Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1595
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 94/12/03 00:35:08
HOMEBREW Digest #1595 Sat 03 December 1994
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Fermentor Geometry Again ("Manning Martin MP")
Re: Liquid Yeast ("Charles S. Jackson")
airlock methodology (John DeCarlo )
Microscope question (John T Faulks)
Stouts (RLANCASTER)
Overcarbonation of Fruit Beers (John DeCarlo )
Siphoning blowoff tubes, airlock filling,secondary aeration ("nancy e. renner")
Aeriation/HSA temps/beer tasting (Jim Busch)
Re: Yeast starters (Jim Blue)
(ustcclj3)
Re: Liquid Yeast & Starters (Mark E. Thompson)
Belgian Tickle (ESMPD)" <gcunning@Census.GOV>
Re: Labeling of Brews (Spencer.W.Thomas)
Grant's Imperial Stout (Steve Armbrust)
Less common hop varieties / beer travel (uswlsrap)
Re: Labeling of Brews, spiced beers (Jeff Benjamin)
re: campagne bottles ("Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616")
Re: Shearing Proteins ("Shane Allen Snyder")
Summary: Capping Champagne Bottles (Stephen Tinsley)
Re: Roller Mills - again (Dion Hollenbeck)
Czech Pils yeast (Wyeast #2278) for Bocks and Oktoberfests? (Joe McCarthy)
Limited Water Analysis 7 Mash pH (Young, Douglas )
fermentor geometry/brown malt?/wort aeration (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Bottling with champagne bottles (Ian Kirk Quigley)
1st Brew - Problems and comments ("Patrick E. Humphrey 708-937-3295")
******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
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.
FAQs, archives and other files 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: 1 Dec 1994 09:23:03 U
From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp@mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Fermentor Geometry Again
More on the subject of fermentor geometry...
>From Hough, Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing, p. 129:
"With very tall vessels, strong circulatory currents develop during
fermentation. Evolution of a bubble of carbon dioxide at the base of the
vessel where hydrostatic pressure is high is followed by a rapid rise of as
much as 20 m to the surface. This encourages the upward flow of fermenting
wort except near the vessel perimeter where the flow tends to be downwards,
helped by the action of the cooling jackets. The strong circulatory currents
speed up fermentation and therefore ale fermentations are usually completed
in 3 days or less, and lager fermentations in 3-6 days, depending on the
temperature".
So, here we have a case where the behavior is opposite to that described by
G. Fix, who noted a more than two-fold increase in fermentation time. Note
that this is a very tall tank Hough is describing (65 feet!), which is driven
to a desired internal temperature by a cooling jacket. The primary influence
on the yeast behavior is the strong stirring action, rather than the physical
proportions or depth of the vessel. I suspect a lower peak fermentation
temperature for the soda keg in Fix's quarter-barrel Vs soda keg experiment
is the reason for the effects observed. If the soda keg cooled more rapidly
after pitching, the longer lag could be explained as well. George?
Maybe highly flocculent yeast would do better in tall vessels due to the
rousing effects? Maybe, given that most of us can only set ambient
temperatures, a soda keg's internal temperature could be more closely
controlled than that of a carboy or beer keg? Hmm...
MPM
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 8:51:54 CST
From: "Charles S. Jackson" <sjackson@ftmcclln-amedd.army.mil>
Subject: Re: Liquid Yeast
on Wed, 30 Nov 1994 Martin Snow <SNOW@lyrae.colorado.edu> wrote:
- ------------snip snip snip-------
>My own (anecdotal) evidence indicates that a 2 quart starter for a 5 gallon
>batch makes a huge improvement in flavor.
OK call me a creton, but after reading all the recent discussion about
starter volumes I am still confused. I thought if I just kept reading it
would become apparent, but it hasn't and so I must be a creton. The question:
When someone says, '...a 2 qt starter...', are they referring to the total
volume of the starter or the volume of the dregs that are harvested/collected
and pitched.
The first all grain batch here at the Outlaw Picobrewery is scheduled
for next weekend and it will employ our first use of liquid yeast, so
needless to say, the staff here is very excited.
If you believe me to be the only creton here then e-mail is best, but if
you suspect that others are equally confused then I can bare the shame of
seeing the easy answers to my silly questions posted publicly.
Steve
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brewing beer is far more exiting when it is both a hobby AND a felony.
The Alabama Outlaw
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:22:04 EST
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@homebrew.mitre.org>
Subject: airlock methodology
dweller@GVSU.EDU (RONALD DWELLE) wrote:
John DeCarlo wrote:
"Also, if you correctly fill an S-shaped airlock, you will have *zero*
worries about liquid going in or out."
So. How do you correctly fill an S-shaped airlock?
They tend to have three spherical sections on two of the vertical sections
(the one opening to the top and the middle one). Each of those should be
filled so that the liquid comes up about halfway on the middle spherical
section. Less is OK, too. Too much more and vigorous bubbling of air from
outside could push liquid into the fermenter.
I am ASCII-graphics impaired, so I hope this description is adequate.
BTW, when I prepare a starter, I put the airlock on while the starter wort is
still boiling. If you put this in cool air or even cool water, the speed and
violence of the air inflow is amazing. Don't do this with those weird
airlocks.
John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:22:03 -0500
From: faulks@bng.ge.com (John T Faulks)
Subject: Microscope question
I have seen numerous references to using a microscope to look at yeast
cells. These toys come in all sizes and budgets. What do you really need?
400X, 600X, 1000X? Light polarizer? Staining dye? Other things I am to dumb
to ask about?
Bottom line is - would a cheapo kids microscope in a science kit from the
local toy & hobby store or better still a yard sale work?
John Faulks
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:30:43 -0500
From: RLANCASTER@ntia.doc.gov
Subject: Stouts
A friend of mine, commenting on my sign-off content, came up with
this idea.
Did you ever stop to consider that a good stout doesn't look
(and some people would say taste) a whole lot different than used
motor oil? Maybe there is some connection there that the Brits don't
want us to know about. ???
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||Randy Lancaster | Tel:202-482-4487 ||
||National Telecommunications | Fax:202-482-4396 ||
||and Information Administration| rlancaster@ntia.doc.gov ||
||Department of Commerce, USA | 1967 MGB # 128,471 ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|| Heaven: home brew in Maryland, while remembering...its ||
|| not an oil leak, its British flow through lubrication! ||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:34:14 EST
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@homebrew.mitre.org>
Subject: Overcarbonation of Fruit Beers
>Also, fruit beers will often come out over carbonated. It has been theorized
>that the complex sugars in the fruit take longer to be eaten by the
>yeast. This results in excess carbonation in bottles that age more than
>a few weeks. (Anyone else notice this?)
I haven't noticed it. Perhaps there is a common thread of how it might
happen? (Too little time in the secondary; fresh, unwashed fruit added to the
secondary or primary; something else?).
My fruit beers lately have been by adding freshly frozen fruit to the
secondary. They have been consumed within six months with no signs of extra
carbonation.
My first raspberry beer (in Cat's Meow) lasted over three years with no signs
of extra carbonation and great raspberry flavor and aroma--that was made by
pitching freshly frozen raspberries into the brewpot, cooling in a sink of
cold water, fermenting in the primary a week or two, then aging in the
secondary about a month.
My hunch is that people forget that the sugars in the fruit will be fermented
by the yeast. I would always let fruit beers age about a month in the
secondary, just to be safe. Then you shouldn't have to worry about
overcarbonation later. No guarantees, though.
John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:37:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Siphoning blowoff tubes, airlock filling,secondary aeration
(From *Jeff* Renner)
Victor Daveikis says you should start out with a blowoff even if you're
going to use a airlock, because *it* won't siphon all the way back to
your carboy. Sorry to be contrary, but I'm here to tell you it can and
will, if there is enough negative pressure. This happened to me once
with a small diameter blowoff (connected to a rubber stopper in a Sankey,
which is why I didn't use a 1" dia. tube). I caught it just in time.
The other time *was* with a 1" tube. I saw that the bleach water was
more than half way up the tube, so I pulled the end out of the bucket.
Big mistake. I should have removed the other end from the carboy,
because a bubble rose up thru the tube, pushing a bit of bleach water
ahead of it, into the wort! I titrated out the concentration of the
bleach water, guessed at the amount that went into the wort, and
estimated the concentration there to be a few 10's ppb. No matter. The
beer was undrinkable from chlorophenols.
So my advise is the opposite of Victor's. Start with an airlock, then
switch when you have positive pressure, but before blowoff begins. I
also try to cool my beer to the ambient temperature to minimize negative
pressure.
***
So, Ron Dwelle wants to know how should you fill a one piece air lock.
Halfway, Ron. (And to the person who wondered where Ron's "GVSU" address
is, that's Grand Valley State University near Grand Rapids).
***
Bryan Gros understands that air (and oxygen) is his beer's enemy in the
primary after fermentation, but is unclear whether it is a problem in the
secondary, such as during racking. You betcha, Bryan. After the initial
aeration, do all you can to avoid it. CO2 blanketing is a good idea.
Jeff in Ann Arbor, Mich c/o nerenner@umich.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:47:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: Aeriation/HSA temps/beer tasting
I read with interest Dr. Raines methods of pitching and aeriating wort. It
is quite similar to what I have been doing. A few points are different,
though. An important point involved the difference between a air
bubbler and pure O2, certainly bubble times will differ between a 20%
O2 and ~100% O2. Since I use a tank, I begin to aeriate as soon as some
chilled wort is in my fermenter. I usually run this for the complete
duration of the filling of the fermenter, which in my brewery takes
about 40 minutes (if the head space in the fermenter allows, this goes
on for about 60-70 minutes, while I clean up). I pitch thick slurry
about 10-20 minutes into the filling of the fermenter. This allows the
yeast to respire the additional O2 during the remainder of the filling
time. Works great.
Al wrote:
<Also, regarding HSA, the commonly accepted temperature above which it
<is not recommended to introduce air/oxygen is 80F, not 140F.
While this may be true, it is important to remember this is a upward
curve, as the temp increases to boiling, the effects of HSA are
increased. So, splashing at 80F has little effect as compared to
splashing above 140.
As for a beer tasting, a lot depends on your location since this will
affect your options, but, here's something I think would work.
1. Celis White, good palate cleanser
2. Old Dominion Ale, or another balanced pale ale, hold off on the
aggressive stuff at first!
3. Tabernash Wheat or Baltimore Brewing Weizen or Paulaner HefeWeizen
4. Pilsner Urquell or a quality Pils.
5. Fullers ESB, or Youngs London Special, or Sam Smiths Pale Ale
6. Duvel, Orval, Saison Dupont or even Chimay Rouge
7. Sierra Nevada Porter
8. Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale or Anchor Liberty or Dominion Hop Pocket
9. Paulaner Salvator or Spatan Optimator or Dominion Dominator or
Baltimore Brewing Doppelbock.
10.Rogue Old Crustacean or Sierra Nevada Bigfoot or Dominion Millennium
For those still standing upright in their chair, a 1.5 litre magnum of
Brugge Trippel!
Have fun,
Jim Busch
Colesville, MD
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 10:45:24 -0500
From: blue@cam.nist.gov (Jim Blue)
Subject: Re: Yeast starters
People have been giving a lot of useful anecdotal information about using
yeast starters recently, but it's less useful than it might be. A "one
quart starter" doesn't tell all:
What was the OG of the starter? To first approximation, a 1.020 starter
allows half as much total yeast growth as a 1.040 starter. Is a one-quart
1.040 starter equivalent to a two-quart 1.020 starter?
Was an airlock used on the starter? Aerobic and anaerobic growth of
starters give different results. (Brewers Resource suggests aerobic
growth with their yeast starter kit, with only a sheet of aluminum foil
over the top of the flask. Others have suggested anaerobic growth.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 10:48:52 EST
From: ustcclj3@ibmmail.com
Subject:
IN HBD 1593 Steve Tinsley asked about Party Pigs,
What I have read about them so far is that some people really love
them and others hate them. I don't have any experience either way
so I can't help you there.
What I do know is that The Home Brewery in Kentucky( I'm not sure
if the other Home Brewery stores in the chain are doing it) has
just started a Beer of the month club. What they do is sell you a
party pig and 2 kits, a Pilsner and Stout I think, for either $59 or
$69 bucks. These kits are designed to be fermented and stored in
the Pig and are 2 1/2 gallons I believe. Then every month or
whatever time frame you would like, they send you another kit. I
believe the prices for the kits are $12.95 for regular kits and I
think $15.95 for a Barlywine kit. The initial kit comes with all of
the attachments etc. and looks pretty good. I don't remember the
phone number right off hand, but it was listed in the 1 800 list a
couple of weeks ago.
As for The Home Brewery itself, they have always been good to me
with orders, and the UPS usually gets to me (Kentucky --> Georgia)
in 2-4 days. They also have an extract called Yellow Dog extract
that I think is incredible. BTW, they also list all of the
ingredients on all of their store made extracts(which I have never
seen anywhere else) and their extracts come in a bag in the box(like
soft drink syrups) which IMHO doesn't waste as much extract at brew
time. I hope this helps, and if you can't find the phone number
somewhere, email me back and I will send it to you.
Richard Getteau
USTCCLJ3@IBMMAIL.COM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Message From : GETTEAU, RICHARD *
* Location : US-ATLANTA(OFACSERV) *
* KOMAIL ID : A09967 (OFACSERV) *
* Date and Time: 12/01/94 10:27:04 *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 7:55:59 PST
From: Mark E. Thompson <markt@hptal04.cup.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Liquid Yeast & Starters
Full-Name: Mark E. Thompson
Martin Snow writes:
>So the old saying that liquid yeasts will improve your brew is only true if
>you make a starter. If you don't make a starter culture, you might as well
>use a dry yeast.
I'm getting back in to brewing after some 10 years. What i remember
from my experience back then, when it was harder to find good liquid yeast,
is that just using a starter improved the quality of my beer. I was using
redstar ale yeast in a starter and getting very good results.
So it may be more a function of the starter than of the liquid v. dry.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Mark E. Thompson |Internet: markt@cup.hp.com |
| Hewlett-Packard Company |FAX: 408/447-4729 |
| Distributed Computing Program |Tel: 408/447-5185 |
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:19:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jerry Cunningham (ESMPD)" <gcunning@Census.GOV>
Subject: Belgian Tickle
Hello everybody,
I recently made an extract Belgian Ale, based on the "Belgian Tickle" recipe
in THBC (except I added more malt/hops to make it a "double-tickle" ;*).
This is the first time I've used the Wyeast Belgian Ale yeast, and also
probably my strongest brew to date, so I had a few questions for you mighty
brew-gods on the hbd.
1. Is the Wyeast 1214 the same as the Wyeast Belgian that is in the
yeast FAQ? (in the faq it has a different number).
2. Upon racking to the secondary, it tasted majorly banana-ee with a
hint of the bubble-gum flavor mentioned in the FAQ. Do these flavors
change over time? How much time? I also detected (I think) some clove
taste in there (very faint). Does this change with time?
3. When bottling/kegging, do I need to add fresh yeast? Would dry yeast
be O.K. at this stage? (oh yeah - OG was 1075, at racking it was 1015.
That puts it around 8%, right?)
Thanks,
Jerry Cunningham
Annapolis, MD
PS I HATE the %$#@&ing vi editor.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 11:29:53 EST
From: Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: Labeling of Brews
Gary McCarthy wrote about Labeling of Brews:
> label goes in the trash with the used cap.
You do mean "in the recycling" don't you? That's where all my caps go.
=S
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 08:49:11 PST
From: Steve Armbrust <Steve_Armbrust@ccm.co.intel.com>
Subject: Grant's Imperial Stout
Text item: Text_1
A couple of days ago, I posted a recipe for a Grant's Imperial Stout clone:
> *Two 3.3 lb cans Edme SFX dark unhopped extract
> *Two 4 lb cans Alexanders unhopped extract
> 3 lbs M&F dark dry extract
> 1 lb clover honey
> 1/2 lb chocolate malt
> 1/2 lb roasted barley
> 5 oz cascade hops (in boil for 60 minutes)
> 1 oz bullion hops (dry hopped for 3-4 days)
> Wyeast 1084 Irish ale yeast
I just copied the recipe from my 1989 brewers log without looking too
closely. As several have pointed out, there seems to be way too much malt.
Funny thing, that's the way I remember brewing it, because it was so
expensive. Obviously, my gravity figures were off. It would have a much
higher OG than 1.075.
Of course, I could have been drinking too much home brew and imagined the
entire thing. But I didn't intend the post as a joke. Anyway, for your
own peace of mind, try a lighter version and use one can of Edme and
Alexanders instead of two.
Steve Armbrust in Portland, OR
Steve_Armbrust@ccm.hf.intel.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 11:54:56 EST
From: uswlsrap@ibmmail.com
Subject: Less common hop varieties / beer travel
- -------------------- Mail Item Text Follows ------------------
To: I1010141--IBMMAIL
From: Bob Paolino Research Analyst
Subject: Less common hop varieties / beer travel
At our weekly meeting last night, someone was getting a club hop order
together. There were a few varieties that I ordered out of curiosity. Any
details on characteristics and, where applicable, your experiences in
using them, would be appreciated (by me and probably also other readers)
Northdown (Ireland), Lublin (Poland), Streisspissel (I'm sure I've spelled
that wrong) (France)
Thanks, hopheads!
- - - - - - -
NOW FOR ANOTHER TOPIC: I'd like to toss in a suggestion for a Beer Travel
Digest. I think it's perfectly legitimate for HBDers to post requests for
information on possible beer adventures in city x, and then ask for private
email. I also know that some people do and some people don't like to read beer
travelogues following someone's trip. Why not have a separate digest for that
very purpose? (No, I'm not volunteering. First, although I may be gigabytes
ahead of my computerphobic more senior colleagues, my computer competency is
really only about average for people of my age and education. Second, I don't
have access to facilities that would enable me to do it even if I were so
inclined.) People could still post travel information requests to HBD if they
wanted, but those who want to share their beer-o-logues and those who want to
read them would have a forum devoted to it.
Probably you would want to have separate North American, European, et cetera
digests. I don't travel very much, regardless of what some people in our club
might think (but when I do, I seek out beer opportunities when feasible and
share the liquid fruits of my adventures, and that might be how people get
their impressions of my travel habits), so I would probably want to stick to
the North American stuff. (Not that I would mind travelling farther afield, but
it's too expensive.) Similarly, someone in New Zealand or the UK might not
really care to have to page down through tales of places in North America they
aren't likely to visit except at great expense. If you wanted to read about
other continents, you could subscribe to all the travel digests.
Don't suggest that USENET groups like alt.beer, et cetera could serve that
function, because a lot of people with email do _not_ have posting access
to USENET and some may not even have read access.
So whaddya think? I look forward to reading the discussion. (To the
HBD brew_ing_ purists: think of the bandwidth spent on this discussion as
a long term investment in moving some of the beer-but-not-brewing discussion
elsewhere.)
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace /uswlsrap@ibmmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 9:57:57 MST
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Labeling of Brews, spiced beers
> some self-adhesive circles from the stationery store(I hate those mobile
> stores!) bottle the brew, and number the circles and stick it to the bottle
> cap. I can open a case and see the numbers of the batch. Then I know that
> 14 is a Brown Beer, and 15 is a Stout.
Why not save a step and a few dollars and a few trees and just write
directly on the bottle cap? I use a Sharpie permanent laundry marker to
scribble directly on the cap.
I write one to three letters or numbers, identifying the beer by type or
recipe rather than by number, e.g. P for porter, B2 for brown ale #2,
IPA for India Pale Ale. Makes it easier to remember what's what without
having to refer to your brewing log. I then put one sticker on the bottle
case with the full name and bottling date, so the info is handy when I
pull one out to drink.
> Spiced holiday beers
A note about spiced beers. If you put whole spices (cinnamon stick,
cloves) into your fermenter along with the beer, like I do, don't leave
them there too long. This year's holiday ales were left in the primary
with the whole spices for about 2 weeks, which is over a week longer
than I have left them in the past. Both batches came out with some
unpleasant astringency, possibly due to tannins and other undesirable
compounds leaching out of the wood or woody parts once the alcohol
content rose.
For folks who haven't yet made a spiced ale but would like to try, my
typical method is to brew a spice "tea" by simmering the whole spices in
a quart of water for 30min, then adding the tea and spices to the
primary fermenter. If you rack to a secondary soon (after ~5 days),
this works wonderfully. If you don't rack, you should probably increase
the amount of spices slightly and add the tea only (some folks add the
tea immediately before bottling or kegging rather than in the
fermenter). This should still give you good results, and avoid the
harshness I experienced.
- --
Jeff Benjamin benji@fc.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium."
- T.S. Eliot
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 13:03:24 EST
From: "Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616" <wagnecz@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: re: campagne bottles
Steve-
Repost of a msg I sent to the HBD last week. This should help.
Stephen Tinsley writes:
>Subject: Capping champaigne bottles
>I've got another question...
I read in Papazian's book that you can cap Champaigne bottles. My question
is ... how? Will standard sized bottle caps work, or do they make some
bigger caps that will fit the bigger neck size of the champaigne bottle?
I would like to be able to bottle in .750 L bottles like that, but I would
like to be able to recycle used bottles. If I get enough responses I'll
post a summary. TIA.
"Sluggers" can be had at any recycle center (check
the green bin). Like a returnable, they can be capped by any lever
capper and most of the arbor style cappers with the standard caps.
There are a few brands that have a slightly larger diameter and can't
be used, so take along a cap to test the one's you suspect.
These are some of the brands I have found to work:
25 OZ:
- Korbel Brut
- Martenelli Sparkling Cider
- Ballatori Grand Spumanti
- Maison Duetz Brut Rose
- Great Western New York Champagne
- Andre Dry Champagne
- Eden Roc Brut
- Andre Cold Duck
- Totts Blanc De Noir
- Espirit Sparkling Red Grape Juice
- Chateau St. Jean
I personally prefer the Korbel Brut and the Martinelli Cider
bottles, they are nice and dark and robust. Just don't bonk anybody
with one!
A myriad of 22 oz beer bottles are also out there, amonst them
Sam Adams Tripple Bock, Rogue Red Ale, Oasis Red Ale, etc.
Again, go to your nearest recycle center, especially around the
holidays. I have been told that the green glass doesn't even have any
recycle value for these centers; its just cheaper to dispose when
separated from the main waste stream. It's also handy to bring a
"pick stick", which is a ten foot pole (1 inch pine bannister), with
a piece of 1/8 to 1/4" rod bent in a hook taped to it to snag those
hard to get (middle of the dumpster) bottles.
Glen
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 14:53:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Shane Allen Snyder" <snyders2@student.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Shearing Proteins
> When I was working on my PhD thesis in polymer science, we used to prepare
> solutions of polystyrene in toluene. When we mixed up the solutions, we
> before and after stirring. There was no noticable effect.
>
> Since we were stirring for a long time, since our molecules were longer
> than the proteins found in beer (I'm just guessing here, but the PS
> we used had a molecular weight of 390,000), and since our concentrations
> of PS were much greater than proteins in beer, I'd have to say that I don't
> think you get much appreciable protein 'breaking' from shaking your keg.
>
> The main chain bond in polystyrene is a C-H bond, same as a protein,
> right? So I don't think protein molecules are inherently 'weaker' than
> polystyrene molecules...
>
Well, the bonds that break in a protein are peptide bonds (C-N) not C-C and are
weaker than the forementioned polymer bonds. So I would not believe the polymer
analogy...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 14:27:27 CST
From: a207613@sun278.dseg.ti.com (Stephen Tinsley)
Subject: Summary: Capping Champagne Bottles
First of all, thanks very much to everyone who replied to my questions about
capping champagne bottles. I got about a million responses, all friendly,
and all helpful (ain't the hbd great?) The general consensus is that
champagne bottles (I spelled it wrong yesterday) are an excellent way to
bottle beer, and that American bottles work and foreign bottles don't.
One of the US army's finest, Glen Wagnecz, X6616, included a list of
brands he has found to work...
"Sluggers" can be had at any recycle center (check
the green bin). Like a returnable, they can be capped by any lever
capper and most of the arbor style cappers with the standard caps.
There are a few brands that have a slightly larger diameter and can't
be used, so take along a cap to test the one's you suspect.
These are some of the brands I have found to work:
25 OZ:
- Korbel Brut
- Martenelli Sparkling Cider
- Ballatori Grand Spumanti
- Maison Duetz Brut Rose
- Great Western New York Champagne
- Andre Dry Champagne
- Eden Roc Brut
- Andre Cold Duck
- Totts Blanc De Noir
- Espirit Sparkling Red Grape Juice
- Chateau St. Jean
I personally prefer the Korbel Brut and the Martinelli Cider
bottles, they are nice and dark and robust. Just don't bonk anybody
with one!
A myriad of 22 oz beer bottles are also out there, amonst them
Sam Adams Tripple Bock, Rogue Red Ale, Oasis Red Ale, etc.
Again, go to your nearest recycle center, especially around the
holidays. I have been told that the green glass doesn't even have any
recycle value for these centers; its just cheaper to dispose when
separated from the main waste stream. It's also handy to bring a
"pick stick", which is a ten foot pole (1 inch pine bannister), with
a piece of 1/8 to 1/4" rod bent in a hook taped to it to snag those
hard to get (middle of the dumpster) bottles.
Glen
Thanks to Glen for some great info. I'm going to the recycle center this
afternoon.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 12:20:15 PST
From: hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: Re: Roller Mills - again
>>>>> "Steve" == STROUD <STROUD%GAIA@cliffy.polaroid.com> writes:
Steve> In HBD #1592, JS again tells us how lousy the plastic gears
Steve> on the Glatt mill are.
Steve> Greg Glatt must have been listening, because according to a
Steve> local homebrew supply store (the Modern Brewer) he is now
Steve> shipping his mills with metal gears.
Having read this, I immediately called Glatt to upgrade. I was told
that there are no metal gears. The latest gears are toughened nylon
with something embedded in it to add strength.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:38:13 -0500
From: Joe McCarthy <jmccarth@stimpy.cs.umass.edu>
Subject: Czech Pils yeast (Wyeast #2278) for Bocks and Oktoberfests?
I just reread Roger Bergen's article on "Oktoberfest Alternatives" in
the second issue of Brewing Techniques (July/August 1993), where he
quotes David Logsdon of Wyeast Laboratories as recommending the Wyeast
#2278 strain (Czech Pils) for Oktoberfests (Marzen) and Bocks.
My basement temperature fell below 55 degrees last week, signalling
the beginning of "lager season". My brewing partner and I brew about
once a month, so I figure we can fit in four or maybe five lagers this
winter. We were planning to brew a Czech-style Pilsner, a Dunkel, a
Doppelbock and an Oktoberfest, and now it appears that we can use the
same yeast for all four!
I find it hard to believe that a yeast that works well in a
Czech-style Pilsner would also be good for Bocks and Oktoberfests.
However, we did brew a Maibock last March with the Bavarian Lager
yeast (Wyeast #2206), and it does have a pronounced fruitiness; I had
attributed this to a high final gravity (1.026, from an OG of 1.066),
but perhaps this corroborates David Logsdon's assertion that this
yeast strain develops "too much fruitiness in high gravity beers."
I would welcome any feedback from brewers who have used this yeast (or
the 2206 strain, of which I still have 3 cultures) in brewing any of
these styles of beer, especially if they have experience with other
strains of yeast in these styles.
Thanks.
Joe.
------------------------------
Date: Thu Dec 1 16:10:46 1994
From: <DYOUNG@fcc.gov> (Young, Douglas )
Subject: Limited Water Analysis 7 Mash pH
I have brewed three all-grain batches after 2-3 years of extract brewing. The
end products have ranged from fair to good, IMHO. In all three the mash pH
was around 5.8 at saccharification temperatures. Books that I have read
suggest that for proper extraction, a pH of 5.4 (or perhaps lower) is
desirable. The first two batches had extraction rates of 26 & 30pts*gal/lb. I
am not really complaining about this, but in endeavoring to improve the third
batch (a dunkel weizen, brew date 11/26/94), I added 3 tsp of gypsum and
was able to lower the pH to 5.6. Not knowing how much gypsum I could add
without drastically affecting flavor, that is where I stopped. The grain bill
for 5 gal was:
5 lb wheat malt
3 lb 10L Munich malt
1.5 lb Klages pale malt
1.25 lb 64L crystal malt
Since I wasn't using any dark roasted grain, I wasn't expecting help in
lowering pH that way.
Background water info:
I use well water with a conditioning system that includes a filter and
softener. Per HBD advice from Jeff Renner, I bypass the softener to eliminate
sodium. I don't have the luxury of asking a local water authority for a free
analysis. I called some private labs and they would charge $25-$50 per ion or
other test. I then decided to see what I could find out from the company that
sold me the conditioning system. They could do some tests, but I couldn't
really expect much technical help since the guy doing the testing was a sales
weeny that knew less about water chemistry than I did. Anyway, the numbers
that they were able to give me were:
Hardness - 103 ppm
Total Alkalinity - 130 ppm
Total Dissolved Solids - 220 ppm
pH - 7.0
Iron - 0 ppm
I also did some testing with a home aquarium kit. These tests were for general
hardness (GH) and carbonate hardness (KH). Results:
GH - 1 degree dH (don't know this unit)
KH - 5 degrees dH
By the way, when I boil water I don't notice any precipitate that forms, so I
don't think that I have a lot of bicarbonates.
Questions:
1) Can anybody interpret these limited results in a meaningful way and
suggest ways to improve my brewing water?
2) How much gypsum or CaCl2 can one use without ruining the desired taste
profile of the beer?
Sorry for the long post, but an inquiring mind wants to know. TIA.
Doug Young
Annapolis, MD
dyoung@fcc.gov
------------------------------
Date: 30 Nov 94 22:23:00 GMT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: fermentor geometry/brown malt?/wort aeration
Martin writes:
>Bill Szymczak <wszymcz%ulysses@relay.nswc.navy.mil> wrote:
>A few issues ago Al Korzonas commented on my experiment with blow-off use.
>>I'm afraid that this was not an ideal experiment. You see, the two
>>sub-batches have varying fermentor geometries -- the partially full carboy
>>being similar to a short, squat fermentor. George Fix has reported that the
>>effect of fermentor geometry can be a significant factor for some yeast as
>>has de Clerck.
>I would say that this experiment was a good and practical one for Bill and
>for most of us, as I don't think we have any real choice of fermentor
>geometry. In this case, you either fill the carboy up enough to cause a
>blow-off or you don't. That aside, I would even go so far as to conjecture
>that the minor difference of a few inches in the depth of the fermenting beer
>is insignificant.
If you will recall the original post, Bill said:
>ago in the HBD, supports your line of thought. I pitched my yeast starter
>into a 6 1/2 gallon batch of SG 1.041 Special Bitter, then racked into two
>5 gallon carboys, filling one to about 3 inches from the top.
One 5-gallon fermenter, filled within 3 inches of the top leaves about 1 3/8
gallons in the other fermenter. This is not an insignificant difference in
fermenter geometry. My contention was not simply one regarding the validity
of the flavour differences (which may be rather minor, depending on the hop
rate and other variables), but on the other data that Bill presented, namely
fermentation time and finishing gravity:
>After 10 days (66F) the non-blowoff batch was finished
>with a SG of 1.011, while the blowoff batch was still at 1.020. I bottled the
>non-blowoff batch and reracked the blowoff batch and let it sit in secondary
>for another 10 days, then bottled with a FG=1.013.
Martin continues:
>Even considering the use of soda kegs and quarter-barrels, which span the
>likely height and height/diameter's of vessels used by amateurs, it's hard to
>believe that there could be much effect. Admittedly, the convection currents
>produced within the various tanks will differ somewhat, and possibly increase
>or decrease stirring action during the ferment.
You are simply guessing. My post was based upon DeKlerck's published research
and personal communications with George Fix which I am not at liberty to
quote without permission since the research was funded and thus the data
proprietary (to the best of my knowledge). George may be able to provide
more information, but I cannot.
>More important, in my
>opinion, is that the distance that the flocculating yeast must fall (i.e.,
>time it is in suspension) is not much different; these are all very shallow
>(by commercial standards) vessels. I'm not familiar with the information Al
>cites from Fix (enlighten me, somebody), but the references to extreme
>fermentor geometries in the professional texts are usually concerned with
>very tall (>20 ft high) vertically-oriented cylindrical tanks as compared to
>shorter (~10 ft?) cylindrical tanks, cylindrical tanks laid on their sides,
>and the rather shallow open fermentors used in Europe or like those at
>Anchor. The vessels used by us amateurs are never any deeper than the
>shallowest of these.
The geometry differences do not have to be so great. How do you explain the
difference in FG in Bill's experiment? All from blowoff? I would not be so
sure without having done the same experiment with similar-geometry fermentors.
*************
Maribeth writes:
>I am looking for a commercial source of brown malt. I know this was
>discussed about a year ago. and I'm looking for some to brew an
>original british porter.
How about DeWolf-Cosyns Aromatic? It's got enough enzymes to convert
itself and is about 25 Lovibond. Note that DWC Biscuit does NOT have
enough enzymes left to convert itself and is actually a toasted malt
like Briess's Victory, but is 2-row based.
Maribeth continues:
>There are several things which suggest at least to me, to aerate after
>pitching. First is that the *maximum* amount of oxygen that can be
>dissolved in cooled wort is 8 ppm. George Fix was the first to bring
>this point up and has very convincing data. I have done my own
>experiments with similar results. If you look at the textbooks, most
>yeast require 8-12 ppm and some lager yeast require 20 ppm of oxygen.
>This raises an interesting question. How do you supply more oxygen
>than you can dissolve? Well I personally believe the answer is to
8 ppm is the maximum amount of O2 that can be dissolved in cooled wort
when using *air*. When using oxygen, you can dissolve quite a bit more
than that and, I if I recall correctly, excessive amounts of dissolved
oxygen ( >30ppm comes to mind, but I cannot find the reference) can even
be detremental to yeast. I do agree, however, that aeration with air
during the first part of respiration will lead to healthier yeast ("tougher
skins" so to speak, as Domenick wrote) and subsequently healthier ferments.
Aeration "too late" would most likely result in elevated diacetyl and aldehyde
levels, but I don't know how late is "too late."
Incidentally, there was some talk on HBD a few years ago regarding the
yeast's use of cold break in place of oxygen for sterol synthesis.
Perhaps leaving the cold break during respiration can compensate for
dissolved oxygen deficiencies in high-gravity ferments? My gut feeling,
after having just typed this, is no, but it might be worth a few experiments.
Personally, I brew only ales and my aeration is limited to the pouring of
the cooled wort into the fermenter via a big funnel, but my ferments (in
"normal" OG worts) are healthy. Two very high-gravity brews (1120 and 1100
OG) did have sluggish finishes, which were probably related to underaeration.
I do plan to build an aquarium pump-based aeration system for some upcoming
high-gravity experiments, however.
On a related note, I believe that yeast propagators have either oxygen or
air continuously injected. This is from a personal communication with Mike
Sharp from a couple of years ago, so don't recall all the details. Mike?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:28:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Ian Kirk Quigley <ianq@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Bottling with champagne bottles
Just wanted to mention to be sure you've got one of those knife-
swtich style bottle cappers for the champagne bottles. I had an
unfortunate incident with the scissors-style where the the round metal
semicircles on the outside, normally made for clenching the top of a
typical beer bottle, cinched up quickly on the wider bottleneck and
snapped off the top, spraying glass everywhere. Pretty messy, especially if
you're barefoot in the bathroom like I usually am when I bottle -- so you
might want to test it out with an empty bottle first (You need two
people to finish one of those off cold anyway).
Ian Quigley
Baker 151, Rice University
Houston, Texas 77005-1891
ianq@owlnet.rice.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 15:56:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Patrick E. Humphrey 708-937-3295" <HUMPHREY.PATRICK@igate.abbott.com>
Subject: 1st Brew - Problems and comments
My thanks to all who replied to my question about which type of fermenter
to buy and if I needed to use a blowoff. The overwhelming response to the
fermenter question is to go with plastic for the first few brews until I
have a few under my belt.
I brewed my first beer last weekend and I made some mistakes and I would
like any comments about them.
I brewed an All Malt Amber supplied with the Beginner kit I purchased.
Here is the recipie (I don't have the exact list in front of me so some
things may be a little off).
6.6 lbs. Amber malt extract
1 lb dry malt extract
4 oz.(?) caramel malt
Irish moss at 30 min
Fuggles at 1st boil and again at 30 min.(pellets)
Hallertau (sp.) hops at 55 min. (pellets)
(I think that's it)
I couldn't find a 6 or 7 gallon pot so I used a 4 gallon pot for the boil
(3 gal.) and boiled 2.5 gal. of water separately.
Well, I started to boil the water and steeped the caramel at 160 deg. for
15 minutes. At one point the temp rose to about 170 for a minute or so.
The instructions said I should add it to the boiling water after the steep
so I waited until the water boiled. It took another 15 minutes to boil so
the grains were in the hot water for about a half hour, although, I stirred
to cool it down. I didn't know how crucial it was to add it to boiling
water.
I cooled the pan of water after a 30 minute boil and added it to a 7 gal.
fermenter after cooling to about 80 deg. Once the extract boil was
complete I cooled it in the sink with ice water surrounding the pot. I was
able to get it down to about 100 deg within a half hour. Forgetting about
the problem of hot side aeration, I poured the hot wort into the fermenter
through a strainer into the cooler water. I figured that would aerate the
wort enough to get the yeast started and the cooler water would bring the
hot wort to the correct temperature for pitching. The yeast (dry and
started in yeast nutrient 5 hours earlier) was pitced and within 2 hours
was bubbling nicely. By six hours it was about 2-3 bubbles per minute.
Questions:
Is my first batch going to taste like wet cardboard? I remembered about
HSA only AFTER I added the 100 deg. wort to the fermenter.
I took a hydrometer reading before pitching and it was 1.080! It was
supposed to be 1.040-1.045. The wort had alot of very small flocculent
material floating throughout. Could this have caused such a high
hydrometer reading?
It has been 5 days since pitching and the bubbles have slowed to about one
per five minutes. I haven't taken a hydrometer reading yet. With such a
high hydrometer reading I don't know what reading I should ferment to.
(should be approx. 1.010)
Sorry for the length of the post but attribute it to a (I hate this word)
"Newbie"
Thanks for any help. :-)
Pat
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1595, 12/03/94
*************************************
-------
