Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1596
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 94/12/05 00:28:09
HOMEBREW Digest #1596 Mon 05 December 1994
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
trub fuss/suck-back/S-airlocks/Glatt gears (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
subsribe cosmo (CEU112)
First Wort Hopping "Rediscovered" (Richard Goldstein)
brewstores in LA? (Ken Johnson)
CaSO4 in lagers (Rob Reed)
Aeration and ergosterol (Maribeth_Raines)
Festive Mulled Wine Recipe from Ottawa ("John H. Grant")
Keg Warning! ("Charles S. Jackson")
Posting Recipes / Gott Cooler prices! (Gary Bell)
Grain Allergies (Larry Meyer)
Genetically Engineered Yeast ("KEVIN A. KUTSKILL")
Cranberry Ale caveat (SPEAKER.CURTIS)
more Historical Brews (Robin Hanson)
Re: FOOP ("Craig Amundsen")
Re: Clumping Dry Malt (Bruce Buck)
Mea culpa (Phil Miller)
Inverted fermentors ("Lee A. Menegoni")
Quick Brit Fix Needed (Tom Baier)
aeration and foam (Bill Szymczak)
anchor christmas recipe??? (Michael Mallett)
gyle priming (RONALD MOUCKA)
Utilization Factors (npyle)
RE: Fermentor Geometry & RIMS? (P Brooks)
Re(n + 1):Labeling of Brews (Gary McCarthy)
******************************************************************
* 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 94 22:16:00 GMT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: trub fuss/suck-back/S-airlocks/Glatt gears
Marc writes:
>Here are some reasons for all the fuss:
>
>1. Hot break trub may interfere with fermentation (De Clerck, 1957, cites some
> examples where yeast doesn't reach its full attenuation in the presence of
> hot break, he suggests the cells starve prematurely because they get
> coated with protein).
>
>2. Hot break trub contains most of the heavy metals dissolved from taps and
> equipment (De Clerck, 1957).
>
>3. Many brewers experience that, especially in slowly fermenting beer, the
> break material causes harsh off-flavours that require a long period of
> 'mellowing out' (if they disappear at all).
>
>4. When a lot of cold break is present during fermentation the beer often is
> also susceptible to chill-haze formation.
Just another datapoint: the brewmaster of Westmalle does no removal of any
break material, hot or cold. I do believe that there is a little chill haze
in the Tripel, but I believe that the Dubbel is quite clear (if you use a
bright enough light). I did once get a splitting hangover from the Dubbel,
so perhaps there is some merit to the belief that fermenting on the break
elevates production of higher alcohols?
**********
Victor writes:
>If your blowoff hose is reaching from the top of the carboy to a
>container on the floor ( or at the base of the carboy) and that end
>immersed in an inch of sanitized solution, you will not get suck-back.
>The distance to pull the solution up the blowoff hose is too great for
>the negative pressures that would be built up in your fermenter.
Actually, it depends on the Inside Diameter (ID) of the blowoff hose and
the amount of headspace in the fermentor. A small diameter hose can and
will suck water up into the fermentor from the blowoff jug. Also, the
larger the fermentor headspace, the more suction there will be. I use
a 1" ID (1.25" OD) blowoff hose and once (with a large headspace and a
big temperature drop overnight) I actually was within 1/2" of sucking
some very cruddy blowoff back into my fermenter! Luckily, I had the
presence of mind to disconnect the fermenter as opposed to lift the
blowoff hose out of the jug or I would have finished the job that the
suction started.
*********
Ron writes:
So. How do you correctly fill an S-shaped airlock?
Fill it so that the level of the water is about 1/3 of each of the
two spheres/ovals. You only have to fill it enough so that the
bottom "U" is full of water, but you should add a little more water to
allow for evaporation.
********
Steve writes:
>Greg Glatt must have been listening, because according to a
>local homebrew supply store (the Modern Brewer) he is now
>shipping his mills with metal gears. The Modern Brewer has
>one of the newest Glatt mills, has motorized it, and is
>using it for general crushing in their store. The
>proprietor told me that it has been working like a champ.
Yes, but the retail price is now $169 as opposed to $129 for
the adjustable MM, $99 for the non-adjustable MM and $79
for the adjustable PhilMill. [BTW, I sell all three mfrs'
rollermills and am even willing to special order a Corona if
I can't talk the buyer out of it.]
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 19:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: CEU112@dgl.ssc.mass.edu
Subject: subsribe cosmo
pls send mail trapped at ssc data processing center send wine cheese and
crackers and info regards
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 16:51:23 -0800
From: Richard.Goldstein@EBay.Sun.COM (Richard Goldstein)
Subject: First Wort Hopping "Rediscovered"
Was anyone else confused by this little tidbit (with the same title as
my subject above) in the BrewNews section of the Winter `94 Zymurgy?
I've reread it about a dozen times and still can't quite figure out
what they're trying to say. What was especially confusing was the
statement about the two doses of hops normally coming last in the
hopping schedule being added earlier.
For those who don't get Zymurgy, don't read it, or missed this gem:
FIRST WORT HOPPING "REDISCOVERED"
Tests on beer brewed with standard hop additions, and hop
additions to the first wort (first runnings) demonstrated an
improvement in hop aroma and flavor when hops were added to
first runnings. Beer was brewed from identical recipes, except
the two doses of hops normally coming last in the hopping
schedule were added when the first wort just covered the bottom
of the kettle. The first-wort-hopped beers had better foam
quality and, according to taste panel members, had better hoppy
aroma and more balanced bitterness. The beers also had higher
rates of alpha acid isomerization. The scientists conclude that
beer aroma and flavor can be improved by reducing or
eliminating some hop aroma compounds through first wort
hopping. [Brauwelt, 1993, 133(2)]
They seem to be saying that aroma and flavor hops should be added at
the beginning of the boil. No wonder isomerization is better! Is this a
case of large brewery operations being different than homebrewing? Are
there multiple additions of bittering hops early in the boil that
contribute flavor and aroma at major breweries? Is that what they're
talking about? Are they talking about blending of batches from first
runnings and the subsequent runnings?
Thanks.
Rich Goldstein
richardg@cheesewiz.ebay.sun.com
Mtn. View, CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 16:51:04 PST
From: kjohnson@zabriskie.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Johnson)
Subject: brewstores in LA?
A friend of mine from Seattle who lives in LA constantly complains about the
lack of good beer. I may be able to start him down the homebrewing path.
If you know of any good homebrew stores, please email me so I can relay the
information
kj
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 20:08:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Reed <rhreed@icdc.delcoelect.com>
Subject: CaSO4 in lagers
Steve Robinson <Steve.Robinson@analog.com> writes:
>
> One of the problems with soft water, however, is being able to sufficiently
> acidify the mash to the point where the enzymes are happy doing their thing.
<snip>
> Soft water just does not have enough free cations to accomplish this
> unassisted. The Czechs got around this problem by adding a three hour acid
> rest to their mash cycle. Fortunately, modern science provides us with an
> easier method: Calcium!
><snip>
> Calcium (Ca+2) ions
> react with phosphate ions naturally present in the mash, releasing hydrogen
> ions (H+) into solution and acidifying the mash. Calcium may be added to the
> mash in the form of gypsum (calcium sulfate). Adding 1/2 gram of gypsum per
> gallon of mash water will add 31ppm calcium and 74ppm sulfate into solution.
If you are indeed trying to duplicate Pilsen water in your attempts to brew
a Czech Pils, IMO you are better off using food grade acid - phosphoric or
tartaric, etc. - to acidify your mash. I feel that if you are going to
add mineral salts to a Czech Pils, CaCl2 is more appropriate. Personally,
when I brew this style, I use about 1/4 tsp CaCl2 and if necessary further
reduce pH of the mash with food grade phosphoric or lactic acid.
I think small amounts of CaSO4 in many lagers is OK, but in excess, the
sulfate dryness can produce an inappropriate dry, puckery finish. I
believe this effect is more pronounced in lagers with high bitterness.
Cheers,
Rob Reed
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 17:43:16 PST
From: raines@radonc.ucla.edu (Maribeth_Raines)
Subject: Aeration and ergosterol
I have gotten a number of responses asking what I think of Dominick's
theory about ergosterol synthesis being the important factor in
aeration. I saw Dominicks original post a few months ago and did not
entirely agree with it then. In general cell metabolism and all those
biochemical pathways are not that simple. Dominick is right that
ultimately absorbed O2 does end up in sterols including ergosterol and
these are important molecules which determine alcohol tolerance, etc.
All of this comes about because of the activity of a biochemical
intermediate (sort of a carrier molecule) known as acetyl CoA. It is
the acetyl CoA which is essential for both glycolysis and sterol
formation. My understanding is that it is the acetyl coA and the
cytochrome system that acts as a regulator of respiration. It is also
important to remember that dissolved oxygen is consumed rapidly,
within 30 minutes to an hour (respiration ceases after about 6 hours).
Prolonged aeration would allow both respiration and sterol synthesis
to continue longer so more should be formed. The resulting yeast
should be more alcohol tolerant, perhaps a good thing for a barley
wine. I also think that most of us are assuming fermentation cannot
occur concurrently with respiration. I think that this may be a false
assumption. The so-called Crabtree effect suggests that fermentation
can occur in the presence of oxygen if the glucose concentration is
above 1%. Conversely, the reproductive capacity of oxygen depleted
yeast is much slower so not aerating your starter will not lead to
significant increases in cell growth. Studies done in breweries
further suggest that insufficient aeration also effects flavor
profile; I attended a Master Brewers Meeting where someone from Kirin
brewery did a study (I believe his data is published now) where they
found that underaeration produces high ester levels (ethyl acetate or
something like that I don't have my notes here) and deteriorates yeast
repitching performance even if sufficient O2 is supplied the second
time around. So insufficient aeration not only affects the flavor of
your beer it also affects your yeast!! Since breweries typically
inject O2 inline from the wort chiller, oxygen levels higher than 8
ppm are obtained by injecting O2 under pressure or by continuing
aeration after pitching.
A 30 minute aeration prepitching using an aquarium pump will only give
you at best 5-6 ppm of O2. In fact one of the best ways to increase
the oxygen content of your beer is to top it off with some sterile
cooled water!!! If I am brewing an extract beer, I usually do a
concentrated boil and top off with 1-1.5 gallons of pre-boiled and
cooled water. In this case you start off at about 3 ppm. Again I
think it is more practical for homebrewers to pitch the yeast and get
them outgrowing the bacteria then continue to aerate to reach suitable
oxygen levels.
The O2 levels I cited were taken from several brewing articles. The
Siebel yeast strains are notorious for requiring high O2 levels. I
asked George Fix his opinion on this and he thinks it is due to the
way they propagate and maintain their strains! I assume he is
referring to the use of a rich media and continuous aeration and
agitation.
There are several good brewing references which suggest aeration post
pitching (in moderation not 24 hours) is being done. So I have a hard
time believing that it is not beneficial. I routinely aerate for 2-4
hours post pitching. For example, I brewed a 1.054 gravity pale ale
on Saturday, aerated for 4 hours after pitching, it was bubbling away
within 6 hours had slowed down by 48 and was done by 60 hours (<1
bubble/min). I have also fallen asleep and let the aerator run until I
woke up hours later. This was one of the best beers I've made. So my
guess is that the overaerated beer like that posted last week will
come out fine and I wouldn't worry about the rigor of the CO2 release.
I had a barley wine (1.084 O.G.; my version of an Old Nick clone)
ferment out in 3 days!!! F.G. 1.024 going into the secondary!!. The
blow off bubbled so much it sounded like someone was running a
motorcycle outside the house!! It also scrubbed out alot of the hops
(I put at least 3 ounces of Fuggles for bittering ) and I still I had
to add some more to the secondary.
Dominick's theory predicts that you could make a non-alcoholic beer by
continuously aerating the yeast. This is intriguing and I will have
to test it out more carefully. Especially since I have been working
on brewing non-alcoholic beers for awhile. Actually my significant
other (Steve Casselman) suggested this experiment to me independent of
Dominick. I, however, don't think this will work but am willing to
try anything now since I have had limited success brewing
non-alcoholic beer. The method of boiling your beer that has been
posted on the HBD does not work in my hands. (I have been thinking
about writing this up for Brewing Techniques if anyone thinks there is
sufficient interest. I have a fair amount of data and graphs which is
too much to post here.) The reason why I don't think continuous
aeration will give a non-alcoholic beer is because fermentation can
occur in the presence of oxygen. Also I continuously aerate/agitate
my starters by adding a magnetic stir bar and spinning it on a stir
plate. I also always taste the dregs of my starters and they always
smell and taste like yeasty beer, but I haven't measured the actual
alcohol levels yet. still taste and smell like beer, but I haven't
measured the alcohol levels yet.
In summary, my conclusion is pretty much similar to what I said about
diluting starters. What may be good in theory doesn't really work in
practice. As far as I'm concerned the end-product is the determining
factor. That's what makes brewing fun it's both art and science!!
Cheers!
Maribeth (MB) Raines
raines@radonc.ucla.edu
------------------------------
Date: 01 Dec 94 19:19:25 EST
From: "John H. Grant" <74444.3034@compuserve.com>
Subject: Festive Mulled Wine Recipe from Ottawa
Hi Folks!
Here's a timely recipe taken from the Christmas Bulletin put out by Defalco's in
Ottawa:
Negus: Grandma Lipshitz Secret Mulled Wine Recipe
Ingredients:
1 1/2 cups water
2 1/2 cups sugar
4 dozen whole cloves
6 sticks of cinnamon
3 crushed nutmeg
peel of 3 lemons and 2 oranges
4 cups hot lemon or lime juice
4 bottles of red wine
Procedure:
Add to the water the sugar, cloves, cinnamon, nutmeg, and citrus peels. Boil for
5 minutes. Strain the syrup into a large pot, and add the citrus juice. Heat
well. Add the 4 bottles of wine (this is goping to be a good recipe isn't it!).
Keep covered on lowest heat. Serve with lemon slice and/or cinnamon stick.
Comments:
This festive recipe comes from Eric at Defalco's in Ottawa. Eric writes: "One of
my fondest childhood memories was of the sleigh rides we would take at Christmas
time. Family and friends would all go out for hours on a horse drawn sleigh. My
grandmother would stay at home and prepare a secret recipe of Negus (mulled
wine) which had been in the family for generations. We would all come home and
thaw ourselves by her fire while the grown ups would proceed to get 'weird' on
grandma's special brew. That spicy aroma which permeated my grandma's house will
always be the smell of Christmas to me. Now that I'm an adult, a Christmas party
wouldn't be complete without my Grandma's Negus. To make a long story short, on
a recent visit to my grandmother's house I found the recipe and took it. It was
discovered missing and I have since been disowned by my family. I thought I'd
pass on the recipe to you in hopes of being invited over this Christmas."
Enjoy!
John H. Grant
(74444.3034@compuserve.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 21:52:14 CST
From: "Charles S. Jackson" <sjackson@ftmcclln-amedd.army.mil>
Subject: Keg Warning!
Well, a brief word of caution for those who "bout to" (southern phrase)
or in the process of modifying a 15.5 Sankey keg to a brew kettle.
If/when you drill a hole to place a pipe nipple DON'T DRILL AT THE SEAM WHERE
THE KEG BODY MEETS THE SUPPORT RIM. I gave my dearly departed sankey brew
kettle to a welder and told him to weld the SS 1/2 NPT nipple as low as
possible. Well he did just that and placed the hole at what appears to be th
weakest point in the kegs construction. The result was a leaky keg but the
leak was not from the outside but rather from underneath where the support rim
meets the keg body proper. Another welder, who I discovered likes my homebrew,
offered to help make a repair. Several hours of work and many feet of SS wire
later the leak continues. It seems as if the heat of the weld he makes opens
the factory seam weld at the margins, so it becomes an issue of chasing your
tail.
If this convoluted discription is inadequate, and you need/want to know
more, e-mail me for more gory details. The Outlaw Picobrewery will temporarily
suspend plans for the first mash.
Steve
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brewing beer is far more exciting when it is both a hobby AND a felony!
The Alabama Outlaw
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 08:30:28 -0800
From: gbell@ix.netcom.com (Gary Bell)
Subject: Posting Recipes / Gott Cooler prices!
In HBD 1592 Steve Armbrust (Steve_Armbrust@ccm.co.intel.com)
wrote:
>A few days ago, Joe Clayton asked about a recipe for a Grant's
>Imperial Stout clone. My mailer couldn't get to his, and perhaps
>others are interested, so I'll post this here.
I would hazard to say that most HBD readers are interested in the
responses to recipe requests. Why else are we here but to talk
about beer! [:-)] So don't be shy -- if we're worried about
bandwidth let's relagate future discussions of copyright, flame wars,
etc. to email and alt.flame, but keep the beer discussions out in
the open!!!
********
James Giacalone (JGiacalone@vines.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
I purchased my Gott cooler directly from RUBBERMAID Co..
Call 1-800-362-1000. The 5 Gal. cooler is $48.10
part#(51130WL). The 10 Gal. cooler is $63.49 Part#
(51133WL).
Zow!! Check locally. I bought my 5 gallon from HomeBase. I got a
"deal" because it was missing the push-button spigot (aw, shucks!)
and only paid $10, but the regular price was only $22. I don't
recall the exact price on the 10 gallon but it was on the order of
$30. I don't know if you've got HomeBase back east, but check
out the big hardware and department chains, including Wal-Mart -
you've Gott to be able to do better than Rubbermaid prices!
Cheers,
Gary
- --
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Bell "Quis dolor cui dolium?"
Lake Elsinore, CA
(909) 674-3637
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 09:49:40 -0700
From: Larry Meyer <Meyer@msscc.med.utah.edu> (Larry Meyer)
Subject: Grain Allergies
Fred Waltman and Rich Scotty have talked about brewing without wheat, rye
or barley due to grain allergies. I have a serious interest in allergies to
grain- unfortunately one of the most allergy producing combinations is
pizza and beer. If anyone has comments or (especially) alternative
recipies, I would be very interested. Reply by e-mail and I'll summarize if
there is stuff of general interest.
Laurence J. Meyer, MD, PhD
Dermatology, Univ of Utah
meyer@msscc.med.utah.edu
Phone (801) 581-7837
Fax (801) 581-6484
------------------------------
Date: 01 Dec 94 18:59:34 EST
From: "KEVIN A. KUTSKILL" <75233.500@compuserve.com>
Subject: Genetically Engineered Yeast
>From the "for what it's worth department"--a recent article by
David Holzman in a recent issue of ASM News:
- ---------------------------------------------
"Engineered Yeasts Available but Not Yet Used For Brewing"
Brewers could reduce the time it takes to get beer to the market,
from the current 3 to 7 weeks to 2 weeks, by taking advantage of
genetically engineered yeasts that are being developed in Germany and
Japan. However, concern about public reactions to such changes
apparently is keeping brewers from introducing these engineered yeast
strains into commercial use, according to Ulf Stahl, professor of
microbiology and genetics at Berlin University of Technology in Berlin,
Germany; Reisuke Takahashi, general manager of Kirin Brewery's Central
Laboratories for Key Technology in Yokohama, Japan; and others who
described recent developments in this field during the August meeting of
the American Chemical Society held in Washington, D.C.
Along with ethanol and some minor components that add flavor to
beer, yeast fermentation also produces alpha-acetolactate. It quickly is
oxidatively decarboxylated to form a compound that imparts a sweet,
buttery flavor, which most beer drinkers beside Czechoslovakians do not
like. To overcome this problem following fermentation, most beer is
allowed to mature, or to lager, for 2 to 6 weeks, depending on conditions.
This much time is required for enzymes in the yeast to convert most of the
immediately produced diacetyl to acetoin, a innocuous compound with no
effect on flavor. "Lagering means your money sits for six weeks in the
cellar," says Stahl.
By using genetic engineering to short-circuit the alpha-acetolactate to
acetoin pathway in brewer's yeast, the German and Japanese scientists say
they will be able to reduce lagering time to about one week. For example,
the researchers at Kirin cloned the gene for acetolactate decarboxylase
(ALDC), an enzyme which quickly catalyzes conversion of the buttery
diacetyl to acetoin, and inserted this gene into the yeast. The gene donor is
Acetobacter aceti, a bacterium used to make vinegar.
"Using this transformant we carried out a laboratory-scale
fermentation," says Takahashi. The transformed yeast holds the diacetyl
concentration to 0.1 mg/liter, compared to 0.6 mg/liter for the
nonengineered yeast. The reason that any diacetyl appears in the beer is
that some of the diacetyl, or its precursor, alpha-acetolactate, leaks out of
the yeast and into the beer before the enzyme, locked inside the yeast cells,
can catalyze its transformation, he notes.
By taking a different approach to the genetic engineering of the yeast,
the research group at Berlin University appears to have eliminated even the
residual diacetyl. Thus, by including in the expression cassette a gene that
enables the cell to secrete the decarboxylase enzyme into the brew along
with its diacetyl substrate, the conversion to acetoin is more efficient,
according to Stahl.
Aside from the dearth of diacetyl, the beers produced by the
transformed yeast were virtually identical to those produced by
untransformed yeast. "Transformants showed the same characteristics as
the parental strain in all tests," says Takahashi. "There was no difference
in fermentation profiles." There was also no difference in concentrations of
components such as saccharides, from which the yeasts derive most of their
energy. "The concentrations of maltose and maltotriose were slightly lower
in the beer brewed with the transformant," he adds, "but this degree of
difference is sometimes observed in the standard brewing process."
Importantly, there is no difference between the flavor of the finished
product and that of beer made with unengineered yeast but lagered for
longer periods. Moreover, the transformed yeast maintains its ability to
produce the ALDC enzyme through eight successive fermentations.
Will the transformed yeast be used commercially for brewing beer
any time soon? Takahashi dances around this question. "Our mission is to
develop innovative or revolutionary technology and transfer those obtained
in the research laboratory to a business division [of Kirin]," he says. "I
am not in a position to make clear the answer...but I wish Kirin will
commercialize those yeasts in the future."
Use of genetically engineered yeast to brew beer is a bigger problem
for the Germans than for the Japanese, according to Stahl. Public
opposition to any sort of genetic engineering is so strong that the process is
unlikely to be approved anytime soon. For instance, although Germany's
diabetics take genetically engineered insulin, the product may not be
manufactured locally but must be imported from abroad, he notes.
A. Guinness Son and Company, a brewery based in Dublin, Ireland,
also has developed genetically engineered yeast, according to Alvin Young,
science advisor and scientific director, Office of Agricultural Biotechnology
at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Once again, despite technical
achievements, the company seems to be in no hurry to bring its improved
yeast strains into commercial use. "I don't know when we will have a
recombinant DNA beer to face the public," he says.
- ---------------------------------------------
Personally, I can't believe that the only benefit of lagering is to reduce
the alpha-acetolactate levels (though I'll be the first to admit I have a
lot to learn about brewing). Still, I wonder how long it will take the
U.S. Megaswill brewers to embrace these new beasties.
Kevin Kutskill, Clinton Twp., MI
75233.500@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:08 EST
From: CSS2@OAS.PSU.EDU (SPEAKER.CURTIS)
Subject: Cranberry Ale caveat
After tasting the SA Cranberry Lambic (which it isn't), I decided to try to
make a cranberry ale of my own. I would like to share a word of warning to
anyone else out there about using cranberries in a brew. Most recipes that I
saw (in Cat's Meow) call for pureed cranberries. I made a simple beer with a
box of NW Weizen syrup, 1 lb. of DME, 0.5 lb crystal and 2 oz of Hallertaur
hops. I put two 12 oz. bags of fresh cranberries in my food processor and ran
it until the were coarsly chopped (READ NOT PUREED!). I then put them in the
bottom of my primary, poured in the hot wort and topped up with water to make
5 gallons. I used Edme yeast (not that it matters here).
Last night I went to rack the beer to my carboy. With every other fruit beer
that I have made (rasberry, blackberry, peach) the fruit floats to the top of
the fermenting beer, making racking fairly easy. With the cranberries, half
of them floated to the top and the rest sank! Consequently, once the siphon
was started, the largish chunks of cranberry clogged the end of my racking
cane serval times, requiring that I take the whole mess apart, clean out the
gunk, and restart the siphon. After about 30 minutes, several choice words
about cranberries, and 5 shots at racking, I had about 3.5 gal. of beer
siphoned over. I gave up, put the airlock on the carboy and dumped the
remaining 1.5 gal. of beer (along with the #@$& cranberries into my garbage
disposal).
The moral to the story is: If it says puree the cranberries, PUREE THE DAMN
CRANBERRIES!!! I will not make this mistake twice {:*)
Happy Holidays
Curt
css2@oas.psu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 07:12:38 -0700
From: rhanson@nmsu.edu (Robin Hanson)
Subject: more Historical Brews
I remember reading somthing about British Army brews from the time of the
French and Indian/Seven Years War. The army had what was called a "small
beer" to be drunk at the end of long marches. This apparently was about 2%
alchohol and was made mainly from pine sap. Sounds good, do not try this at
home. Does anyone else have some good old recipes. This one is 1750s.
Robin Hanson
Rhanson@nmsu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 08:36:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Craig Amundsen" <amundsen@molbio.cbs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: FOOP
Hi -
I just can't resist adding my $ 1/50 to the discussion of FOOP. One detail
that I have yet to see mentioned is that by the time we get to the pouring the
beer step, essentially all the protein in solution is ALREADY denatured.
Boiling for upwards of an hour is going to denature most proteins (proteins
derived from undersea vent dwellers excepted). Further, those proteins/peptides
not preciptated in the hot and cold breaks are going to be very short fragments
of proteins. So, worrying about the "native" configuration of the putative
FOOP constituents is missing the mark. It may be that in the act of forming a
head these peptides aggregate and so lose their FMO (Foam More than Once)
potential, but I don't think that is the case. Pouring is much less of a
disturbance to the solution than boiling and I doubt it would do anything to
HFP (Head Forming Proteins) that has not already occured. I would like to see
a citation for FOOP before I will believe. Finally, I contribute a datum: I
poured some beer (that had foamed) from one glass into another; a new head
formed.
I also have a question. When I started brewing I bought the 3 piece air locks
because at $2.50 they must be better than the $1.00 S-shaped locks B^). I
usually do my primary in a 6.5 gallon carboy without blow-off. I am now the
not-so-proud owner of a couple of cases of band-aid porter due to the carboy
inhaling the Chlorox water from a 3 piece lock. I am now a big fan of S-shaped
locks (and they're cheap too!). The question: is there some advantage to using
the 3 peice locks that makes it worth paying 2.5 times as much for them?
- Craig
- --
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Craig Amundsen | DILBERT - Sometimes I wonder if it's ethical |
| amundsen@molbio.cbs.umn.edu | to do these genetic experiments. But |
| (612) 624-2704 | I rationalize it because it will |
| 250 Biological Sciences | improve the quality of life. |
| 1445 Gortner Avenue | DOGBERT - What are you making? |
| Saint Paul, MN 55108 | DILBERT - Skunkopotamus. |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 08:24:24 EST
From: beb@pt.com (Bruce Buck)
Subject: Re: Clumping Dry Malt
Kevin asks about dry malt clumping when adding to the boil. I always had good
luck adding the DME to the cold water while it was being heated. It will
dissolve OK in the cold water and there is no steam which I found is a major
clumping culprit. By the time the water heats all the DME should be dissolved
with plenty of stirring.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:10:19 -0600
From: pmiller@mmm.com (Phil Miller)
Subject: Mea culpa
Whoops! Of course the polystyrene backbone is -C-C- and not
-C-H- as I mistakenly posted. (I knew that, honest!) It's a damn
good thing my old advisor doesn't read this digest. :-)
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that it's very difficult
to break main chain bonds in polymers in solution. It seems that
this is irrelevant since the denaturing process involves a change
in main chain configuration rather than breaking apart the proteins
themselves.
In yesterday's digest, someone posted the FOOP process as explained to
them by a microbiologist. (Sorry, I forgot your name...)
Let me see if I've got this straight: The proteins are folded into
a compact shape and held together via hydrogen bonding. (The hydrophobic
end is in the middle, right? That would be the lowest energy state for
the molecule dissolved in water.) When the protein is exposed to a gas/
liquid interface, it unfolds and the hydrophobic end jams itself onto
the interface. The protein doesn't return to the it's folded state in
solution because all those hydrogen bonding sites are now bonded to
water molecules. The proteins then glom together and form miscelles:
a little sphere with all those hydrophobic ends in the center to keep
them as far away as possible from the beer.
(The above description made some assumptions based on my understanding
of the denaturing post. My understanding could be flawed or there
could have been some errors in the description of denaturing... Having
said that, let me go WAY out on a limb here...)
Question: Why do the proteins drop back into solution after they've
been stretched out? Wouldn't they rather hang out at the liquid/gas
interface indefinately?
Question: If the miscelles were large enough they would scatter light,
right? Is there a haze associated with rough treatment of beer?
Phil Miller
pmiller@mmm.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 10:50:31 EST
From: "Lee A. Menegoni" <lmenegon@nectech.com>
Subject: Inverted fermentors
Inverted fermenters are used to create a small scale conic-cylindrical
fermentation vessel like one would find in a brew pub or microbrewery.
This configuration allows the brewer to regularly draw off spent yeast and
trub. This yeast can be used to pitch a subsequent batch or saved. This
action gets these products away from the fermenting beer and allows the
brewer to do primary and secondary fermentation in a singel vessel. The
device with metal stand is similar to the Brew Cap which has been available
to home brewers for years at half the cost, it doesn't include a stand but
has instructions on how to make one from milk crates and 5 gallon buckets.
Lee Menegoni
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 08:43:00 -0800
From: Richard B. Webb <rbw1271@appenine.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Homebrew kit
I apologize in advance to those persons not living near a COSTCO.
If you don't know, then you probably don't...
I guess I have some crow to eat. (Yuck. Feather brew...) I had been
asked my opinion about this 'beer kit that COSTCO' has. I assumed
that it was the cheapo sort of beer kit similar to the one that I
had gotten for Xmas a few years ago. The classic beer in a bag kit.
I said don't bother. However, I wanted to check it out. To my
surprize, it was the Alephenalia Micro-Brewery in a box, put out
by the folks who brought you Pike Place Ale, and Liberty malt
supply. On further investigation, it DOES seem like everything that
a newbie might want for starting out in beer making. Everything
except the brewing pot. Now I'm not going to make an ad for
Liberty malt or COSTCO, but from now on, if someone asks me
about the COSTCO beer kit, I will recommend it hartily. Especially
since the COSTCO price is 10$ less than the Liberty malt supply
catalog.
Gotta go gargle this fowl taste out of my mouth now...
Rich Webb, Kent, WA USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 08:55:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Baier <BAIER_T@SALT.PLU.EDU>
Subject: Quick Brit Fix Needed
HELP! My brother-in-law (a dear fellow, appropriately
appreciative of fine fermentables) found out yesterday
that he is going to Manchester, UK on business...next
Tuesday.
I need quick, private e-help on what he should drink, and
where he should go.
Your kindness and assistance, as always, are greatly
appreciated.
Tom Baier
Tacoma, WA
BAIER_T@SALT.PLU.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:10:24 -0500
From: Bill Szymczak <wszymcz%ulysses@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Subject: aeration and foam
Although the foam discussion started with blowoffs,
with all the discussion on aeration it seems
natural to ask:
Does aerating the wort by either injecting air or oxygen
or shaking the cooled wort also cause denaturing? If so
it seems impossible to make a well attenuated beer with
low fusels, and good head formation and retention.
Bill Szymczak
Gaithersburg, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 13:17:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Mallett <mmallett@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
Subject: anchor christmas recipe???
Hello all fellow beer enthusiasts. I WANT TO BREW MY OWN BEER !!!! I
have managed a small pub in Boston for three years, we carry 75
different bottles and 8 taps(only the rightious stuff!!), and even
though I get one hell of a discount(if you know what I mean) I want to
start brewing. If there is anyone out there who can email me some sort
of direction to take( I know the directions to the supply place) so I
can be on my way I would appreciate it. I have a 20 gal. glass
carboy(used to be a terrarium) that I'm hoping to use do you know if I
can buy brewing stuff to go with that?
Also for my first brewing experience I was looking to do
something on the lines of anchor christmas(amazing out of the free kegs
at work,whoops did I say free??(fringe benefits))
CAN ANYBODY HELP ME GET GOING ??
PLEASE HELP I'M JONEZIN FOR A HOMEBREW!!!!!
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Mallett
ie:King Fish Of Daze And Knights(King of the KNIGHTS OF GINUNGAGAP)
ADDRESS:mmallett@lynx.neu.edu
THANX TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD BREW!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 16:28:44 GMT
From: rmoucka@OMN.COM (RONALD MOUCKA)
Subject: gyle priming
Brewers,
A couple of quick questions: About six weeks ago I brewed a
Barley Wine that I would like to prime with gyle. I have
found that it gives me a smoother more consistant
carbonation level, and the yeast seems to cake out a little
better with this method too. I set aside a couple of quarts
of wort from the bottom of the boiler in a pressurized,
sanitized, and refrigerated PET bottle. Since it came from
the bottom of the boiler, it's about 1/3 trub. Questions
are... will sitting on the trub all this time hurt the
priming gyle? Also, should I re-boil the wort and cool it
prior to priming just to be safe? I will of course rack it
off the trub first. I've never re-boiled before, but I saw
it mentioned here a few weeks ago, and it sounded like a
good idea.
Thanks for your help.
.:.
:.:.
/|~~~~|
(_| D |
| B | Ron Moucka, Brewmaster
`----' DayBar Brewing, Ltd.
"It's not so much an indication of our legal structure
as it is a reflection of our abilities."
PS I normally use Papazian's formula for priming with gyle,
except I change the 12 to 15, as I like slightly higher
carbonation levels. I don't think I'll change it this time
though, and may even go a little lower, since this stuff
could be in the bottle several years. Make sense?
This message created on OMN BBS (303) 667-1149 data
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 94 12:09:36 MST
From: npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM
Subject: Utilization Factors
Micah writes:
>Also I noticed a post about hopping rates and the effect of temperature on
>hop isomeri-
>zation. It was mentioned that supposedly only heat is a factor in these
>reactions.
>However I have observed situations which would indicate that factors other
>than boiling
>alone can be effecting hop reactions.
Well? Don't just leave us hanging! What factors? I would assume things
like the altitude (but this really just affects boiling temperature), the
vigor of the boil (a mechancial action), the shape of the kettle (related
to the mechanical action), use of hop bags or other in-the-boil-hop-containers
(again related to mechanical action), the form of the hops, and the gravity
of the wort. Now, if you're talking about the entire beer-making process,
then you have to throw in the yeast (high flocculators might pull out more
iso-alphas with them), chilling (more break will pull out more iso-alphas),
filtering (similar), and I'm sure some other factors. I'd be interested in
what you've seen, Micah.
On a related note, what do you think about the idea that *no utilization*
happens once the boil is stopped? I'm talking about the time when the wort
is still hot, but is cool enough to not have the mechanical action of the
boil. I brought this up a few days ago and got no reponse. This was passed
on to me second-hand and was said to come from Mark Garetz, but I can't
verify whether or not he actually said it. I find it hard to believe and my
own brewing changes have indicated to me that it is not true. Then again, I
could be wrung.
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 10:58:23 -0700
From: P Brooks <pbrooks@rig.rain.com>
Subject: RE: Fermentor Geometry & RIMS?
Warning: I make no claims for the following, it's only one espresso into the
morning, and it is afterall Frdiay, but with that disclaimer...
The following snips caught my eye:
> From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp@mcst.ae.ge.com>
> Subject: Fermentor Geometry
[snip]
> If this was the ambient temperature, rather than the internal (beer)
> temperature, perhaps the geometry difference (surface/volume and
thin-walled
> soda keg vs thick-walled quarter barrel, and likely better convective heat
> transfer coefficents on both the beer and air sides for the taller vessel)
> changed the heat transfer from the fermenting beer enough to change its
> internal temperature significantly? The soda keg will certainly ferment
> cooler than the quarter for the same ambient temperature, and, it is well
> known that different strains quit at different temperatures, and that a few
> degrees can be significant for any given strain.
[snip]
And here's the way my pre-caffinated line of reasoning wandered:
The temperature differential between the different portions of the ferment and
(presumably) within different areas of the fermentor reminded me of some
comments from several HBD's a week or so ago about someone's new digital
thermometer and the variations in different portions of the mash. One
solution to the variations in mash temperature is RIMS. So, has anyone ever
heard of/done a recirculating temperature controlled ferment. Particularly
for me since it's winter and the basement is really quite cold this would
address how to keep the ferment at an optimal temp. As long as both inlet and
outlet for the recirculation were beneath the surface of the wort, there
wouldn't be any problems with additional aeration of the wort after pitching
yeast. And perhaps the recirculation would help in attenuation. I'm assuming
one would only recirculate a primary, and rather slowly at that, and then let
everything settle out in secondary.
So Okay - there's the idea. Would someone care to shoot some holes in it for
me :-). TIA
ciao,
pb
- --
http://www.rdrop.com/~pbrooks/index.html
pbrooks@rig.rain.com --- Renaissance Information Group
"A 16th Century Paradigm for using 21st Century Technology"
------------------------------
Date: 02 Dec 1994 08:36:51 GMT
From: gmccarthy@dayna.com (Gary McCarthy)
Subject: Re(n + 1):Labeling of Brews
A couple replies came that suggested writing the number right on the cap.
That is a great idea, if you get plain caps. But I just buy the cheapest,
and usually those are the overruns, surplus or whatever we call them. I can
get like 1000 self-adhesive stickers for, whatever, $2 or so. And that is
what, enough for 2 years, <snicker> or so. But the point is, really (to get
back to Andy Walshs original post), mark your bottles after filling in some
way(or pay the piper). I'm not a label kind of guy, even when I do give some
away. I just include a list of the beers in the numbered bottles. My
friends are always greatful for the tastes.
And to end just a personal observation of the HBD - Geez, some of you guys
are so critical (or maybe precise is a better word), so lighten up! To me,
brewing does not have to be exact, the best one wants to do is good enough.
The beer will prob turn out just as good if you don't worry about having
everything exactly right. Of course, I believe sterilization is the most
important part of the brewing process. The first recipe, then the first
all-grain brew can be very difficult, so just do what you can, then the next
time try something to improve, or reduce your work. Remember your brew is at
least 10 times better than what the brewing companies are trying to sell us,
and you know exactly (well for all-grain brewers anyway) what goes into your
beers. Keep Brewing!!
Gary
EMail: Gary_McCarthy@dayna.com
Walls impede my progress
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1596, 12/05/94
*************************************
-------
