Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1763
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/06/23 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1763 Fri 23 June 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
New Gadgets/Open Ferments (RE: 1761) ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
re-using yeast sediment (DCB2)
Storage Temperature (Drago James MAJ)
Rites of Spring Results (chris campanelli)
CO2 canisters/Fruit beers (Danny Owen)
New Brewer - Thanks (GOLDBERG_DAVID)
Water Series (A. J. deLange)
cancel (DAVID DOUGLAS STRAIN)
Fermentap question (Dave Fletcher)
Hop Plugs (Russ Brodeur)
Stuck fermentation & Amylase / Slow starting liquid yeast ("Keith Royster")
Malt profile (Nir Navot)
Re: Christoffel Blond (spencer)
Fermenter Yeast Harvesting (Domenick Venezia)
YBMBRBYEBI (Norman C. Pyle)
Fermentability Comments (Russ Brodeur)
Dropping vs Wort Aeration ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
Water Chemistry: pratical considerations (Steve Zabarnick)
exploding growler: the happy ending ("mike spinelli")
New Microbrewery ()
Steam Generator Praises (howell)
Re: "nut" brown ale (Jeff Frane)
20 min sparge/drugs (Jim Busch)
Re: Fixing leaky compression fittings (harry)
******************************************************************
* 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, 21 Jun 95 10:37:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: New Gadgets/Open Ferments (RE: 1761)
New Gadget:
----------
Curt mentioned seeing a new Lister-Phing used to start a siphon and
I wanted to mentioned it has been available for some time under the
name "Super-Siphon".
The unit is built from a 2" long 1/2" (customized?) copper fitting
Imagine a 1/2" copper coupling with a convergent-divergent nozzle at
one end:
--|---------\__/-- The ASCII sketch shows the sectional view.
The throat on the right serves as a stop
__ for a glass marble which is held against
--|---------/ \-- the throat by a large-diameter light-weight
spring. The left end of the spring is held
in place by the retainer ring (I think it's either soldered in, or is
actually a rolled section of the outer tube). I've depicted the
retainer as the two vertical strokes "|" at the top and bottom left
of the sketch. The marble and beer "move" to the left relative to
the outer housing as you accelerate the unit to the right in multiple
short strokes--I think you get the idea.
Open Fermentation:
-----------------
Russell asked abt why open ferments may make 'better' beer. I don't
know if they do--it may be a matter of personal taste in any case.
I do know it's one helluva lot more fun (for me), and provides superb
access to the beer during the ferment. I like to skim the gummygoo
from the krauesen, pull samples from near the surface for culturing,
and listen to and smell the progress of the ferment. I 'feel' that
pulling the gum off the kraeusen before it falls back into the beer
indeed improves the beer--but I have nothing to back this up (I would
only try to back it up if I had BJCP credentials, and I'm not even close).
I also have seen what I think is 'better' fermentation--yeast heads
are clearly more joyous, yea, celebratory in nature. They are certainly
faster, but this may be entirely due to the aspect ratio of the beer
in the container and not the open ferment itself.
The ONLY alleged causal factor of beer improvement with the method I've
seen is a 'light' reference to the "free exchange of gasses" over the
surface of the beer. All I can say is that after 15 open batches, my
enjoyment of beermaking has been *greatly* enhanced: a) I can more easily
see, hear, and smell the progress, b) I clean wide shallow pots instead
of throated carboys, c) I don't have to deal with dirty airlocks or blowoff
tubes, and d) I feel I'm brewing closer to 'the British way'.
None of these alleged 'advantages' may be of any interest to most brewers,
but once I tried it I knew I would never return to carboys again--except
for lagering. Also, note there is no requirement (in my view) to leave the
lid off--I keep the fermenter covered with a lid (or dinner plate) most of
the time. Canadian and British brewers have told me they cover the unit
only when the beer has no protective foam cover (prior to startup and after
the kraeusen drops). My opinion is that I peek in often enough to clear
out bad gas from the unit, and I want to prevent airborne cat dander or
other 'stuff' from getting in the beer (dead bats, for example).
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 9:26:12 PDT
From: DCB2%OPS%DCPP@bangate.pge.com
Subject: re-using yeast sediment
In HBD 1761 Kevin Kutskill asks:
next batch of beer, and I want to try this myself. Here's the problem: I
just
fined the finished beer with gelatin. Will the gelatin in the yeast sediment
keep the yeast from suspending in the new wort, thereby preventing the
fermentation from proceeding as it should? I know my beer is not ruined
<g>, but what about the yeast cake?
I don't have much experience with gelatin but I would go ahead and try using
it. Worst case scenerion is that you'll have to pitch some fresh yeast into
your "stuck ferment". In the future, however, if you plan to use gelatin it
may be better to consider saving the yeast from the primary instead. The
yeast won't be quite as clean but it should still be quite viable IMHO.
David Boe
Pacific Gas & Electric
DCB2@pge.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 13:50:53 EDT
From: tj2996@WESTPOINT-EMH2.USMA.ARMY.MIL (Drago James MAJ)
Subject: Storage Temperature
I am storing several batches of ale that fermented at room temperature and
until recently were stored at room temperature as well. The hot summer weather
has caused my storage room temperature (outside furnace room) to increase
significantly. I'd say to about 80-90 degrees F. While I realize that
fermentation temps for ales should be between 68-75, is there a problem with
these higher temps after bottling/kegging? I did notice that a few of my 5
liter kegs were swollen after a two day hot spell, and that one of my bottles
of Toad Spit Stout had an off flavor to it.
JAMES P. DRAGO
MAJ, FA
ADMISSIONS MEDIA OFFICER
X5701
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 95 12:49 CDT
From: akcs.chrisc@vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli)
Subject: Rites of Spring Results
Winfield Rites of Spring Competition Results
There were 83 entries and 19 judges
American Pale/California Common (9 entries)
1st: Mike Montgomery (American Pale)
2nd: Thomas Schneeman (American Pale)
3rd: Peter E. Reed (California Common)
Brown Ales (9 entries)
1st: Eric Dallman (American Brown)
2nd: James Light (American Brown)
3rd: Mike Montgomery (American Brown)
German Ale/Scottish/Barley Wine/Old Ale/Smoked (12 entries)
1st: Mike Montgomery (Rauchbier)
2nd: Mike Montgomery (Barley Wine)
3rd: Jay Kash (Kolsch)
English Bitter/English Pale (10 entries)
1st: Tom Keith (English Ordinary)
2nd: Michael Hennessy (English Special)
3rd: Mike Montgomery (Classic English Pale)
Belgian Ale/Wheats (7 entries)
1st: Jay Kash (Weizen)
2nd: Frank Dobner (Tripel)
3rd: Mike Montgomery (Belgian Strong)
Lagers (9 entries)
1st: Jay Kash & Jens Loder (Doppelbock)
2nd: Jens Loder (Munich Helles)
3rd: Roger Meridith (Munich Dunkel)
Mead/Cider (5 entries)
1st: Tom Keith (Sparkling Cider)
2nd: Mike Montgomery (Sparkling Metheglin)
3rd: Mike Kowal & Mike Frost (Still Melomel)
Fruit/Herb/Specialty (10 entries)
1st: John Kleczewski (Classic Fruit)
2nd: Philip Gravel (Herb)
3rd: Jeff Horner (Classic Specialty)
Porter/Stout (12 entries)
1st: Derek Heicken (Brown Porter)
2nd: Joe Viger (Sweet Stout)
3rd: John Kleczewski (Brown Porter)
Best of Show
1st: Mike Montgomery (American Pale)
2nd: Tom Keith (Sparkling Cider)
3rd: Mike Montgomery (Rauchbier)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 15:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Danny Owen <owen@liblan.uams.edu>
Subject: CO2 canisters/Fruit beers
Hello all in HBD land. Got a question and a second de-lurk. I recently
obtained, legally of course, a couple of Cocoa-cola cannisters. Where can I
obtain a CO2 bottle (hopefully for purchase) and the pin-type connectors to
make these of value (I already had the gauge)? The local homebrew store
doesn't have these and I didn't want to wait for the U.S. Postal system to do
me a favor and get them here.
Also, I have wildberries growing in my backyard and I was wondering if
anybody has any tried and true recipies for berries (I believe that we have
both raspberries and blackberries). Also, when are you supposed to pick these
berries for maximum flavor, brew-a-bility (a neo-logism), etc?
P.S. I live in LR, AR (no Bill CLinton question or comments please as they
will be ignored)
Danny Owen
A brewer in suspense
P.P.S. Reply in private please. I will post the responses and results if
there is any of either.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Jun 95 16:54:00 -0500
From: GOLDBERG_DAVID@devnull.mpd.tandem.com
Subject: New Brewer - Thanks
All,
I want to thank everyone who responded to my request for infomation.
Now I'll get to enjoy my two favorite things:
Drinking good beer
Driving my VW Thing
Regards,
David Goldberg
14231 Tandem Blvd
Austin, Texas 78728
GOLDBERG_DAVID @TANDEM.COM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 20:21:03 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Water Series
In #1761 I indicated that I thought it would be nice to be able to supply
formulations for each of the waters that Dave Draper tabulated in #1704.
It turns out I was closer than I thought to being able to do this and am
now ready to have a go at it IF YOU PEOPLE WANT ME TO.
Please read on here and, if still interested, the companion post
titled "Burton 1" which I'll try to separate by a day from this so that
I'm not gobbling up too much space in one number.
What I propose to do is make one post per city (there are 17). Burton 1
is a sample of what a city post would be like. I would do one of these
every couple of days until they are all done. In this way I can spread
out the labor and also not flood the digest with water. If you like this
idea send me e-mail to that effect. If you think it's a dumb idea please
let me know that also. I won't go any further unless I have enough positive
(and little enough negative) response to make it seem worth while.
The formulations are based upon software which I described in #1761 and
which has since been beefed up some. They are for salt and acid additions
to water which is ion free (distilled, ion exchanged, or treated by reverse
osmosis).
What follows here is a guide to interpreting the computer out-
puts in the Burton 1 (and subsequent) posts. It is illustrated
by the following sample formulation for water which approximates
the Burton 1 profile in Dave's post:
1 n: 770000 Temp: 0.000962 Energy (rms %): 0.033907
2 Burton 1
3 ION DESIRED REALIZED ERR, % SALTS AMOUNT
4 Ca 268.000 267.887 -0.04 NaCl 3.582
5 Mg 62.000 62.026 0.04 Na2CO3.10H2O 203.042
6 Na 54.000 54.025 0.05 CaCL2 1.400
7 K 0.000 0.000 0.00 CaSO4.2H2O 609.163
8 CO3 275.000 274.938 -0.02 CaCO3 313.607
9 SO4 638.000 637.804 -0.03 MgCL2 2.679
10 CL 36.000 35.989 -0.03 MgCO3 62.169
11 H 6.870 2.633 -61.67 KCl 0.000
12 0.000 0.000 0.00 Na2SO4 61.764
13 0.000 0.000 0.00 MgSO4.7H2O 440.022
14 0.000 0.000 0.00 H2SO4 86.356
15 0.000 0.000 0.00 HCl 31.817
16 Carbonic: 2.2816 Bicarbonate: 2.2816 Carbonate: 0.000262 mM
17 Total Required Hydronium: 6.8448 Sulfuric Hydronium: 1.7814
18 Hydrochloric Hydronium: 0.8773 mEq
19 4.1861 mEq additional hydronium required to maintain pH 6.38
20 Solubility Products - CaCO3: 8.70E-09 MgCO3: 2.60E-05
21 Ion Products - CaCO3: 1.76E-09 MgCO3: 5.26E-10
22 Alkalinity: 2.25 mEq; 112.56 ppm as CaCO3.
23 Temporary hardness: 9.16 mEq; 458.00 ppm as CaCO3
24 Permanent hardness: 9.31 mEq; 465.42 ppm as CaCO3
The line numbers are only for reference here and are not used normally.
Line 1 contains some information
about what the program did. The important item is the rms %
number. It is obtained by taking the percentage error in each ion
concentration, squaring it, adding them up and taking the square
root of the sum. The lower this number the better our approximation
to the desired. I do not intend to report formulations with rms %
errors greater than 10% except to illustrate a point orunless
there is no way I can come up with a better approximation.
Line 2 is the name of the city as given in Dave's list.
Line 3 has the titles for the columns. The first column contains
the symbols for the ions. Charges are not indicated. The second
column is the desired concentration for the ions in parts per
million (ppm) which is equivalent to milligrams per litre (mg/l).
The third column shows what the concentration of the individual
ions will be if the salts and acids named in the fifth column
are added to water in the quantities listed in the 6th column.
All salt quantities are in mg/l. If the salt used has a different
water of hydration that that given in the name in the 5th column
the quantity must be adjusted to reflect this. The acids are
listed as mg/l (ppm) in the 6th column but their equivalencies are
also given in lines 17 (sulfuric acid) and 18 (hydrochloric) thus,
the, 86 ppm H2SO4 can be obtained from 18 ml of 1 N
sulfuric acid.
The errors in column 4 are obtained by subtracting the desired
concentration from the realized concentration, dividing by the
desired concentration and multiplying by 100. I don't intend to
post any results where any ion concentration is in error by more
than 15%.
Lines 4 -15 list the individual ion and salt data.
Line 11, will often be seen to be substantially in
error. What this means is that the hydrochloric and sulfuric acid
additions listed in lines 14 and 15 were not sufficient to dis-
solve all the carbonate and additional hydronium is needed. The
equivalent amount is listed in line 19. Thus, an acid other than
hydrochloric or sulfuric (such as phosphoric or lactic) is required
in this quantity to obtain the ion concentrations of column 3
AND the pH (also listed in line 19). The pH is an input to the
program. It is sometimes necessary to specify a pH lower than
neutral (7.00) in order to get all the carbonates into solution
but I try to use 7 where I can and still meet the error criteria
(10% rms, 15% maximum).
Lines 12 - 15 are filled with 0's in the first 3 columns
simply to make my print statements simpler.
Line 16 gives the relative concentrations of the three species
of carbonate-derived ions in millimoles/litre (mM/l). The sum
of these three numbers, converted to mg/l, is equal to the total
carbonate as indicated in Column 3, Line 9.
Lines 17 -18: see Line 3 explanation
Line 19: See line 11
Lines 20 and 21 are to be compared. If the ion product is close
to the solubility product this means that the solution is close
to being saturated. This is seen for CaCO3 fairly frequently for
high carbonate waters and is the reason that I set the pH to
6.38 for these fairly often. 6.38 is a nice pH; it is the pK
for the first dissociation of carbonic acid and a value that
carbonate systems naturally like to go to.
Line 22 is the alkalinity of the water synthesized - not the
water specified. It is a function of the carbonate content
and the pH I chose. It is given as the number of mEq/l required
to move the water from the specified pH to pH 4.3 (the methyl
orage end point) This is a common definition of alkalinity.
It is also expressed as mg/l CaCO3 by multiplying by 50 (the
number of mg/mEq for this salt.
Lines 23 and 24 give hardness data for the synthesized water -
not the specified water. Temporary hardness is the number
of mEq of calcium and magnesium ion for which there is matching
carbonic, bicarbonate or carbonate. Permanent hardness is
the number of mEq of calcium and magnesium for which there is
no matching carbonic, bicarbonate or carbonate. By multiplying
by 50 mg/mEq we again get these numbers as mg/l (ppm) CaCO3.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 15:14:41 -0700
From: DAVID DOUGLAS STRAIN <STRAINDD@vortex.t-bird.edu>
Subject: cancel
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 06:18:00 GMT
From: fletch@poohs.com (Dave Fletcher)
Subject: Fermentap question
Recently, I have taken notice of a device called a Fermentap which purports to
ease the handling of the beer, trub, yeast, etc. in the carboy by allowing one
to invert the carboy and control each of these elements using some sort of
valve mechanism. I have little knowledge of said device except what I have
read in advertisements. Could those who have used this device please send me
email describing your experience(s). I will post a summary if interest
warrants. Thanks.
fletch@poohs.com
- ---
* KWQ/2 1.2i *
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 09:11:53 -0400
From: r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com (Russ Brodeur)
Subject: Hop Plugs
I have grown fond of using hop plugs in my brewing. They are quite compact,
relative to whole hops, yet expand when wet to become very similar to whole
hops in the boil. Since their variety appears limited to European strains
(mostly noble varieties) I have been using them primarily for finishing,
with the exception of pilsners :)
One of the advantages of whole hops, IMHO, is to act as a filter bed for
trub in the boiling kettle, and plugs seem to work fine for this as well.
I am curious as to why there isn't more of an availability of hop plugs. I
have, however, noticed that William's Brewing is offering more selection
than I had seen previously.
I contacted one of the hop houses on the west coast, and inquired about
availability of plugs, since I personally prefer them. I was told they were
of inferior quality to both whole and pellet hops.
Is this true??
TIA for any suggestions.
TTFN
Russ Brodeur (r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 09:27:16 EST
From: "Keith Royster" <Royster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: Stuck fermentation & Amylase / Slow starting liquid yeast
Howdy fellow HBD'ers. I was wondering if you could help me with
some questions concerning my first stuck fermentation.
I recently brewed an American Pale ale with 6#DME and some specialty
grains which I then cooled and pitched onto the yeast sedement
(#1056) in the secondary of a previous batch. It should also be
noted that this previous batch was pitched onto the sediment of the
primary of an even earlier batch, so this is the 3rd "generation".
Well, the fermentation started up nicely and all seemed to go well
until I checked the gravity prior to kegging. The gravity was ~
1.025, compared with a target of ~ 1.014. I've read that the
majority of stuck fermentations are due to either under aeration or
low levels of yeast nutrients. However, I doubt either to be the
cause here because I aerated well with the Pin-Hole-In-The-Tube
Thingy (new acronym?: PHITTT), and 6#DME in 5 gallons of water
should provide enough nutrients (per Dave Miller: 1# per gallon is
good enough). Confused, I went to the local brew store to buy Yeast
Energizer. The owner recommended amylase enzyme instead, which I
bought, and which worked.
So I guess my first question is, why did
it work? I understand basically that amylase is an enzyme for
breaking down larger sugars into smaller ones. Does this imply that
my DME was under modified by the manufacturer? Also, over a week
later (maybe 2 weeks), small bubbles continued to rise as if the
fermentation now would not stop. I tasted the beer and did not
notice any infection, but it did taste sweeter than I felt it should
(gravity now ~ 1.009). I finally just turned the temp down in the
fridge to around 35F and the bubbling stopped. I'm not worried about
exploding bottles later because I plan on kegging, but what might be
happening here?
*******************
I've noticed some recent posts concerning liquid yeast packs that are
slow to swell up and though I might contribute my own data point to
the subject. I few months back I got a neighbor back into homebrewing.
He had brewed a few years back and was interested in trying it again,
so he pulled out some of his old equipment and brought it over. The
funny thing was, there was an old DME recipie for a Belgian Lager (I
think?) sitting in the box, including a liquid yeast pack. The store
receipt indicated that all was TWO YEARS OLD!!! Well, just for fun,
we broke the pack and made the beer (we did replace the hops). The
yeast pack took about 4 or 5 days to swell if I remember correctly,
but the starter smelled fine, so we pitched it in the wort. Well, I
don't think I've ever tasted a beer with so much diacetyl in it!
Talk about a beer you could pour over popcorn!! Like I said, just
one person's data point.
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Keith Royster, E.I.T. | Beer brewers shall sell no beer to the |
| Environmental Engineer | citizens, unless it be three weeks old; to |
| NC-DEHNR / Air Quality | the foreigner they may knowingly sell |
| (704) 663-1699 | younger beer. |
| Royster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | - German Beer Law, 1466 |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:36:54 +0300
From: diagen@netvision.net.il (Nir Navot)
Subject: Malt profile
I just bought some Munton & Fison malt and received with it the analysis
certificate. Can you help me understand what these names & figures signify
and how they might affect the way I treat this malt and the types of beer I
can use it for? Does this profile agree with this malt supposedly being
'lager malt'?
Here is the analysis:
Moisture % 4.10
Extract dry weight % 80.70
Coarse/Fine Difference % 0.10
Colour EBC units 25 mm Cell 3.00
N.D.M.A. ppb 1.00
Kolbach Index 43.70
Saccharification time (minutes) 10.0
Diastatic power w.k. units =BAL 258
Alpha Amylase =BASKB units -
Total Soluble Nitrogen d.w. 0.72
Total protein d.w. % 10.30
=46riability % 88.10
Is there something missing from this profile? What other parameters can one
ask for?
Many thanks,
Nir
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 09:43:40 EDT
From: spencer@med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: Christoffel Blond
Robert Lauriston wrote about Re: Christoffel Blond:
: First, which 'unfermentable sugars' are sweet? I have read that dextrins
: have no flavour (or at least aren't sweet).
True, as the chains get longer, the sweetness perception decreases.
: Second, if the body is due to short peptide chains, what effect do these
: materials have on gravity? If they are providing a full body, wouldn't that
: tend to give a higher FG, or is their effect on body far greater than their
: effect on gravity?
There was a big discussion about body a little while ago. There was
no real consensus, but I came away with the impression that
oligopeptides had much more influence on perceived "body" than did
oligosaccarides. And, I think (as you point out in another paragraph)
that the high bitterness level may also contribute to the overall
"body" perception.
: Would you really have an overall perception of sweetness with such a highly
: hopped beer?
There are competing influences at work here. The bitterness does tend
to mask the sweetness. However, I have certainly made beers that are
both sweet (to the point of being syrupy) and intensely bitter. To
get the sweetness without the bitterness, take a little bit of beer
right into the front of your mouth and taste it just with the tip of
your tongue, which seems to be more sensitive to sweet and less
sensitive to bitter.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 07:58:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: Fermenter Yeast Harvesting
A few HBDs back I posted about easily harvesting and washing yeast from
a fermenter. I've gotten a few requests for clarification, e.g., "where's
the yeast?". Sorry, if I wasn't clear and complete.
Harvesting starts during racking from the secondary. Be careful to maintain
sanitation of the yeast cake left behind. Put the airlock back on the
fermenter after racking, and don't let the yeast cake sit around for days
before harvesting. At every step do all that you can to maintain sanitation.
I use copious quantities 70% ethanol as a wipe and a spray, and keep a
bucket of iodophor near to drop and store things in. Keep everything sealed.
Refrigerate your slurry--it will keep longer and it settles faster. If you
are using your household refrigerator (a filthy, microbial jungle), get some
brand new ziplock bags and store everything in a brand new bag. This
includes plates, slants, flasks, jars, etc. Wash your hands often--dry
with new paper towels. Don't touch your face. Don't scratch your
arm pits. Don't pick your nose. Don't I sound like your mom?
Preboil, cool, and store 3-4 quarts of water. Pour a quart into the
fermenter, swirl it around and collect the slurry in something. Let the
solution settle overnight in the refrigerator. It has been my experience
that the trub settles first into a darker layer, then the yeast settles
on top of the trub. Remember, we have a slug of yeast here so even
losing half of it will leave more than you've ever pitched from a starter.
Pour off the liquid portion (decant), add more preboiled water, swirl, let
completely settle, decant again. Repeat until the water remains clean.
Once you've gone through a couple rounds the process can be interrupted if
you run out of preboiled water. It is important to get the remaining beer
out of the slurry quickly as it makes a good bacterial medium. It
usually takes me up to a week to wash my yeast, but then I really let it
settle. When you have cleaned up the slurry, you're left with a layer
of grayish trub under a layer of pretty white yeast. If the trub
doesn't bother you add enough water to cover the yeast and seal the
container and store until use. In the refrigerator it will last 2-3
months.
If the trub bothers you, then add more preboiled water, swirl it up, wait
for the first layer to form and pour off the liquid. In this case the
liquid will contain the yeast. Then treat the yeast as above. If you
have access to a separatory funnel the whole process is quite easy.
If you want to the last step is an acid wash to kill bacteria. Wash the
yeast by letting it sit for 2 hours in a pH 2.5 solution of phosphoric
acid, then rinsing with preboiled water as above.
Domenick Venezia
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 9:07:10 MDT
From: Norman C. Pyle <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: YBMBRBYEBI
Eamonn McKernan wins the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate Award for this one:
>With all the IMBR questions in recent HBD's, I've got a new twist: I haven't
>brewed this batch yet, but is it ruined?
Hah!
>You see, I bought all the ingredients for a Marzen, and a wheat beer in
>anticipation of spending a weekend testing my new RIMS. Well, it's over a
>month
>since I did this shopping, and the *crushed* grain and whole hops are still
>sitting on a shelf in plastic bags in the cold room in my basement. I hope
>to solve my leaking problems this week, and want to brew this weekend.
The simple answer is no, your beer isn't ruined, but you should go to your
room for an hour to think about what you've done (yes, you can bring a beer
with you). You should store hops in as cold an environment as possible,
which for most everyone is the freezer. I'm not sure how cold your "cold
room" is, but the freezer is likely better.
Now, the question about grain has always stumped me. I once heard a rumour
of a commercial brewery that said they crushed their grain fresh because they
got better yield this way. Said that if they crushed it the day before they
would add 10% more to get the proper gravities. Now this seems pretty close
to something an old wife might tell, but then some of those old wives were
pretty smart. I suspect under most conditions your grain won't be as fresh
as you might like but that it will perform adequately. You say the grain is
not damp; does this mean it is fairly dry down there? If not, YBMBRBYEBI
(your beer might be ruined before you even brew it). Can anyone comment on
what's really going on with aging malt?
**
BTW folks, I have to compliment you all on the high quality discussions on the
HBD these days. Kudos to Robert Brown, AJ deLange, and Kirk Fleming for some
fine reports this week. I know you don't need my approval, but we all like
to gripe when things aren't going the way we like them with HBD. I just
figured some good words could be thrown in at times as well.
Cheers,
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 11:18:19 -0400
From: r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com (Russ Brodeur)
Subject: Fermentability Comments
Back in HBD 1732 I posted my observations regarding the 40/60/70 C mash
schedule (ala G.J. Fix in HBD 1506) and DWC & Shreier malts. In a nutshell:
I didn't observe _any_ effect due to varying the duration of the 60 C rest
(with DWC malts), and I found the Schreier 2-row to be more attenuative than
DWC, given the same mash conditions.
I brewed a bitter about a month ago, and bottled it a couple nights ago. My
total grain bill was 15# (12 # Schreier, 1# dwc biscuit, 1 # caravienne, 1 #
Breiss Munich) for 11 gal. I mashed at 105 F/30 min, 145 F/45 min, and 160
F/15 min. I decocted the thinnest ~1/3 for mash-out. I sparged with 8 gal,
initially at 175 F. My OG was 1.041 (30-31 pt/#/gal) and my FG was 1.010
(AA ~ 76%) after fermenting ~ 4 weeks using Wyeast London Ale yeast.
My AA is quite high, as I desired, right around the published upper limit
for this yeast strain (77%). I have a light, low alcohol (~4 vol%) brew for
summer enjoyment. BTW, it tastes pretty good too.
In short, I have found increasing the second rest temp from 140 to 145-50 to
have the desired effect on fermentability. Namely, I can adjust the rest
time ratio between 145:160 to achieve the desired body in the finished beer.
In my next bitter I will use DWC PA malt, as I had originally planned (I
thought I had a bag).
Just my $0.02 ;^)
TTFN
Russ Brodeur (r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 09:50:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: Dropping vs Wort Aeration
RE: #1762 wherein Domenick replies:
> The discussion concerned a technique called "dropping" which
> is simply racking to the secondary fermenter with aeration.
I think this will lead to inconsistent use of the term 'dropping'.
Based on Wheeler and Protz and email from British brewers, to do
dropping is to rack early, specifically at around sg = .5 OG. In
fact, Wheeler and Protz *specifically* say (p. 46 BYORAAH):
"I use the dropping system...[which] entails simply transferring
the ale to another vessel about halfway through fermentation.."
and they continue in the definition section...
"The beer should be syphoned from one container to another,
taking care to leave as much yeast and sediment as possible
behind in the primary vessel and taking care to admit the
minimum of air into solution; although some air may be
beneficial for certain strains of yeast."
This last sentence reflects an idea Domenick echoes with:
> Dropping is not necessary with most yeasts.
But note the difference here: it's NOT dropping that's unecessary,
it's AERATION that's not necessary. In fact, I'd argue it isn't
needed at all for any yeast. OTOH, perhaps it could be beneficial
to aerate while racking with a highly flocculant strain--in which
case at racking time you may feel you've left behind so much of
the yeast population that you want to aerate to drive them back into
reproduction. I don't think you really want to do that--but that's
not a matter I can argue intelligently (if there is such a matter).
Since I have never seen ANY references to the "certain strains"
that "may" benefit from aeration at this point in their careers,
I have to think, on the whole, dropping w/o aeration is the best bet.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 11:54:55 -0400
From: steve@snake.appl.wpafb.af.mil (Steve Zabarnick)
Subject: Water Chemistry: pratical considerations
I would like to commend A.J. DeLange for an excellent and extensive
discussion of the addition of water salts to distilled water to reproduce
the water of famous brewing centers, which was in HBD #1761. A.J.'s report
started me thinking about the practical considerations of water chemistry
in brewing. That is, how do changes in water chemistry actually affect the
character of beer? Does a brewer really need to closely reproduce a
particular water chemistry to brew an excellent example of a given style?
Let me report on some of my recent brewing "experiments". My city's well
water is very hard and very high in total alkalinity (400 mg/l as CaCO3).
It is partially softened so that the sodium content is very high (250
mg/l). My beers made with this water (I acidify the mash and sparge water
with phosphoric acid) have been good, but I am always looking for
improvement.
I recently started using RO water (without salt or acid additions) for
brewing and have had excellent results. To date I have made a steam beer, a
stout, and a weizen. These beers have experienced normal fermentation
characteristics (i.e., short fermentation times, normal attenuation),
despite the common wisdom that RO water does not have enough of the proper
minerals for brewing. With RO water, my mash pH's have all been in the
range 5.3 to 5.6, usually right at 5.3, measured at the mash temperature.
Starch conversion and yields have been good. Most importantly, these beers
have very clean flavors. I intend to continue using RO water for my beers.
In my experience RO water does not have to be "doctored" with salts for
brewing. I do agree that _certain_ brewing styles can be more readily
emulated with salt additions (such as a Burton pale ale with gypsum), but
excellent beer can be brewed without such additions. Perhaps we need to
reevaluate the role that ions play in the flavor and fermentation
characteristics of beer.
Steve Zabarnick
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:31:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "mike spinelli" <paa3983@dpsc.dla.mil>
Subject: exploding growler: the happy ending
My embarrassing account of a beautiful German growler exploding because of
suspected overcarbonation is happily not the case. I've since opened and
enjoyed my other 16 oz. bottles of weizen without a problem. Carbonation
seems perfect for the style.
I did get advice that the larger the volume of wort. the LESS priming
sugar is needed. Thanks for all those who gave advice.
BTW I DO have another German growler which is still sealed with an Alt bier
from Munich in it. When it's empty, I think I'll just dislpay it rather
than take a chance at creating another mini powder keg.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 12:40:24 -0400
From: palmer@be0962.be.ford.com ()
Subject: New Microbrewery
Has anyone heard of the Motor City Brewing Works in Detroit (of course)?
I recently tried their Nut Brown Ale (I hear it's the best of the two
different beers that they currently brew) and it was excellent! Probably
one of the best Nut Brown Ales I've had. I'd like to know where they
are located. I know that the Detroit & Mackinaw Brewery is in downtown
Detroit on Canfield near the Wayne State campus. If anyone in the
Detroit area has any info, I would appreciate it. What is the other kind
of beer that they brew besides the Nut Brown Ale? Thanks
Gabrielle
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 95 13:06:49 -0400
From: howell@ll.mit.edu
Subject: Steam Generator Praises
I've been hearing some of you speak fondly of your steam
generators for mashing, and now I can see why. I e-mailed
Steve Jackson for some info he had collected, (thanks,
Steve!) and decided to try one.
I purchased a 2 qt. Mirro pressure cooker (Wal-mart)
for $37.00, and a brass needle valve w/ 1/4" compression
fitting on the output for $2.00. I had a length of 1/4"
copper tubing already. I drilled and tapped the cooker lid
and installed the valve w/ teflon tape. Then I attached a
short length of copper to the valve. To this tubing I
attached a 1" piece of vinyl, (5/16"ID maybe). Finally, to
this I attached the copper line that feeds the mash tun. I
did this to avoid having to repeatedly open the compression
fitting. I did not modify the copper tubing at all, I
simply stuck it in the water. As of my first trial, this
arrangement worked great!
I heated about 4 gals of water to dough-in temp, approx
140F, then opened the steam valve and monitored the temp
rise. As previous posters have noted, I saw approx. 2
degrees/min temp rise. Approx. 20 min from 140F to 170F. I
realize this may be a bit slower with an actual mash, but I
simply wanted to prove the system's viability first.
In short, I love this setup! I am looking forward to
brewing with it in the near future. I mash in a converted
keg, my motivation to build a steam generator was to free up
my propane cooker for heating sparge water. The benefits of
steam for you cooler mashers are even greater. I'll not go
into that, I'm sure you already know.
Thanks, to all the steam generator pioneers out there!
Matt
howell@ll.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:33:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Frane <gummitch@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: "nut" brown ale
> From: Barry M Wertheimer <wertheim@UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU>
> Subject: Rogue Nut Brown Ale
>
> Had the good fortune to taste some of Rogue's Nut Brown Ale while
> traveling through a neighboring state. Very nice nutty, chocalate
> flavor, plus something else that was very familiar, but I could not
> place. Any comments on this brew or speculation as to its ingredients?
>
Hazelnut extract is the "secret" ingredient.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 13:55:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: 20 min sparge/drugs
Captn' Kirk says:
< Concentrate instead on
<controlling mash temperature schedule as accurately as possible, and
<on controlling the sparge to last at least 20 minutes. But, as my
<brewbuddy points out, the extra extract obtained with a 60 min sparge
<over a 20 min sparge could be more easily obtained with an extra 1/4 lb
<of grain.
I personally disagree with this concept, a 20 min sparge is OK or
desirable. Even way back when I made 5 gallons of all grain beer,
I routinely lautered for 45-60 minutes. Now that I brew 7 times this
much, I lauter between 65 and 120 minutes. Kirk, I believe, is using
a RIMS type system, so he has the benefit of only needing to rinse the
grains since his lauter bed is already established. I want to caution
newer all grainers to lauter slowely, it has a large impact on the
strength and quality of the beer. I know in my system that if I
reduced the lauter time by 1/3rd, the gravity difference would be
much greater than 1/4 lb of extra malt/5 gallons. This is even more
true when brewing weizens. Try a 20 minute sparge, and you'll end
up with stuck mud. Once again A.J. deLange presented an excellent
summary of lautering/sparging issues that I agree with 100%.
RE:expolding growlers. The problem is that the growler in question
was made from ceramic. Ceramic is much weaker than glass. Germans
routinely use the 2L glass growlers and I assure you they do not
explode in storage. I routinely bottle condition using these.
Brian says:
<Alcohol is a drug.
I wonder what the Bavarians or French would say about this? Or maybe
most Europeans?? I wonder if the Summarians felt this way too. Hummmmm.
<Also, it appears sometimes that the beer/liquor
<industry is under LESS regulation than the food industry.
You've *obviously* not tried to open a microbrewery!!!
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
Colesville, Md.
busch@mews.gsfc.nasa.gov
"DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 14:14:56 -0400
From: hbush@pppl.gov (harry)
Subject: Re: Fixing leaky compression fittings
I've used a fantastic product made by Loctite called Loctite 290.
It is designed to seal small leaks in assembled fittings and to seal weld
porosities. It is a thin, wicking formula that gets applied to the outside
of the leaking fitting. You wait a half hour and wipe off the excess. It
comes in a half-filled bottle because it only cures once you remove it from
air (i.e., only the sealant that has wicked into the crack will set up).
Three years ago I used it to fix a leaking weld on my house hot water
heater tank (140=B0, 45 psi?) and (knock wood) it's still holding. We've use=
d
it at work on water fittings (compression and threaded) on a 150-300 psi
system with great results.
You can probably get it from a Mcmaster Carr or similar type supply
house that deals with Loctite products.
Harry
.................................................................
"But what does it all mean?"- Flakey Foont
"Don't mean sh*t"- Mr. Natural
..................................................................
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1763, 06/23/95
*************************************
-------
