Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1729
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/05/12 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1729 Fri 12 May 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Corrections & Question: Water (A. J. deLange)
Corn sugar (Alan Keig)
SS hydrometer flasks (Geoff Scott)
Sabco Kettle's (Evan Kraus)
for.sale.info (usfmchql)
Apartment Brewing (Steve Seaney)
Microwave Madness!! (I Gelman)
Stovetops/Excessive DMS?/Bottling (David Draper)
W1056 temp/hop oils vs. AA/body and FG/O2 caps/wooden false bottom (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
growing hops/dark grains/diacetyl/single-stage/cap sanitation/dry yeast (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
RE: Aeration during lauter (Jim Dipalma)
Re: Aeration during lauter - DMS? (Jeff Renner)
FG/Mouthfeel (CCCEF.KHUIZING)
Re: RIMS FAQ (Jeff Berton)
Final Gravity (LBRISTOL)
Bell's PA yeast / Great Taste (uswlsrap)
******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
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: Wed, 10 May 1995 18:11:20 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Corrections & Question: Water
In my post on water chemistry in #1727 I made a typo and then copied and
pasted it to duplicate the error. It's pretty obvious (though I didn't spot
it, Darren did) but D = (1 + r1 + r1*r2). The post has (1 + r1 + r1*r1) in
two places. It should be (1 + r1 + r1*r2) in both.
Bob Hall contacted me and suggested that my definition of ppm as CaCO3 (55
mg/l)/(100 g/mole) = 0.55 millimole/l is incorrect and should be based on
normality rather than molarity i.e. it should be (55 mg/l) / (50
g/equivalent) = 1.10 milliequivalent/l. If this be correct then all values
in millimoles in the original post should be doubled and replaced by
milliequivalents. The milliequivalents should be multiplied by 50 to get
back to ppm as CaCO3. The acid required is thus 1.1 milliequivalent/l and
as normality and molarity of hydronium are the same this is 1.1 millimole
of acid. Nothing is changed except the defintion of ppm as CaCO3.
I took the definition I used (molar) from "Principals of Brewing Science"
and find it very appealing in that one gets to multiply and divide by 100
in going back and forth between molarities and ppm as CaCO3 and the
hydronium required for neutralization is simply the alkalinity divided by
100. On the other hand I note that my very own water report shows 150.1
mg/l bicarbonate as the ion as 123.0 mg/l as CaCO3. (150.1)(50)/(61) =
123.0 so it looks as if Culligan is in the normality school. So the
question is: what is the standard?
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:02:52 -0800
From: akeig@library.adelaide.edu.au (Alan Keig)
Subject: Corn sugar
G'day. I've been happy to lurk for a while but Russell Mast's reply to the
guy who was making his first batch of home brew has brought me out of the
woodwork:
>Don't use corn sugar except to prime your bottles. Don't use
>anything else to prime your bottles. Don't worry, etc.
When I read this I thought that Russell was referring to Dried Corn Syrup
which I have successfully used for years as an adjunct, usually about
200grams in a 20 litre brew.
I find it gives improved body, better mouthfeel and a creamier and
longer-lasting head.
I checked with my friendly local home brew shop bloke and he put me right.
Apparently there's a terminology difference between the United States and
Australia; what you call Corn Sugar is known as Dextrose [aka Sucrose] over
here. Dried Corn Syrup is a wheat-derived adjunct.
This leaves me with the question: what do you call Dried Corn Syrup in the USA?
Whatever, I'd recommend that Charles Wilmer, Jr add some to his brew for
the above reasons.
Oh, and definitely 'don't worry!!'
Cheers! Alan Keig <akeig@library.adelaide.edu.au>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 06:32:57 -0500
From: gscott@io.org (Geoff Scott)
Subject: SS hydrometer flasks
Norm writes:
>Um, Kirk are you Superman in disguise? I'd need X-ray vision to read my
>hydrometer through a SS tube. Must be nice to hang out with that Lois Lane
>babe and make beer...
Upper Canada, a local micro here in Toronto uses metal hydrometer flasks in
the brewhouse. After taking a sample from a spigot on the kettle or the
lauter tun they put the copper cylinder in a larger diameter but shorter
tube installed in a sink. This has water constantly running in the bottom,
over the top and into the sink. The sample is stirred a few times with a
kind of plunger like instrument then the hydrometer is put in. The excess
wort flows over the edge and the reading is taken at the very top of the
sample tube. When I first saw this I wondered if the meniscus would
interfere but it doesn't seem to be a problem. I believe they use clear
flasks in the fermentation house. They sure do get their readings fast
with this system.
regards,
Geoff Scott
gscott@io.org
Brewing page http://www.io.org/~gscott
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 06:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: ejk@bselab.bls.com (Evan Kraus)
Subject: Sabco Kettle's
I was thinking of buying one but a friend of mine has 2 and has had
plenty of trouble with the screens they seem to colapse.
Yesterday he had a 25lb mash drop the screen.
HAS ANYOUE HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH SABCO KETTLES ?
Privat emails please
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 07:47:17 EDT
From: usfmchql@ibmmail.com
Subject: for.sale.info
*** Resending note of 05/11/95 07:42
In HBD 1728, Chris Strickland asks about a beer.equipment.4.sale.faq or
something like that...
I remember seeing a long list of alt.for_sale.computer (or something like
this) specific to computer equipment (about 20 of them) and one miscellaneous
one on the UseNet. I second your suggestions, but go one step further - what
about a for sale newsgroup for brewing equipment? Anyone out there wise in the
ways of usenet newsgroup formation that can either do it, or give me info on
how I might convince my home provider (oeonline) to set one up? If this
happens, (or if I can make it happen) I will compile new adds on a (period of
time goes here)ly basis into an updated faq and upload it to the archive site
at Stanford for access by the UseNet inhibited.
What say you, oh voting members of the collective?
Private e-mail to pbabcock@oeonline.com, please!
"Drink all you want - I'll brew more"
Pat Babcock
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 07:17:29 CDT
From: Steve Seaney <seaney@pwrtrn1.me.wisc.edu>
Subject: Apartment Brewing
Hello,
There's a pretty good chance my wife and I will be moving to a
modern apartment in a few months. I've been brewing with a king
cooker in an old garage. Is it possible to do all grain inside?
I would be interested in learning about any 'setups' or equipment that
could make the transition easier.
Thanks,
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 08:50:00 -0500 (EST)
From: I Gelman <igelman@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Subject: Microwave Madness!!
Text item: Text_1
Microwaving discredited!!! Let those of you without microbes cast
the first stone!
Seriously, to get back to the microwaving issue, several people
have commented on the advantages and disadvantages of microwaving
funnels, glass fittings, etc.
I just want to reiterate that sterility (ridding of all microbes,
including spores) is not a standard issue in Homebrewing, but
sanitation is. In this spirit, it is sufficient to wash your
equipment with chlorine-based detergents and lots of tap water.
However, microwaving funnels, etc. can be helpful if you can't scrub
hard-to-get-to places in your gear. Of course, as with any
sterilization-like procedure, the duration of the microwaving is
critical: 5-7 minutes at high power is sufficient.
A scientific word about microwaving. Microwaves are produced at a
frequency that oscillates H20 molecules in liquid phase (that's why
microwaving is much less efficient on frozen food). If something is
zapped with sufficient radiation (i.e.- long enough) , it will
effectively boil from within. Proof of this was demonstrated to me
once when a hollowed out "box" of frozen ice cream filled with pudding
was microwaved, resulting in heated pudding in the center surrounded
by frozen ice cream (an inverted Baked Alaska). Kids, you may try
this trick at home.
A comment was made that microwaving a plate of food often results
in only some sections being heated. This is due to the lack of focus
of the microwaves in household units, and is why more expensive units
have a motorized lazy-susan to distribute the radiation more evenly
over the food.
Lastly, I run a microbiology lab, where sterility is an issue. We
have found that microwaving solutions of under 1L for at least 10' is
sufficient for FULL sterilization (remember to loosen the bottle caps
to prevent steam buildup). This includes sporulating fungi and
bacteria. Thus, this procedure is ideal for people wanting to
sterilize water or media to be used for yeast culturing. However, we
have found that our bacterial yields from microwaved media are lower
than from autoclaved media, suggesting that the radiation tends to
break down sugars and/or nutrients critical for growth. As was
reported recently, it probably this may be part of the deleterious
effect on hop flavor.
Cheers!!
Irwin Gelman (Ph.D.)
igelman@smtplink.mssm.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 22:50:56 +1000 (EST)
From: David Draper <ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Subject: Stovetops/Excessive DMS?/Bottling
Dear Friends, got some comments on stuff in #1728.
Dan Pack asks about the ups and downs of stovetops for full boils. My
biggest problem in using the stove is all the steam that gets
generated--it gets pretty swamplike in the kitchen, especially if you
have lots of shiny surfaces (tile, in my case); the floors in particular
would get very slick. Never fell on my butt but it was close a couple
times. That alone was enough to motivate me to move out onto the balcony
with a 3-ring burner, and all has been well ever since.
Tom Baier has a perception of excessive DMS in recent batches and wonders
about the causes. Lots of possibilities here; I won't even try to be
comprehensive. First, a cheap and easy thing to change is to use a short
length of tubing/hose from the spigot of your lauter tun to the
collection vessel so that the sweet wort doesn't splash around. I doubt
that not having one would enhance DMS production but it seems like good
practice in general. Some of the best ways to reduce the effects of DMS
are: a good rolling boil; leaving the boiler uncovered as much as you
dare so that the compounds involved can get the heck outta there; as
rapid a chill as you can manage; and of course the bulk composition of
the malt you are using. Some of us down here are using a malt that is,
among other things, more prone than usual to producing DMS precursors,
and there have been a couple times when a lot was emanating from my
fermenter (but most blew off during primary, fortunately; the styles
didn't have much room for DMS).
There has been some talk of bottling practices lately, most recently from
Nigel Townsend down in Tassie. For those of us who have plastic bins
with spigots attached, bottling is a snap--you rack into the bin from the
(primary or secondary, choose one), adding your priming solution as per
usual, and then jam the bottling wand right into the spigot--the ones we
have here fit perfectly. That is, the OD of the wand is a perfect
friction fit with the ID of the spigot. Now your wand is pointing down,
ready to dispense. Put a pan under the spigot to catch drips; open the
tap; stick a bottle in there, raising it until the bottom of the bottle
actuates the tip of the wand; the bottle fills; have another ready to
stick on there when the first is done; and so on. Once I get this all
set up (i.e. beer in bottling bin, bottles ready to be filled) it takes
me about 20 minutes to fill a 23 litre batch, without needing 8 arms.
When the level of beer in the bottling bin gets low, you can easily reach
with one hand and tip it forward to keep things moving while using the
other hand to maneuver the bottle. Takes more words to describe than to
do--but believe me it's better than my stabs at ASCII art.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
- --
"Cross your fingers and wait it out." ---A. J. deLange
******************************************************************************
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: 10 May 95 17:24:00 -0500
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: W1056 temp/hop oils vs. AA/body and FG/O2 caps/wooden false bottom
I'm off-line for two days with a cold and the SNR of the HBD goes down the
toliet ;^).
***
Lee writes:
>In a recent HBD Al K states. " The next 1056 batch I made, stuck. Wyeast
>really doesn't like temperatures below 63F and will quit early if it
>encounters them. "
>
>I have to disagree, In winter I ferment 1056 batches in my basement at
>60-62F with no ill effects. I do pitch a larger quantity of starter
>slurry into the wort and airate well. I get a vigorous ferment and a
>normal FG.
Lee-- it depends on the temperature of the ferment, not the ambient
temperature. Since you used a big starter, I'll bet that your yeast
actually raised the temperature of the green beer above 63F. In my case,
I inadvertently put the fermenter into a 57F room and they never quite
got started. I could check my brewing log, but I'll bet it was either
a 500ml or 750ml starter I used.
***
recently someone wrote:
>isomerize the hop oils
I'm sure they meant "isomerize the alpha acids." Hop oils provide aroma...
it's the alpha and beta acids that provide the bitterness.
***
Russ write (quoting Spencer):
>> Try this experiment: Take a glass of water (8 oz). Take another glass
>> of water and dissolve an ounce of sugar (about 2 tablespoons) it (SG
>> 1.045, roughly). Is there a difference in the mouthfeel?
>
>Or just put enough sugar in for an SG of 1.010 and try it. I don't deny
>that sugar contributes something to mouthfeel, I'm pretty sure it does,
>but, according to Miller (and my admittedly limited experience), protein
>contributes more than sugar, at least in terms of the "heavyness" or
>"fullness" of the mouthfeel.
Careful... could there be a difference in the mouthfeel of 1.010 worth of
glucose and 1.010 worth of dextrins? My gut feeling says yes. Also, in
a private conversation with George Fix, he told me that his experience
indicates that protein content has a far larger effect on the body/mouthfeel
of a beer than the dextrin content. I would also suspect that 1.010 worth
of dextrins may also have a different body/mouthfeel than 1.010 worth of
proteins.
***
Todd writes:
>that lead me to believe that water was the only component necessary to
>activate the O2 absorbing caps. The local HB shop owner said he had heard
>that it was necessary to boil them.
Your local HB shop owner has it backwards: boiling O2-absorbing caps ruins
them. The humidity in the headspace of the bottle is enough to activate
the O2 absorption.
***
Jim writes (about using a wood frame and window screen as a false bottom):
>1. Will the screen mesh be sufficient to create a grain bed or would
>crushed grain still be able to slip through the screen with the runnings?
I would say, no. Most false bottoms are less than 25% open. Your screen
would be well over 75%! It may work, but you will have to recirculate
gallons and gallons till the grain established a filter bed.
>2. Does anyone see potential problems with making a false bottom using wood
>and screen?
In addition to the sanitation worries, I would also be concerned about
aroma or flavour being imparted by the wood to the wort. By all means
DON'T USE PRESSURE-TREATED WOOD FOR SOAKING IN BEER/WORT.
>3. Because of my lack of lautering knowledge is there a better way to
>create, or material to use, for a false bottom in a 40 quart, square cooler?
1/2" solid copper tubing and some elbows/T's or soft copper tubing bent into
a shape that fits... with small holes or slits cut-in, facing downwards.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: 10 May 95 17:30:00 -0500
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: growing hops/dark grains/diacetyl/single-stage/cap sanitation/dry yeast
Michael writes:
>1.) The planting instructions indicated that if the hops were of
>different variety I needed to plant the rizomes ~5 ft. apart. If they
>were of the same variety, plant ~3 ft apart. Why? Cross pollenation
>possibilities?
Cross-pollenation should not be a problem unless you have a male plant
among your hops -- if you are buying your rhyzomes from a reputable
place, chances are nil that it's a male. No, the reason for the spacing
is because the hop plants send out shoots that can stay underground for
a few feet (especially after a few years). The reason that this is important
is because you might have a Nugget shoot come up amidst your Saaz shoots.
When the plants are of the same variety, who cares which rhysome the shoot
came from?
>2.)I hear that the vines (bines?) can grow to ~30 ft. How much room
>side-to-side do the plants need? I did not have the proper space
>available to get 3 ft between plants.
The issue here is crowding among leaves and one plant shading another.
I have two strings and a pole for each plant to climb and the triangle
of the bases is about 15" per side. Overall, each plant (with one or
two bines growing up the pole and the two strings) is about 3 feet in
diameter. If you used a single string for each plant and trimmed away
all but two or three bines, you could probably plant like varieties about
18" apart.
>3.) Is there no way for me to be able to determine by my self or by
>sending a sample to someone, the AA%?
Unless you grow an awful lot of hops or brew very little, you probably won't
grow enough to supply yourself. I would recommend just using the homegrown
hops for dryhopping/finishing, where the %AA is virtually immaterial. You
can brew a few test batches and estimate the %AA by trial and error. Or, I
believe you can send a sample to the University of Oregon (call ahead to
make sure), but I'm pretty sure the cost will make it more expensive than
store-bought.
***
Tom writes:
>Q - Do I add dark grains (black patent, chocolate, etc.) at dough in
>or just before mash out? (and why)
I believe there was an article on this about three or four years ago in
Zymurgy, by Micah Millspaw, Bob Jones or both of them. Personally, I put
the dark grains in at dough-in, but then I also add calcium carbonate and
other brewing salts to the mash to imitate the water of the style I'm trying
to brew. The dark grains lower the pH of the mash and the CaCO3 raises it.
It is because of this, that areas with high carbonate levels (Dublin,
Munich, London) became famous for their dark beers).
***
Chuck writes:
>I have a pale ale that tasted fine (even great) for the first
>month and a half -- lots of hop character and hop aroma. Then it began to
>transform. First, for about two weeks, it developed a diacetyl flavor
>(sort of butterscotchy), which began to mask the hops. Now that flavor
>seems to have transformed into an unpleasant, rough bitterness that masks
>almost all of the hop character.
Sounds like a Pediococcus infection. Some strains of Pedio produce copious
amounts of diacetyl. I've never personally tasted a beer with such an
infection, but George Fix has written that the diacetyl produced by a Pedio
infection has a rough/rancid flavour, not the smooth diacetyl you get from
yeast. Perhaps it is just a matter of concentration? George?
***
comsin19 writes:
1. Pros and cons of single stage brewing.
Pros: one less transfer, less risk of infection, one less vessel to sanitize,
one less vessel to clean.
Con: for long ferments (e.g. lagers) the yeast spend a long time on the trub
and dead yeast.
Note that I personally feel that there is a big difference between using a
plastic fermentor as a primary and a glass fermentor as a primary. If you
are using a plastic fermentor as your primary, I feel you should be more
concerned about oxidation of the finished beer through the walls of the
fermentor than about yeast autolysis or the beer sitting on the trub. I've
had a beer go "bad" on me (lots of aldehydes) after only three weeks in an
HDPE plastic fermentor. On the other hand, I've let beers sit for months
(granted, they were always either quite dark or quite strong) in a glass
primary with no noticable problems. If you're making an ale, using a good
healthy starter, fermenting the beer out in a week or 10 days and bottling
within a 10 days of the end of fermentation, I would recommend sticking with
a single-stage fermentation. If you plan to lager, add fruit for a secondary
fermentation or are often too busy to bottle until weeks later, then do
go to a secondary.
2. Should I sterilize my caps and if so how is the best way?
Yes. I recommend a 15 minute soak in 200 ppm cool, bleach solution
(1tbsp/gal). Incidentally, this is sanitation, not sterilization. You
cannot acheive sterilization without autoclaving, pressure cooking or
irradiation.
***
Dan writes:
>1. I am using dry yeast and I have read several methods for starting the
>yeast: a) just throw the yeast into the fermenter straight out of the
>package, b) mix it in 1 cup of warm water for 30 min., and c) mix it in
>1 cup of warm water for 10 min., mix in 1 teaspoon of sugar, and wait for
>it to churn and foam. Which is the best method? Are any of these methods
>wrong?
"a" will make decent beer 9 out of 10 times, but a significant percentage of
yeast will suffer from this treatment. Dry yeast first need to rehydrate.
If you put them into wort or a sugar solution, they will have a harder time
absorbing water than if you added the yeast to plain sanitary water. "b" is
the best, but "warm" is relative. The proper rehydration temperature
(according to Lallemand, one of the largest dry brewing yeast mfgrs) is between
90 and 100F. The time is also rather important. Lallemand says at least
15 minutes, but not more than 30 minutes. "c" is probably no better than
"b" but has the added risk of introducing a teaspoon of unsterile sugar.
>2. What happens if I pitch twice as much yeast as needed?
Few homebrewers add enough yeast. If you mean two packages in stead of
one, the answer is, a shorter lag time (a good thing, generally speaking).
In fact, if you are making a strong beer, adding extra yeast is just about
required for a healthy ferment and a reasonable finishing gravity.
>3. One more question not regarding yeast: Will I totally ruin the
>fermentation process if I take the airlock off for a brief amount of time
>after it has started to ferment?
Not to worry. CO2 will purge-out any O2 that might get in. There's quite
a difference between letting air into the headspace and stirring air into
the fermenting beer (the latter increasing diacetyl production). After
fermentation, the effect of beer is a little more problematic (aldehyde
production) but in small amounts even that is below sensory threshold.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 10:32:49 EDT
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: RE: Aeration during lauter
Hi All,
In HBD#1728, Tom Baier asks:
>I need help.
You've come to the right place.
>1. While lautering, I let my sweet wort splash mightily down into
>a bucket (as the brewkettle is currently holding the sparge liquor).
>Is this aeration causing big-time HSA?
I'd say yes. I use a 1/2" poly tube on the outlet of my mash/lauter tun, and
keep the end of the tube submerged an inch or two below the level of the wort
in the brewpot. This also helps eliminate the mess from spattering wort.
>2. I use corny kegs for fermenters,
>Did we ever reach closure about the
>effects of fermenter geometry on flavor profile?
Yes we did. Some time ago, George Fix posted an article to the digest
describing the effects of fermenter geometry on the flavor profile of
finished beer. I don't have the text of the article handy, but working from
memory (always a dicey proposition, eh?), the article said the "ideal
situation" is when the aspect ratio is 1:1 or less, and that it should not
exceed 2:1. The aspect ratio of Corny kegs is a little over 3:1, I think,
compared to about 1.5:1 for a 6.5 gallon carboy. The article noted both higher
finishing gravities and elevated levels of diacetyl when tall, narrow
fermenters were used versus short, squat ones. Draw your own conclusions.
>3. I do almost exclusively classic British styles, with a single
>infusion at 150-154F. Is it possible/likely that my thermometer is
>so far off that I am really mashing at 160F+ and getting *tons* of
>unfermentables as a result?
Put several ice cubes in some cold water, and wait a few minutes to give
the ice a chance to melt a bit. Put your thermometer in, stir for a minute,
the mixture should read roughly 32F.
Tom, FWIW, my take on this is that you may have a combination of off flavors
due to HSA and diacetyl that you are perceiving as DMS. Assuming that you
are not using a malt that is extremely high in SMM (s-methyl methionine,
a primary precursor to DMS), there are some things you can do to minimize
DMS production, and eliminate it as a possible cause of the off flavor you
are getting. Since you brew English ales, I assume you are using pale malt,
which has been more highly kilned than the European lager malts that have
this characteristic, and is thus lower in DMS precursors.
First, use a vigorous, rolling boil, and leave the brewpot uncovered. DMS
can be driven off as a gas during the boil if the brewpot is reasonably
well ventilated. Second, DMS is also produced in the initial stages of
wort cooling. A few years back, someone posted a graph that showed DMS
production levels versus temperature. This graph clearly showed that the
majority of DMS is produced as the wort cools from 212F to 140F. Obviously,
the faster the wort is chilled through this temperature range, the less DMS
is produced. What I do is leave my brewpot uncovered for the first 1 to 2
minutes after starting my wort chiller (ObBeerGeek: it's fun to watch the
cold break form), allowing some ventilation during the critical phase of the
chilling. The wort is still hot enough that infection won't be a problem.
After the first couple of minutes, cover the brewpot.
*****************************************************
Also in HBD #1728, Patrick G. Babcock writes:
>In fact, she doesn't like the smell or the boiling wort. Because of
>this aversion, she allowed my to by a 3-kettle pico system with
>pumps, burners, (hooo hoooo!) ALL THE GOODIES!!!
>AIN'T LIFE GRAND?!?
Way to go Patrick!!! The way that you skillfully parlayed your wife's
aversion to brewing aromas into a three tier system is an inspiration to
us all!!!
My .02 on the women/wives in brewing thread:
Unfortunately, my wife has not the slightest interest in brewing. Like
Patrick's, the smell of a mash (which always reminds me of the fresh baked
bread my grandmother used to bake) and the smell that comes from the brewpot
a few minutes after adding hops (is there anyone among us who doesn't love
that wonderful hop aroma?) is enough to send her fleeing to the nearest
shopping mall. Over the years, she has patiently tolerated burnt wort on
the stovetop, exploding mason jars, weekends when I disappeared to go judge
someplace, slants of yeast in the fridge, the list of my brewing crimes goes
on and on.
It does help that she's an enthusiastic "end-user" though. Her favorite styles
are stout, porter, and steam beer, no lite beers need apply. And after
suffering in silence, her first words upon arriving home from work are usually
"what's on tap?" :-)
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 10:50:14 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Aeration during lauter - DMS?
Tom Baier <BAIER_T@SALT.PLU.EDU> says
> All my beers seem to have a consistently high level of
> what I perceive as DMS. While I don't always find this
> objectionable, I have become frustrated, and feel that
> I must have a procedural flaw.
>
> 1. While lautering, I let my sweet wort splash mightily
> down into a bucket (as the brewkettle is currently
> holding the sparge liquor). Is this aeration causing
> big-time HSA?
Very likely. Add a hose extension to your Zapap outlet with the end
below the surface of the wort so it doesn't splash.
> Do I just *think* that wet cardboard
> really tastes like canned corn? Seems like my 75-90
> minute boils would cure ills introduced at this stage.
It certainly should. Especially since you say you make almost
exclusively British ales. If you are using British pale ale malt, you
would have to work to have DMS, since well modified malt has a greatly
reduced level of DMS precursors. I suggest you take your beer to your
local homebrew club for some additional opinions as to just what this
objectionable flaw is. You say you don't belong? Join! You'll be able
to get more practical help with this kind of problem.
> 3. I do almost exclusively classic British styles, with
> a single infusion at 150-154F. Is it possible/likely
> that my thermometer is so far off that I am really
> mashing at 160F+ and getting *tons* of unfermentables as
> a result? FG is usually in the 1.010-1.015 range for
> pales.
British PAs usually finish at about 25% OG. FG 10-15 sounds about
right.
> I use a maltmill(tm) and zapap system, but my
> yields have always been below expectation (20-25
> p/g/p).
That's the setup I have and I get over 30 pgp. Have you insulated your
Zapap to keep a steady mashout/lauter temp of 176^F? Do at least a full
hour mash? Check for unconverted starch? Check your mash pH and water
chemistry?
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 10:51:10 -0400
From: CCCEF.KHUIZING@capital.ge.com
Subject: FG/Mouthfeel
We all have to start somewhere :
Regarding the recent discussion about the relationship
between the FG of a beer and the "mouthfeel" of that
beer. I believe that the definition of specific
gravity is the ratio of density of a particular
substance to the density of a base substance, water in
most cases. Therefore, dissolving any substance which
is more dense than water into a water solution should
increase the specific gravity of that solution and
hence the "mouthfeel", (assumes we perceive a dense
substance as having more "body" than a less dense
substance). This would seem to indicate a direct
correlation between the FG and "mouthfeel", if beer
were merely a mixture of water and substances more
dense than water. However, beer tends to contain a
pesky, yet adorable substance known in some circles as
alky-hol. Alcohol being less dense than water, will
cause an understatement of the "true" FG of a beer.
Thus if we can accurately calculate the amount of
alcohol in the solution and determine the exact impact
this has on the FG measure, we should be able to make
an adjustment to the FG and arrive at a FG which would
accurately represent the "mouthfeel" of the beer
(assuming all CO2 has been removed from the solution
prior to FG measurement).
This is my first attempt at contribution to this forum
so please take that into consideration if my logic is
seriously flawed. I'm still recovering from my
Kentucky Derby sunburn and probably wouldn't survive
another scorching.
Keith Huizinga
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 10:58:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: jeff344@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Berton)
Subject: Re: RIMS FAQ
Kirk writes:
>Various folks have suggest they'd be interested in [some sort of] a RIMS
>FAQ, but many of the suggesters are already RIMS weenies. So far I've
>only come up with one Frequently Asked Question, and that's the old "what
>does RIMS stand for and what is it?".
I put together a description of my RIMS a couple of years ago for some friends
and Steve Hansen was kind enough to put it in the archives on ftp.stanford.edu.
As the keeper of the RIMS FAQ, feel free to use it as you see fit. It's titled
'rims_setup' and is in the 'docs' directory.
- --
Jeff Berton, Aeropropulsion Analysis Office, NASA Lewis Research Center
jeff344@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 09:52:33 CDT
From: LBRISTOL@SYSUBMC.BMC.COM
Subject: Final Gravity
Many thanks to all of you who have responded to my query about the
relationship between FG and mouth feel/thickness. In addition to the
HBD articles posted, I received several responses via private e-mail.
The one thing that was a clear concensus of opinion on this subject is:
There is no concensus of opinion.
The opinions ranged all the way from a kurt "No", through a list of
qualified "maybe"s, all the way to those who indicate that there is a
direct relationship. I think rather than trying to summarize the
responses, I will simply quote a few of the more notable comments.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck)
I think that regardless of OG, beers which finish at a higher gravity
will have more mouthfeel. The FG is a measure of how much
unfermentables are left, and it is unfermentables which give mouthfeel.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: Darren_Aaberge-RA2698@email.sps.mot.com (Darren Aaberge)
Final Gravity determines the dryness/sweetness of a beer. I think its
maybe proteins and certain flavor components in the beer that attribute
to the mouthfeel (thickness/thinness). ... Also, when beers are
filtered with sub micron filters, the filter will filter out some of
the proteins and the filtered beer will taste thinner than the
unfiltered beer, even though they will both have the same specific
gravity (none of the sugars are filtered out).
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: kevin@wheels.aar.com (Kevin Hass)
Something I have done to check the beer for unfermentables, has been to
take a known amount of beer, and dry it completely, and then measure
the weight of that residue. That residue has the alcohol and water
removed, leaving just the dextrins, carbohydrates, and other yeastie
things behind. From doing this, I was amazed to find out how much
stuff was in the beer. The batch I tested had an FG of 1.012, and also
had something like about an ounce of this residue per 12 ounce serving
of beer. I would expect most of that would be unfermentable dextrins,
but I don't know for sure.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: spencer@med.umich.edu
The FG is a combination of the remaining unfermentable components
(sugars, dextrins, proteins, etc.), which raise it, AND alcohol, which
lowers it. The higher alcohol beer has MORE alcohol, and thus, in
order to have the same FG, must have MORE unfermentables.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
I see what you're trying to achieve, that's a way to scale mouthfeel.
I believe that it's very accurate to try and capture mouthfeel on a
unitary scale. I could see a stout and a doppelbock which could be
rated as equally 'thick' but there's a different quality to the feel.
Of course, the same is true of color, and they have a scale for that,
so why not mouthfeel? I think the best we'd be able to achieve for
mouthfeel is a subjective rating system based on accepted standards.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: flemingk@usa.net (Kirk R Fleming)
"Yes" if you are talking about a "class" of worts built from similar or
identical ingredients. ... "No" if you're comparing two beers of
completely different classes having identical OGs. ... Also, "complete
attentuation" was assumed, but this term only has meaning from the
perspective of a particular yeast.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul Stokely" <PSTOKELY@ea.umd.edu>
Hops also contribute to "mouthfeel" in addition to bitterness. ...
Between two very similarly brewed beers, I think final gravity would
indicate most differences in the mash schedule and ratio between
unfermentable "mouthfeel" dextrins/ fermentable sugars.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Patrick G. (Pat) Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Just as flavors are made up of taste AND aroma, I believe mouth-feel
to be made of of several components. Not simply a measure of the
density (how thick).
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Draper <ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
This issue is so highly subjective that trying to quantify it may be,
although brave and Zen-like, doomed to failure. What one person
identifies as "body" another might call "sweetness", not because one is
a better taster than the other, but how and what different people can
taste has such a wide range. The range of subtleties available in
finished beer is enormous.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Troy Howard" <troy@oculus.jsei.ucla.edu>
Don't forget that carbonation levels play an important part in the
perception of mouthfeel.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Taking all of these thoughtful comments together, it seems to be that
there is room for further research in this area. My goal is not (as
many seem to suggest) to use FG as an objective measure of mouthfeel,
but as a means to quantify the influence of various mash conditions
(such as time, temperature, pH, stiffness, etc.). All of which are
related to this concept of mouthfeel. I'll see what I can glean about
this subject and get back to you if I think I have found anything
worthwhile.
Especially if I take David Draper's comment to heart: "Let us know,
Larry, if you work this out, so we can award you the Nobel Prize in
Brewing!"
Cool! :-)
- --------------------------------------------------------
| Larry Bristol | A brave, Zen-like effort! |
| SYSUBMC.BMC.COM | |
| (713)918-7802 | ... but it fails. |
- --------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 10:59:33 EDT
From: uswlsrap@ibmmail.com
Subject: Bell's PA yeast / Great Taste
BELL'S PALE ALE:
I have a very happy starter going, born of the dregs of a bottle of BPA.
Question: is it 1056 or is it something else (and if so, what)?
Maybe one of you kazoo guys (Tim or Tom) can answer with some authority?
GREAT TASTE:
That post about the Student-Buddy Brewfest in California (give a student
a real beer, and s/he'll never drink swill and never drink to get drunken
stupid, et cetera?) made me think that I should alert y'all to ticket sales
for the Ninth Annual Great Taste of the Midwest, August 12, in Madison at
Olin-Turville Park, on the shore of Lake Monona.
August sounds like a long time away, but tickets went on sale May 1 and
have been selling well. This event does sell out quickly, and ticket sales
are limited to 2,500. 50+ breweries/150+ beers, commemorative glass,
unlimited sampling (none of those annoying beer tokens that you have to use
some places--not a flame against any particular event in California or Oregon
or anyplace else, in fact not a flame at all--just my personal editorial
comment. I'm sure there's a reason for them some places, but not here),
15 bucks (or roughly 20 loonies for our friends from that civilised place to
the north). A substantial part of the proceeds benefits Community Radio
WORT/89.9 FM.
By mail: Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild / P.O. Box 1365 /
MadCity, Weirdscowsin 53701-1365
checks payable to MHTG, $15/ SASE for almost immediate service
By phone (credit card): 608.938.1985 $16
You've been advised. Don't complain if you wait until June and find yourself
ticketless.
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino / Disoriented in Badgerspace / uswlsrap@ibmmail.com
"People who drink light "beer" don't like the taste of beer;
they just like to pee a lot"
--quote stolen from Capital Brewery, Middleton (Madison), WI
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1729, 05/12/95
*************************************
-------
