Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1241
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/10/06 00:25:40
HOMEBREW Digest #1241 Wed 06 October 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re : Bitterness from Dry Hopping (Conn Copas)
Krush Off Kwestion (Philip . Miller)
Beer filtering... (rmm)
Wort Processors Mill Evaluation (Jack Schmidling)
Update on troubleshoot my Dryhopping (Kelly Jones)
Re: Dryhopping bitterness (Paul Sovcik)
Yeast Viability (George J Fix)
molasses (Lance Encell)
Christmas Ale Recipies? (BRUCE)
Barely Wine ferment (Jim Busch)
chilling wort (Omega)
SPGRAV: program to perform hydrometer corrections at any base (Kurt Swanson)
Room-mate for GABF 93 (Steve Casselman)
Dry hop "bitterness", Fermentation hop utilization (Domenick Venezia)
High-gravity ferments (korz)
PU help (korz)
Hop utilization VS. Boil gravity (korz)
HELP!! (W. Mark Witherspoon)
Spice/pumpkin flavors & yeast reuse ???? (GEORGE SMITH)
Corning Glasses (COYOTE)
Cheap Carboy Source in Madison, WI (Steve Seaney)
dryhopping rate (more) (Spencer.W.Thomas)
yeast pitching rates (Peter Maxwell)
Chillhaze/Proteins/Tannins (korz)
Legality of mailing homebrew (Eric Wade)
Thanks & Smokey Mnts. (David Atkins)
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: Tue, 5 Oct 93 13:31:44 BST
From: Conn Copas <C.V.Copas@lut.ac.uk>
Subject: Re : Bitterness from Dry Hopping
If we accept that there is a difference between hop flavour and aroma, then my
experience is that prolonged dry hopping (as in leaving hops in a pressure
barrel) has a relatively short-lived, intense effect upon aroma, but a
long-lived effect on flavour. I personally love the aroma of English Goldings,
but not so much the flavour, which is why I am of the school of thought which
limits dry-hop contact time to less than 2 weeks. As for bitterness, isn't
there a theory that alcohol is an alternative to heat as a means of
isomerisation? Presumably, any effect would also be enhanced by increasing the
contact between the hops and the brew, as with the use of shredded hops or
pellets.
- --
Conn V Copas
Loughborough University of Technology tel : +44 (0)509 222689
Computer-Human Interaction Research Centre fax : +44 (0)509 610815
Leicestershire LE11 3TU e-mail - (Janet):C.V.Copas@uk.ac.lut
G Britain (Internet):C.V.Copas@lut.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 08:09:50 CDT
From: pmiller@mmm.com (Philip . Miller)
Subject: Krush Off Kwestion
Many thanks to the Boston Wort Processors et al for the interesting
post on mills. Just a quick question: was it a blind judging?
(I.e., did the judges know which mill ground the grains they were
judging?)
Thanks
Phil
pmiller@mmm.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 9:38:18 EDT"
From: rmm@apollo.hp.com
Subject: Beer filtering...
Hi, I have seen a couple of references to filtering
beer in the digest and I have some questions:
1. How fine a filter do you use?
2. Where do you find the filters?
3. When in the brewing process do you filter?
4. How much difference does it make? Can you
really clarify beer by sending it through
a filter once (at the end of secondary)?
I have a couple of cornelius kegs and a CO2 setup and
would guess that I should use a counter-pressure fill
from one keg to the other with a filter in between.
Any tips, comments or details of personal experience
will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
-ralph
- --
=============================================================
Ralph Morrison Chelmsford Systems Software Lab
(508) 436-4217 Hewlett-Packard Corporation
rmm@apollo.hp.com Chelmsford, MA 01824
=============================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 08:47 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Wort Processors Mill Evaluation
Sounds like a fun time was had by all and the context and tone of the report
indicate that it does not require much serious debate. However, there are a
few points that I would like to mention (surprise, surprise) just for
clarification.
First of all, the MM used in the evaluation does not represent current design
which will indeed crush one lb of malt in under 14 seconds with a hand crank
and 5 lbs per minute with a motor is like falling off a log.
>The Schmidling MaltMill is a two-roller malt mill with 10" steel rollers,
finely grooved lengthwise.
The current design uses a much coarser texture on the rollers that has a
profound effect on the effeciency of feeding the grain through the rollers.
> In both tests the mill had to be held to the bucket by hand.
The MM is supplied on a base with rubber feet for locating it on a plastic
bucket. This does not imply that this is the ideal way of using the mill in
all cases and in particularly when speed tests are being run. It is far more
convenient and easy to use if it is clamped to the edge of a work table with
a simple C-clamp.
>The unmotorized test came first. The mill was very quiet when cranked by
hand; the operator was timed at approximately 120 rpm. Two pounds of grain
were crushed in 44 seconds.
The current design will crush a pound of grain is less then 14 seconds at
that cranking rate.
>The motorized test used a 2.3 amp electric drill. Two pounds of grain were
crushed in only 21 seconds, for the day's record.
This figure would be substantially improved with a current design but not
knowing the RPM I can't even guess.
> Others mentioned that it occasionally proves necessary to replace the
O-rings used in the drive mechanism.
Although a fairly trivial task to replace, the current design, does not
require the O-ring to drive the passive roller. We went from two O-rings to
one and now have eliminated it's need entirely.
>The Corona is a flour mill..... When run with a 2.3 amp electric drill, the
mill was less noisy than the Marcato (this may be because a different drill
was used). The mill took only 24 seconds to crush the two pounds of grain.
I have real problems with this one because it implies that the Corona is
almost as fast as the MM and this is not consistant with my experience.
According to my measurements, it takes 93 revolutions of a correctly adjusted
Corona to process one pound of grain. This compares to 30 revolutions on the
MM. This is the obvious advantage of the 10" long rollers. For the Corona
to process grain in roughly the same time, it would have to run 3 times
faster. Granted, no RPM's were stated for the drill operated tests, but this
must be known for a rational evaluation. If the MM were run 3 times faster
it would process 9 times more grain then the Corona in a given time.
By extrapolating the results of the hand cranked Corona....
>The operator was clocked at 100 rpm. Only three-quarters of a pound were
ground, in 1:38 (one minute and thirty-eight seconds).
It would have to run at about 1200 RPM to process 2 lbs in 24 seconds.
Theoretically, the MM would crush 40 lbs per minute at that speed.
I would also point out that, not having any bearings, the Corona would not
last very long at that speed.
Finally, a note on crush quality....
The most misunderstood aspect of the grist resulting from milling of malt for
brewing is the bogyman known variously as flour, dust, fine particles, powder
etc. I would rank the need for unscathed husks as number two. The emphasis
on both of these results from the problems created by crude grain grinders
combined with poorly designed and/or operated mash/lauter tuns.
The perfect grist for mashing would be molecule sized particles of malt from
which all the husk has been removed. It would wet perfectly, disolve
instantly and produce 100% yield of crystal clear wort.
In the real world, some of the starch is not converted or disolved and it is
impossible to prevent some of the husk from getting into the grist. This
creates the need to filter the mashed wort and in this hypothetical case, it
could be run through a submicron filter and produce a nice clear wort with
very high extraction yield. The bad news is that mechanical filtration at
that level is expensive, time consuming and messy. The good news is, Mother
Nature has provided a simple and free filter that when properly utilized, is
just as good.
By allowing the husks to remain in the grist and providing the proper
environment for them to settle and layer in the lauter tun, they will filter
the wort just about as well as a mechanical filter and cost nothing.
I suppose most of us know all this but what seems to get lost in these types
of subjective studies of grist from various mills is that the flour bogyman
is a ghost from the days of flour mills, coffee grinders and poorly designed
lauter tuns. A mill that doesn't pulverize the husks, if supported by a
proper lauter tun can and SHOULD produce a significant amount of very fine
grist. That is what makes the difference between acceptable and maximum
extract efficiency.
To worry about husks that are broken in half as opposed to remaining whole is
to miss the whole point. A husk in two pieces provides more filter pores
than a whole husk. Likewise with ten, twenty or a hundred pieces. The
problem arrises not from chopping it up into small pieces but from
pulverizing it into dust. A roller mill with two or more counter-rotating
rollers is inherently incapable of pulverizing husks and whatever is done to
the husks is not likely to create problems. Grinders and single roller mills
are candidates for pulverizing husks and must be carefully adjusted to
minimize this effect.
As an aside, I have not seen the Glatt but from descriptions, it sounds like
the intermeshing grooves on the rollers might pose such a problem.
The sieve tests used by commercial breweries are quantitative and very
repeatable but are designed to predict or explain problems in very large
batches and are virtually meaningless for small homebrew sized batches. It's
fun to say that one's mill produces text book quality grist but if in the
final analysis, the beer is no different from that made from grist that has a
different stasticial spread of particle size, what does it prove?
I think the bottom line is that a homebrewer can use a roller mill with
confidence that any problems in processing can probably be looked for
elsewhere. Other types of mills require much more judgement and experience
to get them to do what they were not intended to do.
js
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 08:14:14 -0600
From: Kelly Jones <k-jones@ee.utah.edu>
Subject: Update on troubleshoot my Dryhopping
A week ago I posted a request for help with my dryhopping. I had
noticed a pronounced excess bitterness in a batch of brew which had
been dryhopped 10 days on fresh homegrown cascade. (This was
definitely dryhop bitterness, as it was not present in a second
portion of the batch which had not yet been dryhopped.)
Anyway, thanks to all who responded with help/suggestions.
Second, an update: I sampled this beer again last night, after 8 days
of bottle conditioning. The bitterness is (almost) completely gone.
I believe I still detect a bit more bitterness than in the undryhopped
batch, but it is certainly not excessive, and works just fine for the
style. Whatever this bitterness was, it was present immediately after
removing the hop leaves, but gone after 8 days of conditioning.
Third, I was reading yesterday's comments by Mark Garetz on this
subject. One suggestion of his is that what many report as
'bitterness' may actually be 'astringency'. I cannot speak for others,
but as a lover of big red wines, my palate can easily recognize
astringency. What I tasted was bitter, not astringent.
Enjoyin' my brew,
Kelly
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 93 09:36:44 CDT
From: Paul Sovcik <U18183%UICVM@UIC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Dryhopping bitterness
Could this mysterious bitterness from dryhopping be due to infecton?
Dumping unsanitized hops into fermented beer may introduce some bizzare
microorganism that produces bitter byproducts. Maybe this organism tends to
live on hop flowers?
Just some wild speculation....
-Paul
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 09:53:32 -0500
From: gjfix@utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: Yeast Viability
I have been asked if there are alternative methods for estimating
yeast viability that do not require the use of a microscope. I
have been told that the need for a scope in the Morris procedure effectively
eliminates it as an option for most.
Many moons ago I devised an iodine test to estimate % viability. It is
described on pages 144-145 of BEER and BREWING, Vol.6, 1987, Br. Publ.
It is based on the fact that glycogen will stain with iodine, and that
yeast with high glycogen reserves tend to display high % viabilities.
This test is trivial to do, and is not unlike the iodine test used in mashing.
Yeast whose viability exceeds 90% (a highly desirable condition) will
stain with iodine pretty much in the same way as a corn starch solution.
At the other extreme, yeast with viabilities below 50% (an unacceptable
condition) will not stain at all. The problem with the procedure is that
does not provide reliable info for the intermediate cases. Rodney's test
is far more reliable in this regard. I still use the iodine test, but only to
get initial rough estimates. It also should be noted that Rodney's procedure
can be done at 200-400X. Hence, only an elementary "student scope" is needed.
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 09:53:45 CDT
From: lencell@unmc.edu (Lance Encell)
Subject: molasses
I was wondering if anyone has had any bad experiences with molasses; either
when used during the boil or for priming. I'm thinking of using it in a
Christmas ale with some spices. I guess what I'm wondering is if molasses
mixes badly with certain spices or certain hops in beer. Thanks for
any responses,
-Lance
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 08:18 PST
From: BRUCE@ARVAX.Syntex.Com
Subject: Christmas Ale Recipies?
Greetings!
Looks like it's about time to start those Christmas Ales going! I realize
there have probably been a few recipies in the HBD lately, but I frankly
don't have the time to wade through every day and pick out the useful
information from this digest. (Is it just me, or is the signal/noise ratio
on this thing getting pretty high?) ;)
Anyway, I do enjoy most of the stuff regardless how seemingly inane.
My point is, I'm looking for some Cristmas Ale recipies, so If anyone would
care to send me some suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it.
My email is: BRUCE@ARVAX.SYNTEX.COM
Thanks much, and Happy Brewing!
BG
:)
***
| |)
|__|
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 11:57:20 -0500 (EDT)
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: Barely Wine ferment
<From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
<Subject: Barley Wine fermentation schedule?
<My latest brew is an all-grain barley wine, on the weak side. The OG was
<around 1.085 (boiled for many many hours!)
<Anyway, I used a 1 pint starter from Wyeast London Ale yeast, which was
<possibly a bit past high krauesen, in a 5 gallon batch. The start of obvious
<fermentation took over 24 hours, so I suspect I underpitched considerably.
<Thanks,
<norm
A timely post since I just finished my first BW (fourth edition of Woblin'
Goblin' Barley Wine) that actually fermented down to 4 degrees Plato! IT is
also timely in that there is a pretty good article in the latest New Brewer
by J. Maier of the Rogue Brewery in Newport, OR on just this subject. You
might recall that John is known for his BW, and makes a darn good version
called Old Crustaceon. Basically, John points out that he max's out his
mash tun to get the highest OG, oxygenates well, pitches *THREE* times
his normal amount of yeast, and ferments 10F higher (70F) than his regular
ales. Primary for him is 2 weeks, followed by one in secondary and crash
cooling to drop yeast, and kegging with the residual yeast. I basically
did the same thing. I maxed out my mash and lauter tuns, actually exceeding
thier capacity, adding the extra mashed grains once i pulled some wort off,
and the bed began to compact (be careful not to compact too much). I
reduced my yield by about 15% into the fermenter as a method of keeping
the OG up, but still *only* achieved 1.092 (~23 P). I also continued
to sparge the grains, yielding a Bitter of 1.043. I counterflowed chilled
the BW to about 70F, hooked up a airstone to bottled O2 and let the oxygen
bubble through the wort for a few hours. I pitched lots and lots, 2lbs??
of really healthy Dominion Ale Yeast slurry at the start of filling the
fermenter. The ensuing fermentation was impressive, blowing lots of thick
krausen out the lid of my open fermenter, despite the 15% extra head space
than normal. I was expecting a quick ferment (for a BW), but on day 4
the SG was around 1.045. The ferment was still quite active, but had
lost its high krausen mode. Just to be sure, I added another 1/2 lb or
so of yeast slurry on day 6 and left town for some Dead shows and brew-
pubbin' in Boston. Upon my return , on day 10 , the SG was around 1.025
and the yeast was still in suspension and active. I waited until day 13
to keg, and the SG had dropped to around 1.016/4P. This can be compared
to a 4 day ferment of an ordinary ale (1.052-1.012). I did measure my
ferment temp during high krausen and it was 80F!! This is really too
high, and I am looking into a chilled water unit to attemperate the
ferments, butI have found that enough hops can mask some of the high
temp ferment problems. Two of the kegs were cask hopped with one oz
each of Centennial (same that John used).
None of my previous BWs have finished below 1.024/6P. I feel the O2
and the quantity of yeast is the difference.
Norm, I have let Bws sit in the secondary for 6 months, shaking the
carboy to rouse the yeast. I also had a BW that I had to kick start
with a single cell culture of Red Star Champagne yeast, and it worked.
Good luck,
Jim Busch
DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 10:35:21 EDT
From: sdlsb.dnet!73410%sdlcc@swlvx2.msd.ray.com (Omega)
Subject: chilling wort
(John Pavao writes in HBD#1239:)
> (snip)
> I am wondering if I would be better or worse off if I chilled the
> concentrated wort before adding it to the cold water in the carboy.
I would say chill your concentrate first since it will be easier to do.
For my first several batches I added the hot partial wort to the cold
water in the fermenter a la Papazian, but in view of the recent warnings
about HSA I went for chilling the partial boil (in my case about 2
gallons) to pitching temperature before adding it to the carboy for my
latest batch. This took placing my kettle in a sink full of cold water
and changing the water three times over 45 minutes. On adding hot
concentrate it took seven hours for the batch to cool to pitching temp on
its own, and a kitchen sink full of cold water had no noticable effect.
An immersion chiller would likely be more effective, but I have not yet
made one. BTW, I tried sending this by private email but it bounced.
Happy Brewing,
Carl Howes
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 17:05:55 +0100 (MET)
From: Kurt Swanson <Kurt.Swanson@dna.lth.se>
Subject: SPGRAV: program to perform hydrometer corrections at any base
Someone somewhere sometime somehow posted a nawk script that performed
hydrometers corrections to 600F based upon a order 3 polynomial fit of
corrections calculated from water densities. I have modified this
script to:
0 Be metric - welcome to the 18th century!
0 Perform corrections for _a_n_y hydrometer calibration.
The program is based upon a 3rd order polynomial fit of water density.
It assumes that the hydrometer is calibrated to 200C but can accept
any reasonable temperature. It would be quite simple to modify this
to accept temperatures in other, historic scales. Here comes the code:
#!/bin/sh
# This is a shell archive. Remove anything before the "#!/bin/sh" line
# then unpack it by saving it in a file and typing "sh file"
# (Files unpacked will be owned by you and have default permissions).
# This archive contains the following files:
# ./spgrav
#
if `test ! -s ./spgrav`
then
echo "writing ./spgrav"
cat > ./spgrav << '___END_OF_THIS_FILE'
#!/bin/nawk -f
#
# spgrav - calculates specific gravity of beer wort
# at any temperature
# usage: spgrav <gravity temperature>
#
# Original author: unknown
# Current author: Kurt Swanson (kurt@dna.lth.se)
#
# Version 1.0
# Date 10/05/93
#
BEGIN {
if (ARGC != 3 && ARGC != 4) {
print "spgrav: convert specfic gravity to correct reading based upon"
print " hydrometer calibration. Calibration is assumed to 20\260C"
print "usage: spgrav <gravity measured-temp [base-temp]>"
print "example: spgrav 1.038 35"
} # end if
else {
gravity=ARGV[1]
temp=ARGV[2]
if (ARGC == 3) {
tempc=20
}
else {
tempc=ARGV[3]
}
if (gravity > 2 || temp < 0 || temp > 100 || tempc < 0 || tempc > 100) {
print "error reading input: out of useful bounds"
print "example: spgrav 1.038 35"
} # end if
else {
temp2=temp*temp
temp3=temp*temp*temp
tempc2=tempc*tempc
tempc3=tempc*tempc*tempc
newspgrav = 0.0000162860587*(tempc-temp) - 0.00000584994855*(tempc2-temp2) + \
0.0000000153243635*(tempc3-temp3)
print
print "specific gravity of " gravity " at " temp "\260C ="
printf("%s %5.4f %s\n\n", "specific gravity of", \
gravity + newspgrav, \
"at " tempc "\260C.");
} # end else
} # end else
} # end BEGIN
___END_OF_THIS_FILE
else
echo "will not over write ./spgrav"
fi
echo "Finished archive 1 of 1"
# if you want to concatenate archives, remove anything after this line
exit
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 09:39:55 PDT
From: sc@vcc.com (Steve Casselman)
Subject: Room-mate for GABF 93
Being a member of the Board of Advisors for the
AHA I get some off the wall requests. So's here
is one: Richard Wong is going to the Great American
Beer Fest and wants to know if he can get a room
mate or crash at someones pad. His number is
1-209-477-7748
Steve Casselman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 09:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: Dry hop "bitterness", Fermentation hop utilization
I also have experienced the dry hop "bitterness" in some of my pale ales as
both Kelly Jones and Darryl Richman noted. In my tasting notes I described
it as an "astringent harshness" not really a bitterness, and in going over
my brewing records I find a correlation between this dry hop harshness and
the sulfate content of my brewing water. In both cases, I had hit the
gypsum and/or epsom rather hard. The good news is that in all cases this
harshness was gone with 4-6 weeks bottle conditioning. An interesting
"powdery" palate is imparted (I think) by the high sulfates. It's a front
of the mouth "roughness" vaguely similar to the mouthfeel of spinach.
Mark Garetz writes in #1240 that hop utilization rates are related not to
the boil gravity but to the starting fermentation gravity. What? I don't
quite understand what is meant by "fermentation utilization". Boiling
hops is an extraction technique, I assume that "fermentation utilization"
refers to a breakdown effect. Mark if you could clarify this I would
appreciate it. Also, maybe you could speculate on why boiling volume
affects utilization rate (saturated solution of alpha acids?).
Thanks.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 12:47 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: High-gravity ferments
Norm writes:
>My latest brew is an all-grain barley wine, on the weak side. The OG was
>around 1.085 (boiled for many many hours!).
<snip>
>Anyway, I used a 1 pint starter from Wyeast London Ale yeast, which was
>possibly a bit past high krauesen, in a 5 gallon batch. The start of obvious
>fermentation took over 24 hours, so I suspect I underpitched considerably.
>Aeration was done with a venturi tube apperatus...
<snip>
>After another week, 2 weeks total in the primary, I
>did a gravity reading and subsequent tasting. The gravity was 1.055!!! The
>taste was (obviously) still very sweet...
I had a similar experience with Wyeast London Ale (#1028), but my OG was
1120 and my FG was 1050. When I serve this undercarbonated, too-sweet but
still very potent Imperial Stout, I boast that the FG of this beer is higher
than the OG of Budweiser! I'm afraid I can't answer Norm's question, but I
have a few more points to add to the discussion. I hope that someone who
has sucessfully gotten a high-gravity ferment to *complete* with London Ale
yeast will post. My datapoints:
1. I believe that the Best-of-Show beer at the 1992 BOSS Competition was
Brian and Linda North's Barleywine (if not, it was runner up for BOS).
I judged Barleywines and really liked the flavor and balance of this
beer, so much so, that I wrote down the yeast they used: Wyeast London Ale.
No mention of other yeasts, like Pasteur Champagne (available from Wyeast
in liquid form also, by the way).
2. I'm quite sure that my Imperial Stout's OG was quite a bit higher than
Brian and Linda's, so perhaps I was foolish for trying to get it to ferment
out without help from a more alcohol-tolerant yeast like Pasteur Champagne.
1120 -> 1050 is 58% apparent attenuation, which is nowhere near the expected
apparent attenuation of London Ale yeast (73-77%). This is why I suspect
that the alcohol killed most of the yeast. At high kraeusen, this batch
foamed a good 3 quarts of beer out of the fermenter, so it seems like the
activity was quite a bit greater than Norm's batch. The fermentation temp
was about 68-70F and lasted about three weeks.
3. I've read that alcohol-tolerance is related to oxygenation, but Norm seems
to have covered that area quite well, so that's not the problem -- also,
Norm's was an allgrain batch (mine was extract+specialty), so I'm quite
sure there were plenty of nutrients in his Barleywine wort.
I'd really like to find out how to get London Ale yeast to do high-gravity
brews -- I'll definately ask Brian or Linda when I see them next. Perhaps
a incremental-feeding starter (where you start with a low-gravity starter,
but then step-up to higher and higher gravity worts)?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 13:01 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: PU help
Carl writes (about trying to make a Pilsner Urquell clone):
>5# Briess light malt syrup
>1.75# Briess Gold dry malt extract
>15.5 AAU Saaz
>Wyeast #2007 into 26 oz. ~1.040 starter 48 hours before pitching
>
>Added 1/3 of the hops at 60, 30, and 10 minutes. Chilled the concentrated
>wort (2 gallons) to 70F, added to 2.5 gal. of 70F water, pitched entire
>starter (made from more of the Breiss Gold) and topped off to 5 gal. with
>more 70F water. Swirled to mix. O.G. 1.026, when I expected closer to
>1.050. This is the first time I have used a hydrometer (out of five
>batches). I did correct for temperature. What am I missing here?
You didn't swirl enough. The heavy, high-OG wort sank to the bottom
and it will take a lot of swirling to mix it up. Don't worry, the
yeast will do it for you, but you can throw out that 1026 OG reading.
Another comment is on the use of Wyeast #2007 in trying to make a Pilsner
Urquell clone. Despite the fact that it's called "Pilsen" lager, it's
really "St. Louis" lager (as in Bud)! What you might try next time, is
Wyeast #2278, "Czech" lager, which should be available in about three weeks.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 13:20 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Hop utilization VS. Boil gravity
Mark writes:
>To summarize, then, it appears that low boil volume (regardless
>of the SG) gives less utilization, but *boil* gravity has no effect.
WRONG! PERIOD!
I have a two brewing logbooks (with my respective tasting notes) and a file
folder full of BJCP judges' comments that contradict Mark's contention. I've
been using a slight variation on Jackie Rager's article in the Hops Special
Issue of Zymurgy (adding 10% for leaf hops and another 10% for a hop boiling
bag) and my IBU levels appear to be right on target. Hundreds of BJCP judges
agree. If only I could control my maltiness with the same precision I control
my bitterness!
> Suggestions?
Yes. I suggest you shelve your book project till you have more than
*TWO* years of brewing experience.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 14:22:28 EDT
From: mwithers@hannibal.ATL.GE.COM (W. Mark Witherspoon)
Subject: HELP!!
HELP!!!
I have a problem that came up about a brew I just
started. Here is the recipe:
2 lbs of pale malt
1 lbs of flaked corn
1 lbs of crystal malt (about 50 l)
4 lbs of Alexanders Pale Malt
1 oz of Tettanger Hops (3.8%) (boil @ 45 min)
1 oz of Liberty Hops (3.2%) (half and half boil/finish)
Whitbread ale yeast
OG = 1.052
I am attempting to make a "Rusty Cream Ale". But here
is the problem. I was following the "directions" by Dave Miller
in his book - he recommended 8-12 hours after pitching to rack to
a secondary. I couldn't do it that soon. So I did rack at about
24 hours. Almost immediately the head foamed up and blew the
airlock off the carboy. Since I was there to watch it. I quickly
hot water rinsed the original fermenting bucket out (it was full of
spent hops and trub) and resiphoned it back into it. With in 10
minutes of doing this the head was just about a thick as it was
before I started originally.
Question: Have I just killed this brew...???? I expected
problems since this was my first attempt at using grains (partial
mash).
Comment: The hardest part of doing this was knowing when
to stop sparging the mash. The mash water was the sweetest thing
that I had ever tasted - that wasn't pure sugar. I watched my
mash temp very carefully, not to get it over 150 F and let it go
about 2 hours since I wasn't sure about my grinding technique.
Please send replies by e-mail since our our news feed of r.c.b. and
r.c.w. have been cut off.
Mark Witherspoon
************************************************************************
|\ /| W. Mark Witherspoon | The opions expressed are of my
| |\ /| mwithers@hannibal.ATL.GE.COM | own not of my employer...
| | ATL (609)866-6672 | This sig will self destruct...*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 14:22:47 EDT
From: GEORGE SMITH <smith@zeke.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Spice/pumpkin flavors & yeast reuse ????
I must admit all this talk of pumpkin beer had me making funny faces.
But, after trying a glass at Boston Beer Works saturday night I am impressed.
I'm getting ready to make a batch for a Thanksgiving/Christmas ale.
Now for the ?????
Being as cheap as I am I reuse my favorite yeast slurry (Wyeast 1056 american)
I generally rack to the secondary when the primary starts to slow down, usually
2-3 days after pitching. Then reuse the yeast slurry from the secondary in my
future batches.
Seeing how this pumpkin ale will have so many unusuall ingredients and
spices in it. I was wondering if anyone has had any of these flovors carry
over to future batches reusing the yeast??? Esp- if I taste at racking to
the secondary and decide to add more pumkin &/or spices to the secondary.
Thanks for any/all input.
George
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1993 13:41:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: COYOTE <SLK6P@cc.usu.edu>
Subject: Corning Glasses
Just a quickie to say thanx for the tip of the Yards and what-not.
I called them up- told them what I wanted gave 'em my card number
and they said- "OK fine". Then asked,"Did you hear about this on
some network kindof thingy" I said- proudly- YES! ( Quoted the HBD-
hope that ain't no breach of net protocol!
They had received a flood of orders- or calls at least-
and were quite pleased with the attention, and were content to
ship glass items, they just had to look for a box big enough for the
carboy. Even with shipping it as cheaper than buying one in town!
Thanx for the tips. Always good to find nice bargains.
Can's wait to fill up my foot with a righteous Oktoberfest!
J. Wyllie
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 14:48:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Seaney <seaney@ie.engr.wisc.edu>
Subject: Cheap Carboy Source in Madison, WI
Hello,
Can anyone recommend a cheap carboy source in Madison, WI. The brew
shop's prices are quite ugly.
Thanks,
Steve
- --
Steve Seaney: 608/262-5328: seaney@engr.wisc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 16:24:43 EDT
From: Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu
Subject: dryhopping rate (more)
I said about Young's SLA: It tastes about the same as my IPA with 2 oz
E.Kent Goldings hop plugs in 5 gallons.
I was wrong. It's got more dry hops than that. Maybe twice as much?
=S
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 13:58:51 -0800 (PDT)
From: Peter Maxwell <peterm@aoraki.dtc.hp.com>
Subject: yeast pitching rates
In HBD 1238 George Fix gives numbers for recommended pitching rates. The
calculations in terms of weight of yeast solids is interesting, but I would
like ballpark figures to go on, rather than go to all the trouble of
separating and weighing starters.
If I start with a packet of WYEAST, what is the weight/cell count of the
resulting sludge if I put it into (a) one pint and (b) one quart of 1.020
wort and let it ferment to completion?
In other words, how much build-up do I really need?
Further to the "use once" approach, if I put the WYEAST into a quart of
wort, let it ferment out, split this 3 ways for storage, then take one of
the thirds and put IT into a pint of wort, letting it ferment out, what
yeast population/weight do I end up with? This is my current procedure and
I get reasonable starts, but I'd like to know if I'm really underpitching.
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 15:48 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Chillhaze/Proteins/Tannins
A while ago, there was this question:
>This conversation between Al and Scott has me confused. They talk about chill
>haze and tannins as being related. I thought tannins were to be avoided
>because of an astringent flavor component, rather than anything to do with
>haze. Are tannins protein based? I too have had a chill haze problem with
>a recent batch and was surprised to hear talk about acidifying sparge water
>as a cure.
Chill haze and tannins *are* related. Chill haze is caused by the interaction
of tannins and large proteins which stay in solution at warmer temperatures,
but precipitate into a haze at cooler temperature... hence: chill haze.
How to avoid chill haze? Well, there are many ways to do this. Note that
almost all of this applies to extract brewers as well as allgrain brewers,
just use the parts that make sense in your procedure. I suggest that you
try all the easy (procedural) ones first and then try the clarifying agents
if you still have chillhaze.
1. IN THE MASH
In the mash, you should make sure that your pH is not too high (not too
alkaline) so that you minimize tannin extraction from the grain husks.
If you are using less-modified grain or something with a lot of protein
in it, like wheat malt or raw wheat, you should use a protein rest to break
the big proteins down to amino acids and small proteins. These small
proteins are essential to head retention and body. The amino acids are
used by the yeast for nutrition.
2. AT MASHOUT
Make sure your mashout temperature doesn't go too much over 168F to again
minimize tannin extraction from the grain husks. I believe the 168F
temperature is related more to ungeletinized starch extraction, but reducing
tannin extraction is another reason to avoid too high a mashout temperature.
3. SPARGING
Don't use too hot a sparge water (see #2) or let the pH of the sparge water
get too high (see #1). You should treat your sparge water the same way you
treated your mash (Gypsum, Lactic acid, etc.) -- it's going to the same
grain bed and will be similarly acidified by the grain, so I think it's better
to use a proportionally equivalent acidification of your sparge water rather
than to simply acidify your sparge water to a particular pH.
4. BOIL
Make sure you have a good rolling boil for at least an hour so you get a good
hot break. Hot break is basically cooked proteins. You can also use 1/4 to
1/2 teaspoon of Irish Moss in the boil (flaked appears to be the best), but
too much Irish Moss can *increase* chill haze (see Beer and Brewing 1989 or
1990, I forget which). Also, I've found empirically, that too much Irish
Moss can take out much of the smaller proteins, thereby reducing head
retention.
5. CHILLING
Chill as suddenly as you can -- the more sudden the cooling, the better the
cold break (again, coagulated proteins). Note that counterflow or plate
chillers cause a more sudden chilling than immersion chillers (but I still
favor immersion chillers for a variety of other reasons).
6. AFTER FERMENTATION BUT BEFORE BOTTLING
There are a number of things you can do after fermentation is over, but
before you bottle:
lager - lagering (long storage at cold temperatures) will cause the
chillhaze to form and settle out. Lagering a beer made with
ale yeast can kill it leading to difficulty in bottle
carbonation.
add papain - papain, an enzyme made from papaya, can be added to
break down bigger proteins that have made it to the fermenter;
I'm not sure, but there's chance that papain could reduce
head retention and body, since small proteins are primarily
what give beer head retention and body.
PVP (Polyclar AT) - PVP, trade name Polyclar AT, is a plastic which
when added to the fermenter, will electrostatically attract
tannins as it sinks down to the bottom of the fermenter, only
to be left behind at bottling with the dead yeast and break.
silica gel - silica gel, not currenly available to homebrewers, but
used commercially to work similarly to PVP, but it operates
on proteins instead. Just as with papain, it could reduce
head retention and body.
bentonite - works similarly to silica gel. Same (head retention &
body) warning applies.
gelatin - primarily works to speed the settling out of yeast, but
also works similarly to silica gel in settling out proteins.
Same warning applies.
isinglass - as far as I know, does little for protein or tannin
reduction, but noted here for completeness -- added to the
fermenter or to the keg to speed the yeast settling. I'd
like to add the Greg Noonan says that isinglass should not
be used for lagers, but doesn't explain why -- I don't see
any reason why it can't be used for lagers as effectively
as for ales.
filtering - cold filtering, to be exact. Cold filtering reduces
chillhaze by first creating the chillhaze (the cooling) and
then filtering out the coagulated protein/tannin chains.
Filtering out chillhaze but leaving some head retention and
body is difficult. There's a lot of debate on what the
correct pore size is and you can easily overfilter your
beer.
7. AFTER BOTTLING
If you've already bottled a beer and it exhibits chillhaze, you can completely
eliminate chillhaze at serving time by utilizing a non-transparent drinking
vessel.
So there you have it. You don't have to do all these things to avoid getting
chillhaze. As I said before, first try the procedural ways and then move
on to the clarifying agents if you still have chillhaze. If you must resort
to clarifying agents, first try PVP since it leaves those essential proteins
in your beer. Personally, I would rather tolerate a little haze rather than
filter my beer, but that's me.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 16:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Wade <ericwade@CLASS.ORG>
Subject: Legality of mailing homebrew
U.S. Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) section C021.2.0
INTOXICATING LIQUORS reads: "Potable beverages of .5% or more alcoholic
content by weight, which are taxable under Chapter 51, Internal Revenue
Service Code, are nonmailable. If the product conforms to applicable
requirements of the Internal Revenue Service and Food and Drug
Administration and is neither an alcoholic beverage, poisonous, nor
flammable, it may be mailed."
Under Chapter 51 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. sec. 5053(e))
"Beer for personal or family use" is tax exempt (up to certain volume
limitations).
It is my belief that the Postal Service has yet to catch up with the law
that made homebrewing legal which essentially freed the homebrewer from
the tax burden placed on commercial brewers. My interpretation of the
first sentance of C021.20 is that we can mail homebrew because it is not
subject to taxation. However the second sentance contradicts the first.
The "product" does conform to IRS requirements but is still an alcoholic
beverage. I don't know whom to contact regarding this apparent
contradiction in the USPS rules although an address for comments on the
DMM is provided:
Mailing Standards
US Postal Service
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, RM 8430
Washington DC 20260-2419
On another note, I'm heading off for a weekend on the Mendocino coast.
Between home and the coast I know of both the Hopland (Mendocino) Brewery
and Anderson Valley in Boonville. Any recommendations along the coast, I
thought there was something in the town of Mendocino would be appreciated.
Looking for quality beery spots of all type (pubs, brewpubs, etc) TIA.
OBTW, I'm a librarian (and homebrewer, of course), not a lawyer, so please
don't take my interpretations of laws and regulations as legal advice, I
don't give legal advice.
Eric Wade<ericwade@class.org>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 93 19:25 CDT
From: David Atkins <ATKINS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Thanks & Smokey Mnts.
Thanks to all the respondents ot my Sapporo bottle and yankee yeast queries.
Got some good advice and am looking forward to less & less bottling.
To the fortunate person who is to trave the hills of my home, I hope you have a
great trip through the Smokeys. In reference to you requests for beer in the
Appalachian highlands, I know of only one place close to a brew pub. Sorry to
say I have vever been to this place and I don't know if it is still open or
standing. North of Gatlinburg TN, in Cosby TN there is/was a place some buddies
of mine called Fort Marx...Two double wides pushed together with a gravel
parking lot. Inside you'd find Herr & Frau Marx and their brew-trailer-diner.
Herr Marx brews beer and distills liquors and Frau Marx works wonders with
potatoes and sausages. I don't know how long the've been in Cosby much less the
US but everytime I hear a Fort Marx story, the place grows more and more
surreal.
Asheville, NC may have some unique places...can't say from experience. I do
know of some good places in my old stomp of Knoxville, TN. If you are traveling
that far west out of the mountains I could give you some particulars on
Knoxville or some other places you may be looking into.
Tennessee may have alcohol/beer licensing laws similar to Texas. Dependening on
how near to a town you are, you may have to settle for McDonalds & Bud. And
there are still dry towns & counties around. You may wish to stock up for your
trip.
Let me know if I can be of any help & happy trails,
David Atkins
UW-Madison--it's flat but nice
atkins@macc.wisc.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1241, 10/06/93
*************************************
-------
