Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1304
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/12/22 00:39:38
HOMEBREW Digest #1304 Wed 22 December 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Sg/particulate (Brian Bliss)
clip art requests (George Tempel)
Trying to boycott the Mega-brews (Samuel Adam's)
Re: Problems with Dark ales (npyle)
Weissbeir (Jeffrey L. Duerk)
Hoptech and "handeling" charges (Gary S. Kuyat)
Raw honey vs processed (Aaron Morris)
Re: malt extraction efficiencies (Ed Hitchcock)
SS Mash/Lauter Tun (WHEATON_JOHN/HPBOI1_03)
Rager's hop utilization curve (/R=HERLVX/R=AM/U=KLIGERMAN/FFN=KLIGERMAN/)
storing lagers in bottles (Mark Bunster)
Questions on: Hop storage and Step Infusion (Ed Oriordan)
raw honey (Mark Bunster)
Copper bottom Stainless Steel brewpots (Tom Clifton)
Keg Infection? (Phil Brushaber)
Carastan malt (Chuck Mryglot X6024)
yeast washing, Briess malt extract (Michael L. Kovacs)
Re: Raw Honey vs Processed (Ritchie Kolnos)
5 Liter Mini Kegs (Fred Waltman)
chillers/aletimes/dryhop/complications/haze/bottlefill/when2bottle/doppelbock (korz)
quickFerments/"champagne"bottles/CO2-storing/WitYeast/metallic flavor (korz)
various musings (garyrich)
Re: Words of Wisdom (Jeff Frane)
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, 21 Dec 1993 03:08:16 -0600
From: bliss@pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss)
Subject: Sg/particulate
"Bill Kitch" <kitchwa@bongo.cc.utexas.edu> writes:
>[snip]
>>Undisolved particles (including colloids) do not affect the measurement of
>>specific gravity. A easy to visualize example is to imagine a lake of pure
>[snip]
>
>This is not correct. Both suspended (undisolved) solids and dissovled solids
>will affect the specific gravity measurements. That is so long as they
>remain suspended in solution. In fact this phenomenon is used to measure
>the size of colloidal soil particles. If you have any doubts about this
>try the following. Take a trub laden sample off of the bottom on you
>boiler shake it well to suspend all the solids and quickly measure the
>specific gravity (before the junk settles out). Then leave the sample sit
>until the junk has all settled to the bottom of the sample tube. Now
>measure the specific gravity again. You will find that the second reading
>gives a lower Sg than the first. The difference may or may not be large
>enough to be of concern but suspended solid definetly do affect the
>measured Sg.
The "junk" in question is protein coagulate. When mixed into a solution,
it does not raise the SG as would sugar. This would seem to imply that it
has a lower SG than wort. Yet it falls to the bottom. Why?
>From an observational standpoint, I have noticed that the SG measurements
increase after the trub falls out (i.e. the wort mixed with trub has a
lower SG than does the clarified wort). One would think it would
decrease. **
i.e. why doeshit sink?
** One cannot discount the possiblitly that this is due to temperature
correction error or other measurement errors on my part. I have never,
however, observed a SG decrease after clarification, and have obseved
increases several times.
bb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 08:47:14 +0000 (U)
From: George Tempel <tempel@MONMOUTH-ETDL1.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: clip art requests
clip art requests
Thanks for all of the requests for mac/brew clip art.
I cannot possibly reply to all of you in any semblance of
promptness, so here's what I'll do.
I am going to create a clip art package and post it to
sierra.stanford.edu for the world as a shareware package
of my artwork. The fee for use of such will be quite
liberal: send me a bottle of homebrew AND give me a
mention regarding your label artwork. Sounds
reasonable.
I'll post the clip art after christmas.
george
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 10:08:22 -0500
From: ambroser@apollo.dml.georgetown.edu (Samuel Adam's)
Subject: Trying to boycott the Mega-brews
Good Luck trying to boycott A.B. (BUD) products! I think you would have a
more easier time trying to boycott water! :)
Since "nearly one out of two beers is an A.B. product" (a direct quote from
the St. Louis beer tour, since they sold 86 million [more or less] barrels in
a year) a "strong" boycott would probably "hurt" their sales by .001%.
Just had to add my $.02 since I feel you are wasting your time. Sorta like
when teenagers were supposed to "boycott" the Beatles and destroy any kind of
"things" they had relating to the Beatles. It was silly. (If you aren't in your
30's or later you probably don't remember)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 8:25:22 MST
From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
Subject: Re: Problems with Dark ales
John Walaszek writes:
>Hello everyone, I am looking for some help in determining why
>I am having problems with Dark Ales. I have brewed about
>25 all-grain ales and every attempt at a dark one (3 stouts
>and 1 porter) I have ended up very disappointed. I brew alot of
>pale ales and brown ales and these have all been very consistent.
>
>I think my problem may have to do with water chemistry, Lately
>I have used pre-boiled Chicago City water. I usually do not
>check ph and don't really add any mineral salts.
>
>The problem is all 4 of these beers have had a distinctly
>musky-like aroma and flavor. None have really tasted as
>roasty as I have intended. The beers seem thin tasting
>as well and maybe even faintly sour. My usual procedure is
>add add crushed grain to 3 gallons 175F water. Rest at
>153-155F for 90 minutes. Sparge for about 45 minutes.
>Boil 90 minutes. Chill using chiller.
John, I have the very same problems (great pale/amber beers, lousy dark beers),
although I haven't brewed as many batches as you. I suspect your guess about
water chemistry is correct, and I am in process of investigating my water
chemistry (request sent out yesterday to the city utilities). It looks like
I'm going to have to quit ignoring the ingredient which makes up 99.9% of the
beer - the water! Time to crack the books, but in the meantime, any HBD gems
would be appreciated. Oh, I would describe my dark beer attempts as
astringent, murky, thin, not malty at all.
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 10:40:40 -0500
From: jld3@po.CWRU.Edu (Jeffrey L. Duerk)
Subject: Weissbeir
Recently I had a chance to try a Weissbeir at Berghoff's in
Chicago, and loved it! Since then, I've had every other
variety that I can get my hands on. Now I'd like to try to make
one. From what I can tell, one of the critical components is the
specific strain of yeast, yet I have not been able to locate
one that would be appropriate (or at least good), nor have I
found a reliable recipe. If anyone has any experience in
this area, a recipe to share, and yeast info, I'd appreciate
either a posting here, or directly to me at jld3@po.cwru.edu
Second, those of us fortunate enough to live near Great Lakes
Brewery here in Cleveland have been thrilled once again at
their Porter, IPA, and Christmas Ale. I bought a twelve
of the Christmas Ale for my brother (who regularly attends
the Portland Ore. beer festivals): he's going to have to
settle for a six.
Jeff Duerk- Case Western Reserve University
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 10:52:27 EST
From: Gary S. Kuyat <gsk@sagan.bellcore.com>
Subject: Hoptech and "handeling" charges
Full-Name: Gary S. Kuyat
I had read some comments on fruit extracts and was interested in trying
a raspberry and blueberry for myself. I called Hoptech and placed an order
for 1 each. Total weight for this order < 1lb. Being somewhat familiar
with shipping costs, I asked for UPS BLUE (second day). When I received
the package I was billed $9.75 in shipping and handling on a $12 product
order! I called the company and was told that a $4 "handling" fee was
charged to me since my order was < $30. This is something that folks
should know! The extracts taste fine, but Hoptech's rediculous S&H fees
left a bitter taste in my mouth...
- --
-Gary Kuyat
gsk@sagan.bellcore.com
(908)699-8422
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 10:37:07 EST
From: Aaron Morris <SYSAM@ALBANY.ALBANY.EDU>
Subject: Raw honey vs processed
Bob Surratt queries about the difference between raw and processed
honey. The main difference is that processed honey has been heated,
and filtered. Heating makes the honey less viscous/more fluid so it
will pump through hoses and pass through filters easier. The filters
(usually fine cheese cloth) remove the foreign material (dust,
pollen, bee's wax, spare bee parts) from the honey. Heating also drives
off volatile enzymes from the honey, which may change the flavor.
Commercial honey may also be a blended of different varieties of honey.
Raw honey is simply honey that has not been processed. When I extract
and bottle my honey, I use cheese cloth to filter out foreign matter,
but no heat is involved (preserving the volatile enzymes) and I
make attempts to keep clover honey separate from aster honey, etc.
For true Raw Honey, find a local beekeeper.
Disclaimer: Answers provided by a hobby beekeeper ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 11:58:01 -0400
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH@ac.dal.ca>
Subject: Re: malt extraction efficiencies
dmorey@iastate.edu gives the following list of extract efficiencies. Some
of the values don't seem right, so I've appended the values I have that
differ from those listed
>Ingredient: pt. gallons / lb I have:
>Malt extract 35
>Dry spray malt 42 43
>Corn sugar 37 45
>Cane sugar (yuk) 44 45
>Brown sugar 41 44
>Rice syrup 36
>Dextrin powder 42
>Pale malt 31 36
>Lager malt 31 35
>Munich malt 26 30-33
>Mild ale malt 27 29-34
>Crystal malt 22 29-31
>Wheat malt 34 (this seems high) 39
>Cara pils malt 23 29
>Roast barley 27 (isn't this high also?) 29
>Chocolate malt 27 " 29
>Black patent 27 " 29
>Honey 38
>Molasses 45 42
Note that the extraction rate for mash ingredients are a
theoretical maximum, not the expected rate. Thus, a good homebrew setup
typically gets 80% of theoretical maximum, or about 30 pts/lb/gal using
pale ale or lager malt. The extract efficiency of 6 row is about 20% less
than 2 row.
With that I bid ye all a happy Holiday season, I'm unsubscribing
for the duration of 1993...
____________
Ed Hitchcock ech@ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. |
Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. |
Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________|
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 09:26:00 -0700
From: WHEATON_JOHN/HPBOI1_03@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Subject: SS Mash/Lauter Tun
Item Subject: d:\beer\mashlaut.txt
I am in the process of installing an "easy-masher" type of set up to eliminate
the screen for my SS keg lauter tun so I can scrape the bottom when raising the
temp. My heat source is from the bottom and I do step mashing. The nipple
welded in t he bottom of my keg is 1/2" dia. and I installed fittings to have a
1" copper tube with a cap come across the bottom about 1" from the bottom. This
tube will be slott ed and serve as my filter mechanism.
Anybody tried this? Any suggestions on improvement? I plan on doing a test
batch in a couple of weeks with this.
The reason for not using a rolled up screen is the durability of it when I am
mixing the grain during mashing. Also, the $$. I can easily bump the slotted
tube with out knocking it off and I can get the grain moving under it easily to
min. temp. inconsistancies.
I want to keep the expense to a minimum and still have good brew. The copper
tube and brass fittings were nominal at $12.
My current SS keg lauter tun is like this..of course not to scale....
| |
| ______________________|welded SS nipple where + are threads
| SS sheet +++|-+++
| 1.5" space ++|--+++ coupling, brass ball valve, barb
|__________________|
NO HEAT - hand transferred from 11 gal SS mash kettle where is
has been mashed.
This is what I plan.....for MASH/LAUTER tun
| slotted 1" copper. w/cap (about 12" long)
| ____________ _ |welded SS nipple where + are threads
| || | |+++|-+++
| ||_^_^_^_^_^_|_|++|--+++ coupling, brass ball valve, barb
about 3/4" |__________________|
from bottom HEAT - no transfer necessary
I would appreciate any comments.
jw
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 11:00:20 -0500 (EST)
From: /R=HERLVX/R=AM/U=KLIGERMAN/FFN=KLIGERMAN/@mr.rtpnc.epa.gov
Subject: Rager's hop utilization curve
I must preface this by saying this is not a flame %)! I was quite amused by
a recent post trying to fit Rager's hop utilization rates to a second or third
order polynomial expression. I enjoy seeing you techies spin the numbers
almost as much as reading posts from Jack Schmidling!! But be real!! The hop
utilization rates are ranges over 5 min intervals. If you plot the midpoint
of the ranges versus utilization and even add 0 for 0 time, you get just as
good a plot with a linear fit r^2=0.99 for y=0.576x (where y is the % util.,
and x is time) then you do with second a third order polynomials (r^2=0.98).
We cannot be very accurate with hop utiliz. rates to several decimal places
since the alpha acid levels are only approximate. It might be fun but it
is only an exercise in curve fitting. (By the way you can't just drop
data points because they don't give the correct esthetic look! So
for all practical purposes y=0.6x would be accurate enough. Sorry for
rambling on, by I'm in the government and here to help you!
Andy Kligerman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 11:43:01 EST
From: Mark Bunster <mbunster@hibbs.vcu.edu>
Subject: storing lagers in bottles
A rather obvious question, but one seemingly not answered by Papazian:
once you've bottled a lager (eg, a nice dark single bock), how you should
store the bottles? Is it useful to keep them at temps below 60F? Is it better
to keep them colder but constant (eg in a fridge), or not quite as cold but
varying with the weather (eg on a porch)? And as long as I've got you all
here, what is the possible off flavor damage to a lager sitting primary and
secondary for about 4 1/2 weeks total? (Discounting contamination; I'm just
wondering about the thick layer of trub at the bottom, which may or may not
be bad, seeing as how it's naturally a bottom fermenter).
Don't try honey in an IPA. Well, you can, but the sweetness confuses a little
bit with all those hops. I think it will mellow with time, but I think there
are better recipes to include honey in than an IPA.
Happy beeridays,
M
- --
Mark Bunster |Exchange conversation if you dare--
Survey Research Lab--VCU |Share an empty thought or a laugh.
Richmond, VA 23220 |
mbunster@hibbs.vcu.edu |
(804) 367-8813/353-1731 | -edFROM
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 11:59:39 -0500
From: edo@marcam.com (Ed Oriordan)
Subject: Questions on: Hop storage and Step Infusion
Hello,
Question 1) I store my hops (pellets) in the freezer. They are not in oxygen
barrier bags, but in little heat sealed plastic bags. Would it help presserve
them if I put them (still in the bags) into a glass jar and filled the
jar with CO2, and then closed the jar and put it in the fridge.
Obviously it's not much work to do it, but will it be worth it? I know pellets
are pretty stable already.
Question 2) In reading Miller's, Lines, and Papazians books the only one who
addresses step infusion mashing by using a picnic cooler is Papazian.
Does anybody out there use a step infusion in a cooler?
Papazian gives the following numbers (working from memory here)
For 1 step infusion - Add 1 qt 165 H20 per 1lb grain (Target 155F)
For step infusion - Add 1 qt 128 H2O per 1lb grain (Target 122F)
Add .5 qt 212 H2O per 1lb grain (Target 155F)
I have also found that the .5 qt he purposes does not get me
to 155, but more like 145 I was afraid to add more boiling H2O(making it even
thinner) so I did a partial decoction(more work than I wanted).
What are the consequences of the mash being so much thinner (than his
1 step infussion, it's 50% thinner) during the final step????
Should I use less H2O in the first step and use it in the second?
Should I just add as much boiling water as needed to get to 155?
Does anybody do a step in a cooler, if so what numbers do you do(temps
and volumes per lb)?
I am to lazy to stove top mash, and I don't want to build an insulated box,
so please limit answers to what I should do for cooler mashing.
The reason I am doing a protein rest is I was under the impression I needed
to with 2 Row Breiss (Klages that is Harrington) to prevent chill haze and
to get some needed yeast nutrients. Is that the case.
Thanks for the replies
Ed O'
edo@marcam.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:06:56 EST
From: Mark Bunster <mbunster@hibbs.vcu.edu>
Subject: raw honey
I think the diff betwene raw and processed honey is mostly filtration. Raw
honey has lots of bee parts in it (legs, stingers, other private bee
substances we're not to mention on HBD), and filtration takes some of that
out. I don't suppose it will make a serious diff since you should be heating
the honey before you add it, but why have more bits of stuff in your beer?
Papazian suggests filtered clover honey works best.
- --
Mark Bunster |Exchange conversation if you dare--
Survey Research Lab--VCU |Share an empty thought or a laugh.
Richmond, VA 23220 |
mbunster@hibbs.vcu.edu |
(804) 367-8813/353-1731 | -edFROM
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 11:15 EST
From: Tom Clifton <0002419419@mcimail.com>
Subject: Copper bottom Stainless Steel brewpots
I was out doing some Christmas shopping yesterday, and just happen to have
looked at some nice heavy Revere stainless stockpots that had copper bottoms...
Too bad they didn't have any 32 quart size. The 20 quart were $60 without lids.
In any event, has anybody tried electroplating the bottom of a stainless pot to
apply a copper cladding? Are the metals compatible etc??? I do know that that
a bath of copper sulphate, a copper anode and a battery charger will let you
plate steel (nails etc) but when you get into stainless (chrome/nickel?) will it
will it still work?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:57:33 CST
From: philb@pro-storm.metronet.com (Phil Brushaber)
Subject: Keg Infection?
A couple of days ago I left a message about getting a
medicinal/metallic off-taste in my brew after stainless steel
kegging. A number of people were kind enough to reply and I
now conceed to a potential other problem. I'd appreciate
hearing from you if you think I am on the right track, or if
you have experienced/solved a similar problem.
Since I did not experience the problem with every
kegged/brewed batch, I wanted to blame something in an
individual batch process or ingredient. But it could also
be that some of my kegs have a bacterial/contamination problem
while others do not.
Let me say that I clean every keg before reuse and that
I sanitize them by filling them with an Idophor solution for about
20 minutes before re-kegging. I even push in the little stopper at
the top of the fill tube to release air and get solution up the
tube.
But I'll admit I have never ripped these kegs appart and
pulled the little liquid and gas knobs appart. I was thinking of cleaning
them in either an idophor or bleach solution. I know that bleach does
bad things to stainless, but I would only soak them for about 20 minutes
and then rinse.
If I am on the right track, I'd appreciate hearing if someone
else might have solved this problem and what kind of off-tastes
they were getting. The off taste is had to describe, but it is definately
not like Coke or Sprite. I did change the large O ring, but obviously
not the little ones inside the liquid/gas connectors.
Gotta get a handle on this problem. I refuse to drink/serve bad
beer. I hate to go back to bottling (where I have had no problems with
off tastes on any batches and essentially used similar
ingredients/process).
Thanks in advance for your insight.
- -----
Internet: philb@pro-storm.metronet.com
UUCP: metronet.com!pro-storm!philb
Bitnet: philb%pro-storm.metronet.com@nosc.mil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:53:36 EST
From: cmryglot@disney.CV.COM (Chuck Mryglot X6024)
Subject: Carastan malt
Can someone please tell me what carastan malt. I have not
seen it in the HBshop I frequent but have seen it
mentioned here and in recipies. Also, some recipies call
out light and dark crystal. What is the color guideline
for 'light' and 'dark'.
Many thanks....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 14:24:05 -0500
From: kovacml1@post01.alb.alcoa.com (Michael L. Kovacs)
Subject: yeast washing, Briess malt extract
I am a novice extract brewer (2 batches so far) and would like any input on
the following items:
1. Yeast washing - I have read the yeast FAQ and the section on yeast
washing seems pretty self-explanatory, but I would like some clarification
from anyone out there who is using this technique. I just racked a 5 gal.
batch from my priamry fermenter and had a pretty good layer of yeast (I
think...) on the bottom. It was the same whitish layer the settles to the
bottom of my bottles. The Yeast FAQ says to add sterile water to the
fermenter, and swirl it around to loosen everything. Then to dump this into
the first sterile 1 qt. mason jar. After this step it says to agitate the
mason jar and wait for the mixture to separate into layers. After racking,
my fermentor did not seem to have much more there other than the yeast (not
much hops or sediment from the malt)
I guess my exact question is... "Will it be pretty obvious which is yeast
and which is sediment?" Also, assuming reasonable precautions are taken in
sterilizing the mason jars and water, how high is the risk of infecting the
yeast in the process.
The process of yeast washing appeals to me not just for the savings, but
also for the idea of having a ready supply of yeast handy that I am happy
with. I am also interested in eventually culturing yeast. Any opinions on
this? Is it worth the effort? It seems like it is considerably more involved.
2. Briess malt extracts - I recently went in on a 60 lb. pail of Briess malt
extract. The price was a significant savings over buying it 6 or 7 lbs. at
a time. An issue of Zymurgy had an article on extract brewing and it
favorably mentioned Briess. Does any one have any experience using this
extract in bulk. I'm not sure exactly how I'll deal with measuring it out
considering how gooey malt extract is in general. Any advice in this area
will be appreciated.
(I do intended to make the leap to all-grain when I can afford the equipment
and I feel I am ready for the process. Is there anything like an all-grain
FAQ out there on the internet?)
thanks,
Mike Kovacs
If replying directly, please mail to:
kovacs01@ssw.alcoa.com
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 93 14:28:34
From: Ritchie Kolnos <Ritchie_Kolnos@notes.worldcom.com>
Subject: Re: Raw Honey vs Processed
> Can anyone tell me the difference in raw honey vs. the processed
> variety? Is the raw lower in sugar content since it hasn't been
> boiled, driving off some of the water?
As a beekeeper who uses his own honey in various homebrews, I can tell you that
there is little difference between raw and processed honey.
Any raw honey that I bottle and sell has to be between 15-18% water (or else it
could spoil and ferment). Processed honey (the kind you might buy in a large
grocery store), has been pasturized, filtered, and blended to appeal to the
tastes of the American consumer. For your information, most of the processed
honey sold in the United States is now imported from South America.
Since raw honey has not been pasturized, it is possible that you could
introduce some bacterial "nasties" to the wort, but I'm sure these would be
eliminated during the boiling process. As far as sugar content, it is variable
in raw honey, but I don't think it makes much difference.
When using honey in any recipe I am more concerned with the flavor of the honey
(lightness vs. darkness) than with the water content. I have found that the
source/flavor of the honey does sometimes affect the taste of the brew.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 13:02:46 -0800 (PST)
From: waltman@netcom.com (Fred Waltman)
Subject: 5 Liter Mini Kegs
In HBD #1303 Diane Palme writes about 5 Liter Mini-kegs.
These sound like the same ones that Brew Ha Ha in PA has been selling. I
got a set two weeks ago and my first beer is conditioning. Other people have
told me they have had great luck with them and I hope to add further data
after New Years.
BTW, has anyone had any luck taking these as carry on luggage on a plane?
I am not so much worried about the trip, but rather what security would
say as they went thru the X-ray machine.
Fred Waltman
Marina del Rey, CA
waltman@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 15:21 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: chillers/aletimes/dryhop/complications/haze/bottlefill/when2bottle/doppelbock
James writes:
>1) why are wort chillers recomended? isn't an ice water bath almost as
>effective?
If it works for you, then great. I used to use an ice bath, but it did
not cool fast enough and my icemaker didn't make enough ice -- I had to buy
some.
>2) do ales normally have that short of an optimal fermentation time (the
>kreusen had settled after only about 36 hours)?
"Optimal" is an odd word selection. The yeast will decide what's optimal
for them. This time is dependent on strain, temperature, oxygen, starter
size and original gravity. You can minimize the time by aerating well
and using a big starter. Higher temps will increase ester production (fruity
flavors/aromas) in addition to decreasing fermentation time and increasing
the hospitability for bacterial infections.
>3) because of the high gravity boil the beer is not as bitter as i want it,
>so i was thinking about dry hopping in a secondary. is there a recomended
>time to do this or can i do it any time after the kreusen settles? also,
Dryhopping will not add bitterness. Ideally you want to add dryhops when
the beer is almost done because evolving CO2 will scrub out some of the
hop aromatics. If you are sure you need more bitterness, you can make up
a hop tea by boiling just hops in water and then straining the liquid into
your beer. If you boil 45-60 minutes, you will add only bitterness (no
flavor or aroma).
>can someone give me a range for the amount of hops to use in the secondary
>(i know i didn't say how bitter our beer is right now, but i just want to
>know if most people use 0.5 oz. or 8 oz when they dry hop)?
I use between 0.5 and 2 ounces.
>p.s. not that anyone cares, but i'm with lan and andrew on this AOL thing.
> F*%@ censorship!
I'd like to point out that you "censored" yourself, which is what I
advocate. For what it's worth, Lanny and I have reached common ground
off-line on this topic and knowing Andrew, I'm certain that his IDEAS and
not his WORDS were the reason for him being censored -- for this, I too, am
outraged.
***********
Timothy writes:
>patience. So my first question is. If the beer is comming out good, why
>complicate matters? An expample of what I mean is the use of of oxygen and
>a bubbler system to airate the wort prior to pitching. Is this really
>nessasary? I just shake the hell out of my primary a few times after
It's not, but I read the HBD for new ideas for my own brewing and to help
out with questions. Much of the discussion is strictly academic, but some
has practical applications if you add it to other information you have
read or experienced earlier. To use your example, for a 1048 ale, you
don't really need anything but shaking your carboy, but for a 1120 lager,
you will need to do more than that to get enough O2 in solution.
***********
Brian writes:
> chill haze, two batches were satisfactory, and the rest suffered from
> haze problems that had nothing to do with chill-haze. These beers are
> cloudy even when warm.
Could it be too hot a sparge? Too hot a sparge water (above 170F or so)
can liberate unconverted starch. Your Corona setting (*larger* malt
fragments) would simply increase this effect.
*********
Jim writes:
>THis is one of my pet peeves too. I think the inspection is fine for
>rings, yeast cake/cloudiness, etc, but comments on "low fill levels"
>can be erroneous. The problem seems to stem from homebrewers who bottle
I'm with Spencer on this one. The inspection line is more of a note to
myself. If I don't find a problem with the beer, I don't even mention
it in the scored section of the form. By the way, I try to remember to
check for sediment, so I know if this is a bottle-conditioned or CP-filled
bottle.
**********
Doug writes:
>into the secondary at which point it slowly bubbled away. Well, five days
>later it is still bubbling at a rate of about every 3 seconds which is
>completely different than batch 1 and batch 3 (an Australian Lager using
>Ale yeast). Is this normal activity or have I done something wrong? Is it
See my comments above on what affects fermentation time. Apart from
sanitation there's little anyone can do to make an undrinkable batch --
I'm sure you did nothing wrong.
>Is it safe to bottle while it is still fermenting like this?
NO! Wait for the fementation to go down to about 1 bubble every 1 to 2
minutes.
> Is there any good way to get a second SG reading
>without the risk of contaminating the brew?
Yes. Using good sanitation techniques, take a sample, measure SG and
drink the sample (don't put it back into the brew).
>I would really like to get this
>batch into the bottle so I can expedite the drinking (hopefully be able to
>have a few with friends on New Years!!!)
Don't rush the brew. It's better to drink some quality microbrew for New
Years than to spoil (overcarbonate) a batch by rushing it.
>Other questions: Are Australian Light Malts supposed to produce a golden
>colored beer/ale/lager (this is the color of straw)?
Being Australian has nothing to do with golden-ness. "Light" or "Gold"
extracts from the US, UK, Belgium, Germany, etc. all will make a golden
colored beer -- some darker than others. If you cannot get a golden
beer from any extract, I suspect you are aerating your wort when it is hot,
which will darken it considerably.
>How close will a dopplebock be to the real thing if I
>use ale/beer yeast (I am not yet set up to do real Lagers)?
It's not so much the yeast as the temperature. You will get a much fruitier
beer than a Doppelbock -- more like a Strong Scotch Ale.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 15:25 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: quickFerments/"champagne"bottles/CO2-storing/WitYeast/metallic flavor
John writes:
>Short Ale Fermentations? When you use Extract with lots of active yeast,
>then you can have quick fermentations because of the simple sugars present;
>compared to All Grain where more complex sugars are present.
This is not really correct -- a quality extract wort made from all-malt
extract will have a similar sugar profile to an all-grain wort. Crummy,
dextrose-stretched extracts could make for a different sugar profile,
but that would make for a longer, less-vigorous ferment due to the
shortage of FAN (amino acids, for yeast nutrition).
>Capping Champagne bottles - All of the domestic champagne bottles can be
>recapped with standard bottle caps. There are some French ones that have
>bigger openings.
I believe Cook's bottles (if it's not Cook's then it's some other US
sparkling wine) don't take standard US crown caps. But I agree that
most US sparking wine bottles do take the standard US crowns. Most
european sparkling wines have the larger opening, but there are a few
that do take the standard US crown cap (I believe Dom Perignon is one,
so buy a lot when you find it on sale).
************
Conn writes:
>means of kegging. My reaction? great to see such innovation. Dave Line actually
>proposed storing the pressure from the _primary_ fermentation for later use,
>which would overcome the need to prime with triple the normal
My fears would be: 1) that the pressure from the *complete* primary
fermentation could get very high, even to the point of affecting the
yeast and the possiblity of explosion, and 2) primary fermenation
often releases or produces undesirable gasses (DMS and some sulfur
compounds, for example) and you would not want to use these. I believe
that the commercial brewers "srub" their CO2 before reuse.
***********
John writes:
>However, sometimes this doesn't quite work out, and I have to make a choice
>as to whether or not I should add brewing water at this stage to top up the
>carboy or leave the space in the carboy and hope the beer is still producing
>enough CO2 to protect it from oxygen. What is the consensus on this? Is
>topping up detrimental to the beer or is it at least less harmful than oxygen?
When you rack fermenting or fermented beer, you will invitably release some
dissolved CO2 (thanks to the partial pressure at the top of the siphon hose)
so this will serve as a CO2 blanket as long as you use an airlock on your
secondary. 1" is certainly not worth worrying about, but even if it was
more, I'd say the topping up is unnecessary. If you do top-up, use boiled
water so you don't introduce dissolved O2.
*************
Michael writes:
>they haven't put it into production. If you can't find a white beer yeast or
>are not ready to make a yeast starter from a slant, you might try the Wyeast
>Bavarian Wheat Ale yeast.
Wyeast *has* released their "Belgian White" yeast. On the other hand,
a customer of mine has brewed some excellent Witbiers using Wyeast Bavarian
Weizen yeast.
>This may be one of my crazier ideas, but I think it might get you closer
>to Celis than using a regular ale yeast. The Wyeast Wheat Ale yeast haso
>some Lactobacillus Delbrukii in it which would simulate the secondary
>lactic fermentation that Pierre and company do. What do the rest of you
>out there think?
Woah! That's Saccharomyces Delbruckii, not Lactobacillus Delbruckii, that
is in Wyeast Bavarian Weizen (#3056 -- #3068 is all S. Delbruckii, BTW).
**************
Phil writes:
>I know that many of your secondary in stainless steel cornelius kegs.
>I like to do this as it takes up less space in my lagering refigerator.
>This summer I encountered this off-taste problem with a couple of
>American Lager's I brewed, did the primary in glass and then the
>secondary in stainless. The off-taste is hard to describe. At first
>I thought it was astringency, but it is more like a yeasty, metallic
>taste. The taste persists even after filtering through a .5 micron
>filter. It has happened when I've secondaried in stainless (about
>5 total batches) but never when I've secondaried in glass (about
>2 batches).
I don't think your problem is from the Stainless. Check your
water chemistry (check for high Calcium or Magnesium levels) and then
check your malt freshness. Stale malt has been known to give metallic
flavors (see the Troubleshooting issue of Zymurgy).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 14:23:18 PST
From: garyrich@angel.qdeck.com
Subject: various musings
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 22:35 CST
>From: akcs.wally@vpnet.chi.il.us (John Walaszek)
>Subject: Problems with Dark ales
>
>Hello everyone, I am looking for some help in determining why
>I am having problems with Dark Ales. I have brewed about
>25 all-grain ales and every attempt at a dark one (3 stouts
>and 1 porter) I have ended up very disappointed. I brew alot of
>pale ales and brown ales and these have all been very consistent.
>
>I think my problem may have to do with water chemistry, Lately
>I have used pre-boiled Chicago City water. I usually do not
>check ph and don't really add any mineral salts.
I think you may have indeed diagnosed your own problem. From what
I recall, most Chicago water is very soft. The dark grains that you
are using will make the mash more acidic, in fact that why they were used
historically. Most dark ale districts were those that had hard water
and the acidity of the more highly roasted grains was used to counteract
the high alkalynity of the water. What may be happening in your case is that
the acidic dark grains are dropping the mash ph below the ideal for
conversion. you could try to get a ph reading from the mash, but I've
never been able to read my cheap litmus papers in a dark mash. I would
just add a teaspoon or so of calcium carbonate to it when you mash in
and see what happens. Since the carbonate levels in my town often get
as high as 300ppm, I've never needed to do this myself.
>
>------------------------------
>From: palme@am1.icgmfg.mke.ab.com (Palme)
>Subject: Reusable 5l kegs ...
>
>Hi All!
>
>I saw a pretty nifty little gadget on the shelf of my local homebrew
>shop/microbrewery. (Ok, ok, so Dan shares floorspace with Lakefront. Sip
>and buy. Sip and browse. What a racket!) It's a reusable 5l stainless
>keg, similar to the "party kegs" one can purchase at the liquor store. A
>set of 4 comes with a resuable tapper/dispenser. (I won't mention the
>price, just yet) So, any thoughts? Ideas? Anyone out there *have* one
>of these? It sure would be nice to get away from bottling 2 cases every
>time. I would see putting up two of these kegs per batch and then one
>case of bottles for "dispersal."
>
>Comments *always* appreciated ...
>
>D.
>
>- ---
>Diane Palme, EIT
I have a set of these from Brew-Ha-Ha. I liked them a lot at first. They
are a lot easier than bottling. They are also quite convienent and they fit
in the fridge in the kitchen.
Like everyone else that's used them at first
I had problems with overpriming. You have to use a very light touch (<1/2 cup
corn suger in 5 gallons) or they just produce foam. Too much pressure can even
damage the can. Even after I mastered this I still had major foaming problems.
I think that the dispenser could really use a hose type spigot so that the
keg pressure could be brought down before the beer hits your glass at 90
miles an hour. Since my main experiments with the cans were with last
summer's wheat beers, you can imagine the mess this made.
Now a few months later it seems that the tapper/dispenser (aka the expensive
part) is damaged. I can't put in a co2 cartridge without most of the gas
just blowing out the back and being wasted. Once I lose ~half the gas this
way it still seems to have some sort of slow leak that means the beer will
be flat by the next day. I don't recall doing anything savage enough to
the tapper that should have broken it this way, but I do have 2 small
children, so all bets are off...
I was dissapointed enough with them that I kept saving those nickels and
dimes and got a fridge for the garage and and a real kegging setup. If I
lived in a small apartment I think I would have stuck with the cans
longer, just because they are so much more space efficient. As it is I think
I will donate them to a freind that does live in an apt.
>
>From: <GNT_TOX_%ALLOY.BITNET@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU>
>Subject: magazines
>
>Two basic questions for you guys:
>
>1- Is it possible to buy Zymurgy, without having to join the AHA.
Every home brew store that I've ever been in has individual copies
for sale.
>
>2- What do you people think of _Brewing_Techniques_ magazine?
I love it, though it hasn't yet had an issue that's really lived up to the
standard set by the first issue. It's still good enough that I will re
subscribe without a qualm when the time comes.
Gary Rich | Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
garyrich@qdeck.com
Nobody listens to my opinions, so why I should bother disclaiming them?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 15:11:36 -0800 (PST)
From: gummitch@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Words of Wisdom
> From: "J. Andrew Patrick" <andnator@genesis.Mcs.Com>
> Subject: Free Speech Vs. "Professional Language"
>
> Much to my surprise, since posting my 1st message about the blatant
> censorship that I encountered at the AOL Beer Forum, several HBD
> readers have expressed opionions that I "got what I deserved" for
> using such terrible language. Al Korzonas, Michael T. Lobo, and,
> GNT_TOX%ALLOY.BITNET@PUCC.PRINECTON.EDU (whoever that is!) have
> written (either publicly or privately) to indicate their opinions that:
>
> 1) AOL was justified in censoring me for using "profane" language, and/or
I'm not much in agreement with the three you mention above, but isn't
AOL a commercial venture? I mean, didn't you pay for that service? I
would say that, if so, you are strongly misusing the word "censoring".
If they owns the turf, they get to make the rules. If they think
"pissed off" is naughty, then they certainly have the right to refuse to
post it.
If I publish a magazine, and chose not to publish an article of yours,
either because it's badly-written or because I don't like your language,
I'm entitled to leave it out. You're entitled, of course, to publish
your own damn magazine.
> I believe that I have an inalienable right to express myself in cyberspace
> in the same manner as I do in real space. This is just your basic First
> Amendment principle applied to the on-line world. If I am forced to
> drastically alter my on-line persona because of a few prudes who don't
> like seeing words like "orgasm" or "pissed off" in the HBD or AOL Beer
> Forums, then I am being forced to live a lie, to pretend to be somebody
> that I am not.
>
> Is this REALLY what we want??
>
No. What we really want is for people to be reasonably polite. If this
means that people occasionally need to temper their language, I don't
see this as trampling on your rights. You *do*, of course, have the
right to shoot off your mouth any way you like -- you shouldn't,
however, expect that other people should either like it or necessarily
tolerate it. I would suggest it would be a good rule that no one say
"on-line" something they wouldn't be willing to say to another person's
face -- and risk getting popped one in the snoot.
> From: dmorey@iastate.edu
> Subject: Potential Extract of Dark Malts
>
>
> Greetings fellow homebrewers and beer lovers,
>
> This is my first posting on HBD. I have been doing all grain
> brewing for about a year and a half and have a question about expected
> extract from dark grains. I have compliled a list which was created
> by averaging values from multiple sources. Most sources i have found
> don't cover potential extract of dark malts very much. So I would
> like to hear the wisdom of the brewers out there. Here is the list I
> have compliled up to this date:
>
> Cane sugar (yuk) 44
Hey! Save the criticism. Sugar is much-maligned, but many who do so do
not know whereof they speak.
> Roast barley 27 (isn't this high also?)
> Chocolate malt 27 "
> Black patent 27 "
I would be most curious to know where you got these figures. As far as
I know, the actually amount of extract you can expect from these sources
is: zero, zip, nada.
- --Jeff
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1304, 12/22/93
*************************************
-------
