Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1210
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/08/24 01:02:07
HOMEBREW Digest #1210 Tue 24 August 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
RE: Yeast FAQ; and more (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630))
Lactic Briess Extract (donald oconnor)
Mashing in picnic cooler ("Andy Phillips, Long Ashton, Bristol, UK")
Computer Controlled Mashing (Murray Robinson)
Barley Water (Cont'd) ("/R=FDACB/R=A1/U=RIDGELY/O=HFM-400/TN=FTS 402-1521/FFN=Bill Ridgely/")
Gaithersburg, MD Brewpub (NASARC07)
preservatives?? (Mark A Fryling)
sweet gale seed source (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
The Net ADvertiser (NetAdvertiser)
SF area Breweries & Brewpubs (Michael Howe)
Mash Out (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
no subject (file transmission) (dean goulding)
To blow-off or not to blow-off? (Dion Hollenbeck)
Stabilizing Cultures For Shipment (Richard Childers)
Yeast FAQ/Al Korz... (WEIX)
Brewpots (John Adams)
Chang over Chicha (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630))
WORT AERATION (Jack Schmidling)
Cream Stout ("Anthony Johnston")
Source for pumps wanted (Eric Wade)
Re: PU yeast (korz)
Two Cents on Aeration. (Steve Casselman)
Cleaning gas lines (Rick Larson)
Pronounciation/Mashout (korz)
Glatt Machining (boskoduck)
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 93 16:40:01 EDT
From: rgarvin@btg.com (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630))
Subject: RE: Yeast FAQ; and more
The yeast FAQ that Patrick (WEIZ@swmed.edu) posted was a great public
service. I wanted to add my personal experiences with the Wyeast 1028
(London Ale Yeast) and 1056 strains.
Patrick's original post on 1028 said:
> WYeast 1028 London Ale Yeast
> Rich minerally profile, bold woody slight diacetyl
> production. Medium flocculation. Apparent attenuation
> 73-77%. Optimum fermentation temperature: 68 deg. F (20
> deg. C). Complex, woody, tart, with strong mineral
> notes, this one will bite you horribly if you over-hop or
> if your water is high in carbonates. If you avoid that
> Scylla and Charybdis, it produces ales of marvellous
> complexity and sophistication. Most of the time you'll
> wish you'd used 1098 or 1056. Had best results in
> porters. Over-hopping is especially bad, but if you
> throttle the hops back, the results are indeed
> marvellous. Used this yeast in a Kolsch once, and it was
> *fantastic* The wood and mineral notes fused with the
> Hallertauer hops (which were used with some restraint),
> and a couple of months of cool ageing brought out some
> green apple in the aroma as well as the pallette. It
> tasted a good bit hoppier than it really was, and overall
> was well-balanced and smooth.
Al Korzonas countered:
> This is one of my two favorites (1056 being the other) and I've
> brewed some very high IBU ales with it without the overhopping
> problems reported here. Just 40 datapoints or so. Also, I'd
> like to mention that this yeast was used for the 1992 B.0.S.S.
> Challenge 1st place Barleywine, brewed by none other than Brian
> and Linda North.
Lynn Kerby wrote:
> I just tried the 1028 strain on a couple of back to back english style
> ales. The first was a fairly low gravity Bitter that came out fairly
> nicely. It was not overly hopped, yet the hop bitterness came through
> nicely. I did note the woody and mineral flavor notes in this brew.
> The second brew was a fairly hoppy IPA and I wish that I had chosen a
> different yeast. I found that the attenuation was a bit much in the
> IPA, but it is still very young and may turn out fine in another month
> or so. The IPA currently has a nasty stale veggi character that I
> believe is due to using some old Cascades (they have been kept in the
> freezer since I bought them though) for dry hopping. I just replaced
> the blend of Cascades and Kent Goldings with some fresh Mt Hood in the
> keg and am hoping for the best.
I tend to agree with Al on this one. I am a prodigious user of the Wyeast
1056 strain, albeit not their culture. I believe that Seibel has this
strain catalogued as being from the Narraganset brewery and was used by
them in their Porter. It has been reported in this sage journal as being
the Sierra Nevada house strain. I get this yeast from the Washington, DC
local Old Dominion Brewery by the quart. I find this yeast a great
performer yet too bland for many styles. In my search for a characterful
yeast I have settled on the Wyeast 1028. I use the actual Wyeast strain.
I have found the Wyeast 1028 to have the complex woody character that
is ascribed to it above. It does produce many other pleasant esters that
remind me of cask Wadsworth's 6X. I have found it to be a strong
attenuator. The Narragsanset/Sierra Nevada yeast is a VERY strong
flocculator. Once it is done with the job it DROPS! The London Ale
yeast is a bit more dusty so it hangs around and nibbles on them sugars
a bit longer. This may be the character that seemed to accentuate hop
bitterness. I have not found this yeast to be a big diacetyl producer.
On the contrary, I find the Narraganset/Sierra Nevada culture to be a
bigger diacetyl producer. Especially in higher gravity beers. As far
"green apple" acetaldehyde, not in my experience.
An interesting behavior of the 1028 is its "top fermenting character."
Very large colonies of yeast form on top of the krausen. These are the
size of pie plates.
A recent experience with this yeast bears out my description. I made a
batch of 1.052 Pale Ale with this yeast. The recipe follows. The woody
character of the yeast (very apparent) combined with the MT Hood
characteristic resiny character to produce a very pleasant beer. Plenty
of character here for me.
American Pale Ale:
Through KitchenAid Grain Mill:
22 lbs Great Western 2 row
1 lb Dewolf-Cosyns Cara Munich 70 Lovibond
Hop Pellets:
2 oz Perle 8.1% AA 60 minutes
3 oz Perle 8.1% AA 30 minutes
1 oz Mt Hood 3.9% AA 10 minutes
1 oz Cascades 5% AA 5 minutes
1 oz Mt Hood 3.9% AA 0 minutes
1 teaspoon Gypsum
2 tablespoons Irish Moss
OG: 1.052
FG: 1.009
Procedures:
Single step infusion mash at 152-150F with Gypsum. Sparge with 170-190F
water to collect 15 gallons in 2 hours 30 minutes. Boil for 30 minutes
before adding first hop addition. Add Irish moss for last 30 minutes.
Use immersion chiller for 30 minutes while setting up "counter flow"
chiller. Divide unfermented beer between 3 carboys with air locks (blow
off tubes? Not this decade). Add 1/3 gallon yeast starter to each (1.040
OG starter) at 62F. Shake to aerate. Ferment in from of window AC.
Krausen appears over night.
Cheers, Rick
Rick Garvin rgarvin@btg.com
BTG, Inc. Navy Programs Division, Vienna, VA 703-761-6630
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 21:48:43 -0500
From: donald oconnor <oconnor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Lactic Briess Extract
I've been asked to forward the following information from Briess Malting
Co.
Mary Anne Gruber writes:
After seeing the article on the network about the bad DME from Briess, I
contacted Mr. Roger Briess and this is his response. "We only recently
became aware that there could be a problem with this particular lot of
DME. I immediately began an investigation on how this lot received
Quality Control approval and reviewed the production and quality control
procedures to assure this doesn't happen again.
For 117 years Briess has strived for the highest quality and customer
satisfaction. If everyone who has purchased Briess' CBW GOLD DRY lot
#19CM3-D, in any size container, will mail the label showing this lot
number to the following address, we will gladly replace. Please allow 3-4
weeks for replacement.
BRIESS MALTING COMPANY
29 S. Columbia Street
Chilton, WI 53014
Attn: Mary Anne Gruber
Director Brewing Services
We apologize for all those homebrewers who suffered any loss due to using
this lot of DME."
As a personal note, I can add that none of this lot of gold dry extract
was distributed by St. Patrick's of Texas, either retail or wholesale.
Lynne O'Connor
St. Patrick's of Texas
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 8:27 BST
From: "Andy Phillips, Long Ashton, Bristol, UK" <phillipsa@afrc.ac.uk>
Subject: Mashing in picnic cooler
On Saturday, I mashed for the first time in my new mash tun - an
insulated picnic cooler with slotted pipe sparge manifold - and
was impressed with how much easier it was than with my old Bruheat.
I prewarmed the tun to 80C, then mixed 5.3 kg (11.6 lb) of pale malt
with 13 litres (2.9 Imperial gallons) water at 76C. The resulting
mash started at 66C and dropped to 65C over 90 min. I stirred occasionally
to redistibute any cold spots near the walls. I sparged to 6 (UK)
galls at a gravity of 69 at 20C. My calculations suggest that
I had almost 100% theoretical yield!! My highest with the Bruheat had been
about 85, and usually about 20% of this was unfermantable, probably
due to hot spots near the heating element, killing off the beta-amylase.
The other advantage is that the Bruheat can now be used to heat the sparge
water (no more sparging with pans from the stove), and the runnings from the
mash tun can be sent straight to the Bruheat for boiling. Assuming that
the resulting beer tastes OK, I'm completely sold on the new system.
Andy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 17:12:54 +0930
From: Murray Robinson <robinm@mrd.dsto.gov.au>
Subject: Computer Controlled Mashing
Has anyone on the net undertaken the process of automating their
mash by using a closed loop control system.
ie: temp sensor --> computer --> solenoid --> gas burner --> brew pot --
^ |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------
I have used the BruHeat Boiler (hope I can mention the name) for some time
with good results but got a nice little tingle from it the other day so am
no longer keen on electrical heating elements. Instead I now have a 3 ring
gas burner beneath a 40Gal SS keg which enables me to do larger batches which
come up to temperature quicker. What I would like to do with this system
is use the inner ring (or possibly a seperate element) as a pilot flame with
a computer controlled solenoid that would switch gas on/off to the other
rings to maintain the appropriate mash temp.
Ofcourse there are much easier (and cheaper) ways of managing a temperature
controlled mash but a computererised system (at a reasonable price)
provides IMO a great way of documenting and reproducing recipes!
What do people think? Are there other problems with this sort of system such
as exactly where in the mash should you measure the temperature or should the
mash be constantly mixed, etc?
Any info would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Murray.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 08:04:00 EST
From: "/R=FDACB/R=A1/U=RIDGELY/O=HFM-400/TN=FTS 402-1521/FFN=Bill Ridgely/"@mr.cber.fda.gov
Subject: Barley Water (Cont'd)
In the continuing "barley water" debate, Darryl writes:
> > The author went on to mention that there was no longer a barley
>water tradition in the English-speaking world, but that a popular
>version called "horchata" was still enjoyed in Spain and parts of
>Latin America.
>I realize that Bill didn't say this but was quoting someone else.
>However, horchata (pronounced without the leading h sound) is a common
>drink from Mexico and is made from ground rice and cinnamon, and is
>pretty sweet. In the LA area you can generally get this instead of,
>say, a soft drink at a restaurant. It doesn't sound like it's got very
>much in common with barley water, however, in either ingredients or
>intended use.
I did a little more reading on the subject, and Darryl is correct. Modern-
day horchata is rice-based. However, at one time, it apparently was barley-
based. The term "horchata" comes from the Latin "hordeum", meaning
"barley". It appears that rice supplanted barley as the grain of choice
when the Moors introduced rice to Spain in the late middle ages.
There also appears to be another form of horchata, found mostly in Spain,
made from chufa, or ground tiger nut - the underground tuber of a plant
called "earth almond". One reference says this tuber was mentioned in the
writings of Theophrastus as being harvested by the Egyptians and cooked in
barley juice. Hence, the original "chufa horchata" appears to have derived
from this ancient Egyptian tradition.
Bill Ridgely (Brewer, Patriot, Bicyclist) __o
ridgely@a1.cber.fda.gov -\<,
ridgely@cber.cber.fda.gov ...O/ O...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 08:32:31 EDT
From: <NASARC07@SIVM.SI.EDU>
Subject: Gaithersburg, MD Brewpub
*** Resending note of 08/20/93 10:37
To: EXTERNAL--CMSNAMES Entry Screen (non-
From: Allan Janus
Greetings, all - does anyone in the Washington DC area have any information
on a new brewpub that's been a-building in Gaithersburg for a long, thirsty
time? I recently moved nearby, and the sight of a brewpub gave me a very
positive viewof the local quality-of-life index. Now it's the middle of
a mid-Atlantic August, my thirst is great, and the brewpub continues to hold
its peace. Anyone know the brewer-founder, plans, opening date, etc?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 8:39:36 EDT
From: Mark A Fryling <mfryling@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: preservatives??
Howdy,
I have a question for those of you in the know concerning preservatives and
their toxicity to yeast. Specifically, I recently bought some catawba and
concord grape juice from one of the lake Erie wineries to use to make some
pyment (grape mead). After purchasing however, I noticed that the juices are
preserved with "benzoate of soda", which I presume means sodium benzoate.
Questions, a) how persistant is this stuff; i.e. does it become non-toxic or
un-reactive with time like sodium metabisulfite? and b) if it is persistant is
there a threshold level below which my yeasty-beasties should be safe?
The juice is extremely sweet (not at all like Welch's) and I was thinking
that I would use it at about 2.25L of juice and 6-8 lbs of honey per 3gal of
finished pyment. One way of testing is to try a small (say 1gal) pilot batch,
and I may do this regardless, but advance info would be helpful.
I have further interest in this subject because I would like to figure out
another way to make hard cider and cyser this fall without the use of
metabisulfite. Call me hypersensitive, but I still taste and smell the sulfur
in the hard cider I made last year using campden tablets and then pitching
Wyeast Irish Ale (1084?). The sulfur aroma is not real obvious, but I'd like
to try to avoid it this year and still ferment with a yeast of known
characteristics instead of leaving it up to the wild beasts.
TIA
Mark Fryling
Dept. of Chemistry
Ohio State Univ.
<mfryling@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
"Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing whats right"
I. Asimov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 09:13:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
Subject: sweet gale seed source
It's getting to be time to start brewing those strong holiday beers.
Does anyone have a source for sweet gale seeds? Has anyone tried
brewing Rajotte's "Santa Claus Magic Potion" with them?
------------------------------
Date: 23 Aug 1993 16:12:57 +0200
From: netad@uds01.unix.st.it (NetAdvertiser)
Subject: The Net ADvertiser
*****************************************************************************
Are you trying to sell your car, your home, your drums, your whole Jimi
Hendrix's bootlegs collection?
Are you going to rent your flat at Aspen for the summer time?
Or maybe you are looking for a car, or for a new job, or for friends to
spend all the nights watching Peter Greenaways's movies or playing Diplomacy.
Even if you are offering jobs and managing a commercial company you can
enter the world of:
T H E N E T A D V E R T I S E R
The Net Advertiser is a mailing list created to give all the Internet
community the opportunity to widespread private sales, rent, offer messages.
Everybody can find a place in The Net Advertiser digest, even commercial
companies.
This is a list maintained by the InfoNet Project, a group of computer science
experts, students and consultants whose aim is the propagation of all kind of
information across the Internet and CREN world.
Advertising in the digest is completely free, except for commercial companies
which must submit a 75 $ fee in order to support the InfoNet Project work.
For any information, subscription and submission write to:
netad@uds01.unix.st.it.
*****************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 08:38:09 -0600
From: Michael Howe <howe@gwl.com>
Subject: SF area Breweries & Brewpubs
Hello HBD'ers,
I would like any/all information anyone might have about Breweries and
Brewpbus in the San Francisco area. I know Anchor and Sierra Nevada are
both out in that neck of the woods, but where? What about "Can't Miss" micros
and brewpubs. I know the area is rich in drinking potential, thus I would
like to maximize my opportunity.
Also, I would like to obtain the current brewpub list that was recently
compiled. That could probably answer many of my questions. I would get it
myself but I don't have FTP access. Could some kind soul forward that to
me as well.
Feel free to mail to me directly to save precious HBD space...
Thanks in advance,
Michael Howe e-mail : howe@gwl.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 10:01:15 -0500
From: trl@photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
Subject: Mash Out
>I know what the Mash Out does for the grain (stop enzyme activity)
>but what does it do for the resultant beer?
Provides for repeatability, mostly. ie: enzyme activity is stopped
after x minutes, period.
>Is there a difference between mashing out in the mash tun
>and lautering with 170 deg water?
Yes. You won't have enough mass of sparge water at 170 degrees
to raise the entire grain-bed (with its water at, say, 150 degrees)
up to the enzyme-stopping temperature. And you shouldn't use water
much hotter than 170, for fear of tannins and other off-flavors being
carried into your beer. This is an argument for mashing in a kettle
on the stove, or going to decoction (did I spell that right?) as opposed
to the straight infusion method.
>Bottom line: What is being gained (or lost if we don't mash out)? TIA.
Gained: a little time
Lost: repeatability
yer welcome
t
=============================================================================
Tom Leith InterNet: trl@wuerl.WUstl.EDU
4434 Dewey Ave. CompuServe: 70441,3536
St. Louis, Missouri 63116
"Tho' I could not caution all
314/362-6965 - Office I still might warn a few:
314/362-6971 - Office Fax Don't lend your hand
314/481-2512 - Home + Infernal Machine to raise no flag
atop no Ship of Fools"
=============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 11:08:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: okra@genesis.nred.ma.us (dean goulding)
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
FWIW - 2 tips that have helped me...
1 - I make a temporary burner liner for my gas stove from two layers
of aluminum foil. Cut an asterisk shape the size of your burner
element in the center of the first and fold under the hole
in the stovetop for the burner element.
Leave plenty of excess to cover the enamel stovetop. Do the
same with the second sheet, perpendicular to the first. This
helps with the stains from burnt wort and the enamel distress
from 1.5 hours of high heat. It also helps to have the stove
spotless to start with.
2 - I sparge using the grainbag-in-a-bucket system. I've found that
using two sections of newspaper taped around the bucket w/ masking
tape makes an effective/recyclable insulation. Cut an indentation
if you use a tap at the base.
Pet peeve: Let's remember that some of us call long distance to download
the HBD. I'd rather read valuable brewing info than cute tagline drawings
or excessive quotes from the previous HBD.
Question: For my last 2 batches, I've used Wyeast Chico/Ballantine (1056)
yeast. This appears to be a bottom fermenting ale yeast. Isn't that an
oxymoron (ie.jumbo shrimp, military intelligence)? Aren't yeast segregated
as either top/ale or bottom/lager? Dr. Fix?
Thanks! Dean Goulding (okra@genesis.nred.ma.us)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 08:28:57 PDT
From: megatek!hollen@uunet.UU.NET (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: To blow-off or not to blow-off?
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 1993 12:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Domenick Venezia
<venezia@zgi.com> said:
Domenick> I have noted a number of beginning brewers and all-grain
Domenick> neophytes (like myself) in the HBD lately, and I have a
Domenick> question that may be of general interest to this group.
Domenick> What is the feelings out there on whether to employ a
Domenick> blow-off fermentaion or not? Just using a 7 gal carboy and
Domenick> not worrying about boiling off enough to fit in a 5 gal
Domenick> carboy seems like a lot less stress, but I've always used a
Domenick> blow-off in my extract brews. And besides, all that brown
Domenick> tar just worries me.
Domenick> Let's see public responses to this because I think it's of
Domenick> general interest.
Domenick> Domenick Venezia
Domenick> ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Domenick> venezia@zgi.com
You may not see a public response to this, because I have never been
able to successfully post to HBD. Maybe it will work this time, I
will try.
Although I am not an all grain brewer yet (will be in a couple of
weeks), it seems to me that once you have done your boil and have
racked to a fermenter, it matters not at all how you got your wort.
You will still have malt sugar, water, yeast and hops in a carboy. If
you used a blowoff fermentation setup before and it worked and you
liked it, keep using it. BTW, I use a blowoff hose and ferment in a
SS soda keg. I get tons of krauesen and hop pellet residue in my air
lock bucket. I really like the blowoff system.
dion
Dion Hollenbeck (619)455-5590x2814 Email: hollen@megatek.com
Senior Software Engineer megatek!hollen@uunet.uu.net
Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California ucsd!megatek!hollen
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 08:49:53 -0700
From: pascal@netcom.com (Richard Childers)
Subject: Stabilizing Cultures For Shipment
"Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 15:15:59 -0500
From: tmgierma@raphael.acpub.duke.edu (Todd Gierman)
Subject: yeast cultural hysteria
"I have a second proposal that merges two suggestions brought up in the last
couple of issues: sharing yeast cultures via the network ... This network
offers a wonderful means by which to distribute the culture, rather than
wait until who knows when for its release. Certainly, someone out there
has an agar slant full of this stuff."
I like this idea, also, but it is not a new one. I was browsing through the
bread FAQs I could find in gopherspace, over the past few days, and discovered
that there is a very close parallel between bread yeast, and beer yeast,
collectors. Bread yeast collectors also trade yeast samples ... sourdough is
a fairly common variation, as it occurs, differently, all over the world.
Below is a method for preserving bread yeast and stabilizing them for mailing
and long-term storage. I don't *know* that it will work for beer yeast, but
I see no reason why not ... I don't think agar slants are a prerequisite to
successful propogation of a genotype ... just a useful intermediate storage.
Here's another useful intermediate storage that may be much more stable.
The procedure, as described, lacks sanitary safeguards ... but I don't think
this is an unsurmountable problem. A homemade glove box would do nicely. (-:
Aluminum foil might be preferred over wax paper, for sanitary reasons.
> How to dry and restart a culture
>
> ####################################################
> ####################################################
>
>
> from dadams@cray.com (David Adams)
>
> Drying:
>
> For long term culture storage, store your culture
> in dried powder form. Ed Woods book doesn't tell
> you how to do this right out, but I sort of discovered
> it on my own. Actually I believe it is an old trick.
>
> Spread a three foot long section of wax paper on the
> Table WAX SIDE UP. Smear one tablespoon of fresh
> culture around evenly and
> thinly over the surface of the wax paper. Let it
> dry overnight, and then scrape the dry flakes into
> a bowl and crunch them (Mortal & pestle style) into
> small pieces. Put the powder into a labeled zip lock
> bag and press the air out.
>
> The culture forms spores when it starts to dry out.
> The culture will store in a zip lock bag at normal
> temperatures like this for 6 months. It will store
> even longer in the frezer.
>
> I find that a zip-lock bag is very convenient way to
> carry a culture when traveling or moving. Make sure
> the bag is labled and don't flaunt those little bags
> of white powder!
>
> I find it convenient to do several sheets of wax paper
> at once. Then when friends ask for a start I spoon
> two teaspoons into a new bag, and carry it to work,
> or where ever I will see them next.
>
> Another reason I find this convenient is that if you
> own several different cultures, they don't all have
> to occupy a bottle in the fridge at once.
>
> And it is fairly easy to include a small zip-lock
> with a teaspoon or two of start in a letter. An
> easy way to share starts.
>
> Restarting:
>
> Dr. Wood recomends the following steps for activating
> dried sourdough cultures:
>
> Mix a couple of teaspoons of the dried powder with
> 1/2 cup of water at 95 to 100 deg F. Mix briefly and
> let stand for 15 min. Add 1/3 cup of white bread
> flour, mix well and proof for 24 hours at 85 deg. F.
> (My start needs 12 hours.) "The jar lid should
> not be tightened. During the first 12 hours the
> culture should be stirred once or twice as convenient.
>
> "At the end of 24 hours the culture should start to
> bubble but the time varies depending on which culture
> is to be activated. Regardless, add an additional
> 1/2 cup of 85 deg. F. water and 1/2 cup of flour.
> Then stir vigorously to whip some air into the mixture.
> Return it to your warm place for 12 hours. When
> the culture has a layer of foamy bubbles on the
> surface, it is ready to use.
>
> Some of the cultures will fully activate in 24-48
> hours, but some may require 3 to 5 days. During
> this time, keep the culture at 85 deg. F., add
> water and flour at about 12 hour intervals and stir
> briskly." (Copied by permission from information
> sheet sent with culture sample from Sourdoughs
> International.)
>
> ###########################################################
> ###########################################################
Anyone who'd like this or other bread-related FAQs, feel free to email me
separately, I'll have them online for a few weeks, at least.
- -- richard
| |
| "A cloak is no longer a cloak if it does not keep one warm." |
| |
| richard childers pascal@netcom.com |
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 10:54:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: WEIX@swmed.edu
Subject: Yeast FAQ/Al Korz...
Sorry to waste bandwidth.
Al, I have not received any comment on the messages I sent you regarding
your corrections to my Yeast FAQ. Please contact me to tell me if you
got my messages. Has your address changed? Mine remains,
@@@@
(o o)
|----------------------ooO---(__)---Ooo----------------------|
| |
| Patrick Weix weix@swmed.edu |
| UT Southwestern Medical Center tel: (214) 648-5050 |
| 5323 Harry Hines Blvd fax: (214) 648-5453 |
| Dallas, TX 75235 |
|------------------------------------------------------------|
|| ||
(__) (__)
Thanks to all.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 10:03:32 -0600
From: John Adams <j_adams@hpfcjca.sde.hp.com>
Subject: Brewpots
I just had a 6.5 gallon stainless steel brew pot made for me. The materials
for a 14 gauge stainless (this is probably thicker than "restaurant gauge")
amounted to $75. The real "cost" involved is the actual construction. Getting
someone with stainless cutting/welding experience and the right equipment is
the trick.
My father-in-law is a supervisor at a beef plant where they do all of their
own stainless work. My pot has a fitted lid, stainless handles fabricated from
1/2" rod (with walnut grips) and a 3/8" stainless threading pipe at the base.
All it cost me was a batch of beer!!!
> Warehouse in Seattle, WA. The following was quoted:
> 10 gal. stainless steel brew pot - $149.00
> brass/copper ball valve,nipple,fitting - $ 86.00
> cut to fit bottom screen to filter wort - $ 60.00
-------
$295.00
The prices for the screen/valve seem a bit high but the price for the pot
itself is reasonable (assuming you get a lid).
John Adams
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 12:04:51 EDT
From: rgarvin@btg.com (Rick Garvin (703-761-6630))
Subject: Chang over Chicha
Bill Ridgely writes in HBD #1208:
> Sorry the chicha arrived
> late (shipping problems), but at least a fair amount finally got consumed.
> Gak & Gerry were seen making a significant dent in the keg following the
> banquet Thursday night.
I think that Wendy and Bill did a great job!
Gak & Gerry (serious knuckleheads, party with them if you get the chance)
were seriously polluted by the time they went into Chicha mode. I wonder
if there were any lasting ill effects from the chicha consumption?
Cheers, Rick (3 day Chang fan, give the chicha to Gak & Gerry)
Rick Garvin rgarvin@btg.com
BTG, Inc. Navy Programs Division, Vienna, VA 703-761-6630
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 11:37 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: WORT AERATION
>From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
>Subject: Aeration. What the pros say...
>The latest in Jack's continuing vigil against the accursed momilies of
brewing focuses on aeration.
>I'm not sure what Jack's claims are here. But I'll point out several
points of interest that may affect his "scientific" experiment.
I am not sure what Kinney's point in this lengthy response is but I have
several reasons to suppose it is something other than objectivity.
First of all, puting the word scientific in quotes is a rather unprofessional
way of trivializing the time and effort I put into this.
Secondly, if he misunderstood the conclusion and objective of the experiment
before posting this same stuff on r.c.b., he certainly is aware now, that it
has nothing to do with what I was trying to learn. We thrashed it out on
r.c.b. for over a week and to restate the original objections and ad hominems
without changing a single word, reeks of demagoguery.
For those who may still be confused, the conclusion follows...
............
CONCLUSION...
The experiment seems to confirm the author's previous experience and points
to the conclusion that the method of aeration used has no correlation with or
effect on the time to onset of fermentation. Contrary to frequently stated
anecdotal experience, the un-aerated control samples started fermenting as
soon and with the same vigor as the variously aerated samples. This was true
both in the case of cold temperature lager yeast and room temperature ale
yeast.
This experiment was not intended to test any other aspects of the brewing
process that may be affected by wort aeration. Much has been written on the
subject and the present author's intent was only to study the effects of
aeration on the onset of fermentation.
..........
I will be happy to discuss aeration as related to lag time but, flavor
profiles, final gravities and other aspects are not part of the study nor is
the overall need for adequate aeration under question.
For the record, the imcoming mail is in very close agreement with my
conclusion. I have yet to hear from a single person who reports that lag
time has dropped after switching to an aquarium aerator from whatever they
were doing before.
It may seem like nitpicking to prove that aeration does not improve lag time
if it is necessary anyway for good beer but nit picking is what science is
all about.
If someone makes a statement that lists 10 reasons for doing something but
one of them is wrong, the entire statement becomes suspect.
If aquarium aerators do not improve (reduce) lag time, it is time to stop
saying they do, no matter how important aeration is for other reasons.
If they do, someone else will have to prove it, I tried and could not.
>From: "CANNON_TOM" <CANNON_TOM@hq.navsea.navy.mil>
>Subject: Mash Out
> Is there a difference between mashing out in the mash tun
and lautering with 170 deg water? Bottom line: What is
being gained (or lost if we don't mash out)? TIA.
Lautering with 170 deg water is not the same as mashing out in the kettle
because the mash temp never gets anywhere near 170 degs while sparging.
Bringing the entire mash up to 170 before sparging has the effect of
increasing the mash temperature during the sparge. This possibly results in
a more effective sparge, less possibility of stuck sparges and some chemical
aspects that I will leave to the experts.
js
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 12:01:15 CDT
From: "Anthony Johnston" <anthony@chemsun.chem.umn.edu>
Subject: Cream Stout
This past weekend I devoted some time to my OTHER hobby (namely,
drinking good commercial beers) and happened upon some Watney's Cream
Stout. This was one of the best beers I have ever tasted, and I would
like to brew one similar (as similar as I can get) and would hope for
some pointers from fellow HBD'ers. Here are my (possibly erroneous)
understandings:
1) Cream stouts have lactose added to sweeten them. In the boil? At
bottling? In between?
2) Stouts are traditionally made with darker adjunct grains added such
as roasted barley, chocolate malt, black patent. As an extract brewer I
would steep the grains before bringing my water to a boil. Now that I
am hoping to move on to partial and all grain recipes, when does one add
these adjuncts?
3) The Watney's I sampled seemed much lighter in body than other stouts
I hve tried. Does anyone have any idea of an OG and FG for the style?
Is it the same as the sweet stout in Papazian's general guide lines?
Any helpful information will be appreciated. If you e-mail me direct, I
will edit the responses and post a summary on Cream Stout to the HBD.
If you post to the HBD, then I will not summarize in the interest of
conserving bandwidth.
Thanks,
Anthony Johnston
anthony@chemsun.chem.umn.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 10:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Wade <ericwade@CLASS.ORG>
Subject: Source for pumps wanted
I'd be interested any any sources and recommendations for pumps to move
both wort and hot water. I'd like to be able to lift 175 df and above
water to a hot liquor tank (HardSparger(tm), all in good fun Jack!) as
well as run hot water and cleaning solutions through the pump and other
parts of a system like a counter flow chiller. I am aware that the pump
should pull (rather than push) the wort through the chiller to avoid HSA.
It is difficult to tell (at least for this layman) which pumps can handle
the high temperatures, are food grade quality, will deliver an appropriate
throughput, will raise water the 6-8 feet (est), and are available for a
reasonable price. I've got the Cole-Parmer catalog and think I've
identified an appropriate pump. Still, I'd like the advice and
recommendations of those who've gone this route already; is there
something better, cheaper?. If you have a recommendation, please be as
specific as you can regarding source, model number, catalog page number,
price, etc. SF Bay Area sources also appreciated.
BTW, nice work on the yeast FAQ. It, and the followup comments are now
part of my brewing library.
Cheers,
Eric <ericwade@class.org>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 14:52 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re: PU yeast
Jack writes:
>Two rumors I would like verified here....
>The first is the blending of (4) different beers from (4) different yeasts by
>PU. This was reported in an article I just read but do not recall where.
>Nothing of this sort was reported by Daryl Richman from his visit to the
>brewery.
I will try to find my source for this and post, but from my memory, it's
not anything to do with blending of four beer made from four yeasts, rather
PU was (or maybe still is) brewed with a mixed strain. Again, from memory,
someone, several years ago, got a hold of the PU production yeast and from
it they isolated four different yeasts, which they called A, B, C and D.
I believe that they made test batches and the B and D strains were the most
Pilsner Urquell-like.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 12:28:43 PDT
From: sc@vcc.com (Steve Casselman)
Subject: Two Cents on Aeration.
So let me put in my two cents in on aeration. As far as I know
there are two different kinds of fermentation, aerobic and
anaerobic. During aerobic fermentation yeast take sugars and water and
produce CO2 and water. Yeast can only reproduce during the aerobic growth
stage. This means that a yeast cell produces another free roaming off
spring. When the O2 runs out yeast go into anaerobic fermentation. During
this time they consume sugars and water and produce CO2 and alcohols.
At this time they stop reproducing and start budding which produces
a long heavy chain of cells which start to drop due to their weight,
this is called floculation. The trick is to have enought yeast such
that during anaerobic fermention the yeast consume the sugars before
they floculate. This can be done by adding alot of single yeast cells
or by having enough O2 in your wort for the yeast you add to reproduce
to the right levels.
One of the experiments I have done in the past was to take pure
water in a corney and force oxgenate it. I then added this to
my chilled wort. While I never got levels right (the yeast didn't
floculate for a long time) my lag times went down dramaticly.
Lately though I just try and ferment in a large plastic bucket
with a loose fitting lid for the first week then rack to 15 Gal
kegs. We resently made 30 gals of beer and put 20 gals into the
"open" fermentor and ten in the keg. The keg had an air lock.
After the primary fermention we took a gravity reading the
20 gals came out at 1.012 while the keg fermentaion came in
at 1.030.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Massively Reconfigurable Logic Out Performs Massively Parallel Processors|
| "Today's Software is Tomorow's Hardware" --- A.S. Tannenbaum |
| Virtual Computer Corporation -- FPGA based custom computing systems. |
| Steve Casselman E-mail sc@vcc.com Phone (818) 342-8294|
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 15:21:16 -0500
From: rick@adc.com (Rick Larson)
Subject: Cleaning gas lines
How do you clean your kegging equipment gas lines?
I borrowed a kegging system from a friend and noticed
the gas lines have *a lot* of beer stains. How should
I clean these lines?
I have iodophor, chlorine, TSP, and boiling water. I think
one of these should work.
rick
- ---
rick@adc.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 16:12 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Pronounciation/Mashout
Sorry, but I've lost who asked for pronounciations of certain words,
specifically, Maerzen and Saaz.
Alas, there is no FAQ on this, but perhaps someone would like to create
one. I can contribute Maerzen and Saaz to it (note that if you have
an a-umlaut, you can lose the "e" in Maerzen) oh, heck, I'll add a
couple more:
Maerzen MARE-tzen
Saaz ZAATS
Kraeusen KROY-zen
Wort WERT
Trub TROOB
Gueuze GUE-ze (a tough one - Jackson says "rhymes with cursor"
but remember that the English often understate
their "r"s)
Willamette wil-LAM-met
Boone (Frank) BONE
Spaten SHPA-ten
Here's a new one on me:
I heard "lauter" pronounced "LOI-ter" at the AHA conference. Is this
correct? Should it be spelled laeuter?
***********************************
Tom writes:
Is there a difference between mashing out in the mash tun
and lautering with 170 deg water? Bottom line: What is
being gained (or lost if we don't mash out)?
A more important reason for mashout (besides denaturing the enzymes
as Tom mentioned) is to make the runoff more, well, runny (less
viscous). Yes, 170F sparge water will raise the temperature eventually,
but lautering will be slower than if you had gotten the whole mash up
to 170F before trying to get the sugars away from the husks.
************************************
Domenick writes:
What is the feelings out there on whether to employ a blow-off
fermentaion or not? Just using a 7 gal carboy and not worrying
about boiling off enough to fit in a 5 gal carboy seems like a
lot less stress, but I've always used a blow-off in my extract brews.
I did two blowoff/non-blowoff experiments using split batches, and the
difference was very noticable. The non-blowoff sub-batch was more bitter
and astringent than the blowoff sub-batch. However, I have reason to
believe (I've posted it in the past) that the blowoff method may reduce
your head retention. I haven't done enough experiments to prove or
disprove this, so it needs some more work. Has anyone else seen this
(blowoff - head retention) correlation?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 22:18:33 EDT
From: boskoduck@aol.com
Subject: Glatt Machining
Those of us who were fortunate enough to be at the AHA National in Portland
this year got to see an impressive looking new malt mill made by the company
named in the subject line. When I got home I immediately ordered one.
Well, that was the 3rd of August. Today, the 23rd, I got a telephone call
from the owner of Glatt Machining. He called from Oregom - I live in New
Hampshire - to tell me that he was behind in his orders and would have my
mill out to me by the end of the week. He said that the response to his mill
has been so good that he can't keep manufacturing fast enough.
He also asked me if I wasa on the internet. When I said that I had access to
internet mail he asked me to tell "all those internet people" that he was
running behind in filling orders, but would get them out as soon as he can.
I figured that the internet people must be the HBD.
Having done that, I've made good on my promise.
As far as the mill is concerned, its an all metal contruction, and has two
grooved rollers. It's adjustable and the hopper holds about 2.5 lbs of
grain. The real surprise is that it's only US$80 per mill plus S&H. I was
impressed.
Naturally, I have no commercial connection with Glatt Machining or anything
like that, this is meant just as general info.
Nastrovia
-julian zelazny
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1210, 08/24/93
*************************************
-------
