Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1937
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/01/17 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1937 Wed 17 January 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
"Open ferments and more Crabtree..." (tgaskell)
Re: Aerating cane (tgaskell)
More open ferments (Jim Busch)
Re: Candied Camera/Open Fermentation v. Aeration/Pectinase (Algis R Korzonas)
Oxygen. Pectin. Gas. (Hugh Graham)
Gas (Rich Hampo)
Sparge water temps / Arabian Beer (Aidan "Hairy Hibernian" Heerdegen)
Re: more on open fermentation (Jeff Frane)
yeast metabolism (The Wallinger Family)
stuck sparges (Charlie Scandrett)
Aeration/Metabolism Post (A. J. deLange)
Re: carmel (Robert Rogers)
Cornelius vs Minikegs (Richard Nantel)
Pectinase (Glenn & Kristina Matthies)
Pectinase (Glenn & Kristina Matthies)
open fermentation (Scottie617)
Predicting FG (Kirk R Fleming)
Undeliverable Message (MS2)
Undeliverable Message (MS2)
Bees and carboys ("Thomas W. Ausfeld")
Boiling/Diacetyl (A. J. deLange)
Re: Grain Bags (Todd Kirby)
Re: RIMS heater pipe (hollen)
******************************************************************
* 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: Mon, 15 Jan 96 13:06:07 EST
From: tgaskell@e3sa.elab.syr.ge.com
Subject: "Open ferments and more Crabtree..."
GREGORY KING <GKING@ARSERRC.Gov> in hbd 1935 wrote:
>I was all set to try Jeff's open fermentation technique for my next
>batch until I read a posting from korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
>later in the same HBD:
>
>>You don't want to aerate after the fermentation begins. <snip> Aeration
>>after fermentation begins will increase the
>>production of diacetyl and can lead to high levels of aldehydes in the
>>finished beer.
>
>I'm hoping that Jeff and/or Al will write a follow-up posting to clarify
>this apparent discrepancy.
I for one will vouch for the fact that aeration (oxygenation) after
the onset of vigorous fermentation will cause aldehyde production.
I had a nice English brown that I brewed during the "dropping" thread
a while back. As soon as vigorous fermentation kicked in, I racked
while aerating (my misinterpretation of the thread) and ended up with
an unintentional brown apple ale, the aroma was almost exactly like
the smell of green apples. AVOID AERATION DURING FERMENT!!!!!
By the way, the beer was not ruined, just different. 8^)
But remember that aeration and open ferments are NOT related:
As a convert to partially open fermentation (foam spraying from an airlock
gets the spousal unit pissed off, so I cover the hole in my primary with
a styrofoam plate, then the foam just drips down the sides), the layer
of krauesen and the CO2 produced by the ferment shroud the beer so that
O2 cannot get to the surface to aerate it, and airborne nasties just
float on the foam. Upon the end of primary fermentation, you rack the
beer out from under the nasty-laden foam into a closed secondary
fermenter.
In the same issue, Tracy says:
> S. cerevisiae
> is one of the few species of yeast which has absolutely no
> requirement for O2.
Tracy, does this mean that S. uvarum HAS an O2 requirement?
Also, regarding copyrights and commercial value of info in the hbd, you
and the other folks that are giving us these technical yeast lessons
should attach at least a one line copyright notice. This info is
invaluable in the care and feeding of our favorite pets!
Tom Gaskell Hog Heaven Homebrew Picobrewery Clayville, NY, USA
tgaskell@e3sa.elab.syr.ge.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 13:45:18 EST
From: tgaskell@e3sa.elab.syr.ge.com
Subject: Re: Aerating cane
I have used the Venturi (or is it Bernoulli?) style aerating tube for
a number of brews, but mine differs from that which A.J. describes in
HBD 1934(?):
A. J. deLange writes:
> As far as I know, and what I ginned up for my experiment, was
> an ordinary racking cane into which a small hole was introduced
> at the top of the curve. The idea is that the vaccum created
> by the falling wort will also suck in some air which will mix
> in with and oxygenate the wort.
My tube is a short piece of rigid, clear plastic tubing through which
I put a bunch of holes. I cut a 4 inch piece off an old racking cane
and with a heated pin (I assume no respon....) I poked about 6 or 8
holes through the sides of the tube. The tube is placed in line
below the level of the bottom of the kettle.
My logic in the tubes placement is that a hole at the curve would make
a siphon lose vacuum. With the lower placement, the velocity of the
wort when it is below the base of the kettle really pulls in a lot of
air (it actually is kind of noisy). Also, if you have a kettle with
drain on it, operating a syphon would present a whole new
challenge. 8^)
Not a flame by any means, just another decision to be made to make
brewday more difficult! 8^)
Tom Gaskell Hog Heaven Homebrew Picobrewery Clayville, NY, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:33:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: More open ferments
Jack says:
<If you accept Jim's definition, then I "do it routinely" but I think it a
<bit of a stretch to call something with a lid on it, "open". Open
<fermenter brings to my mind, big wooden vats in dusty old
<breweries with cob webs hanging all over.
Only in Belgian breweries! At Victory we use a tiled room that has air
filtered and SS tanks chilled by glycol. In Germany the open ferment
rooms are extremely clean. The UK breweries Ive been to are between
the two extremes. (In my basement, there are cob webs over the fermenter).
Jim Busch
busch@daacdev1.stx.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 16:59:02 CST
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Re: Candied Camera/Open Fermentation v. Aeration/Pectinase
Russ writes:
>Okay, the reason I initially asked was that someone was saying it's special
>because it's been crytallized, and that makes it super-pure. In fact, they
>specifically said not to use regular table sugar because it wasn't pure enough.
>This strikes me as, well, silly, now that I bother to think about it.
I think that table sugar is plenty pure enough.
>On the other hand, when I was initially brewing, I had all kinds of people tell
>me to -never- use table sugar, and only use corn sugar if I wanted to add pure
>sugar. So, what's the "real" story? Is this just another example of Belgians
>breaking the rules and getting great results? I've been told that sucrose
>adds "off" flavors that glucose doesn't. Are these flavors important to some
>styles? Is there something magical about larger crystals that makes them work
>better for these styles?
I did a little test comparing table sugar, corn sugar and invert sugar
and their effects on flavour. It turns out that... you'll have to buy
my book to find out. Ha! Just kidding, sort of.
No, I found that the corn sugar (glucose) gave a slightly less cidery aroma
and flavour than the invert and sucrose, which were close. However, my
suspicion is not so much that the sugar causes cideryness, but rather
that the lack of nutrients from using excessive sugar perhaps causes the
yeast to make more acetaldehyde than it would if there was enough FAN
in the wort. Testing continues...
Meanwhile, if my theory above is right, then a wort that is jam-packed
with FAN should be able to support a strong dose of "empty calories"
without problems. Furthermore, with most Belgian Ales having very
assertive aromas (everything from bananas to bubblegum to cloves to
plums...), a small amount of cidery aromas and flavous would probably
be hidden by the yeast and Special B, no?
Just a theory.
***
Greg writes:
>>I regularly ferment in a converted keg/kettle, doing ten gallon
>>batches that finish out in a matter of days. It's typical that
>>a 1.045 beer will be coming out of the tap ten days after brew
>>day. I attribute this to two factors: yeast selection and the
>>tremendous improvement in aeration that I got when I switched to
>>open fermenters. <snip>
>
>I was all set to try Jeff's open fermentation technique for my next
>batch until I read a posting from korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
>later in the same HBD:
>
>>You don't want to aerate after the fermentation begins. <snip> Aeration
>>after fermentation begins will increase the
>>production of diacetyl and can lead to high levels of aldehydes in the
>>finished beer.
I don't recall what Jeff's technique was for aeration, but quality of
aeration does not have to be tied to any type of fermentation method.
Aeration before fermentation is good, aeration during fermentation
increases diacetyl levels (which may be good or bad depending on your
yeast and the style which you are brewing) and aeration after fermentation
is done can oxidize alcohols into aldehydes which taste and smell awful
("morning-after kegger party dispensed with air pump beer" flavour (tm)).
Unless you let your beer sit in an open fermenter for weeks after
fermentation is over, you should not have any problems with aldehydes.
Also, while fermentation is going, there is a blanket of CO2 that covers
the beer. Once the fermentation is over, the CO2 inevitably mixes with
the room air (that's just how gasses are -- heavier than air doesn't mean
that it stays in the container like a liquid -- it's the physics of gasses)
and no longer do you have that protection. I would keep the lid on the
fermenter throughout the ferment anyway, just to prevent things from
falling in. Once the kraeusen falls, wait two or three days and then
either rack to a keg or to a secondary to finish clearing. As usual,
minimize splashing during transfer.
***
Pectinase should be available through usual homebrewing supply sources.
If your local supplier does not have it, ask them to get it from their
wholesalers. I know L.D.Carlson has it. Wherever you buy it, make
sure it is refrigerated -- this stuff is ruined when not refrigerated
for a significant length of time. I would assume that summer shipping
would be a definite no-no.
Al.
Al Korzonas
Palos Hills, IL
korz@pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 16:10:26 -0700 (MST)
From: Hugh Graham <hugh@lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: Oxygen. Pectin. Gas.
Subject: Pectin
IN HBD #1935 Greg King (gking@arserrc.gov) responded to moi
>Pectin is a saccharidic (i.e. sugar) polymer, not a protein. The
>enzyme pectinase helps to break pectin into its constituent sugars.
>I'm not sure if pectinase is commercially available or not.
Thanks. Eventually my brain engaged and I realised the polysaccharidic
nature of the beast. My home brew store sells 'pectic enzymes' so I
bought some and they worked like a charm at half the recommended dose
and in 24 hours. It's a wine thing, obviously.
Flex your pecs today.
*****------*****
Also rick@adc.com (Rick Larson) writes:
Subject: oxygen equipment
> Do I need a special regulator or can I use a welding
> regulator to regulate the amount of oxygen into a
> air stone?
O2 cylinders have a specific outlet type designed only to
fit an oxygen regulator (type CGA 540, should be marked 'Oxygen').
This is because grease, dust and other marginally flammable materials
become dangerously flammable when in the presence of pure oxygen.
Compressed air, for example, often contains oil mist
from the compressor, which could burn quite nicely in 100% O2.
So, never use or adapt a regulator, valve or tubing that was once used for
another gas (or any other purpose), to use with pure O2.
Maybe it would be sensible to immerse your airstone in (wet) wort before
turning the gas on.
Furthermore, use of oxygen by anyone should be subject to
some sensible precautions, e.g.
Don't vent oxygen from your sparging operation next to your
propane burner, electrical equipment, furnace, small children,
vodka, pet fish, etc. etc. Keep a window open at least, and maybe
disperse the excess oxygen using a fan.
Other precautions may be necessary. Take a little care.
Good beer is possible without conflagration (tm).
Disclaimer/butt coverage:
Nb. I am not qualified to give you a safe procedure for oxygen use.
Ask your gas supplier.
*****--------*****
While I'm full of gas...
Subject: Carbon monoxide from propane:
Recent discussion leads me to point out that CO (carbon monoxide)
is more typically generated when inadequate ventilation leads to
a lack of O2 and build up of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the combustion
area. Incomplete combustion results, leading to (toxic) CO production.
(Yellow flames also tend to produce CO). Either way, you're in trouble.
Excess CO2 with adequate oxygen can also cause problems.
(Some recent posts implied that all propane/NG flames produce unacceptable
CO levels which must then be vented. This is kinda backwards. So flame me).
- ------
Hugh
(ObBeer: who recently started using a MaltMill (tm) and had his first stuck
mash yesterday, but then it was a 70% wheat, single decoction mish-mash)
* hugh@lamar.colostate.edu *
* Nobody knows the trub I've seen. *
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 09:14:37 -0500
From: rhampo@ford.com (Rich Hampo)
Subject: Gas
Howdy All!
At the risk of starting a really gross thread, here goes nothing.
Has anyone out there in HBD land discovered a cure/preventative for
the personal emission of methane that seems to always accompany
(with a time lag) drinking homebrew? In my case, it is orders of
magnitude worse for homebrew than for commercial swill. This problem
is really lessening my enjoyment of brewing (not to mention upsetting my wife).
Is it because of the yeast perhaps?
Thanks for any info, please e-mail me (with "Yes Homebrew gives me more gas
than BudMilloors", or "No it does not") if you want to participate in an
unscientific survey on this.
Happy brewing,
Richard Hampo
H & & Brewing Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 11:56:21 EDT
From: Aidan "Hairy Hibernian" Heerdegen <aidan@rschp2.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Sparge water temps / Arabian Beer
Full-Name: Aidan "Hairy Hibernian" Heerdegen
G'day
Al (korz@pubs.ih.att.com) wrote and quoted:
> Sean writes:
> >>1. What can cause astringency in beer?
*snip*
> >> c. Sparge
> >Don't go higher than 168 deg f.
>
> See above.
(Al explained how hotter sparge temps were just more likely to
burst unconverted starch granules more than cause astringency)
My comment is basically re-iterating something JS said a *long*
time ago, and was poo poo-ed for .. that your sparge water can
be ALOT hotter than 168, but that dosen't mean your *grain bed*
will be .. which is, after all, where all the action is.
Just last weekend I made a Pale Ale with sparge water just off
the boil. I had done a Mashout and got the mash up to maybe
70-72 degrees C, then started sparging (after recirculating a
couple of litres). At no point during my sparge did the grain
bed go above 72 degC and in fact by the end of the sparge parts
of the grain bed were down to 68. I started using v.hot sparge
water when I measured the temp of the grain bed during a previous
sparges and it was getting as low as 58 degC.
The important thing to stress is this is for my system, which is
not terribly well insulated (a copper manifold in a 50L
rectangular cooler), but it's worth checking the temps of your
grain bed in your system to see if you need to use hotter sparge
water.
Kit Anderson (kit@maine.com) wrote:
> I spent a few months in Saudi Arabia.
*snip*
> Beer drinkers were out of luck. It is hard to get malt extract
> and hops there as the government knows there is only one use for
> them.
*snip*
> If you were able to actually brew there, you would be the most
> popular person in the kingdom.
I know a guy who was an Engineer in Saudi, he said that they used
to bring in beer kits whenever they came back from overseas, and
get everyone they knew to bring in "the makings". Apparently
they were allowed to brew it in their "compound" (I guess they
were working somewhere a bit out of the way) and drink it in
their houses, but not in public. They certainly weren't brewers
of any great skill, and he said it tasted pretty grim but they
were grateful for anything!
A mate of mine from Iran said they used to have a drink there
which he claims tasted exactly like Guinness but without the
alcohol (i suppose they distill it off).
Anyone know about this beverage?
Cheers
Aidan
- --
aidan@rschp2.anu.edu.au,
http://rschp2.anu.edu.au:8080/aidan
http://rschp2.anu.edu.au:8080/aidan/aob - Aust. Mirror of AOB pages
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 15:32:37 -0800
From: jfrane@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: more on open fermentation
Jack Schmidling wrote:
>
>If you accept Jim's definition, then I "do it routinely" but I think it a
>bit of a stretch to call something with a lid on it, "open". Open
>fermenter brings to my mind, big wooden vats in dusty old
>breweries with cob webs hanging all over. There are all sorts of
>risks in this approach but the results speak for themselves.
>
You will have to find a new word to make sense out of that
>statement. If you cover it, it ain't open and if you don't cover it , you
>are nuts. Well, lets just say there is no reason for not covering it.
>
I think it's a matter of semantics, and of fermenter geometry.
If it's in an open fermenter, even with a lid on it, it's
open. It really does make sense, if you look at the configuration
of your possibilities.
A cylindro-conical fermenter (most common thing to see in a
micro or brewpub), it's clearly closed -- that is, completely
contained. Same with a carboy, whether the hole is up or down;
the fermenter is clearly contained.
Open fermentation has to do with the shape (wide and wide
open, and with access. In an open fermenter, even one with a
loose-fitting lid, you can skim, you can dip, whatever, and
well, it's different.
>I leave it in the primary fermenter with a lid on for about 10 days or until;
>the wort clears. I don't mean xtal clear but that point when a large
>quantity of beer, seen from the top, turns from a milky look to very
>dark. It is then kegged and conditioned. If you don't keg, you would
>put it in a carboy with an airlock at this time to fully clear before
>bottling.
>
What I don't fully understand is why it's taking Jack 10 days
to reach a stage that isn't even completely clear. In 10 days,
I'm drinking my beer.
GREGORY KING wrote:
>I was all set to try Jeff's open fermentation technique for my next
>batch until I read a posting from korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
>later in the same HBD:
>
>>You don't want to aerate after the fermentation begins. <snip> Aeration
>>after fermentation begins will increase the
>>production of diacetyl and can lead to high levels of aldehydes in the
>>finished beer.
>
>I'm hoping that Jeff and/or Al will write a follow-up posting to clarify
>this apparent discrepancy.
There is no discrepancy that I can see. I get great aeration because
I have access to the wort when it runs into the fermenter. I sanitize
a stainless steel kitchen whip, lean into the fermenter and beat
the wort into a froth. Then I pitch a good starter and set a lid
on the fermenter (it sits very loosely, and in fact has gotten
moved around by rising CO2 from time to time).
Some of the Brit homebrewers maintain that this arrangement is
necessary for an exchange of O2 during primary fermentation, but
I'm skeptical; it's hard to believe any exchange could take
place through 3 inches or more of high krausen -- but??
Tracy Aquilla writes:
>Do you also open-ferment lagers (if you make lagers)?
[snip]
I haven't done any lagers in quite a while, but I suspect it
would depend. I've used a few strains that seemed to produce
a distinct krausen, and they might work. I *believe* I've
seen photographs in old texts of lager breweries that did
their primary open, but don't quote me on it.
Personally, I haven't
>noticed any differences in quality between ales produced using open and
>closed fermentations, which can be attributed to the open fermentation.
>Since you don't really want to get into the 'whys', I'll keep my question
>simple. Would you please describe the improvements in quality you've noted
>in your open-fermented beers? Thanks.
Difficult to define, really, other than that the beer just tastes
better. The main thing, for me, is that I'm finally able to
aerate the wort properly, and am getting fermentations that mimic
those in commercial situations. There's also an aesthetic value,
which is personal -- I love watching those huges rocky heads
develop. I know I can taste a difference in the beer since I
switched but I don't know for certain whether the improvement in
flavor is directly linked to fermenter geometry or simply to
the change in fermentation time.
Russell Mast writes in reference to candi sugar:
>Okay, the reason I initially asked was that someone was saying it's special
>because it's been crytallized, and that makes it super-pure. In fact, they
>specifically said not to use regular table sugar because it wasn't pure enough.
>This strikes me as, well, silly, now that I bother to think about it.
Silly isn't the word. Idiotic is more accurate. Sucrose, whether as
rock candy or table sugar, is thoroughly refined. The *only*
difference is the size of the crystals -- little, tiny ones in the
sugar bowl and great big ones on the string.
>
>On the other hand, when I was initially brewing, I had all kinds of people tell
>me to -never- use table sugar, and only use corn sugar if I wanted to add pure
>sugar. So, what's the "real" story? Is this just another example of Belgians
>breaking the rules and getting great results? I've been told that sucrose
>adds "off" flavors that glucose doesn't. Are these flavors important to some
>styles? Is there something magical about larger crystals that makes them work
>better for these styles?
Lots of mis-information out there about sugar. The Belgians and
the Brits use a variety of sugars; very little of it is corn sugar (if
any). Some of the sugar is sucrose, some invert sugar, some
caramelized sugars; there are no rules, per se. Sucrose does seem
to benefit the development of a tight, dense head in conjunction with
high carbonation (see various Belgian beers and Cooper's Ale); it
does allow higher alcohol with a drier finish; and it does allow
the production of big beers that don't have the barleywine esters.
I've asked before: does anyone know a commercial brewer doing
bottle-conditioned beers (other than Sierra Nevada) who uses corn
sugar?
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 18:58:32 -0600
From: The Wallinger Family <wawa@datasync.com>
Subject: yeast metabolism
I am probably not fully appreciating the chatter on yeast
metabolism, but some of it may be sinking in. So, I'd like
to pose a question which, in light of the discussion, I hope
makes sense.
I recall a discussion several months ago about the proper
stage of yeast 'growth' at which to pitch a starter. There
were two schools of though, I also recall. One that you
should pitch at high krausen when the glycogen level was
highest, and the other that you should pitch just after the
krausen falls. No flames if this is wrong, I'm pulling this
from the remaining brain cells in my head.
Now to get to the question. It seems to me that starters
are used to build up the cell count needed for healthy
fermentation given the quantity of work to do (i.e., sugar
to ferment). Once that is achieved, it seems that the
starter should be pitched just after the oxygen is used to
fully develop the cell walls (which is what I gathered from
the metabolism discussion) rather than after fermentation
activity is underway. In other words, once you have enough
cells, you want to get them through the stage that *prepares*
them for fermentation rather than getting them into the
fermentation stage. Can one of the biologists in the crowd
comment on the best time to pitch in light of the yeast
metabolism discussion currently underway.
Wade Wallinger
brewing contraband on the Mississippi Gulf Coast
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 10:45:29 +1100
From: merino@cynergy.com.au (Charlie Scandrett)
Subject: stuck sparges
Mike posted,
>From: mdost3+@pitt.edu (Mike Dowd)
>This past weekend, I brewed a Russian Imperial Stout. I use an EasyMasher
>fitted to a 5 gal. kettle (so I can handle about 12 lbs of grain at a
>time), and for the second time this brew season, had a stuck sparge (the
>first was when I made a Weizenbock). At first I thought that the EM itself
>might have been the source of the problems, but after checking it out in
>between mashes (I had to do a double mash to get the proper gravity)
>decided that it was probably my recipe. It follows:
8.5 lb. Pale
14 oz. Biscuit
7 oz. German Crystal
7 oz. Belgian Special B
10 oz. Black patent
12 oz. Roasted barley
8 oz. Flaked barley
>Mash sched: 104=B0 for 30 min., 155=B0 for 90 min. (a mash schedule I have u=
>sed before, modified from G. Fix's 40-60-70 schedule)
>My question is this: Can anyone tell me why this collection of grains would
>have given me such sparging problems? Was it just too much special malt?
>Should I have done a protein rest? I have done mashes this heavy and thick
>before with no problem, am curious as to why this
>didn't work, and what I should change in the future so that it isn't such a
>pain in the ass.
>Also, I posted about this a while ago, but never got any responses: Does
>anyone have any recommendations for avoiding a stuck sparge with wheat
>beers?
Sorry no one posted Mike. I'll have a go.
With you Russian Imperial I see no grain problems that I know of and the EM
is clear of blame.
The following suggestions apply to both beers.
1/Try a coarser grind, it will have no discernable effect on your extraction.
2/Check your pH. Lowest viscosity for proteins is at their "isoelectric
point" (wait for my upcoming "Protein FAQ" for more details) which for
barley proteins is practically 5.2 -5.4. For the Imperial, the dark malts
should rule out pH problems as they have an acidifying action. For the
wheat, a 37-40C "acid rest" will help acidify through the action of phytase
releasing phytic acid. This rest is also a B-glucan rest for breaking down
gums which can cause your problems. However if you use the 104F rest for
both beers, that shouldn't be a problem., perhaps extend it, especially for
wheat.
3/ A protein rest at 47-52C *would* help as you are using some European
grains which are usually not as well modified as US malts. With a wheat, I
think it is a must.
4/ Watch hot mash aeration with the wheat, the O2 can cause some high
molecular weight proteins (wheat is full of them) to form bonds that gum up
the sparge.
5/ Stir the mash, then let settle for 20 minutes before runoff to set the
bed slowly.
6/ Pre mash underletting is unneccessary with an EM.
7/ Most texts recommend a decoction with wheat, (the protein problem) but few
homebrewers want to go to the trouble.
8/ Thickness of mash? Are you close to 1.3 qts/lb?
9/ If a mash sticks, try "underletting", i.e. running sparge water back
through the EM to
lift the bed.
I hope this helps. My bet is grind or thickness.
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:30:14 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Aeration/Metabolism Post
Tom Gaskell sent e-mail describing his aeration device as follows:
>My tube is a short piece of rigid, clear plastic tubing through which
>I put a bunch of holes. I cut a 4 inch piece off an old racking cane
>and with a heated pin (I assume no respon....) I poked about 6 or 8
>holes through the sides of the tube. The tube is placed in line
>below the level of the bottom of the kettle.
This was easily fabricated (8 holes) from the racking cane I had ruined in
my earlier experiment. Some water was placed in a 15 gal stockpot with
valve and 1/2" compression fitting which mated to the aerator with the
plastic tubing which came with the racking cane. This water was
deoxygenated to 22% to simulate the amount of oxygen picked up during
cooling with an imersion chiller which is, I presume, the method Tom is
using. That's a big lie. Deoxygenating the water is a PIA. I came up with
the simulation idea to justify quitting when I got to 22%. When the valve
was opened and the water collected in a bucket at floor level (the stock
pot was at counter level) it measured 49%. I believe that the problem is
that, while a lot more air was sucked in with this arrangement, the bubbles
are not tiny enough.
Dave Brainard sent e-mail aksing permission to use the summary of
metabolism in his club newletter. E-mail sent in return bounces so hope you
see this here. Have at it. If I didn't want people to use my stuff I
wouldn't post it. Thanks for asking for permission. If everyone had your
attitude there would be no need for discussions about copyrights.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:04:24 -0500
From: bob@harvey.carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: Re: carmel
my mom has a degree in home economics with a concentration as a test kitchen
specialist (read: she can really cook!). she uses a microwave for a lot of
things, but she makes carmel on the stove top. gas heat, heavy cast aluminum
pan: wooden spoon...stir, stir, stir. she says microwaves (turntable or no)
have hot and cold spots so the stove is better. YMMV
btw: descriptive terms for sugar heating are what happens when you drop a
drop of the molten sugar into tap water. candy thermometers are much better,
and are usually labled. it takes a lot of heat to carmelize a quantity of
sugar. also, the quantity of water isn't so important, because it's going to
boil away long before carmel. good luck.
bob rogers
bob@carol.net
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 96 22:07:02 EST
From: Richard Nantel <72704.3003@compuserve.com>
Subject: Cornelius vs Minikegs
Thanks to all who wrote about the benefits and shortcomings of cornelius and
minikegs. In summary, I received an overwhelming amount of mail suggesting
cornelius kegs are nothing short of being gifts of the gods. Minikegs, on the
other hand, were substantially less well loved. The pro-cornelius camp was so
great that I went out and bought a second-hand cornelius keg, regulator, hose,
etc., all for a reasonable $135 Canadian (about $100 US) only $30 more than the
price of the minikegs. I placed a deposit on the CO2 tank that I can get back if
I decide to go back to bottling (which should be when hell freezes over.)
I'm now enjoying wonderful draft ale topped with the all-time creamiest head
possible.
Thanks to all
Richard Nantel
Montreal, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:32:50 -0500
From: Borst@localnet.com (Glenn & Kristina Matthies)
Subject: Pectinase
In HBD #1935 Greg King writes
>Pectin is a saccharidic (i.e. sugar) polymer, not a protein. The
>enzyme pectinase helps to break pectin into its constituent sugars.
>I'm not sure if pectinase is commercially available or not.
Pectinase or Pectic Enzyme as it is often called is available to homebrewers
although is is more common to winemakers. FWIW, According to the book
"Modern Winemaker" by Phillip Jackish, pectinase works between 70 and 140
degrees F.
It is destroyed at 149 F. It is best added to crushed fruits before they
are pressed to increase juice yeilds. I don't own this book but I may
have to get it from the library again to read up on it. My notes were not
to detailed. Hope this helps. Glenn
Glenn & Kristina Matthies
Lockport, NY 14094
Email: Borst@localnet.com
Glenn's Buffalo Beer Page
http://www.localnet.com/~borst/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:32:50 -0500
From: Borst@localnet.com (Glenn & Kristina Matthies)
Subject: Pectinase
In HBD #1935 Greg King writes
>Pectin is a saccharidic (i.e. sugar) polymer, not a protein. The
>enzyme pectinase helps to break pectin into its constituent sugars.
>I'm not sure if pectinase is commercially available or not.
Pectinase or Pectic Enzyme as it is often called is available to homebrewers
although is is more common to winemakers. FWIW, According to the book
"Modern Winemaker" by Phillip Jackish, pectinase works between 70 and 140
degrees F.
It is destroyed at 149 F. It is best added to crushed fruits before they
are pressed to increase juice yeilds. I don't own this book but I may
have to get it from the library again to read up on it. My notes were not
to detailed. Hope this helps. Glenn
Glenn & Kristina Matthies
Lockport, NY 14094
Email: Borst@localnet.com
Glenn's Buffalo Beer Page
http://www.localnet.com/~borst/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 22:59:53 -0500
From: Scottie617@aol.com
Subject: open fermentation
All of this talk about open and almost open and closed fermentation has me
confused. Could somebody please explain to me the advantages of open
fermentation versus blowoff? Why would you take the chance of contamination?
I thought that blowoff was a step ahead, not behind. How do you repitch
from an open fermentation? Cant you do the same with a blowoff?
Scott E.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 20:58:02 -0700
From: flemingk@usa.net (Kirk R Fleming)
Subject: Predicting FG
In #1934 Phil B (phil.brushaber@lunatic.com) asked about computing fg.
I think this is a real challenge, and I think Phil has oversimplified
it by his reference to "fermentables" vs "unfermentables". I've done
some poorly controlled experiments with crystal and other malts in an
attempt to get their contributions to final gravity. As embarassing
as it is to display these standard deviations, here are my results:
1. Wheat Malt (American) (not co-mashed)
malt mass (g) vol (mL) mash og fg (og-fg)/og
--------------------------------------------------
50 228 19 04 0.789
100 345 31 06 0.806
211 460 32 05 0.844
316 700 65 06 0.908
--------------------------------------------------
AVG: 0.837
2. CaraPils Malt
malt mass (g) vol (mL) mash og fg (og-fg)/og
--------------------------------------------------
134 500 10 07 0.300
215 700 12 06 0.500
230 840 16 12 0.250
393 935 19 10 0.474
--------------------------------------------------
AVG: 0.368
3. 20L Crystal Malt (Briess)
malt mass (g) vol (mL) mash og fg (og-fg)/og
--------------------------------------------------
143 700 21 11 0.476
205 835 34 14 0.588
430 1250 45 20 0.556
--------------------------------------------------
AVG: 0.540
4. 60L Crystal Malt (Briess)
malt mass (g) vol (mL) mash og fg (og-fg)/og
--------------------------------------------------
53 14 10 0.286
104 500 29 22 0.241
131 390 44 18 0.591
219 1000 27 19 0.296
418 1500 43 28 0.349
--------------------------------------------------
AVG: 0.353
5. Pale ale malt (Hugh Baird)
malt mass (g) vol (mL) mash og fg (og-fg)/og
--------------------------------------------------
205 995 31 02 0.935
--------------------------------------------------
AVG: 0.935
Phil's recipe:
> Let me give you an example. I'm putting together a Pale Ale (10 gallons)
> with about 16 lbs of 2-row and 3 lbs of various non-fermentables. I
> calculate that the non-fermentables alone would contribute about
> 8 points to the total. If I add those 8 points to a figure
> of 1.008, should I be surprised that I am getting a FG of about 1.016?
If I simplify his recipe to 16 lbs pale ale and 3 lbs 20L crystal, use
36 ppg and 31 ppg for yield, respectively, I should get:
1.058 from the pale ale From the data above, for pale ale malt
1.009 from the 20L crystal fg = .065 og, and for the 20L crystal,
- -------------------------- fg = .46 og. Using these numbers with
1.067 og (at 100% efficiency) the og's at left I get:
58 * .065 = 3.8 and 9 * .46 = 4.1, for a total fg = 8
Note that these figures indicate the pale ale contributes half of what
Phil computed as the contribution to final gravity. Personally, I'd
guess that 1.010 would be closer to the actual number you'd get!
One major problem here is that the fg data I've given is all over the
board, due mostly I think to differences in aeration of the wort used
in each test. What I've taken to doing as a workaround until I have
unlimited spare time on my hands is to simply do a batch then increase
the percentage of crystal and lower the pale to maintain the same og
while boosting the fg (trial and error). Kind of a long post...sorry.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: 15 JAN 96 03:40:30 EST
From: MS2@os.dhhs.gov
Subject: Undeliverable Message
To: Phil White@ASMB.BUDG@OS.DC
C=US/A=INTERNET/DDA=ID/homebrew(a)hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
Cc:
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1935 (January 15, 1996)
Message not delivered to recipients below.
VNM3043: Phil White@ASMB.BUDG@OS.DC
**** Attachment message(s) will follow in 2 separate transmissions.
------------------------------
Date: 15 JAN 96 03:40:30 EST
From: MS2@os.dhhs.gov
Subject: Undeliverable Message
**** Main message start
To: Phil White@ASMB.BUDG@OS.DC
C=US/A=INTERNET/DDA=ID/homebrew(a)hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
Cc:
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1935 (January 15, 1996)
Message not delivered to recipients below.
VNM3043: Phil White@ASMB.BUDG@OS.DC
**** Main message end
**** An attachment message follows ...
Return-Path: <rdg@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com>
Received: FROM hpfcla.fc.hp.com BY ban-unix.os.dhhs.gov with ESMTP ;
15 JAN 96 03:39:42 EST
Received: from hpfcmgw (hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com) by hpfcla.fc.hp.com with SMTP
(1.37.109.16/15.5+IOS 3.20) id AA072325036; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 01:37:16 -0700
Received: by hpfcmgw
(1.38.193.4/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA09982; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 01:00:06 -0700
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 01:00:06 -0700
Message-Id: <9601150800.AA09982@hpfcmgw>
To: homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
From: homebrew-request@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Reply-To: homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
Errors-To: homebrew-request@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
Precedence: bulk
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1935 (January 15, 1996)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 07:43:10 EST5EDT
From: "Thomas W. Ausfeld" <TOM@sp1.dhmc.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Bees and carboys
THaby@swri.edu writes:
>Hello all, while brewing outdoors this weekend, the honey bees came out of
>the woodwork. Must have been the mid 70 degree weather here in South Texas.
>Anyway they found my runoff while sparging, and then my homebrew glass! Not
>bad though, they taste kinda like chicken.
That's funny, I didn't have that problem. Must be the minus 30
degree temp and four feet of snow.
Eugene Sonn <sonn@oswego.Oswego.EDU> asks:
> Should I get 5 or 6 gallon carboy?
I prefer the 6 gal carboy, partly because I brew all-grains and I
end up with 5.5 gals. The other difference is you'll blow off with
the 5 gal, rarely with the 6(assuming a 5 gal batch) . I'd be interested
in the feedback regarding removing the krausen or letting it fall
back in. I've been happier with the beers where I let it fall back in.
Comments regarding krausen anyone? Advantages/disadvantages
regarding removal.
Tom Ausfeld (Thomas.ausfeld@hitchcock.org)
Newbury, Vermont
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer.
- Henry Lawson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:01:38 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Boiling/Diacetyl
Irwin Gelman commented on spores and boiling. It is indeed true that only
the Bacilli and Clostridia sporulate (I even checked specifically to see if
Pedios could do it since they survive not only boiling but autoclacving -
they don't) but it is not true that an hour's boil will kill all spores.
Thus Tyndalisation in which the medium is boiled to kill bacteria then
allowed to sit 24 hours while the spores germinate, then boiled again to
kill the bacteria which sprang from the spores. Three cycles of boiling
will essentially sterilize the medium.
Curt Speaker asked how to get more diacetyl. Diacetyl is a byproduct of
valine synthesis and valine has an inhibitory effect on its production so
that one way to increase its yield is to ferment a valine poor wort. As
most of us can't control the amount of particular amino acids in our worts
we would have to fiddle with methods like under pitching and under aeration
which have other detrimental effects. Thus, IMO, the best approach is to
use a yeast strain which is an above average diacetyl producer. I believe
this is the secret of Pilsner Urquell: one of the five strains reportedly
used is a big diacetyl thrower. I cannot recommend one but as diactyl is
quite allowable in scotch ales I would expect the strains that normally
used for these beers to meet this criterion. Greg Noonan specifically
mentions #1084 and also #1338 as being suitable from this point of view.
Second, follow the protocols for brewing Scotch Ales. Higher fermentation
temperature will enhance diacetyl production but this is diametrically
opposed to the philosophy behind Scotch Ale and leads to fusels and esters
as well as higher diacetyl. Perhaps starting at a warmer temperature and
then lowering to a cooler one for the remainder of the fermentation then
plummeting to a very low one (so that there is no opportunity for the
yeaast to resorb and reduce any diacetyl formed) might work.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 09:30:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Todd Kirby <mkirby@bgsm.edu>
Subject: Re: Grain Bags
In HBD #1936 Gilad inquired about Grain Bags. If you drop by a cloth
shop, you can find different sizes of nylon mesh used
to make wedding veils. It is dirt cheap, and can be made into whatever
size bag you might need. Of course it looks kinda funny when a guy is in
a cloth shop buying wedding veil, but you'll survive. And when you tell
them you're using it brew beer, they'll immediately know you're not a
flit-boy! I'd recommend buying enough to make it double-layered. Good Luck!
Todd Kirby
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 07:09:43 PST
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: RIMS heater pipe
>>>>> "C.D." == C D Pritchard <cdp@chattanooga.net> writes:
C.D.> I received a couple of nice responses (thanks DonBrew@aol.com and Dion
C.D.> Hollenbeck) cautioning about the possibility of metals from the tailpiece
C.D.> leaching into the brew.
C.D.> Dion opts for stainless steel ($100) or the old standby, copper
C.D.> and wouldn't recommend either brass or CPVC.
The reason I would not recommend plastic of any kind is that is
dangerous. Sure, caution about never running dry is good, but I have
done it once. I could have burned down my garage if I had been using
a plastic heater chamber. I would not recommend brass *mostly* due to
its flimsiness and lack of fittings other than drain type fittings.
And of course, I am not overly fond of the leaching issue either, but
have no evidence for it. My biggest objection is due to mechanical
properties. It may work, but *I* would not recommend it.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1937, 01/17/96
*************************************
-------
