... I dunno.
I have traditionally used British malts in my ales and stouts, and will
likely continue to do so for the specialty grains. At $40 for a 55-pound
bag (as opposed to $56 for Brit 2-row), it's awfully tempting...
On a related note...
Anybody got any good suggestions as to where to buy bulk grain malt in the
Boston area? This price is from Barleymalt and Vine in Framingham. Beer and
Wine Hobby in Woburn is a bit lower, but not much. Mailorder would be fine
only with a BIIIGGG price differential, considering the shipping ( I prefer
dealing over the counter and shipping by Mazda pickup...<grin>).
Opinions, speculation (labeled as such), and other input welcome.
ajr
_________________________________________________________
Alan J. Richer Mail: richer@hq.ileaf.com
Interleaf, Inc. All std. disclaimers apply
9 Hillside Ave. Your mileage may vary
Waltham,MA. 02154
" It's a nitwit idea. Nitwit ideas are for emergencies.
The rest of the time you go by the Book, which is a
collection of nitwit ideas that worked at least once."
from "The Mote in God's Eye" , Niven and Pournelle
_________________________________________________________
- --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1993 17:00:16 -0800 (PST)
From: James Thompson <sirjames@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Survey & Signature
Thanks, Chuck, for the survey results. As a new brewer, and as an
all-extract brewer so far, I have not been intimidated by the all-grain
info, but have been learning a lot from this great forum, from the simple
question-and-answer stuff to the highly technical jargon. I learn more
in a few days of reading HBD than I would in months trying things out at my
own pace. Hurray for Internet!
As a first time poster above in response to Mark Elliott's question re 2
Stage Fermentation, I forgot to put in a signature, address, disclaimer
and so forth. To rectify that blatant omission:
Jim Thompson
sirjames@carson.u.washington.edu
Disclaimer: All our opinions are only our own, aren't they my Precious?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 17:56 CST
From: akcs.wseliger@vpnet.chi.il.us (William M. Seliger)
Subject: Sankey Lock Ring Tool Availability???
I'm not sure if this topic has come up before, but as long as we're
discussing stainless steel fermenters and fermenting in kegs:
Does anyone know where to get hold of the tool to remove the lock ring
that locks in the downtube in sankey kegs???
I would imagine that a toolmaker could make one at a great expense, but
SnapOn or someone like that must sell these things (probably also at
great expense).
Just wondering,
Bill Seliger
H 1(312)907-9686
W 1(708)640-2718
email wseliger@chinet.chi.il.us -or- akcs.wseliger@vpnet.chi.il.us
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 20:33:01 EST
From: woessner@psych.purdue.edu (Leo Woessner)
Subject: mead digest
I have recently tried to join the mead digest without success. I mailed mead-
mead-lovers-request@nsa.hp.com does the digest still exist. If so how can I join
join?? Thanks in advance.
Estes of Manang
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1082, 02/22/93
*************************************
-------
