Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1736
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/05/20 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1736 Sat 20 May 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Hop Rhizome Planting ("Jim Webb")
Screens, false bottoms, recirculation (Lance Stronk)
Re: March pumps (LPCALC)
Re: Irish Moss ("R. James Ray")
Decoction Technique (Mike Inglis)
Mash/Lauter Tun Fabrication Question (Mark Peacock)
Bad batch of brew to malt vinegar ()
Rcpt: Homebrew Digest #1707 (Ap (NEEVES)
re: NA beer (Keith Frank)
Re: High FG, pumps (Jim Dipalma)
triple distilled mercury (Dave Whitman)
SUDS4.0 (Aaron Shaw)
Water Salts... Extract (ROSSBEER)
Trub removal ect (Michael Collins)
Power Sparge (Jeff Stampes)
RE: Rusty conv. Keg, old water (Chris Cooper)
Utilization of Oatmeal Quest ("Palmer.John")
What kind of grains do I have? (Darren Tyson)
Wheat-fruit beers/Malt numbers/ftp.stanford (Bob Sinnema)
SIGNOFF homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (ESSNER RICHARD L)
Trub removal ect. (dflagg)
Diacetyl Rest (Hmbrewbob)
Peptidase, peptones, & mouthfeel (Ken Willing)
Q: Using mod.-modified malt (Ken Willing)
Cleaning the stove! (Kevin McEnhill)
Marzen (Chuck E. Mryglot)
Stuck Ferments/March Pumping... (usfmchql)
Re: Thanks/lager/Pete's Summer Brew (Frank Caico)
Re: Electric stovetop brewing (Jim Grady)
Re: Cu nutrient/ N2-CO2 blend ("R. James Ray")
To crack or not to crack (Marla Korchmar)
Re: Vice (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
Stuck Ferments / Pressing (Norman Pyle)
******************************************************************
* 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: Thu, 18 May 95 14:16:01 -0400
From: "Jim Webb" <webb_j@sudhqc.ndm.gov.on.ca>
Subject: Hop Rhizome Planting
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Several members of my homebrew club bought hop rhizomes this year
- the first time that any of us have tried growing them.
However, the instructions that came with them were not clear at
all on how you orient the cutting when you plant it. There was a
diagram which showed a 'typical hop root system' giving some of
us the impression the rhizome should be planted VERTICAL.
However, others of us assume that all other plant rhizomes we see
in the garden (from grass to iris) grow HORIZONTAL - the plant's
way of propagating itself horizontally from the main plant - and
placed our hops rhizomes accordingly.
My horizontally-planted hops have sprouted about 2" tall, and the
member's hops planted vertically have not.
Which is the correct way to plant these things, and should those
who planted them wrong gently dig them up and replant, or will
they grow anyways?
Many thanx in advance for your sage .....er hops advice.
Jim Webb
Ministry of Northern Development & Mines
Sudbury, Ontario
------------------------------
Date: 18 May 1995 09:36:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Lance Stronk <S29033%22681@utrcgw.utc.com>
Subject: Screens, false bottoms, recirculation
I have been reading the thread on screen size for the false bottom of
mash/lauter tuns and was curious about something. My system uses a stainless
steel screen with 70% open area to allow a higher flow rate through the grain
bed. I use a RIMS system to heat and recirculate and because of the large open
area of the screen, I get wort that is turbit to start and clear once the
grain bed is established. This may take anywhere from 10-15 minutes of
recirculation to get the wort clear. I have no problem with this since the
heater is maintaining or boosting temperature during this time.
My curiosity is this. What difference does it make whether it takes 1 quart to
get clear runoff or 5 gallons to get clear runoff? If one is recirculating
anyway (to maintain or boost temp) I don't see the point. The grain bed is the
actual filter, not the screen, so why restrict the flow?
Lance Stronk
Lstronk@sikorsky.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:08:05 -0400
From: LPCALC@aol.com
Subject: Re: March pumps
I've been using the Pico (RIMS)system for a couple of years and the pump is
the weakest part. The guys at Pico chose this pump because of the flow
rate. They said the slow rate would "minimize" stuck recirculation of mash
water. Minimize is the key word. The grain bed will become compacted if you
recirculate the ball value completely open, at least it has for me on
occasion. I also have had difficulty, at times, pumping sparge water over the
top the the mash tun. Best solution IMO is to make sure you've got a good
flow going before you raise the sparge head over the side the mash tun.
larry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 07:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: "R. James Ray" <ray902@uidaho.edu>
Subject: Re: Irish Moss
In HBD #1734 Patrick Humphrey wrote:
> I also forgot to use Irish Moss in my latest Honey-Wheat brew and asked
> Bill to forward his responses to me. Most respondents suggested that the
> gelatin acts to bring the yeast out of solution and gel at the bottom of
> the bottle. If this is true, then will we still get the chill haze from
> the suspended proteins which the Irish moss would have taken out?
Gelatin is not a substitute for Irish moss. I consider Irish moss to be
a break enhancer, to make the hot break set hard and fast to the bottom
of the kettle instead of becouming cold break in the fermenter. Gelatin
simply helps yeast floculate, whether they feel like flocking or not.
Don't worry.
R. James Ray
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 07:31:21 -0700
From: minglis@ix.netcom.com (Mike Inglis)
Subject: Decoction Technique
I am planning on brewing a Bavarian Weizen using a single decoction on
Monday, 5/22, but I have a question which may sound a little naive. I
have never done a decoction before and was just wondering what the
detailed procedure for "pulling the thick part of the mash" is. Do you
use a strainer or maybe just a saucepan and scoop out as much of the
grain as you can? I have the actual schedule set so I just need this
last piece of information. I am hoping that some decoction veterans can
give me some ideas. Thanks in advance for any help.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 1995 17:53:48 -0700
From: mpeacock@oeonline.com (Mark Peacock)
Subject: Mash/Lauter Tun Fabrication Question
Quick equipment description: 7 gal SS stock pot, hole drilled in the bottom,
fitted with a cock valve on the outside, 3/8" pipe thread through the hole,
connecting to a female-to-compression adapter inside the pot.
Problem: When assembled, I get a small leak through the bottom of the hole.
I tried to seal it with some Teflon stem wrap, but the leak remains.
Perhaps my tun will be like the SR-71 Blackbird -- leak like hell when on
the ground, but sealed tight when hot and operational. However, I don't
wish to bet an extended stovetop cleanup session on it. What I need is a
washer/O-ring, but I'm not sure what will hold up to the temperature? Will
rubber or neoprene stand the boiling/hot metal without melting?
TIA (as always),
Mark Peacock (mpeacock@oeonline.com)
Birmingham, Michigan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 06:58:48 +0500
From: generic@be3067.be.ford.com ()
Subject: Bad batch of brew to malt vinegar
Hi all.
This has probably been posted before, I'm sure, but I haven't seen
it lately. Anyone with a receipe/directions/process? Thanks for the
help.
Mike Preston, Secretary .~~~.
The Detroit Carboys | |]
"Habeo Hordea Fermentabo" |___|
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 95 10:14
From: NEEVES@mailgate.navsses.navy.mil (NEEVES)
Subject: Rcpt: Homebrew Digest #1707 (Ap
The following message has been deleted.
****** MESSAGE TOO LARGE
The message text of this Email has exceeded the maximum allowable length
for Email body size. The message has been enclosed as an attachment. You
may view the attachment, or save the attachment to disk.
This message wat automatically generated by the SMTP gateway.
******
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:33:06 -0500
From: keithfrank@dow.com (Keith Frank)
Subject: re: NA beer
Subject: re: NA beer
In the May 18 digest Dave Silver posted a freeze and drain method for NA
beer (original note from Matt Kelly) in PET bottles. Sounds like a great
idea. Later this summer I'm going to try it with various normal beers
around the house, analyze the alcohol by gas chromatography and will post
to the digest.
Bruce DeBolt
Lake Jackson, TX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 95 11:43:07 EDT
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Re: High FG, pumps
Hi All,
In HBD#1733, Russell P. Brodeur writes about high FGs:
>My first brew was a Scottish-style ale; OG ~65, FG ~22. I used 5# of dWC
>Special B in this,
>My second brew was a Munich-style dark lager. I used 18# dWC Pils and 2#
>dWC Special B (I don't recommend this for use in lagers).
>I brewed a light Munich-style lager using 17#
>dWC pils and 1# dWC CaraPils, using Munich lager yeast.
And John Palmer replies:
>The five pounds of Special B is a LOT. No wonder there was a high FG there.
>There would be tons of complex sugars left over. Then there was the lager yeast
>split batch with 2 lbs of Special B.
I think John's point is well taken. 2 lbs of Special B is a lot, 5 is
absolutely mind blowing. I use 1/4 lb in a 10 gallon porter recipe, it's less
than 2% of the grain bill, and the raisin-like sweetness contributed by
Special B comes roaring through, despite large amounts of chocolate malt, hop
bitterness, etc.
A note about the DWC pils that may or may not be related. This malt has
changed drastically from when it first appeared a few years ago. This malt
has a low degree of starch modification, much lower than the original version.
The degree of starch modification is determined by the fine/coarse grind
extract difference. Most of the DWC malts come in at 1.5% or lower, the
pils is at 2.2%, indicating a slight undermodification.
John continues:
>I will come to my point by saying that I could make a better case by looking at
>yeasts and % lower fermentability specialty grains than trying to draw the line
>between between Malting companies. I think your conclusion is overrided by the
>differences between your recipes.
Agreed. Looking over the description of the problem, virtually *every*
variable which would effect FG is changed with every batch. Different grain
bills, yeasts, mash schedules, fermentation temperatures. I suggest that you
start by cutting back the amount of specialty grains that contribute non-
fermentable sugars (Special B, carapils) to 5-10% of the grain bill, and
leave everything else the same. It's difficult to draw any conclusions due
to the lack of controls.
*****************************************************************
In HBD #1734, Robert Waddell writes about problems with pumps:
>Has anyone else out there had similar problems with these "March(tm)" pumps
>with the Pico Systems?
>But what's up with them being
>able to pump a three foot distance one time and not an hour later?
My three-tier system is homegrown, I'm not familiar with Pico Systems. I
did purchase two different March pumps however, models MDX-3 and MDX.
At 6 feet of head, the former is rated at over 5 gpm, the latter at nearly
2 gpm. The pumps have plenty of power, but they are non self-priming. This
is true in general of the type of laminar flow, magnetic drive that we
homebrewers use. From your description, it sounds like the pumps are not
being well primed. Try using gravity or suction to fill the pump's impeller
housing with fluid before turning it on.
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 12:32:22 -0400
From: dwhitman@rohmhaas.com (Dave Whitman)
Subject: triple distilled mercury
Lance Stronk writes about a pamphlet that came with his thermometer:
>It also stated that there should be no fear of mercury
>poisoning since the mercury was "triple distilled mercury" and could
>not be absorbed through the skin. I never heard of "triple distilled
>mercury" >and have asked others about it only to get some disbelieving
>looks.
Good quality mercury is normally triple distilled to increase its purity.
The purified stuff is just as toxic as before distillation.
>From the Merck Index:
Mercury...
Human Toxicity: Readily absorbed via respiratory tract (elemental mercury
vapor, mercurial compd dusts), intact skin and G.I. tract.
- ---
Dave Whitman
Rohm and Haas Specialty Materials
dwhitman@rohmhaas.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 13:07:18 -0400
From: ar568@freenet.carleton.ca (Aaron Shaw)
Subject: SUDS4.0
Could someone please send me the ftp address of SUDS4.0. TIA.
- --
"Come my lad, and drink some beer!"
Aaron Shaw
Ottawa, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 13:27:24 -0400
From: ROSSBEER@aol.com
Subject: Water Salts... Extract
I have read several HBD postings on the use of water salts. I'm still a
little confused on the point of adding salts to an extract batch.
My current understanding is that the extract company has taken care of this
for the brewer when the extract is manufactured. Is this right?
I brew with RO water that is very low in salts, I am afraid to add salts at
this point in fear of over doing a good thing.
Thank you for this great resource, and for your help.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 10:35:16 -0700
From: equinox@halcyon.com (Michael Collins)
Subject: Trub removal ect
>I'm looking for a good way
>to remove trub either from my boiling kettle or my settling tank.
> I have tried this with
>out success. I am only boiling 2.5-3 gallons in my kettle and the wort is
>I would like to begin partial or all grain brews and want a good
>trub removal system before I take the plunge.
I am also going through the transition phase to do all-grain. I have done
one all-grain batch and one thing I noticed- besides it being an entirely
different process- is that there is a hell of a lot more leftover material
in the wort. I have come to the conclusion that all the talk about trub
removal is relevant only to the all-grain brewing process and that an
extract brewer should not be concerned about removing it.
After cooling the wort I sterilize a wide spaced screen and filter the wort
through that into the fermentation vessel to remove excess grain or hops
and then add the yeast. Since it is cooled I also benefit from some
additional aeration. The brew doesn't get racked off until the initial
fermentation is complete and the krausen subsides. One loses too much brew
when trying to siphon off before then.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 95 09:23:24 MDT
From: stampes@neocad.com (Jeff Stampes)
Subject: Power Sparge
Ok, I can't seem to get this out of my mind, especially after attempting to
sparge my last Hefe-Weizen and being yelled at for having too many empty
kegs in the shed in the same day.
I saw a plan for a 2 keg power sparge system, and I can't help but think
that with some modifications, it would be as good as any other system.
Here's what I was thinking: Fabricate a copper slot-type manifold that I
could fit through the opening of a corny and would sit on the bottom. The
Liquid-out tube could be clamped onto the manifold. The gas-in tube
could be slightly lengthened, bent at 90 degrees, and have holes drilled to
make it an effective 'shower head' sparger. Another keg full of hot sparge
water could be connected to the gas-in fitting, and the CO2 tank connected
to that one.
Advantages:
seems the grain bed could still set up as a nice filter on the manifold.
No stuck sparges...if it slows too much, turn up the pressure
Full control over the speed of the sparge via pressure regulation
With the kegg sealed, heat loss would be minimized over a Zapap-type
or a phil's phalse bottom type system
Disadvantages:
That's for you to tell me!
- -- Jeff Stampes -- NeoCAD, Inc. -- Boulder, CO -- stampes@neocad.com --
- -- Ultimate Frisbee...It's not just for dogs anymore. --
- -- Any fool can make bread out of grain...God intended it for beer! --
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 14:46:31 -0400
From: Chris Cooper <ccooper@a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
Subject: RE: Rusty conv. Keg, old water
In HBD 1734 Mike Maimone mentions finding the inside of his recently
converted keg being rusty and proposes cleaning it up with a drill
and a wire brush DON'T DO IT! Sorry to shout but this can be a
big mistake. Not all stainless is the same and some has a tendency
to rust, from my experience with corny kegs and surplus kitchen gear
using a wire brush or wheel scratches the surface of the stainless
and leaves behind small bits of the brush which act as nucleation
points for future oxidation. Use a good grade cleanser and the
non-metallic (scotch-brite) pads to scrub the keg. A recent post
to the HBD mentioned a cleaner named King Kleen and I have used
ZUD to clean stainless.
Chris Cooper , Commerce Michigan --> Pine Haven Brewery <--
ccooper@a2607.cc.msr.hp.com --> aka. Deb's Kitchen <--
------------------------------
Date: 18 May 1995 12:02:17 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: Utilization of Oatmeal Quest
Hi Group,
I want to understand Oatmeal.
I want to understand how to best use it to achieve a creamy Oatmeal Stout. What
is the component of Oatmeal that is responsible for the creaminess and
mouthfeel of an Oatmeal Stout. I believe its the proteins. How are these
components best developed in our beer?
The following are the questions that I think will allow us to fully define
Oatmeals role in brewing. Answer any you can, and either post or email me, I
will post a summary next week.
1. Oatmeal is not malted, if it is Rolled or Instant/Quick to make part/all of
the starches soluble, does it respond to Steeping? or does it need to be
Mashed?
In other words, is there any mouthfeel or head retention benefit from steeping
oatmeal?
2. Does oatmeal need to be cooked (to a degree dependent on initial form) to
fully realize its potential in a steeping or mash? Does cooking the oatmeal
before use degrade the desired properties in the beer? or enhance them?
3. When Mashing Oatmeal, is a Protein Rest desired or is that counterproductive
to the desired oatmeal effects? Assume the use of 1 lb of oatmeal per 5 gallon
batch. Perhaps a short protein rest is needed to break up some of the proteins
to avoid a stuck sparge, but maybe too long a protein rest would leave no
oatmeal properties.
I think that about covers it, it looks like I am starting to ask redundant
questions. Respond away and hopefully we will arrive at the whole story.
Thanks,
John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-SSD M&P
johnj@primenet.com Huntington Beach, California
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 15:24:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Darren Tyson <TYSONDR@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject: What kind of grains do I have?
Greetings fellow hoembrewers,
I have a question regarding some grains I have received from
my brother-in-law (who happens to work for Boston Beer Co.)
He didn't know what kind of grains they were, and I would
like to try to figure that out. I'm hoping after describing
the grains I can at least get the possibles narrowed down.
This should be an interesting problem to you sleuth-type
grain gurus out there!
One type is approximately the same color as the British
Crystal malt I had recently purchased, however, the grains
have a MUCH stronger odor. I could barely smell the Crystal,
but the grains in question have a sharp smell. They make
my nose sting a little when I take a whiff! The husks are
not completely closed, possibly meaning that they have
already been cracked for steeping? And the grains inside
the husks appear darker than the husks themselves.
The other type of grain I received is a darker grain that
looks identical in color to the British Chocolate malt I
have, however, the smell is much more sharp like the other
grain in question. I think the darker grain may simply be
a roasted version of the lighter color grain except that the
size of the individual draker grains are a little smaller in
size. Does the roasting process cause the grains to shrink
at all?
Well, that's all the information I can think to state. If
anyone has an inkling as to what type of grains these could
be, please email me.
May all your beer be homebrewed,
Darren tysondr@sluvca.slu.edu
P.S. I would like to thank Michael Millstone for his recent
summary of steeping grains. It came in handy today!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 14:59:36 -0600 (MDT)
From: Bob Sinnema <rjsinnem@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Wheat-fruit beers/Malt numbers/ftp.stanford
I'm planning to make a blueberry-wheat beer and am curious about
yeasts that others have used when making wheat-based fruit beers. There
would seem to be little advantage to using a weizen yeast since one is
not looking for the unique clove/banana/spice aroma of a weizen.
Nevertheless, most of the recipes I've seen call for weizen yeast. So
tell me, why shouldn't I use a garden variety ale yeast?
I'm also interested in a more exhaustive compilation of
malt/sugar/adjunct contributions to O.G. and color. I've tried SUDS, but
it doesn't include some things I typically use -- fruits, toasted malt,
etc. Is there a book or on-line resource which has data which could be
input into SUDS or other recipe formulators?
Finally, is it possible to have some of the directories at
ftp.stanford subdivided? Whenever I try to get a file listing ("dir"
command) for the docs directory (and for the yearly archives), I can
never get the complete list. Usually, I end up with the first 20-30
files (thru c*) and the last few files (w* to the end). Sometime, I'd
like to see the entire list -- its been a great resource for me and I
know there's more out there.
Bob Sinnema | Detendez-vous, ne vous inquietez pas,
rjsinnem@acs.ucalgary.ca | Buvez une biere de menage!
wwtl80a@prodigy.com | Beat Navy! . . .again! . . .and again!
| (This could be habit forming!)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 95 17:39:27 CDT
From: ESSNER RICHARD L <C767SCB@SEMOVM.SEMO.EDU>
Subject: SIGNOFF homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
SIGNOFF homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 22:03:32 -0400
From: dflagg@agate.net
Subject: Trub removal ect.
> DSWPHOTO@aol.com writes:
> I'm looking for a good way to remove trub...
I think it's already been hashed out here that *total* trub
removal is not necessary and may actually be detrimental. That
said, removal of most of the trub is both good and easy.
The secret to good trub removal is to get the most of it out of
solution, and the best way to accomplish that is with a fast cool-down.
The faster the better. I use an immersion cooler and bring my wort
from boiling to 58^ in 15-20 minutes. I agitate the wort by moving
the cooler up and down constantly thru the 15-20 minute cycle. This
action mixes up the wort, preventing thermal layering. Some have
said this method may cause infection, but it has not been the case
with me. I have a cover to my boiling pot (I use a BruHeat) with
two holes cut in it for the immersion cooler tubes. I move the
cooler by pulling up and down on the cold water tubing.
I empty my cooled wort into a 6 gallon carboy, splashing and spraying
as much as possible for aeration. I then let the carboy set for 2-3
hours after which virtually all the trub has settled to the bottom of
the carboy. I then rack off the clear wort into my fermenting carboy,
pitching the yeast at this time.
Others have recommended pitching the yeast immediately after cooling.
That may be a good idea in theory, but I believe a lot of the yeast
is precipitated out by the falling trub and (in my system) does not make
it to the fermentor.
You had mentioned one method that called for trub removal 12 hours
after pitching. You also mentioned you had not found this possible
(I tried it and it didn't work for me either), and suggested you might
wait the 12 hours to pitch. I would definately *NOT* recommend this.
Get the yeast in as quick as you can! Even with my method, I hate to
wait the 2-3 hours before pitching, but have not come up with a better
system. Maybe some other contributor will...
************************************************************
Doug Flagg | "A Homebrew a day...
dflagg@orono.sdi.agate.net | Keeps the Worries away!"
************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 23:44:57 -0400
From: Hmbrewbob@aol.com
Subject: Diacetyl Rest
Hello Everyone,
I had everything I needed for brewing a Vienna including my yeast,#308
Munich, when I decided to do alittle brushing up on brewing procedures and
such. I was reading Roger Bergens' article in BT vol 1, no 2 on brewing
O'fests were I find that #308 tends to produce alot of diacetyl, a bad thing
in this style. Roger and others say to use a modern fermentation schedule
with temps between 50-58F to reduce diacetyl and other bad things but what I
have read about the production of diactyl I am going with a lower temp
fermentation and a diacetyl rest before lagering. This is where I really get
confused.
I've read in Dave Millers' Cont. Pilsner book,pg 61-62 for those following
along, that 53F for 1-2days will do the trick but in an article written by
Dr. Fix, BT vol 1 no2 pg 22, he writes that a rest at 68Fat the end of main
fermentation will reduce the diacetyl. I understand that different yeast
strains reduce diacetyl at different rates but I don't believe that has any
bearing on this question. Does it?
So at what temp should I do my Diacetyl Rest? 53F or 68F or should I have
used corriander...
Thanks,
Bob Ledden
Caln,Pa
Hmbrewbob@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:05:10 +1000 (EST)
From: Ken Willing <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Subject: Peptidase, peptones, & mouthfeel
Miller, Fix, Whitman and others appear to be in agreement that one of the
key factors in beer body and mouthfeel is the content of medium-weight
proteins (polypeptides and peptones). In typical homebrew beers, i.e.
assuming non-extreme FGs and not-too-extreme levels of sweetness and
alcohol, the claim would even appear to be that the protein factor is *the*
overriding source of perceived variation in body.
Questions:
1. Does anyone disagree with this?
2. If Miller, Fix et al. are essentially right in emphasizing the role of
medium-weight proteins, the following seems to become a central issue:
Which enzyme is responsible for degrading (and hence possibly *failing* to
degrade, or, on the other hand, possibly "overcleaving") these polypeptides
and peptones? Is this important function performed by peptidase, and
peptidase alone? If not, what is the rest of the story?
3. Is there evidence that the medium-weight molecules have anything to do
with perceived flavor (maltiness, etc.), as is strongly implied in one of G.
Fix's postings on yield?
Thanks.
Ken Willing <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Sydney, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:24:19 +1000 (EST)
From: Ken Willing <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Subject: Q: Using mod.-modified malt
Here in Australia we have a lovely new hybrid-based "Pilsener-quality"-like
malt (called "Franklin") which is somewhat less than fully modified, in the
protein sense. It's turning out to be a little tricky to handle. It
appears to be not *quite* up to supporting adequate yeast growth without a
protein rest at 122F (50C). The trouble is, if one gives it a half-hour
rest at that temperature, that seems to knock it around quite a bit (loss of
body, probably some loss of character too). Some of us have occasionally
lucked into other ways of getting it to ferment OK (e.g. using admixtures of
other malts), and that's how we know the terrific potential it has. But
still not quite sure how to handle it. A 15-minute protein rest? A
20-minute rest? No rest, but amino-acid pills? I'd be very grateful for
advice from anyone with experience of a "high-moderately" modified,
i.e. borderline sort of malt.
Thanks.
Ken Willing <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Sydney, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 05:00:36 -0400
From: kevinm@rocdec.roc.wayne.edu (Kevin McEnhill)
Subject: Cleaning the stove!
pgravel@mcs.com writes:
>My question is this: if (heaven forfend!) this ever happens to me
>again, what is the Right Way to get that black, baked-on, carbonized
>sugar off of the stove *without* destroying the finish? Since I
>imagine this question might be of interest to others, if people e-mail
>suggestions, I will post a summary of responses back here.
Buy a BLACK stove! That way if ( I'm sorry ,I mean WHEN ) you boil over, the
stuff that bakes on won't be as noticable.
**********************************************************************
* * /|~~~~~| I was told by my wife that *
* kevinm@rocdec.roc.wayne.edu * | | | if I brew one more batch *
* * | | | of beer she would leave me!*
* Kevin McEnhill * \| | *
* * |_____| I'm going to miss her :-) *
**********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 08:05:35 EDT
From: cem@cadre.com (Chuck E. Mryglot)
Subject: Marzen
Hi all...
I've just returned from a trip to Munich, Vienna and points thru
Austria (mainly the state of Corinthia). One interesting thing
is that thru Austria many brewers offer a Marzen beer. It is not
the Marzen/Ofest I would expect based on the style guidelines we are
used to, but it is a very pale lager and appears to be the lowest
gravity/least expensive offering of the brewer. ANy comments on this
discrepency?
BTW, My favorite beer during the entire trip (and I had considerable)
was Budweiser Budvar which was served at a biergarten in Vienna. Truley
excellent. The beer is a10 minute pour. The bar was about 30 ft long with
7 tap stations. A glassstarts at one end, is filled and passed to the next
station and filled somemore when the head settles a bit. The beer
eventually makes it thru the7th tap and is ready to serve. It has an
incredible head. They said that when the biergarten is full that the taps
run continuously.
Oh yes... I did visit a small brewery in Austria and they were happy to
give me a vial of their yeast. They had never heard of anyone brewing
beer at home.
Prosit
ChuckM
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 08:29:45 EDT
From: usfmchql@ibmmail.com
Subject: Stuck Ferments/March Pumping...
In HBD 1735...
>Ilkka Sysil "cannot see much point in considering cures for stuck
>fermentation..."
Later in your own post, you point out two very 'reversible' items that
typically area at the heart of stuck fermentations. Also, there are means by
which the sugars can be successfully converted; albeit the brewer can exert
little control as to how far the reaction goes: amylase enzymes can be added,
as has been pointed out in many previous posts. If done prudently, adding
small amounts, the sugars can be converted to satisfactory levels.
In an earlier digest, the question was raised as to how far the amylase will
go in the beer since it acts as catalyst, and catalysts generally aren't
consumed in the reaction. Now, I'm no expert, but I've asked around to some of
my medical/biotechnical friends. As I understand it, the enzymes are not
consumed in the reaction, but are somehow rendered inert, or non-catalytic -
the verbage eludes me here - by the reaction. In other words, it simply gets
'used up'.
Al Korzonas has compiled a faq on stuck fermentations. He's a busy man - I
would venture to guess that he wouldn't have wasted his time on it if things
had gone '*irreversibly* awry'.
In HBD 1734...
> "Robert Waddell" <V024971@Tape.StorTek.Com> asks about March Pumps...
I, too, have a pico Brewing Systems setup incorporating these pumps. They seem
highly variable in their performance, one to another, perhaps justifying their
low price. Anyway, I found that they like to run motor down. One of my pumps
will not move an ounce if the motor is above the impellor. To me, this
indicates cheap or damaged bearings, but I've been told its normal.
My other two pumps work fine in the upright position, but perform better
inverted as well.
Go figure...
Other that that, I *L*O*V*E* my system. 'Cept for that gonging noise it makes
when my wife throws it off the bed at night. Women...
"Drink all you want - I'll brew more!"
Patrick (Pat) G. Babcock | "Yup, Kit's (Anderson) a brewer...
President, Brew-Master | What he isn't is a woman." - Dan Hall
and Chief Taste-Tester | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery | at the end of your day as every sentence
pbabcock@oeonline.com | requires proper punctuation." -PGB
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 08:53:34 +0500
From: fcaico@ycc.Kodak.COM (Frank Caico)
Subject: Re: Thanks/lager/Pete's Summer Brew
>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Pack <danpack@grape-ape.che.caltech.edu> writes:
Dan> Finally, over the weekend I tasted Pete's Wicked Summer Brew. It's a
Dan> partial wheat brew with a subtle "tang of lemon" or so the label
Dan> claims. There is a slight lemon flavor in the first few swallows
Dan> which I found annoying but other than that I thought it was rather
Dan> nice. It's not trying to be a true wheat beer, IMHO, but it seems
Dan> they used some amount of wheat to simply lighten the body.
Dan,
Wheat will not *lighten* the body, but will in fact increase the body. Wheat
is not as high in fermentable sugars as barley malt is and therefore does not
produce the effect you describe. I believe that English commercial brewers
often add a small percentage of wheat to their mashes in order to icnrease head
retention and boost the perceived body of the beer.
Frank
- ----
__ __
__/\_\ -------------------------+------------------------------ /_/\__
__/\_\/_/ Frank L. Caico | Eastman Kodak Co. \_\/_/\__
/\_\/_/\_\ -------------------------+ 901 Elmgrove Road /_/\_\/_/\
\/_/\_\/_/ Internet Adress: | 2/5/EP MC: 35400 \_\/_/\_\/
\/_/\_\ fcaico@ycc.kodak.com | Rochester, NY 14653-5400 /_/\_\/
\/_/ -------------------------|------------------------------ \_\/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 09:33:06 -0400
From: Jim Grady <grady@hpangrt.an.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Electric stovetop brewing
I apologize if this has already been discussed -- I haven't caught up on
the HBD lately.
In HBD 1732, Bill Sadvary writes about using an electric stove for
boiling the full brew length and adds:
> The downside is that the burners do go through some abuse and I can see in a
> couple years having to replace the burners. No biggy.
The burners on my electric stove are nothing fancy and they are $30
each. If you have to replace 2 of them because you are straddling two
burners, then you have more than paid for a propane cooker (mine was $50
at the local homebrew supply shop). You also get the advantage of
getting faster boil times. So, if you have the space to use a propane
cooker, it might be a better alternative.
That's my $0.02 added to the pot.
- --
Jim Grady
grady@an.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Medical Products Group
Andover, MA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 06:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: "R. James Ray" <ray902@uidaho.edu>
Subject: Re: Cu nutrient/ N2-CO2 blend
Al Gasper asks:
> What about brewing in copper would promote yeast growth? I'd
> appreciate any comments.
Copper is a trace element essential to healthy yeast. Sources are water,
malt, and the brew kettle. As a trace element it is needed in very small
amounts. When there is a shortage of copper the yeast can usually bud
for several generations before their health declines and we notice a
sluggish fermentaion. Copper problems were noticed when some of the
megabreweries built new all stainless breweries.
Todd Ehlers asks:
> QUESTIONS:
> What is the "correct" mix of N2 to CO2 in "draft mix"?
> What is the effect of different mixtures?
> What characteristics are the two gasses responsible for?
> What is the correct pressure to tap beer (stouts) with draft mix?
> Is that different from CO2? Why?
> Is the flow control faucet used on Guiness and Oatmeal at bars essential?
> Why? Is it essential due to increased pressure?
> If I had separate CO2 and N2 cylindars how would I determine the
> pressures necessary to obtain a certain ratio of gasses in the mixture?
I have a very little experience with draft blend. We use and 85% N2 to
15% CO2 blend to reduce overpour and over carbonation. I due not know if
a different pressure is needed but the N2 should allow a higher pressure
to be used. I thought pressure had more to due with the length of the lines.
R. James Ray
Treaty Grounds Brewpub
Moscow, Idaho
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 10:14:12 -0400
From: Marla Korchmar <marlak@pipeline.com>
Subject: To crack or not to crack
A question for all you Belgian wit brewers (or anyone else who's used
unmalted wheat):
Unmalted wheat seems to be widely available in health food stores both in
the cracked and uncracked form. Will using the already-cracked version
negatively effect the my flavor of my wit? I've read that once you mill
your grain it must be used relatively soon.
Thanks.
Marla Korchmar
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 08:15:16 -0600 (MDT)
From: walter@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
Subject: Re: Vice
Russell Mast wrote:
> > From: dsanderson@msgate.CV.COM
> > Subject: Using Weisse Yeast Without the Weissen
> > I was pleasantly surprised this morning when a friend and colleague from
> > Munich unexpectedly appeared in my office and presented me 2 bottles of
> > Schneider Weisse.
> > One bottle is for drinking, the other for culturing the unique Schneider
> > yeast.
>
> First, I have to say you should drink most of the beer from BOTH and use the
> slurry from BOTH.
I second this!
> Third, I don't know if Schneider's does this, but several commercial
> weissbeers are filtered from their special (S. Delbruckii) yeast, then
> primed with a regular S. Cerevisiaeou(and sometimes y) yeast. Thus, the
> yeast you culture from this bottle might not be the yeast that gives the
> beer its distinctive flavor.
> > I'd be interested in comments or experience using a Bavarian Wheat yeast
> > in a straight Barley brew? I am curious about how much of the
> > distinctive Weisse flavor is contributed by the wheat and/or the yeast?
Schneider is the one brewery that I know of that _doesn't_ use a lager
yeast to bottle with. I had a friend bring me a bottle from France and
the yeast I worked up was definitely a weizen yeast.
Oh, and just a nit, but it is generally accepted that the weizen yeast is
just a strain of S. Cervisiae (sp?) and not Dulbruckii (sp?). I have
read this in Eric Werner's AHA styles wheat book, and also heard it from
Dave Miller at the AHA conference in Denver last year. Basically just
another bit of common lore that won't die.
Brian J Walter Chemistry Graduate Student walter@lamar.colostate.edu
RUSH Rocks Best Homebrewer & AHA/HWBTA Beer Judge Go Pack!
"If I were Satan, I would have a mountain bike" - Butthead
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 8:18:28 MDT
From: Norman Pyle <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: Stuck Ferments / Pressing
Ilkka Sysil wrote:
>I cannot see very much point in cosidering cures for stuck fermentation.
>Stuck fermentation definitely means that things have gone unfortunately
>& *irreversibly* awry in much earlier stage of brewing process.
Possibly so, but all is not lost.
>There is no point doctoring the remaining much too high amount of dextrins
>into fermentable sugars after fermentation stops (stucks) due to the fact
>that
>fermentable sugars have run out - quite natural!
>In biotechnical process called brewing the ratio of fermentables vs.
>unfermentables is adjusted a little bit earlier by performing a pretty
>little thing called *mashing* exactly the way which comes up with desired
>composition of sugars in wort.
Ilkka, you are correct in that you can control the ratio of fermentables to
unfermentables, but I think you are over-simplifying the phenomenon known as
"stuck fermentation". Good beers, I dare say even great beers have been
made from "doctoring" a stuck fermentation. Also, there are a number of
causes of this anomaly, including, but not limited to, under-pitching,
under-aeration, temperature shock, low fermentation temperature, high-dextrin
wort, low FAN wort, etc. Many, if not all, of these can be fixed with a
little ingenuity, resulting in quality beer. Don't throw it out because your
mash schedule isn't just perfect!
Finally, consider the possibility that many stuck fermentations are "owned"
by brewers who use malt extracts rather than doing a mash. They cannot
affect the mash, yet they are getting stuck ferments. Again, most of these
can be fixed, with some effort. I believe, in most cases, this is time well
spent.
**
Troy Howard asks about Kirin's "pressing" in the lautering process. Coors
uses presses to separate the grain from the liquor. They are long SS
machines and I believe they literally squeeze the grain while rinsing it with
sparge water. At least that's the impression I got from a recent tour.
Cheers,
Norm
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1736, 05/20/95
*************************************
-------
