Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1645
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/01/31 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1645 Tue 31 January 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Re: Kegging (RWaterfall)
BBC Hops (MIKE_MIGNAULT)
Another glass warning (doug)
Re: Wort oxygenation (Dion Hollenbeck)
iodophors again (Pierre Jelenc)
re: Iodophor, aeration, lactose (Eric W. Miller)
RE:Wort Aeration/Hop Back/Aeration Foam/Chiller/Pressure Siphon (Patrick G. Babcock)
Harsh bitterness problem solved (Phil Miller)
Hop utilization & SUDS 3.1 (long) (David Draper)
Water Tests/Gelatinizing temp (Doug Flagg)
Steam Generators (MikeB10468)
Adding Hops to Hopped Extract (Greg Hawley)
10 gallon fermentors (Ed Hitchcock)
P.U. Clone (A. J. deLange)
2 Questions (JWARD)
Strange Brew? (Tim Ihde)
Water Tests/Gelatinizing temp (Doug Flagg)
European Homebrewing Supplies (Robert Bloodworth ZFBTO - MT0054)
Utilization, Rager vs Garetz (Fredrik Stahl)
******************************************************************
* 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.
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
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 22:12:12 -0500
From: RWaterfall@aol.com
Subject: Re: Kegging
In HBD 1642 W.A.Wallinger outlined his kegging procedure. While there's
nothing really wrong with what you're doing, I think you're worrying too
much. I've been kegging for about 2 years and haven't had any problems with
a lot less work.
Pressure testing is a good idea with a new (to you) keg but after that you
"pressure test" your keg every time you fill it. All of the leaks that I've
had were from the lid being slightly skewed and you just have to wiggle it
around a little until you can't hear CO2 coming through the regulator. I
don't use soap though. I'd probably get it in my beer.
Sanitizing: I use a gallon of B-Brite sol'n and push it all out the faucet.
Then I rinse with a gallon of cold water (per the B-Brite label) and push
all of it out through the faucet. I think I've seen discussion here that hot
water isn't as sanitary as cold water. This makes sense to me since the
infections we all worry about supposedly love the 70-140 deg F range. My hot
H2O is in that range and the cold isn't. I like your triple rinsing though.
Funny, I did it all the time when I did lab work but I guess that's one old
habit that died.
Filling: The good thing with pushing all the rinse water out the faucet is
that it leaves the keg full of CO2. Since CO2 is heavier than air and I'm
not swinging the keg around I shuoldn't get much oxygen in there. After
maybe 15 kegs filled I haven't had any oxidation or contamination (knock on
wood).
RDWHAHB,
Bob Waterfall
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 21:12:00 -0800
From: MIKE_MIGNAULT@HPATC1.desk.hp.com
Subject: BBC Hops
>From: rmoucka@omn.com (Ronald Moucka)
>About 3 months ago I sent Jim and the good folks at Boston
>Brewing Co (tm) a check for $12.00 for a pound of the
>illusive Mittlefrueh hops rumored to be available to
>homebrewers. Although the check has not been cashed, I
>never heard a word from them. Has anyone else out there
>tried this and received anything from them? Unfortunately,
>I don't seem to be able to put my hands on their address or
>phone. Can anyone help me here?
I wrote to the BBC around the 19th of October, after reading an article
in the Ale Street News?{:/. They mentioned that BBC was showing their
appreciation to the real beer drinkers (aka Homebrewers) by offering, on
a first come, first serve basis, FREE Hallertau Mittelfrueh hops. I wrote
to them, and LO AND BEHOLD, 2.5 months later received in the mail a
package of hops weighing 400 grams. They were pellets, by the way. You
can reach them at the following address (sorry, no phone #).
Noble Hops
Boston Beer Company
The Brewery
30 Germania Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02130
Hoppy brewing,
Michael Mignault
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 06:55:54 -0500
From: doug%baldr.dnet@dxi.nih.gov
Subject: Another glass warning
Fellow brewers:
Robert Rybczynski <robert@umbc.edu> writes:
> To make a long story short, I did the following: filled the
> carboy as high as I could with boiled-then-cooled water, put
> a solid stopper in the mouth of the carboy, put the carboy in
> the kitchen sink, and used the sprayer to gently spray hot water
> onto the carboy were the airspace was in the carboy. This
> increased the air pressure in the carboy...
<preach mode on>
>From personal experience, I would like to urge people to not change the
temperature of a glass carboy if you have any other option (in my case,
the option would have been to show some patience). I managed to have one
shatter by doing something similar to what Robert describes, and I had done
it successfully many times before. I was lucky enough to only lose a 6.5
gallon carboy and 5 gallons of beer, but believe me, I could have been much
worse. And in fact, I had seen others warn of the dangers of glass, and
always knew I was much to smart to let it happen to me :-).
<preach mode OFF>
doug
doug@baldr.niaaa.nih.gov
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 08:03:13 PST
From: hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: Re: Wort oxygenation
I, too, ferment in soda kegs, albeit 5 gal. size. I use an immersion
chiller, so when I transfer into my fermenter the temp is right at
pitching temp. I use O2 from a welding rig. I have an adapter that
plugs into the oxygen quick disconnect on my oxygen bottle, has a 3
foot CO2 hose on it and then has a pinlock liquid quick disconnect on
the other end. When the wort covers the end of the dip tube, about a
quart in the fermenter, I crack the oxygen regulator valve until I get
gentle bubbling, about 3 or 4 per second. Yes, I know about the
difficulty of dissolving oxygen this way, but it helps some. When I
get about two quarts of wort in the fermenter, I pitch my yeast. All
the while the fermenter is filling, oxygen is bubbling. The head
space of the keg is completely filled with oxygen. When filling is
done, I merely put the lid in place, close the bail to secure and turn
up the pressure on the oxygen to 10 psi. Let it go until it stops
bubbling, which is about 5 minutes. Remove the quick disconnect from
the keg and *then* reduce the pressure on the oxygen regulator (not
the other way around!!!). I then sit down on a child's folding chair
with the keg on my lap and rock it back and forth sloshing it gently
for 5 minutes or so. Set it aside for 2 hours. After 2 hours, I
bleed off pressure slowly and attach a blowoff tube. I have never
experienced any significant rise in pressure in the 2 hour period and
the oxygen seems to have dissolved enough to greatly benefit my
yeast's reproduction needs. Of course, I pitch *large* healthy
slurries of cultured yeast, so that contributes to quick fermentation
start times (on the order of about 4 hours).
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: hollen@megatek.com
Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 11:53:54 EST
From: Pierre Jelenc <pcj1@columbia.edu>
Subject: iodophors again
In HBD #1643, Zeek67@aol.com says:
> I rinse the iodophors despite the claim that it is not necessary. These
> agents are powerful enough where they could effect yeast growth if they
> do not fully evaporate.
There is still a lot of misconceptions about iodophors. They are not
"powerful" in the sense of chlorine bleach or peroxides; indeed iodine is
a much less powerful oxidizing agent than either of these.
There is no way that traces of iodophors could have any effect whatsoever
on yeast growth, because the second the wort hit the iodine, there is NO
iodine left. None whatsoever. Nada. The iodine reacts instantaneously
with organic matter and is gone for ever. That is why iodophors work only
on clean surfaces: organic contaminants will consume the iodine before it
could attack the germs.
There is no need to wait for the iodophor solution to evaporate, all that
is needed is to drip it dry, i.e. drain any puddles of liquid from the
container. Droplets are OK.
Pierre
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 12:20:28 -0500
From: ac051@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller)
Subject: re: Iodophor, aeration, lactose
In HBD #1643, Zeek writes:
> I rinse the iodophors despite the claim that it is not necessary. These
> agents are powerful enough where they could effect yeast growth if they do
> not fully evaporate.
Zeek, try reducing your concentration to 12.5 ppm. Sure iodophors are
powerful, but think about how little 12.5 ppm solution you'll be leaving on
the walls of your fermenter, and consider that they'll be diluted with several
gallons of wort! I drip dry my carboys as much as possible, and typically
leave some sanitizer solution on the walls. I have had no stuck fermentations
or off flavors that I would attribute to iodophor use.
Al Pacifico talks about wort aeration:
> I brew in 10 gallon quanitities and do my first stage in a modified 10
> gallon Cornelius-type keg.
I'd start by using shorter brew lengths. Try 7 or 8 gallon batches in the
10 gallon fermenter to allow sufficient headspace.
> My wort is chilled (possibly too much)
Have you measured the pitching temperature? You don't report it in your
post. Therefore, we can only assume that it is the same as the pitching
temperature you had when you were getting good starts using a carboy.
On your aeration solutions:
I would rank solution 1 the best. Switch to shorter brew lengths, since
you'll be filling the headspace with kraeusen foam during a normal ferment
anyway.
Solutions 2 and 3 both introduce hot side aeration (HSA) problems, which as
discussed at length in previous digests can lead to staling.
I'm not sure about the physics of solution 4, but it sounds like you'd run
the risk of killing your yeast with too much pressure. You might be better
off bubbling the oxygen through the cooled wort and allowing foam to form
on top, but in this case you'll also have to brew smaller batches.
Myette asks about lactose. The why of lactose is that it is not fermentable,
so it can be used to brew sweet beers. It was (is?) traditionally used in
milk stout.
I have problems with lactose tolerance, so I've never brewed with it. I
wouldn't expect much difference between adding it during the boil and
adding it at bottling time.
Robert Rybczynski says:
> Last night I had to shake a half-full carboy to aerate the wort. When I
> was done, a lather about 1 foot thick had formed. This created a problem
> with getting the rest of the water into the carboy.
Robert, if you're not doing a full wort boil, why not fill the carboy half
way with cooled water first, shake that to aerate, and then add cooled wort.
You'll get more dissolved oxygen in the water than in the thick wort and you
won't have to worry about the possibility of infection from bacteria from
your sink's hose.
Eric Miller
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:58:19 EST
From: Patrick G. Babcock <usfmchql@ibmmail.com>
Subject: RE:Wort Aeration/Hop Back/Aeration Foam/Chiller/Pressure Siphon
*** Resending note of 01/28/95 13:54
* Man's mind, stretched by a new idea, never goes back to its *
* original dimension. - Oliver Wendell Holmes *
Subject: RE:Wort Aeration/Hop Back/Aeration Foam/Chiller/Pressure Siphon
In HB1643...
-=> Al Pacifico asks about aeration of large quantities of wort with direct
oxygen..
Most of the process you have described involve aeration of hot wort. This will
most effectively oxidize your wort; leaving little or no oxygen in the cooled
wort (O2 doesn't dissolve well in hot liquids - particularly at boiling
temps).
I use the aeration cane method (venturies in the cane leading into the
fermentor). Using gravity siphons, I have never had wort pour from the holes.
Under pressure... ...well, just be careful not to drive the pressure too high.
Connect a hose from the fermentor vent into a sink or drain to take any foam
forced out during filling.
-=> Al also ponders a poser regarding hop backs...
Hop backs are generally used on the hot side. This will effectively cook any
beasties hitchhiking on the hops.
Hops are also said to demonstrate antiseptic properties. The relative safety
of dry-hopping has been credited to this property.
In summary, as CP is so famous for saying: Don't worry...
-=> Robert Rybczynski relays his experience in reducing aeration foam...
Interesting solution; however, I've found a ten minute wait is about all it
takes for this foam to fall. Just put a sanitized stopper in the neck and sit
back a bit. Beats having to swing the carboy up to the counter/sink risking
collisions along the way... ...Just my $.02.
-=> Les Wood asks about wort chillers for 5 gallon batches...
I use 20' of 3/8" diameter copper tubing. SS can be used, but it will not
transfer heat as effectively as Cu. Be sure to either move the chiller in the
wort, or the wort around the chiller (stir) to get the most efficient cooling.
-=> General 'chatter' about assisted siphoning... ...Much ado about nothing?
IMHO, starting the siphon by applying pressure to the source tank is about the
safest. I have yet to see a stopper or 'cap' designed for a carboy that
wouldn't pop off under positive internal pressure. Attempting to start siphon
by drawing from the target tank is creating a lot of extra work (have to draw
a lot more due to the incredible 'headspace' available in an empty 5 gal
carboy, plus that in the full one), and does pose a risk (IMO: SMALL risk) of
implosion.
The keys are (1) Don't clamp your stopper or cap to the carboy and (2) use a
reasonable amount of pressure. Start low and increase until the beer rolls
over the top of your cane. Then remove the pressure source. Connecting a hose
between the outlet of the target and source tanks is neat, but only if there
is little headspace in the source tank. Otherwise, the CO2 on the top of the
beer will still be there as the liquid level travels downward.
?????? ****** A Question! ****** ??????
Could anyone suggest a lab manual or textbook that includes good pictures or
drawings of yeast, and guidelines for characterizing them under a microscope?
A text specific to yeast would be the best...
TIA!
Best regards, and Brew On!
Patrick G. Babcock
President, Chief Taste-Tester, and Consumer Numero Uno
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery
BrewBeerd@AOL.COM
PGBABCOCK@AOL.COM
NVVP67C@PRODIGY.COM
USFMCHQL@IBMMAIL.COM
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 95 14:48:35 CST
From: Phil Miller <C616063@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject: Harsh bitterness problem solved
A few weeks ago I posted to the HBD about a problem I was having with harsh
bitterness. I had brewed a variation of a brown ale (I called it a Pete's
clone) and a cream ale. The cream ale was a recipe I developed off of a
James Page catalog and from TCJH by Papazian. The Pete's was a recipe I
had excellent results from this summer. However, when I brewed them this
winter/fall, I had a nasty bitterness problem. I got several very helpful
suggestions from several readers and used them and my intuition to trace the
problem.
The amounts of hops that I was using was not enough in and of itself to
create the problem, so I thought that their might have been a probem with my wa
ter. I live in a rural area and get groundwater from my tap: hard as a rock.
My hardness was 323 ppm with a pH of 7.4. I also had bicarbonates of 429 ppm.
Since I am an extract brewer at this time, I felt that the hardness may extract
some excess bitterness from the specialty grains (more on these later). I
took to preboiling my water, cooling it, and using it to steep my grains.
I have a large amount of chalky residue at the bottom of the pot after
boiling, and I made sure to get as little as possible into my water.
A chemist friend gave me some almost pure water from his lab, which I used to
brew my wheat beer.
My sulfates are only 51 ppm, so this is not too much, according to
Papazians THBC (The Homebrewer's Companion), to draw excessive bitterness
from the hops. The other minerals in my water were not too much or too
little to mar my brews.
I checked my brew pot, a stainless steel 16 qt pot. I noticed no signs of rust
that may impart some flavor in the wort during the boil.
After going to the local brew pub abd tasting a smoked porter, I noticed a
very similar bitterness to that in my Brown and cream ales. I use an
electric stove, the bottom of my pot is not the thickest, and I thought that I
might be scorching the malt. So I fashioned a trivet on which to place my
brew pot for the boil. This was a fiasco. I tried placing a thick metal grill
on top of the coil, about 1/4" above the surface of the coil, the grill being
placed on pieces of wet pine wrapped in aluminum foil.
"Burn bay burn! Brewhouse inferno!"
Well, that did not work. I placed the grill on something else (can't remember
what) and proceeded to melt the grill (had a couple of little metal coins to
remind me of that. I finally placed an oven rack on two pieces of wood
placed far enough away from the heat source so as not to burn. I did not
scorch my malt, but I did not get a good rolling boil. Since scorching,
or crystallizing, usually only affects the color of the beer and would only
affect the taste if the malt actually got burned, I decided that the hassle of
using a trivet to be unneeded. All I needed to do was to be careful not to
fry the malt.
So I checked my water and fixed it. I checked my hops. I checked my brew pot.
I also changed the way I used specialty grains. I used to use CP's boiling
method, but Douglas Jones steered me clear of that method although I admit I
was not fully convinced until CP's new book (sorry Doug :) ) outlined the
process I now use. Instead of bringing the specialty grains to a boil, I
steep them for 30 minutes in 165-170 degree F water. While this was not the
cause of my harsh bitterness, I can certainly taste the reults: a much
smoother brew - a definite improvement over the old method.
But I don't feel any of these old methods were causes of the problem, and
none of the new methods solved the problem.
After brewing CP's Elbro Nerkte Brown Ale, I had problems with the hops.
I had put the hops in hop bags, and when I took them out, I also took out a lot
of wort. The next two brews after that, I began to rinse off the hops after
cooling the wort. I also had been in the habit of letting the hops sit in
the wort during cool down (I use the pot-in-the-sink-with-ice-water method).
I feel this was the cause of my problem, but have been unable to find another b
rewer who had similar problems. I feel that, by rinsing the hops, I rinsed off
more hop oils than I desire (recall the hop amounts were not high for my
standards (never more than 1 oz boiling hops, usually cascade, kent goldings,
brewer's gold, or fuggles). Also, letting the hops sit in the cooling
water could also draw extra hop oils from the hops, IMO.
I realize I changed a lot of variables in my brewing process, but the end
result has been an excellent wheat beer, pale ale, and brown ale. I feel
that the biggest differences have been not boiling th specialty grains and
not rinsing the hops, the latter being the cause, IMO, of my original problem.
I welcome comments, and if my opinions about rinsing the hops are not
correct, please correct me. Post or email is fine. Thanks Doug, The two Martins
and the other brewers that hepled me along on my quest. Gotta go watch Big-8
basketball.
Phil Miller
Dept. of Economics
University of Missouri, Columbia
Internet: c616063@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Mizzou Tigers Basketball 14-0 Big-8 champs 93-94
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 10:54:13 +1100 (EST)
From: David Draper <David.Draper@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Hop utilization & SUDS 3.1 (long)
Dear Friends, following up on my most recent post about the IBU
calculations in SUDSW 3.1, I have just finished collecting as much data as
I could find, and have had exchanges with people like Norm Pyle and Glenn
Tinseth on the various questions surrounding utilization. SUDS author
Mike Taylor asked me to give him % util data for high-, average-, and
low-flocculation yeasts, mainly because in Mark Garetz's book, Mark
includes a correction factor for this, the idea being that because
iso-alpha acids will adhere to yeast, the more flocculant yeasts will
remove more iso-alphas. After putting together my message to Michael, I
thought others might be interested to see the info summary, so here is an
edited version of it:
...I have consulted with Norm Pyle and Glenn Tinseth... Evidently, Glenn
will be publishing results of new research on just this question in
Brewing Techniques sometime in the near future, and is understandably
reluctant to come across with his detailed findings until they are public.
But he hinted (if my reading between the lines is correct) that the
results will be similar to those attributed to him in the Hop FAQ and will
be more strongly substantiated with actual measurements. It's my
*opinion* that his results are the most thoroughly researched, and most
reproducible. He appears to have gone to a lot more effort than anyone
else to determine these things on a homebrew scale. Accordingly I would
strongly recommend using his utilization data. Here are summaries of the
main points I've been going over with these guys:
1. Garetz's *idea* that various flocculation characteristics affect
utilization is sound; but his *number* to quantify it appears to be
basically pulled out of the air. There simply are no data to support it.
Therefore, no one is able to provide alternative utilization data for
high-, average-, and low-flocculation yeasts. Applying an adjustment for
it at this point is unjustified.
2. I have put all the available utilization data into my spreadsheet and
plotted them up as %utilization (%U) vs time. The data sets are: Rager
(from Zymurgy special issue on hops and the Hop FAQ), Garetz from his book
(low-, avg-, and high-flocc adjusted), Garetz from the November 93
revision of the Hop FAQ (strangely, the data there differ a lot from those
he put in his book--I can find no explanation for this, nor can Norm
Pyle), Glenn Tinseth from the current version of the Hop FAQ, and Randy
Mosher from a book of his (these data were supplied to me by Rich Webb).
Only the Garetz (book) and Mosher data extend to 90 min boil times; the
rest go only to 60. The curves have these comparative features:
The Garetz curves reflect much lower utilization overall. The Rager and
Tinseth curves are very similar at t < 40 min; at t > 40 min, the Tinseth
data go from about 25-27%U whereas the Rager data range from 28-30%U. The
Mosher data appear to be a combination of the two: Rager & Tinseth-like
short-time utilization, Garetz-like long-time utilization. (Because the
adjustment suggested by Garetz for the yeast flocculation characteristics
is just 5%, I would argue that on a homebrew level that is going to be
very difficult to detect given the huge variability in process from brewer
to brewer, or even from batch to batch for some brewers.) In all the
curves, there is (crudely speaking) a point of inflection at about t = 45
min or so--at shorter times, the slopes of the curves are steeper, and the
curves flatten out a bit above that time. This is least evident in the
Mosher data that I have--what Rich sent me was only for times up to 15,
30, 45, 60, and 90 min, as opposed to the other sets which have smaller
time divisions.
On this basis I recommended having in the program one set of numbers
(Tinseth's) be the default values, and give more advanced users the option
to choose which set of utilization data they prefer. I would omit the
flocculation adjustment. It just so happens that for my setup, when I
calculate IBUs using the Tinseth curve, I get just about exactly what I
think the beers actually are in terms of bitterness, when measured against
commercial examples of known IBUs (data from Jackson's Beer Companion).
This is of course highly subjective but is a clear improvement over the
Garetz formulation; and the Rager data used in pre-3.1 versions of SUDS
seemed to overestimate bitterness in my beers by about 15% on the same
comparative basis. This is just about the difference between the Rager-
and Tinseth-predicted values. I did not investigate these differences
until *after* deciding just from the level of effort Glenn has reported
that his values were likely to be closest to "reality", at least for my
setup--I compared my estimates of IBUS in my notes to the recalc'd IBUs
using the Tinseth data and then found the similarity.
Finally, here are the collected data:
Time, Gtz Gtz Mosher Rager Tinseth
min avg FAQ (*) Hop FAQ Hop FAQ
10 0 0 6 5
15 2 1 8.9 8 8
20 5 4 10.1 10
25 8 6 12.1 12
30 11 11 12.9 15.3 15
35 14 13 18.8 19
40 16 19 22.8 23
45 18 23 15.8 26.9 24
50 19 24 28.1 25
60 20 25 17.9 30 26
70 21
80 22
90 23 21.2
Legend: Gtz avg = the basic curve from Garetz's book Using Hops. Gtz FAQ =
Garetz data from revision 3 of the Hop FAQ. (*) = Mosher data supplied to
me by Rich Webb. Rager FAQ = the Rager numbers, taken from the Hop FAQ.
Tinseth FAQ = Tinseth numbers, taken from revision 4 of the Hop FAQ.
Sorry for the long post, hope some found it useful. The exercise was very
useful for me. Cheers, Dave in Sydney
- --
"Life is short; grain is cheap." ---Rich Lenihan
******************************************************************************
David S. Draper, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109
Sydney, Australia. email: david.draper@mq.edu.au fax: +61-2-850-8428
....I'm not from here, I just live here....
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 09:44:00 GMT
From: doug.flagg@chksix.com (Doug Flagg)
Subject: Water Tests/Gelatinizing temp
Shane Docherty (docherty@arco.com) wrote in from Alaska complaining
about the high cost of water testing. Well, Shane, try your State
Laboratory. I had my water analysis done at the Maine State Laboratory
at $10 per test (vs the $50 you mentioned). This was reasonable for
me.
Also, on the subject of water, be advised that if you have a shallow
well you are getting "ground water". Nothing wrong with this except
that your ion concentrations will vary from time to time depending on
snow melt, rain, etc. Those getting municipal water that comes from
rivers, lakes, etc. are also getting "ground water" and your ion
concentration will also vary with the seasons.
***************
John Glaser (glaser@widlar.ece.arizona.edu) brought up a point that had
long troubled me (until I found a partial answer). He (and I) had read
that barley malt gelatinizes at 149 deg F, so what good does a rest
below that temp do? It would seem that the malt would be locked up
until 149 deg is reached. A partial answer may be in the article
"Mashing Methods and Malt Compared" by Ashton Lewis which appeared in
the 1993 Special Issue Zymurgy. Mr. Lewis states that "The
gelatinization temperature of barley starch begins at 142...and is
completed at 149 deg...". Also, infusing with boiling water would mean
that *some* of the malt was at saccrification temp for *some* time.
But this begs the question of what good a protein rest really is?
Malt at 122 deg is not gelatinized so I don't see how the protein
degrading enzymes can work. A partial answer might be that they
really don't; that this protein rest business is somewhat of a farce.
I have read articles in "Brewing Techniques" and from Dr. Fix and from
Dave Miller suggesting this. Dave Miller, in his excellent book
"Continental Pilsener" states "Recent research indicates that relatively
little protein degradation takes place in the mash, regardless of
temperature". Another article (which I can't put my hands on) said,
in essence, that protein degradation takes place in the malting, not
in the mash.
Doug Flagg
doug.flagg@chksix.com
- ---
* OLX 1.53 * Dogs come when you call. Cats have answering machines.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 19:49:20 -0500
From: MikeB10468@aol.com
Subject: Steam Generators
I have seen several posts in recent digests about using a modified pressure
cooker to generate steam to a heat exchanger thereby increasing mash
temperature to picnic cooler mash tuns. Although I am new to all-grain brewing
and enjoy it immensely, I am unable to easily do step mashes and reach
mashout with my cooler. This steam generator method seems like a fantastic
idea, (provided safety measures are taken), to heat the mash and reach
mashout without adding excessive amounts of boiling water to the mash. With
all that said, I have a question about the design of these devices perhaps
some of you more experiences brewers who use them could answer.
Is it preferable to drill holes in the copper tubing area immersed in the
mash tun and pinch the end closed to percolate steam through the mash or
would it work just as well to leave the tubing in tact and allow the
condensed steam to run out the end of the tube into a sink, etc. Sort of like
a wort chiller in reverse. I know the steam won't add any appreciable amount
of oxygen or water to the mash if bubbles directly into it but just wonder if
there might be a preference in the design.
Thanks for any help and/or comments.
Mike Branigan
East Greenwich, Rhode Island
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 20:00:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Greg Hawley <gregh@edsi.appleton.wi.us>
Subject: Adding Hops to Hopped Extract
I am about to brew my first batch of beer. Having read various sources
I am already substituting dry malt extract for the corn sugar suggested
in the initial kit which included Premier's Brown Ale Malt Extract.
To add a bit of extra hoppyness I also purchased 1 ounce of Golding
Hop Pelts (Alpha 4.65)
Given the kit already contains hop extract, I am wondering if I should
use my additional 1 ounce especially for finishing and aroma? It seems
plausable to use 1/2 oz. for finish, and 1/2 oz. for aroma.
Am I making any sense or should I just relax and use 1/2 oz. for boiling
and 1/2 oz. for finish? In any case I'm looking forward to Tuesday
night. A friend with 15 batches under his belt is coming over to
initiate me.
Thanks in advance.
- --
Greg Hawley <gregh@edsi.appleton.wi.us>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 13:38:49 -0400 (AST)
From: Ed Hitchcock <ehitchcock@sparc.uccb.ns.ca>
Subject: 10 gallon fermentors
To those who brew 10 gallon batches: What do you use as
fermentors? The shape of the 10 gallon demijohns is wrong for my
known-blowoff fermenting, and I don't particularly like fermenting in
plastic. Is there such thing as a 12 gallon carboy? Or does one brew 10
gallons and ferment in separate 5-6 gallon carboys?
ed
----------------
ehitchcock@sparc.uccb.ns.ca
the Pick & Fossil Picobrewery
brewers of Ed's Paleo Pale Ale and Right Coast IPA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 09:57:53 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: P.U. Clone
I was fascinated by the accounts of the attempts of Lee A. Menegoni and Don
Rudolph (HBD #1642) to clone PU. I've been working at it for about 2 years
now and like Don, still have that goal to sustain my interest in brewing.
My own procedure is based upon triple decoction mashing a la Noonan with
rests at 105, 122, 152, and 170F. These are the same as used at Plzen with
the exception that their acid rest is done at 95 F. The grist is mostly D-C
Pilsner malt with various additions of different crystals and Cara Pils to
try to get that elusive nutty/caramelly flavor. Until my last purchase of
D-C I always found it LESS modified than Ireks, i.e. it was steelier when
chewed. The last couple of sacks were just the other way around.
Nonetheless, I decoction mash it in the faith that a lot of the caramel
flavor must come from melanoidins produced in the decoctions and the long
boil (2 hrs). DeClerk's comments about this being too "intensive" suggest
that there will be protein instability in the beer but I have experienced
none of this and get a lovely, long lasting, creamy head if I have the
patience to draw it as they do in Europe.
I have theorized (and gotten some to agree) that the caramelly flavor is in
part due to or is at least enhanced by diacetyl. This notion is reinforced
by one of my earliest attempts (read I didn't even know what diacetyl was
then) which smelled and tasted like PU when it was still in the carboy but
later lost that character. Wish I knew what I did to that batch! I know
that PU uses a blend of 5 yeast strains. Is it possible that one of these
is a bigger than usual diacety producer? In any event I avoid diacetyl
rests like the plague but still don't get the diacetyl i think I want.
Other than leaving out the diacetyl rest, the fermentation is conventional
i.e. pitch at 43F, allow to rise over a day or 2 to 46F, ferment to within
a couple of degrees of terminal, reduce to 40 F, blow down yeast, lager at
37F and finally 33F.
I have a well with an ion exchanger which does a pretty good job on the
alkalinty and harness but comes up at about 4 times the sulphate level of
Plzen. This definitely causes harsness in the hops bitterness. I cannot
think of a remedy except dilution of my water with spring/distilled water
which I intend to try.
Yes, it's a long brewing day but the results are a damn fine beer - not PU
but still one I'm proud of.
Unfortuantely, I must leave these shores for the antipodes and will miss
any further discussion in this thread during the month of February. Guess I
can check the archives when I get back.
Lisoi!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 18:34:23 -0500 (EST)
From: JWARD@delphi.com
Subject: 2 Questions
New to the group (but 18 months into homebrewing), I first want to thank
everyone for this excellent forum. It has improved my beer but, more
importantly, it has renewed my interest in a craft that was starting to get a
little stale (making batch after batch of the same pretty good beer versus
taking more chances). Now the questions.
Kegging: I want to get out of the bottle business by getting a cornelius
setup, but I don't want to get another 'fridge (for space reasons). So I'm
wondering, are there cornelius-type kegs that are squatter than the standard
tallish ones (and thus would better fit my fridge) but still hold, hopefully 5
gallons (or close). In Papazian's New Joy of HB, page 328 shows what looks
like a squatter one that would probably work great but may not be 5 gallon.
Does anyone have any info/experience with these, or any other option. Also,
is $180 a reasonable deal for a setup (CO2, pressure regulator, keg, hoses
fittings and tap)? That's what my local Chicago store (Casey's on Chicago
Ave) is selling them for.
Wort chilling: I know the benefits of a quick wort chill. But is there any
reason the "cold bath" technique -- assuming it cools pretty well -- is any
worse than an immersion chiller. I've been using my bathtub successfully
since the beginning -- splitting 5 gallons of hot wort into two large kettles,
and force cooling them with lids on. I get them down to pitching temp (75F)
in twenty minutes or so, chuck in a seven gallon carboy and pitch. Any
problems I'm missing here? Any benefits that I'm not realizing? I am saving
40 bucks, and the clutter.
Private email is fine, though so is public.
Jonathan Ward
Homebrewer Chicago, IL
R75/5 Owner
jward@delphi.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 1995 18:45:27 -0500 (EST)
From: tim@summit.novell.com (Tim Ihde)
Subject: Strange Brew?
I just completed my fourth partial mash. It basically went OK, but a
peculiar by-product appeared that I'd be interested in hearing comments
on.
Basically I saw what I *think* was an extreme amount of trub. It
appeared to be tiny white particles floating in the wort. It looked
like this material was present right after the mash -- and I couldn't
filter it out no matter how much I recirculated during the sparge.
After boiling and chilling, it also refused to filter out when I used
the wort to sparge the whole hops I had used. I recirculated about the
whole boil volume (3.5 gal) at this step, to no avail. (I use a Phil's
mini masher for both grain and hop sparging.)
It was the strangest thing while chilling with my immersion chiller.
When I'd take the top off to stir, the top of the wort would look quite
clear. As soon as I would start to stir, a great cloud would come up
from below.
Finally I just let the whole thing sit in my bottling bucket for
twenty minutes or so, and then racked it off to my fermenter. This
left most of this substance behind. In the bottling bucket this
stuff started to settle almost immediately . . . I took a hydrometer
reading from the clear area at the top as it settled, and it looked
very clear. The specific gravity from this sample was right on
target, and tasted pretty good to boot.
So . . . was this trub and/or break? If so, then there sure was a lot
more of it than I have seen in the past (I've only been brewing for
about a year and a half, so that's certainly possible).
If so, then what caused it? I did a few things differently in this
batch than in the past that would be good candidates. I used one pound
of Vienna malt in the mash. Because of this, it was recommended that I
perform a protein rest, so I held the mash at around 120 or so for
thirty minutes before raising the temperature to 150 for the starch
conversion. Lastly I added 1/2 tsp. of Irish Moss halfway through the
one hour boil, which I've never tried before.
Any thoughts?
- --
Tim J. Ihde | Novell Unix Systems Group
tim@summit.novell.com (908) 522-5571 | ISV Engineering
isv-support@summit.novell.com (908) 522-5033 | Summit, New Jersey
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 1995 09:44:00 GMT
From: doug.flagg@chksix.com (Doug Flagg)
Subject: Water Tests/Gelatinizing temp
Shane Docherty (docherty@arco.com) wrote in from Alaska complaining
about the high cost of water testing. Well, Shane, try your State
Laboratory. I had my water analysis done at the Maine State Laboratory
at $10 per test (vs the $50 you mentioned). This was reasonable for
me.
Also, on the subject of water, be advised that if you have a shallow
well you are getting "ground water". Nothing wrong with this except
that your ion concentrations will vary from time to time depending on
snow melt, rain, etc. Those getting municipal water that comes from
rivers, lakes, etc. are also getting "ground water" and your ion
concentration will also vary with the seasons.
***************
John Glaser (glaser@widlar.ece.arizona.edu) brought up a point that had
long troubled me (until I found a partial answer). He (and I) had read
that barley malt gelatinizes at 149 deg F, so what good does a rest
below that temp do? It would seem that the malt would be locked up
until 149 deg is reached. A partial answer may be in the article
"Mashing Methods and Malt Compared" by Ashton Lewis which appeared in
the 1993 Special Issue Zymurgy. Mr. Lewis states that "The
gelatinization temperature of barley starch begins at 142...and is
completed at 149 deg...". Also, infusing with boiling water would mean
that *some* of the malt was at saccrification temp for *some* time.
But this begs the question of what good a protein rest really is?
Malt at 122 deg is not gelatinized so I don't see how the protein
degrading enzymes can work. A partial answer might be that they
really don't; that this protein rest business is somewhat of a farce.
I have read articles in "Brewing Techniques" and from Dr. Fix and from
Dave Miller suggesting this. Dave Miller, in his excellent book
"Continental Pilsener" states "Recent research indicates that relatively
little protein degradation takes place in the mash, regardless of
temperature". Another article (which I can't put my hands on) said,
in essence, that protein degradation takes place in the malting, not
in the mash.
Doug Flagg
doug.flagg@chksix.com
- ---
* OLX 1.53 * Dogs come when you call. Cats have answering machines.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 04:36:31 EST
From: Robert Bloodworth ZFBTO - MT0054 <debaydr9@ibmmail.com>
Subject: European Homebrewing Supplies
Can anyone give me addresses and telephone numbers of good mail order
homebrewing suppliers in the UK and/or on the European continent? I am also
looking for the contact address for CAMRA. E-Mail replys would be fine. Thanks
in advance for your help.
Bob Bloodworth
Cologne
debaydr9@ibmmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:23:23 +0100
From: Fredrik.Stahl@mathdept.umu.se (Fredrik Stahl)
Subject: Utilization, Rager vs Garetz
Following the thread on IBU calculations, I thought I would add my 2c.
John Palmer wrote in HBD #1370 about utilization numbers. Here are the
tables he posted:
Boil Time Rager Avg Yeast Fast Yeast Slow Yeast
<5 min 5% 0% 0% 0%
6-10 6 0 0 0
11-15 8 1 1 1
16-20 10 4 5 3
21-25 12 6 7 5
26-30 15 11 13 9
31-35 19 13 16 11
36-40 23 16 19 13
41-45 27 19 23 15
46-50 28 20 24 16
>50 30 21 25 17
The Garetz numbers are given for three types of yeast, depending on their
flocculation speed (a fast flocculating yeast doesn't scrub out as much of
the isomerized alpha acids during fermentation as a slow one).
John seemed to indicate that Garetz published his numbers to correct some
errors in Rager's numbers, based on experiments. However, he also states
that about 90% of the homebrewers use Rager's. Garetz' numbers are about
30% less than Rager's, so the difference is significant.
The problem is that even if Garetz numbers give an IBU which is closer to
the scientific measurement, the "common IBU" seems to be corresponding to
an utilization more like Rager's. So, for example, if you want to brew a
beer to style according to the AHA specifications using Garetz' utilization
numbers, you would have to adjust the AHA range accordingly.
Even if Garetz' utilization is in better correspondence to the
scientifically defined IBU (by measurement of AA%) there is too much fuzz
if everybody else uses another IBU. The purpose of the IBU was, I believe,
to have a unit directly corresponding to the bitterness. It's a shame that
there seems to be several versions, complicating the communication between
brewers. If a recipie states "Goldings to 25 IBU", the information is not
of much use if you don't know what utilization figures were used.
I think there is a great need for experiments here. It would also be
interesting to know what figures the professionals use.
Well, enough talking. I need a beer after all this.
Skaal!
Fredrik.Stahl@mathdept.umu.se
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1645, 01/31/95
*************************************
-------
