Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1938
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/01/18 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1938 Thu 18 January 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Mashing In Techniques ("Craig Rode")
Imperial stout question (Mike Uchima)
Re: How to get Diacetyl (James Caldwell)
Easy cheap non-destructive lauter-tun (Michael A. Genito)
Plastic Hydrometer? (atlantis)
How to get diacetyl. (Jim Cave)
Filtering ("Peter Rust")
PLASTIC CONTAINERS (rbarnes)
metabolism revisited ("Tracy Aquilla")
More on Saudi brewers (Stephen_W._Snyder)
Stuck lager fermentation (freigang)
Priming ("David N. Pflanzer")
Steeping Specialty Grains (Steve Armbrust)
yeast replication, Crabtree again ("Tracy Aquilla")
Stepping up a recipe? ("James Hojel")
Re: Gravity Gradient (John DeCarlo )
bottle priming CARBONATION (again) and Yeast Bands (Steve Alexander)
Wyeast Scotch Ale strain ("Tracy Aquilla")
vented ferments (Jim Busch)
Fine bead / Plastic carboys / US Amber ale ("Dave Draper")
Re: Gravity Gradient (Paul Fisher)
Boiling Extracts (Jerry Minasi)
Keg modification (Leo Christoffer)
Would you like some Red Ale in your yeast?/plastic carboys/diacetyl (Algis R Korzonas)
RE: Now how do you make a grain bag? (Brad Roach)
******************************************************************
* 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.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.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@hpfcmgw.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@alpha.rollanet.org
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: 16 Jan 1996 09:21:06 -0600
From: "Craig Rode" <craig.rode@sdrc.com>
Subject: Mashing In Techniques
I continue to try to increase my extract efficiency to 30. The last batch, an
addition of gypsum to the mash (assuming everything else was equal, which as
we know, it never is) took me from 24 to 27. Better, but not where I want to
be. Question: My technique is to put the dry grist (pale ale and adjuncts)
in the mash tun, and then dump the strike water @ 170F into it all at once,
and then mix like he**. The mash ends up at about 152F, and I then place it
in the oven preheated at 150F, monitior it for 90 min, mix every 15
min....etc. Is the dumping of water onto the grist annoying my enzymes (or
for that matter, the mash's enzymes)? Everything I have read indicates adding
grist to water, and doing so slowly. As always, comments appreciated.
Thanks to all for info on columbus hops, now I have lots of sources.
Craig
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:27:32 -0600
From: uchima@fncrd8.fnal.gov (Mike Uchima)
Subject: Imperial stout question
I have a batch in secondary right now which is based on Papazian's Untold
Passion Imperial Stout (from THBC). As this is my first attempt at a higher
gravity (low 80s) beer, I have some questions for the brewing collective...
Primary fermentation appeared to be pretty normal. A couple of days ago, I
racked to secondary, and since then there has been absolutely no activity
whatsoever. Zilch. Judging from the water levels in the airlock, it hasn't
bubbled even once; this is the first time I've had a batch that didn't bubble
at least *a little* in the secondary. (Tasted damn good at racking time,
FWIW.)
My concern is that I may have a (lack of) carbonation problem once I bottle
this batch. My questions:
o What is the alcohol tolerance of ale yeast (Wyeast 1084 Irish Ale, in this
case)? Has this yeast reached its limit?
o Should I just let it clear for a few more days, prime, and bottle (in
other words, RDWHAHB)?
o Should I add some different (more attenuative?) yeast in the secondary? At
bottling time? I also have another batch of ale fermenting (with Wyeast
1098 British Ale); I could pitch some of the sludge from that batch into
the stout.
o Something else I haven't thought of?
Any comments would be appreciated; thanks!
- -- Mike Uchima
- -- uchima@fnal.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 11:20 EST
From: jimcald@ix.netcom.com (James Caldwell)
Subject: Re: How to get Diacetyl
Curt Speaker asked how to get Diacetyl:
Ferment Ringwood yeast at about 70 degrees. Ringwood can be
cultured from Geary's Pale Ale (or other Geary's product).
I used this yeast for a while and got huge diacetyl when fermented
warm. It also gives a "nutty" flavor which would not be out of place
in a scotch ale.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 11:10:18 -0500
From: genitom@nyslgti.gen.ny.us (Michael A. Genito)
Subject: Easy cheap non-destructive lauter-tun
For those interested in trying all grain, here's a cheap, easy way to
convert a rectangular cooler to a lauter tun which does not require removing
the drain. BTW, there are many other great conversion ideas found in the
Technical Library at http://alpha.rollanet.org
Get a 2ft length of 3/8"OD copper tubing from a hardware, plumbing supply or
home improvement store. Starting about 3 inches up from one end, cut slits
with a hacksaw every inch or so along the length of the tubing. Pinch the
end (not the end you started with) with a vise or clamp to almost closed,
leaving an opening about the size of one of the hacksaw slits. Now bend the
tubing ever so gently so as to fit into the cooler, sticking the 3 inch
unslit end into the drain opening. The outside of the drain can now be
fitted with a length of plastic tubing, and a clamp placed on the plastic
tubing to allow the flow on or off.
The above allows for a constant, slow, evenly temped extraction. I pour my
sparge water over the top of the grain bed using a colander so as not to
disturb the grain bed too much. I haven't experienced any stuck sparges, the
sparge does not leave much liquid behind, the tubing can be taken out for
cleaning and/or easy reuse of the cooler as a cooler.
I imagine the same concept can be applied to any cooler that has some type
of valve or plug, as long as the valve or plug has a short length of piping
to which plastic tubing can be attached.
I'm considering making a wort chiller by placing coiled tubing inside a
cooler or bucket, the cooler or bucket being filled with ice or ice water,
and the wort circulating through this contraption coming from the lauter tun
design above being used as a hop-back. Sort of like a counter flow chiller
which has no counter flow. Any comments? I've read some postings that make
me concerned that the chiller coil may get clogged with hot/cold break
material - will this happen if the hop back is used?
Michael A. Genito, Director of Finance, Town of Ramapo
237 Route 59, Suffern, NY 10901
TEL: 914-357-5100 x214 FAX: 914-357-7209
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 10:57 EST
From: atlantis@vgernet.net
Subject: Plastic Hydrometer?
Hello to the collective-
Are there any other KLUTZ's out there? I have just broken my 3rd HYDORMETER
in a week. Besides getting expensive, it always happens at the most
inconvenient times.
My excuses are: they are too small to grip, they are too slippery when wet,
the glass is too thin, I've had too many homebrews when using them :-),
etc., etc.
My question is; Does anyone know if a LEXAN or plastic hydrometer is made
for people like me? If so, where can I get one? Any help would be
appreciated. I'm new to homebrewing and I absolutely love it. My first
batch, (Pale Ale) a partial mash/extract came out fantastic. My second
batch an IPA, just got bottled yesterday, and my 3rd, an Irish Red Ale (with
my first try with liquid Wyest #1084) finished fermenting today and I was
going to rack it to the secondary after taking a S.G. reading, but that's
when all my thumbs took over.
As long as I can brew my own, I'll never go back to the commercial beers,
the difference is so great, it's hard to explain. When I started brewing, I
hoped to replicate a Coors or Bud Light. Now I hope that none of my brews
turn out that way.
Thanks in advance for any info (or any other suggestions)
Henry Dondi
Dalton, Mass.
e-mail: atlantis@vgernet.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 8:25:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Cave <CAVE@PSC.ORG>
Subject: How to get diacetyl.
The most effective way I found to maintain diacetyl was to rack the
beer early and chill, prior to the finish of the ferment. In the case of
lagers, you should rack early, chill (0 C) for a few days and then rack again
(off the yeast). The goal is to prevent the yeast from reducing the remaining
diacetyl in the beer. I did this successfully with my Scottish heavy (O.G.
1.042), but the diacetyl is definately an aquired taste.
Jim Cave
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1996 11:46:11 GMT
From: "Peter Rust" <NOTES.PRUST@A50VM1.trg.nynex.COM>
Subject: Filtering
I am looking for advice on filtering homebrew. I have revently purchased
filtering equipment but have several questions on technique that I can't find
answers to in the archives, etc. First, how do you sanitize the cartridge
prior to use? How do you clear the sanitizing solution out of the cartridge
before running beer through it. I have both a polyprop and a ceremic
cartridge. After filtering (I plan to use 2 Corny Kegs with CO2 to drive the
process) how do you clean the filter for reuse and how many times can they be
reused. Any info appreciated, either on the digest or via private email to
notes.prust@nynex.com Thanks.
Pete Rust
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 09:14:37 pst
From: rbarnes@sdccd.cc.ca.us
Subject: PLASTIC CONTAINERS
Thanks to all who replied to my question last week about the thread
size and pitch on corny keg fittings. Although no one replied with
information on matching the thread size and pitch, I received several
excellent ideas to enable me to switch between an air chuck and a keg
gas-in fitting. I plan to attach a quick disconnect on the gas-in line
(using air compressor fittings), but I could have also installed a tee
to split the gas line to a gas-in fitting and an air chuck.
Now that that issue is solved, it's time to tackle my mash water heating
system. I'm considering a 15 gal. plastic container with a hot water
heater element installed in the side. Someone posted several months ago
that this worked with no problems (i.e. not melting the bucket), but I
don't remember the wattage of the heater used. I would like to use a
220V, 4000 watt heater, mounted in the side about 4 inches from the
bottom of the container. Will the heat from this melt the plastic?
Also, the container is somewhat square in shape, the plastic is slightly
softer (but thicker) than food-grade pickle-bucket plastic, and
originally held solvent but has since been used to store gasoline. Before
I make big plans to use the container to heat mash water, does anyone know
how I could remove all traces of gasoline from the plastic? I suspect that
I might get lots of "don't do it!" replies, but I thought I'd ask. The
flat sides of the container would seem to be ideal for mounting heating
elements, drains, etc. but I'll find something else if I have to.
TIA, Randy Barnes, San Diego
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 12:12:30 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: metabolism revisited
In Digest #1934:
ajdel@interramp.com says:
>C. D. Pritchard and John Wilkinson are interested in the metabolism
>discussions but are suffering some vertigo. If I really understand any of
>this stuff I ought to be able to explain it neatly and concisely without
>the jargon of the biochemist. Here's my attempt:
I'll only address what I see as the most important issues.
>7. In fermentation the 6 carbon glucose is split into two 3 carbon sugars
>(trioses) and these are oxidized ("oxidation" means to grab electrons in
>the same way that oxygen does. No oxygen is involved in fermentation.) to
>pyruvic acid (usually referred to as pyruvate). The reaction steps which
>describe this process are referred to as the "Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas
>Pathway" (or just "EMP Pathway").
Just to muck things up, I'll add that these same reactions (known
collectively as glycolysis) also occur during the respiration of glucose.
The differences occur after the formation of pyruvate. In fermentation,
pyruvate-> acetaldehyde-> ethanol, whereas in respiration, pyruvate is
oxidized much more completely through the electron transport chain in
mitochondria, yielding significantly more energy.
>11. More evolved organisms are capable of oxidizing the 3 carbon pyruvate
>to obtain more energy (a total of 28 ATP molecules per molecule of
>glucose). This is called "respiration".
Again, mucking things up, I'll add that yeast can respire; however, when
making beer, they don't (because they don't have to). Most higher eukaryotes
are essentially forced to respire, because they can't do fermentation (they
lack the enzymes). For example, in mammals (like humans) during "anaerobic
metabolism" pyruvate-> lactate, but this is toxic (burning sensation in the
muscles) and must eventually be oxidized (after "catching your breath") via
respiration.
>12. In addition to the CO2, electrons (bound to nucleotides) are also
>thrown off. These enter the "electron transport" chain where they
>eventually meet with hydrogen ions and oxygen to form water. The
>nucleotides are transformed into ATP in this process.
^^^^^^^^
As well as some other important nucleotides (eg. NAD+ and FAD+).
>16. Some yeasts, notably brewing yeasts, will not respire, even though
>oxygen is present, in the presence of glucose. They ferment (or continue to
>ferment if O2 was introduced after fermentation was underway). This makes
>sense because a simple pathway is being used. The organism reverts to its
>most primitive method of metabolism. As Craig Amundsen noted, nature likes
>the KISS system.
Not only that, but they don't HAVE to respire, and will only do so if
necessary. Basically, like most organisms, yeasts 'waste' resources when
they're abundant. (We aren't the only ones!)
>17. When oxygen is present and Crabtree effect is operating the yeast
>respire the alcohol formed during fermentation. This is "diauxic"
>metabolism.
But ONLY if sugar is unavailable for fermentation. Therefore, there really
is no Crabtree-effect in this situation.
>19. If oxygen is present these glucose molecules will flow down the EMP
>pathway to form AcCoA.
Actually, most of the pyruvate formed through glycolysis is fermented to
ethanol, even when O2 is available. Only the fraction needed for
biosynthesis makes it to Acetyl-CoA during aerobic fermentation.
>Rather than entering the Krebs cycle, much of this
>combines with oxygen to form sterol, the stuff of the cell wall.
Sterols are used in the biosynthesis of MEMBRANES, not CELL WALLS! This is
critical, as these two structures are entirely different. The cell walls of
yeast consist mostly of high-mannose carbohydrates. Membranes are composed
of a lipid bi-layer containing proteins and other relatively minor
constituents. Sterols are a major component of these membranes.
>Most of
>the oxygen absorbed by brewing strains is not respired but rather used in
>this way. In baking strains of S. cerevesiae more respiration takes place.
This is basically because when making bread, there usually isn't much sugar
available, hence no Crabtree-effect occurs. If baking strains are given
sugar, they'll ferment too.
>"Does it look right?"
"Simplified" eh? ;-) Very nice job, A.J., however, I'm not so sure that this
explanation simplifies matters. I think you've just illustrated that it's
difficult (or impossible?) to discuss metabolism without using at least some
of "the jargon of the biochemist".
Tracy in Vermont
aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 96 12:41:50 EST
From: <Stephen_W._Snyder@metcapw1.ccmail.compuserve.com>
Subject: More on Saudi brewers
After reading some of these articles it reminded me of some friends of my
in-laws. They were in Saudi on a contract for a couple of years and I was
interested in how they made their "Hooch". Here it is: Take one champagne
bottle, fill with grape juice, sprinkle some bread yeast in the bottle, put a
cap on, wait one week, chill and drink. Ugh! I tried to persuade them to try and
make better stuff, but they had no desire.
I saw the article in one of those Zymurgy knockoffs (Brew!, Beer! something like
that) about putting hard liquor in Near-Beer. Uck! Come on, how desperate are
they. It's so easy to make drinkable wine from almost any fresh fruit juice,
some sugar (even honey) and some time. Or there are also a whole range of meads,
some that are really close to a beer. I would find it a challenge to make good
beverages there with limited resources.
Steve Snyder
Seattle, WA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 12:17:16 -0500
From: freigang@tcpcs2.dnet.etn.com
Subject: Stuck lager fermentation
Good day all,
I have had a lager in the secondary fermentor for quite some time (almost two
months) and have seen no sign of fermentaion. The temp has been a fairly
constant 45 to 50F and there is an 1" thick yeast cake on the bottom, but when
I checked the S.G. I found that it has only dropped from 1.070 to 1.060.
Maybe I didn't start the fermentation at a warm enough temp. before cooling to
45F. I have tasted it and other than being too sweet it is very good.
I believe that I need to either repitch and/or warm the beer up. I am
not however sure of the best way to do this.
Should I rack to another carboy before pitching?
Should I just warm it and see what happens?
Should I make a starter to bolster the wyeast?
Do I need to aerate when repitching?
HELP!!!!
TIA,
Private Email preferred. I will post a summary.
Al
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:23:12 -0500
From: "David N. Pflanzer" <pflanzer@gate.net>
Subject: Priming
>David C. Rinker <dcrink@widomaker.com>
>I have always bottled my beers, priming with either DMS,
>dextros, or wort. (snip)
Wow, most homebrewers try to minimize the amount of DMS in their
batches... and you prime with it :>
No, seriously... I am sure you meant DME (Dry Malt Extract).
David;
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 10:29:00 PST
From: Steve Armbrust <Steve_Armbrust@ccm.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Steeping Specialty Grains
There's been some talk lately about how to steep specialty grains when
doing an extract brew. The consensus seems to be to bring the steeping
water no hotter than 170 degrees -- to avoid leeching tannins from the
grain and causing astringent beer.
My question is: does anyone know from personal experience that
temperatures hotter than 170 degrees actually result in astringent beer
when brewing an extract/specialty grain batch? The reason I ask is that
when I was brewing extract batches, I always stuck the crushed grains in
a pot, heated the water to boiling, and strained the liquid into my
brewpot. I never noticed any astringency from this process.
Also, my local Brew-On-Premises, the Glisan Street Brewhaus, has people
dump a grain bag of crushed specialty grains into the brewpot, where it
stays for the entire length of the boil. Their beers aren't as good as
a great homebrew (some seem less than full-flavored), but they don't
seem astringent.
So what gives? I know I wouldn't go over 170 for a full mash. But for
a partial mash, I wonder whether it's as important. Does anyone have
actual personal experience?
Steve Armbrust in Portland
Steve_Armbrust@ccm.jf.intel.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 14:52:42 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: yeast replication, Crabtree again
In Digest #1934:
ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange) wrote:
>Tracy also commented that lager yeasts should take nearly 24 hours to
>replicate because of they are polyploid. This is contrary to my experience
>with another lager strain (Wyeast Czech Pils, #2278) which seems to double
>every 3 hours or so. This is consistent with the value of u of 0.25
>published in H, B, S & Y which calculates to 2.8. [ u goes in the formula
>n(t) = n(0)exp(ut) ]. How does the ploidy effect the division time?
Actually, I think you misquoted me there. I think I said it would take S.
cerevisiae nearly 24 hours to double "from a static state" (important
distinction!). Just as a nitro-burning funny car must accelerate (beginning
at zero) before it reaches 250 mph, so must yeast accelerate from zero to
their own maximum rate. The yeast in the package are essentially
biochemically inactive. Upon activation (mixing with the medium) they begin
their various metabolic activities, but they start off very slowly at first,
and it takes some time to reach the maximum rate of replication. Before they
can bud, the yeast must first synthesize thousands of different proteins, as
well as replicate their DNA molecules. Under ideal conditions, S. cerevisiae
can double every 90-100 minutes at 30C. However, ideal conditions are rarely
met, particularly since it's difficult to keep the oxygen levels high, and
the temperature is seldom near 30C (about 85F). The rate of budding in yeast
may actually be limited by the rate of mitochondrial DNA replication (this
is still uncertain). This is surprising, since the (autosomal) genome is
approximately 1.4E7 base-pairs (14,000 kilobase pairs), whereas the
mitochondrial genome is only about 50 kilobases, but I digress. The doubling
rate is also highly dependent on temperature, being much slower at lower
temps. The rate of 3 hours cited above is extremely fast, approaching the
practical limit, and it takes time for them to get going that fast. Most
strains, under most conditions, never reach this rate, and if they do it
doesn't last very long. In any case, I'd be quite surprised if just after
slapping the package they double in less than a day, particularly in the
case of S. uvarum (lager strains). S. cerevisiae has 16 linear chromosomes,
but S. uvarum, being diploid, has 32. Furthermore, considering that lager
strains are generally grown at and adapted to lower temperatures, doubling
times will generally be significantly longer. Thus, polyploidy may affect
the doubling rate by increasing the time necessary for DNA replication,
although the physiological state of the cells and temperature are much more
critical parameters.
then TA said:
>>Essentially all fermentable sugars induce the Crabtree effect in
>>Saccharomycetes (galactose is one exception), including fructose, maltose,
>>and sucrose, but glucose exhibits the strongest effect.
and AJ said:
>Even galactose exhibits it to some extent but it is a matter of degree. To
>quote the scripture (H, B, S & Y) "The effect is expressed in the presence
>of fructose as well as glucose but is less marked when maltose, mannose or
>galactose is the fermentable carbohydrate. (Vol II, p 593). Then there is a
>table on p 594 but maltose is not listed!
Thanks for the literature citation. I hesitate to say this, but I wouldn't
rely on "the scripture" too much. While H, B, S & Y is clearly one of the
great works in the brewing literature, much of the information contained
therein is somewhat outdated. :-( My statement about galactose being the
exception is from memory, so I may have been mistaken, but if memory serves
me, yeast can respire on galactose. (to quote A.J. : "Numquam in dubio,
saepe in errore!")
Tracy in Vermont
aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 18:37:29 UT
From: "James Hojel" <JTroy@msn.com>
Subject: Stepping up a recipe?
This may not be appropriate for this forum, but here it goes anyway :-) Does
anyone know of a good formula (or theory) for stepping up recipes (5 gallons
to 10 bbl)? What is the impact on hop and grain utilization? I am not
presently working at a brew-pub, but I'm toying with the idea. Hence, the
need for recipe formulation and a better understanding of how an increase in
volume impacts the recipe/beer.
Thank you for the patience,
JTH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 15:13:55 EST
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Gravity Gradient
>However, when I took a hydrometer reading prior to pitching,
>the result was a little low (1.040 for 7 lbs of malt).
>but I think that the last chunk of ice which floated on top
>may have dilluted the top of the wort; i.e. my overall S. G.
>was probably a bit higher.
>
>Upon thinking about it, I realized that this situation probably
>always occurs, especially after it's sat around in the secondary
>for a while. From what level should samples be extracted from a
>carboy/fermenter to take gravity readings; top, middle, or bottom --
>or does it not matter?
Hmmm, a scientific question. I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV,
but there you go.
1) Mixing ice or water with the boiled wort before pitching the yeast. You
want an S.G. reading at this time, and you want it reasonably accurate.
There are two approaches I know of:
a) Shake or stir the bejeezus out of it.
b) Know your volumes and create a similar sample for measuring.
The second approach I used for years with small volume boils and it always
worked, as far as I know. I would end up with 1.5 gallons of boiled wort
and would want to add 4 gallons of cool water (you can put lines on your pot
and fermenter at measured intervals or use a marked ruler to determine
volumes). So, in the graduated cylinder I used for hydrometer readings, I
would put 1.5 units of boiled wort and 4 units of cool water. That way I
didn't have to worry about taking a good sample from the fermenter.
2) Primary gravity gradients. Presumably this is unlikely as long as active
fermentation is going on. For much later, see 3) Secondary.
3) Secondary gravity gradients. Hmmm. I always assumed that the beer was
pretty much of one nature at this point, so there wouldn't be any thicker or
thinner parts to form gradients. Anyone know if this is true or not?
John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 15:39:41 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: bottle priming CARBONATION (again) and Yeast Bands
Some experimental information and resulting new questions !
Well last month when the bottle priming/CO2 equilibrium thread started
I posted that I would experiment. To recap, Dave Miller's books
suggest that bottle fermentation of priming sugars is a quick process
taking several days, but that much more time is required to get the
CO2 produced into solution thus carbonating the beverage. I speculated
that Miller was probably right, and that the amount of space at the
top of a bottle, the head space, should effect the rate at which CO2
equilibrium is reached. Several people posted that this was unlikely
since, from their experience, bottles opened early have neither
excessive gas pressure nor adaquate carbonation.
The experiment involved priming and bottling a beer at several
different bottle fill levels and testing the result for carbonation at
various times. I haven't accurately measured the various fill levels
for this report (tho' I intend to), but I'll guestimate the headspace at
3ml, 20ml, and 60ml and refer to these as overfill, normal and
underfill. All measures of CO2 are subjective. I listened carefully
to the gas released as bottles were opened, and tasted and smelled with
CO2 in mind.
The beer for this experiment is an Octoberfest/Marzen beer brewed on
12/1 to an OG of 1059, fermented w/ wyeast 2308 to a FG of 1015. The
recipe followed G.Noonan's 'Brewing Lager Beers' recipe fairly
closely including a triple decoction mash. Fermentation took place at
a temperature of 49F-53F (damn my lack of a lagering fridge) with very
little day to day temp variation. Altho the fermentation was
completed quite early I didn't have a chance to keg and bottle until
12/26 at which point the beer had completely cleared.
Of the 9 gallons, 5 were kegged and carbonated, and 4 were primed and
bottled. The bottled beer was primed in carboy with corn sugar at a
rate of 23 grams per gallon - or roughly 3/4 cup per 5 gallon. 6
bottles were overfilled, 6 were underfilled and the remainder were
filled to normal level. My strategy was to sample only normal fill
bottles until the carbonation levels became significant, then to
sample and compare over-, under-, and normal fill bottles and kegged
beer side by side. As an auxilliary test one primed bottle was fitted
with a fermentation lock instead of a cap in order to determine the
rate of fermentation in an unpressurized bottle. All bottles were
priming fermented at fairly stable temperature between 51F and 54F
degrees.
The bottle with the fermentation lock started quite slowly showing
clear bubbling only on day 3 (after 2 days). The bubbling continued
at a slowing rate thru day 6. By day 7 and beyond and bubbling became
difficult to detect. For all practical purposes the fermentation
appears to have completed in 6 days (day 1 to day 7).
My tasting notes follow. 'pffft' refers to the gas release on removing
a bottle cap. The method involved opening and listening to the gas
release as the cap was removed. Sniffing the beer in bottle. The I
poured the bottle, minus sediment, into a glass for tasting and
further smelling.
day 4 - normal fill bottle has slight gas pffft and some definite tho'
very slight carbonation. Quite sweet. Yeasty flavor and slight
turbidity.
day 7 - normal fill, slight gas pffft and very slight carbonation.
Only very slighty more carbonated than day 4. Sweet and turbid.
Slight sulphur odor.
day 10 - normal fill, more pfft, definite tho' very low carbonation.
very noticeable sweetness and a sulphurous odor. (Note that the
sulphur smell is common with Wyeast 2308 and other lager yeasts
during fermentation).
no day 13 sample - out of town.
day 16 -
normal fill:
near normal pffft, yeasty CO2 nose, dry (unsweet) finish compared
with previous examples tho' still sweeter than the kegged beer.
Approaching normal carbonation (adaquate for an ale, quite low for
a lager). Sulphur scent still very noticeable.
underfill:
full pffft ! more than above! fully carbonated, malty sweet nose,
perhaps very slighly sweeter flavor than the kegged beer. Tried a
second bottle w/ same results.
overfill:
modest pffft, suphur nose, yeasty sulphur flavor, much sweeter and
much less carbonated than either the normal or underfill bottles
above.
day 20:
normal fill:
clear and fully carbonated, no major off odors.
underfill:
very fully carbonated - perhaps slightly too much! no off sulphury
odors. Clear.
overfill:
yeasty sulphury nose, somewhat undercarbonated for this style but
not wildly far off.
No bottles were observed with unusually high head gas pressure (as
measured subjectively by my ear) as the caps were removed.
- --
My conclusion is that the underfilled bottle clearly completed bottle
fermentation and cleared more quickly than either the normal or
overfilled bottles. The overfilled bottles took longer than normal
(and aren't finished yet!).
Also note that the normally filled bottles did not complete
fermentation nearly as quickly as the bottle with fermentation lock.
- --
Why is bottle fermantation and carbonation related in this way to head
space, and why is the fermentation lock ferment fastest of all ?
I believe that Miller was wrong, for some reason the priming
fermentation itself takes longer when capped.
One explanation of the increased rate of priming fermentation with
increasing headspace is that more oxygen is included in the headspace
which it turn effects the fermentation rate. This argument requires
that someone explain why the normal fill bottle take so much longer to
ferment than one with a fermentation lock attached. Since the amount
of headspace isn't vastly different and obviously most of the oxygen
in the headspace is expelled thru the fermentation lock. Perhaps
significant oxygen passes backward thru the fermentation lock !
The other explanation is that the normal fill bottle has higher
average pressure throughout the priming fermentation than an
underfilled bottle and that the pressure *SOMEHOW* reduces the
activity of the yeast. Osmotic pressure ?
- --
One additional mystery to ponder. On several occassions when bottle
priming lagers I've noticed that yeast particles (lager yeast seem to
form little clumps) gather in bands or layers. The bottom 1/2 inch of
the bottle has a turbid layer, them moving upward there are two bands
of yeast clumps. Each band is about 1 inch high and the lower one is
centered at about 2.25 inches above the bottom . The upper band layer
is centered about 4 inches above the bottom, or approximately from the
bottle shoulder to down one inch. There is very clear beer above and
below each layer. Giving such a bottle a quick twist causes some of
the clumps to breakup and it is clear that altho the yeast in the
layers seems to aggregate near the bottle wall, that it is certainly
not all touching the glass.
- --
seeking the wisdom of the oracle of HBD,
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 15:42:13 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Wyeast Scotch Ale strain
In Digest #1936:
mgaspard@mailer.fsu.edu (Marc Gaspard) says:
> I've been using Wyeast 1728/Scotch Ale yeast. I talked to a yeast tech
>@ Wyeast & he said it's really McEwan's Export Scotch Ale yeast, & should
>work up to 1.080 gravity. But I'll warn you, I've been having the damndest
>time with it; either it ferments out real fast & then doesn't carbonate, or
>like my most recent batch, it starts up again AFTER racking.
Lately I've been drinking a Wee Heavy I made with this strain. The original
gravity was 1.112 and I pitched a 1/2 gallon starter adapted in steps to
high gravity wort (1.080+) and 60F. The mash (about 18 lbs of malt) was done
as a single step at 158F for about an hour (about 155 by the end). I also
took about two quarts of the first runnings and boiled it down to a thick
caramel syrup, added it to the boiling wort, then boiled for two full hours.
I fermented at 60F, although it crept up to about 65F at high kraeusen. I
then "lagered" it at about 50F for a month and then around 32F for another
week. The final gravity was 1.038. Seems high, I know, but I was trying to
make a more traditional Scotch ale, where the final is about 1/3 the
original gravity (66% attenuation). It hit the mark, very strong and sweet,
but clean. I've made a few strong ales with this strain, but this was the
strongest ever. I haven't noticed anything peculiar about this strain, and
have fermented it as low as 50F with absolutely no problems. It tends to
ferment clean and I've gotten up to 85% attenuation with it, even with very
high gravity worts. However, I suggest adapting the yeast to a high gravity
wort (similar to the one you're brewing) when growing the starter, and
pitching a big starter (at least 1/2 gallon), otherwise I'd expect it to be
sluggish. I also wouldn't try to bottle-condition any ale of this strength.
Interestingly, this kind of beer can use a little extra kick in the CO2
department. The alcohol kills the head!
Tracy in Vermont
aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 15:56:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: vented ferments
Phillip writes about open ferments:
<One solution I've come up with, and IMHO a workable and simple one, is
<to take the aquarium pump + inline filter I use for wort aeration, and
<attach the exit hose to the lid of my fermentation vessel. I'm guessing
<I'll prop the lid open about 1/2" all around. This should provide good
<positive clean airflow out of the fermenter at a steady slow rate, and
<prevent any airborne particles from entering the vessel. Easy
I feel you are better off leaving the lid on when it is not highly
active and leaving it uncovered when it is highly active. Since CO2
is heavier than air, Id think it would be better to have a CO2 blanket
on the fermenting beer as much as possible. By using a pump to move
the air, you will be displacing the CO2. I have a dog and it doesnt
seem to hurt my beer, in fact he is an integral part of all my brewing!
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 08:34:05 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Fine bead / Plastic carboys / US Amber ale
Dear Friends, Dave Rinker asks about not getting that fine bead.
Dave, you might try adding a little wheat malt and/or flaked barley
to the mash. You might pay for it with increase haze, but I have
routinely achieved fine, creamy head doing this. Lately, in an
effort to track down the source of some haze problems, I have left
it out, but it is too soon to tell for sure whether that will affect
the heading, but the early signs are that it does. I use anywhere
from 200 to 500 gr in my usual 3-3.5 kg mashes (7 to 17 oz in 6.6 to
7.7 lb) of combined wheat malt & flaked barley depending on style.
Lynn Ashley asks about using plastic, bottled-water carboys. The
short answer is No--don't use them. They are very oxygen-permeable.
The food-grade, white-plastic buckets sold in HB shops are another
matter--I adhere to the heretical stance that they are vastly
superior to glass because (for starters) they simply do not break,
are much easier to handle, and are dead simple to get at for
cleaning (yeah yeah I know they scratch--big deal, get another one).
But the thin-walled bottled-water jobs just won't cut it.
Finally, I was very impressed with Dave Brockington's article on
American Amber ale in the latest BT. So much so that I immediately
brewed one (and I suspect Andy Walsh's latest amber is similarly
inspired), being a longtime fan of such beers as Red Tail and Red
Nectar. What do some of you big wheels think of that suggested
stylistic reorganization? I think it is very useful.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"Pitching your yeast at 70F instead of 90F *does* (in my experience)
improve the taste of your beer." ---John de Carlo
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
Email: david.draper@mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:39:59 -0500 (EST)
From: fisher@ltpmail.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul Fisher)
Subject: Re: Gravity Gradient
Further discussions on gravity gradients.........
John DeCarlo says............
>
> 3) Secondary gravity gradients. Hmmm. I always assumed that the beer was
> pretty much of one nature at this point, so there wouldn't be any thicker or
> thinner parts to form gradients. Anyone know if this is true or not?
I undertook a further examination of the problem over the last week
and my evidence indicates that this isn't the case. It's easy
to see the gradients. After a batch has been in a secondary for about
a week, take a flashlight and aim it directly at the carboy at various
levels. There is definitely a density gradient present, as indicated
by the color change and the amount of light reflected back from the
different levels in the carboy. Additionally, I've noticed that some
yeast perches about an inch from the top in a horizontal layer. I
think that these yeasties are just not dense enough to sink on their
own. However, if you agitate the carboy slightly, you can get them to
sink (this may be a horizontal-vertical surface area thing, sort of
like a parachute).
There is also the possibility that my batch just hasn't settled fully,
I'll wait and see.
I think this shows the importance of using a bottling bucket and not
bottling directly from the secondary.
- --Paul
- --
Paul Fisher
Research and Data Systems Corporation
SAIC/GSC MODIS Support Office
Phone: (301) 352-2129
email: fisher@ltpmail.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 16:37:22 -0500
From: Jerry Minasi <jminasi@bccom.com>
Subject: Boiling Extracts
Please help me understand this:
I have been lurking on HBD for four months and am a Extract brewer. I don't
have the resources to do full grain brewing yet. I've brewed 36 batches so
far and we have been pretty happy with the results.
My question is: All the books I've read say "Even though the
manufacturer says 'no boiling necessary,' that you should Boil the
extracts for at least for fifteen minutes."
I assume (yes, I know what happens when you "assume"), that they
"process/cook" their malts & hops to the peak of perfection, and then
vacuum evaporate the water off. I also understand that continued boiling
will boil off the aromatic essence of the hops.
So, OK...Who is right? If Boiling is good, why not boil the extracts
for two hours?
Seem to me that if the manufacturers feel that their product does not need
boiling, that they might just know best!
I have been using M&F and Ironmaster extracts. I do Two-stage fermentation.
also does anyone know if M & F has a home page or an E-Mail address?
Private E-Mail Welcome.
Thank you...all for all I have learned from your enclosures in the HBD
Jerry Minasi
jminasi@bccom.com
jminasi@bccom.com
Jerry Minasi, Shirley, Long Island, NY
Retired Lowly Extract brewer
tel. 516 924-7019
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 16:09:00 PST
From: Leo Christoffer <LEO@WV.BE.WEDNET.EDU>
Subject: Keg modification
I just recently got a 15 gallon Keg that I would like to Modify. I would
like to hear from those who could give me some tips before I dive into the
project. What tools, techniques do I need to remove the top? Also what do
I need for values and other add on? Where can I get the necessary items to
make this complete as a modifcation.
Private E-mail is fine.
Leo Christoffer
Leo@wv.be.wednet.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 13:46:51 CST
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Would you like some Red Ale in your yeast?/plastic carboys/diacetyl
John writes in his Red Ale recipe:
>115 g dry ale yeast
That must be a typo. 5 to 10 grams is typical.
***
Lynn writes:
>I would like to use these carboys for lagering. A thread late last
>November indicated that thin-walled polyethylene bottles quickly allow
>O2 saturation of their liquid contents. I do not know of what kind of
>plastic these clear-blue-tinted-bottled-water carboys are made. Their
>wall thickness appears to be about 0.050".
According to the Cole-Parmer catalog, polycarbonate (PC) has twice the
oxygen permiability of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) I believe that
those plastic water bottles are PC. Since HDPE is said (in most HB books)
to be too oxygen-permiable for lagering, I would say that those water
bottles are also not appropriate.
***
Curt writes:
>So, my question is, how does one go about increasing the level of diacetyl in
>beer on purpose?
Aerate a little during fermentation. It increases production and hopefully
you will have more than your yeast can reabsorb, thereby leaving some in the
beer.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996, Al Korzonas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 17:16:37 PST
From: b_roach@emulex.com (Brad Roach)
Subject: RE: Now how do you make a grain bag?
Gilad writes:
>To me the first option seems simple and efficient. Since I have no grain
>bag (can't get one here in Israel), I went with the second method.
>What are the specs for a grain bag. is the nylon mesh used for windows good
>enough (I guess it can withstand the temperature, but is the size right?).
>I would like to get suggestion as to how I can make one myself (material, size
>etc.).
I started making grain/hop bags from nylon mesh paint filters. The
Home Depot hardware store has them for about a $1.60. I just fold over
the open end of the filter and sew on a draw string. When the bag is
done, it measures approx. 6" long by 4" wide. If you decide to make one,
you want to rinse it throughly. I doubt that a paint filter is made with
food grade nylon, so I would rather not drink all the chemical nasties.
Brad Roach
Newport Beach, Calif.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1938, 01/18/96
*************************************
-------
