Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1924
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/01/01 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1924 Mon 01 January 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
All grain supplies in Ireland (Ulick Stafford)
personal attacks (Rolland Everitt)
glyceol question (CHOLLIAN-USER)
YEAST QUALITIES ("Ben Wyche")
Sterilize/Sanitize (J. Todd Hoopes)
Left-handed Sand Wedge (J. Thomas Foelber)
how long for bottle fermentation? (Tackett Austin)
Doug Jones; broken thermometer (Marc Gaspard)
Re: Chest freezer (dbell)
Acid Sanitizers? ("James Hojel")
Source for CaCl? ("Houseman, David L TR")
Barlywine Yeast? (J. Todd Hoopes)
MOM (Jack Schmidling)
Overcarbonation -- from corn sugar? (John W. Braue, III)
Sugar(s) (John W. Braue, III)
results: To replace blow-off, or not? (Michael Pfeuffer)
******************************************************************
* 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ulick@chemcon.internet-eireann.ie
id m0tTZ9S-0006NfC; Sat, 23 Dec 95 18:58 GMT
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 18:58:37 +0000
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick@chemcon.internet-eireann.ie>
Subject: All grain supplies in Ireland
To: Posting Address Only - No Requests <homebrew@hpfcmgw>
In-Reply-To: <199512230800.AA240535606@hpfcmgw>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9512231849.A114-0100000@chemcon.internet-eireann.ie>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I have recently taken a delivery from Brupaks and am now in a position to
offer grain, hops, Wyeast, books, equipment, etc. to Irish homebrewers by
mail order. Email, fax, phone or write for a catalogue.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Wexford Brewing Company | Ulick Stafford, Proprietor
Purveyor of Advanced Homebrewing Supplies | ulick@chemcon.internet-eireann.ie
Ballyhurst, Taghmon, Co. Wexford | Phone/Fax: +353-53-47957
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 06:49:05 -0500
From: af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: personal attacks
Lately there have been a couple of unnecessarily personal and
nasty attacks (IMHO) posted here. This list membership seems to
include people at every level of expertise. Occasionally, someone
will post information that another person takes issue with, and
wishes to debunk. It is good to correct misinformation, but I
think it can be done without preaching, making personal remarks,
or being arrogant. I don't believe it is the purpose of the list
to hold anyone up to public ridicule - just my opinion.
Rolland Everitt
af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 01:10:09 +0900
From: CHOLLIAN-USER <IPS@chollian.dacom.co.kr>
Subject: glyceol question
I have a question concerning the use of glycerol in freezing live yeast.
Living in Korea and brewing beer is like trying to order a pizza
delivered on top of Mt. McKinley. Neither the equipment nor materials
exist in familiar forms. I buy in bulk whenever I am in the states and
freeze the hops. That's worked *OK* so far. But since liquid yeast
packets are so fragile and because I brew about once a month I want to
experiment freezing the slurry from the bottom of a primary
fermentation. One of my books suggests mixing glycerol with the slurry
to prevent the cell walls from bursting. The pharmacist I bought the
glycerol from here in Korea, said not to eat it in any amount, but I
can't beleive that the book "The Complete Joy of Home Brewing" would be
so wrong as to suggest something dangerous to one's health. Has anyone
done this? Is glycerol safe to consume? And what is glycerol anyway? The
amount I'd be using would be around two liquid ounces in a five gallon
batch of beer.
Greg Wilson
ips@chollian.dacom.co.kr
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 11:34:02 +0000
From: "Ben Wyche" <bwyche@voicenet.com>
Subject: YEAST QUALITIES
Does anyone know a source that lists the qualities of the various
commercial yeasts.
By qualities, I mean the taste results that the various commercial yeasts
bought at homebrew stores are suppose to impart to the beers that
are brewed with them.
Thanks,
Ben Wyche
bwyche@voicenet.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 15:14:40 -0500
From: hoopes@bscr.uga.edu (J. Todd Hoopes)
Subject: Sterilize/Sanitize
I recently read a post concerning a reply to another post. Most
of this post I read and accepted (I'm a biochemist not an engineer) I
wanted, however, to make a few additional comments on the
sterilization/sanitation thing.
First, nothing one does in the HB world is sterile. You just don't
have the equipment and the things you need would cost you more than your
car...even if it's a nice car. You need, as an absolute minimum, an
autoclave and a clean hood (biological containment cabinet) and all the
little sterile disposables like .22 micron filters for your wort ,transfere
tubes, pipets, etc.. To be realistic I'd go with a class II clean room.
There are chemical methods for rendering you beer sterile, but most would
leave it poisonous to you or require the use of strong oxidants like ozone
(not a good idea for anything that is supposed to taste good, besides its
dangerous) My personal favorite is irradiation. It leaves no residue and
would be unlikly to change the flavor of your beer. Not even a virus will
"live" through this one as it nicks and derivatizes DNA. ( no it will not
make you beer radioactive ) Alas it to is expensive and requires
annoyingly difficult to get government permits.
Read the preceding ranting as, "all the beer you brew is
contaminated". No problem... Although I'm not sure on this, I'd make a
considerable wager that no commercial brewery was contamination free
either. I've not done any experiments to find out exactly how many CFUs
(colony forming units) and how much time prior to pitching it takes to
affect the flavor of a beer, but I'm sure its quite high. In fact by
laboratory standards brewing is no "cleaner" than cooking.
I normally use a wort chiller that I constructed myself (no problem
even for a non-engineer), but I have on ..err..ahhh.... a fewww occasions
been too lazy to use it and clean it. In these cases I've left the beer
overnight to cool and pitched the next day. Was it contaminated?.. Of
course,as most beer is, but it was not an "infected beer" (noticeable
contamination). As a disclaimer I have detected DMS in one of my batches
cooled this way, but it was the exception not the rule. (I use light
english 2 row as a base malt. This fact may have something to do with lack
of DMS in most slow cooled batches.. I have no idea.) A bath tub full of
water changed every 30-60 min will cool a wort in about three hours.
(assuming a relatively cool water source and you stir you beer on occasion)
A similar method was mentioned, by Charlie Scandrett. It works, but takes
some time.
A final point. Bleach (sodium hypochlorite) is a hell of a toxic
compound and will kill most things it runs into even spores provided the
contact is prolonged and the concentration is high enough. Given an
elevated temperature and high concentration of household bleach I.E.(60 C,
5% bleach solution) you will kill everything you need to kill in less than
ten min.. ( Not that I think anybody is stupid, but I'm speaking of
sanitation of equipment. If you drink 5% bleach solution, .app. 0.26%
sodium hypochlorite, you may kill yourself, but mostlikly you'll just have
serious stomach problems for the rest of you life.) Pitch with a large
volume 500-1000 ml of yeast just entering lag phase and you will have no
problems even with an overnight cool down.. provided you don't live in an
sewer. Again, I make no claims about DMS. I don't have the data to talk
on this subject.
This post is not a correction to, or an attack on, any other post.
Just points sparked by something I read here. Sorry if I took up too much
band width on a topic everyone has heard 100 times. I'm off to get
pleasently plastered.
*********************************************************************
Do unto others.. for given a reversal of situation they would surely
do it unto you. J. Todd Hoopes <Hoopes@bscr.uga.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 18:44:04 -0500
From: jtf@carol.net (J. Thomas Foelber)
Subject: Left-handed Sand Wedge
Today I brewed my first batch with a newly converted 15.5 gal. keg.
I assembled all the needed equipment and ingredients (a "steam" beer with
repitched pilsner wyeast). It wasn't too long before I realized that my old
spoon (12 inches) was far too short for the job.
I quickly called a local kitchen supply store only to find that they
wanted $17.50 for a SS 21 inch stock pot spoon. NO WAY! That would have
been nearly half of what I paid for the keg!
With this short notice I came up with a solution that worked great.
With a little bit of cleaning a junior left-handed sand wedge from my son's
golf bag made a perfect stirring tool. These run about $5 to $7 at the used
sporting goods store. An extra long handle with a nice grip! What more
could I ask?
I plan to continue to use the wedge unless someone knows of a good
reason not to. (My son says, "Okay" as long as I get him a new one.)
J. Thomas Foelber
jtf@carol.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 17:12:56 -0800
From: taustin@sps.lane.edu (Tackett Austin)
Subject: how long for bottle fermentation?
I bottled several batches then left town for a week. It was cold (50s) in
my house. When I got back, my week old and older beer had not fermented.
Will they?
Thanks,
Tackett
taustin@sps.lane.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 22:46:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Marc Gaspard <mgaspard@mailer.fsu.edu>
Subject: Doug Jones; broken thermometer
Here's my $0.02 on thermometers:
One of our club members turned me on to one of the most useful devices
in my homebrew arsenal; the DIGI-DIAL 300L digital thermometer!
It's similar to the dial thermometers with the spike, except at the top
is a handle sort of shaped like a golfclub head, with a lozenge-shaped flat
face about the width of 2 nickels. On the face is a LED readout & a small
button on the left (which is fine for me since I'm left-handed). You press
the button to turn it on, just stick the spike into your wort (or whatever
you're measuring), press the button again, & the "F" (farenheit) indicator
to the right of the will blink in a second or two. Press it again, & when
the "F" stops blinking *PRESTO* instant temperature measurement! It's su-
perb for instantly measuring your wort or your grain while mashing, since
it gives such an instantaneous reading, & you know precisely your temp
for protein rest, beta-rest, or final mash temp. Plus you can get quick
readings all around your kettles or mash-tuns, to see how your burners are
distributing the heat. It measures between 40-300F, but unfortunately not
in centigrade. (Although you might find one that does, or does both.)
I bought mine at a contractor supply store for about $10.00; they usu-
ally go for about $11-12.00. I highly recommend it!
Marc Gaspard
mgaspard@mailer.acns.fsu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 95 21:30:07 PST
From: dbell@cup.portal.com
Subject: Re: Chest freezer
Dave Ludwig posted:
>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 02:20:09 -0500
>From: dludwig@atc.ameritel.net
>Subject: Freezer Conversion
>Hi all. Hope everyone had a very good Christmas and New Year! Santa was good
>to me this year and brought me a 10 cu ft chest freezer. Same place where I
>bought the freezer (my wife sent me off with green light! Yee Ha) I
>retrieved a Hunter "Set 'n Save I" which is a digital programable house
>thermostat.
Heh! Just saw a freezer that must be an exact copy of this one,
tonight! I was in Sears, picking up a little 4 cuft aptartment
fridge (not <primarily> for beer, unfortunately), and saw a Kenmore
10 cu ft chest freezer. It has a deep side that would easily take
3 corny kegs, and a shallower side that would nearly fully support
a 5-gal fermenter, still leaving room for 2 kegs. Add a Hunter 'stat
and you're in business! I think this one was $199, by the way...
Nice lagering setup, I thought!
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 13:29:43 UT
From: "James Hojel" <JTroy@msn.com>
Subject: Acid Sanitizers?
A week ago or so, someone asked about the break-down characteristics of acid
sanitzers. I use star-san as my main sanitzers and would like to know its
characteristics. How long is its shelf life? How long will a solution last
in a container?
TIA
JTH
"The fish is killed by its open mouth"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 11:18:00 EST
From: "Houseman, David L TR" <DLH1@trpo3.Tr.Unisys.com>
Subject: Source for CaCl?
Does anyone know about a reasonable source for calcium chloride, CaCl?
Various chemical companies sell it as analytical or technical grades at
about $34/lb while the unpure Ice Melt (about 92% CaCl - the rest unknown)
is about $.33/lb. That's a big difference. What I want is food or
pharmaceutical grade at a reasonable price.
TIA,
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 13:14:17 -0500
From: hoopes@bscr.uga.edu (J. Todd Hoopes)
Subject: Barlywine Yeast?
I brewed a douple bock that will be 14 months old this new years.
I followed the advice of my local HB shop and used a Bavarian Lager yeast.
It was a hell of a fight with the yeast to get them to ferment most of the
sugar.
Now I want to brew a Barlywine and I don't want similar problems.
Can anybody out there recomend a good ale yeast for (OG 1.1) ? I like YL
yeast best...it's easy to culture, but anything will do. If you have a
personal strain for such endevers I would be eternally greatfull. I can
creat and maintain mono-cultures as a kind of payback.
*********************************************************************
Do unto others.. for given a reversal of situation they would surely
do it unto you. J. Todd Hoopes <Hoopes@bscr.uga.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 12:56 CST
From: arf@mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: MOM
>From: merino@cynergy.com.au (Charlie Scandrett)
>Subject: Mother of all Momilies
JS>In retrospect though, it really is not idiot proof as a heavy motor
hinged
JS>so the center of gravity puts all the weight on the belt could produce
JS>enough tension to distort the shaft.
>When a shaft has a bending moment applied it curves in a "Radius of
Curvature". If a 20 lb motor was hung on a pully 1 inch out from the
bearing, on a 3/4" shaft its ROC would be about 450 yards, i.e. a
deflection
of only 0.00003 inches! Steel can take this easliy.
The key words are "idiot" and "could". The former "could" put a 200 lb
motor on a mill.
>I didn't bother to calculate how many millions of lbs...
You also didn't bother to look at a MM and note that the shaft diameter is
3/8" and not 3/4".
Furthermore, I simply presented a possibility and not a dire warning as
in the case of the gear motors. The serious problem comes when one
puts a small pulley on the motor and the same size on the mill and
keeps tightening the belt till the mill doesn't slip under load.
It takes far more that 20lbs of tension to get this to work.
>You setup is safe for this lifetime Dion!
In his case, you are probably right but keep in mind that the MM carries
a lifetime warranty and he may outlive me.
>I can't imagine many bacteria surviving, but the spores of many
(especially "Pediococcus") would.
I believe you mean "could". Everything we do is a calculated risk.
There are enough "ifs" in the process that I stand by my position
that a beginner risks little if he cools a batch overnight.
JS>For all practical purposes, if you put a lid on the kettle after the
boil, it is sterile and will stay that way for a long time.
>It may remain not seriously infected, but "sterile" is a misuse of
english, sooner or later such a technique would produce noticible
bacterial off flavours. The cooling of headspace in the kettle must
draw fresh air into the pot.
Now you are confusing two issues. Letting new organisms in while
cooling has nothing to do with whether the wort was sterile at the end
of boil, no matter how you mean the word. Remaining "not seriously
infected" is all that we require, isn't it?
>What you can sometimes get away with is not good brewing practice.
I never suggested that it was good brewing practice. I suggested that
if a wort chiller intimidates a beginner enough to keep him from
brewing, he and the community are better off if he tries a batch
without one. He can use one when he feels more comfortable with
all the other details.
>The people at "The Brewery" (http://alpha.rollanet.org/) have a post
of mine in the technical library under "Thermodynamics of Wort
Chilling" in which I have tables for calculating the boil time
and cooling time effects on the DMS threshold. If you want a ready
reckoner to determine the effect of your technique on DMS, have a look.
I applaud you for your efforts but we are talking on two different
levels. You are scaring beginners and I am trying to unwind them.
>There is no doubt that Jack's technique will smell/taste to most of
us like a freshly opened can of corn.
Speaking of factoids! Who are "most of us"? I assure you that many
of those us's have tasted beer made this way and have noticed no
such smell/taste.
But as an aside, since moving to the country, I have been
using about 40% corn in my beer. It's fun using local stuff, it is
practically free, it reduces by 40% the amount of grain I must lug
back from the City and it tastes good.
And speaking of taste, with 40% corn that has been "cooked" for
several hours, I can't help but wonder what the big objection would
be if the beer had a bit of "cooked corn" taste.
> We can't all be as desensitised as Jack Schmidling.
No but I suspect that most beginners are and that is MY point.
>Putting the kettle is a bathtub of ice water and *stirring* both water
and wort is a simple "low tech" solution. A reasonably intelligent
Rhesus monkey could do it, unless he was very, very timid.
What about all those spores and cysts that get in while stirring?
I would guess the probability of contamination is lower if the kettle
is just covered and left to sit overnight, not to mention the simplicity
of the approach.
>JS>"I say BAH!"------the Bart Simpson retort.
Real experts don't have time to keep up with such profound thinkers.
It is with sadness and resignation that I admit to only knowing through
heresay who M. Simpson is but never had opportunity to watch his
highly uplifting show. Didn't he kill his wife or something like that?
>From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
>Cantilever-mounted motor equipped with v-belt pulley to a reducing
pulley. The pulley drives a sprocket which drives an identical
sprocket mounted to the mill. A chain to connect the sprockets, and
there you have it: the shock absorbing quality of the belt and pulley
system, while the sprocket and chain isolates the Maltmill (TM) shaft
from any lateral stress resulting from suspending the motor weight
with the shaft through the belt.
Your name Rube by any chance?
Not sure I even follow that but it seems like a highly complicated way
of avoiding the obvious. What is the objection to just putting a 3"
pulley on the motor and a 12" on the mill? It is simple and will run
forever with or without a lifetime warranty. The amount of belt tension
to run the mill at full load is trivial.
>Why? Because, like Jack, I am not qualified to
speak...
There was no way, without creative editing, that I could get that
I before the like....
>I'm sure Jack really meant to think about spores in his discussion
of boiling....
I believe the state of maximum survival is known as a cyst and I was
thinking about them while keeping in mind the fellow intimidated by
the wort chiller.
>By the way, Oh Great Banisher of DMS (TM), I've two slow-cooled,
domestic pale malt-based batches of beer I need you to come and
exorcise the DMS from. One o' us poor mere mortals have been stricken
by the mytholgical momism.
Based on the presumption that you kept the kettle tightly covered during
the cool down, I concede your defeat. However, there are lots of other
variables that could be the cause, not the least of which might be
hyper-sensitivity to that taste.
BTW, did you throw the two batches out yet? Would a beginner throw
them out if they were his first two all grain batches?
>What do I mean? Look in your workshop, Jack. You derive
your living by selling some of that which intimidates the newbies.
Guess again. I "derive a living" by cashing dividend checks on
investments resulting from selling my real business. I make mills
because I rose to the challenge of filling a serious need in one of
my many hobbies. I have the luxury of being able to derive
pleasure from producing the very best without having to worry
about deriving a living. When it ceases to be fun or someone else
comes up with a better mill, I will graciously bow out..
>Just because a competitor sells the chiller fittings is no reason to
start throwing stones.
That is downright silly. Most people (including me) make their own
chillers. Furthermore, I am not aware of any competitors nor what
that would have to do with trying a batch without a chiller.
I am not anti-chiller. I use one all the time but mainly because I
want to finish the batch the same day I start it. I made several
batches without one just as a learning experience.
We could debate the merits of immersion vs counterflow again but
I think the current discussion is far more useful. The type of chiller
is far less important then the need (perceived or otherwise) to use
one in the first place.
For those who missed the previous debate, my humble opinion is that
immersion chillers are vastly superior for most of the reasons that really
matter.
js
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 20:44:00
From: braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Overcarbonation -- from corn sugar?
Nick E Costanzo <ncostanz@emh.kunsan.af.mil> writes:
>Here is a quick question to the collective knowledge of HBD. I have been a
>homebrewer now for almost two years and have had many people tell me to add
>anything from 1/2 cup to 1 cup corn sugar. I understand that the answer will
>vary, but can anyone out there give me something scientific? I currently use
>3/4 cup corn sugar and have been successful most of the time, but I have had a
>few beers that overcarbonate in the bottles and are almost useless.
3/4 cup of corn sugar (BTW, in my last article, I forgot to mention
that "corn sugar" is another alias for glucose) sounds good here.
The occasional case of overcarbonation is probably due to
infection.
"Infection" is a scary, almost a dirty, word to homebrewers; it
usually conjures up an image of some too ropy to pour and that
smells like the cat was sick in it. But "infection" is rather
like "weed": it means any kind of microbial reproduction that *we
don't want*. The very first beer was probably viewed as an
infection; some proto-Sumerian said, "Ninkursag damn it, the
barley's gotten wet and gone all fizzy. Well, it was a bad harvest
last fall, so I'd better drink the bloody thing". After that, of
course, it was no longer viewed as an infection. Had it been a
good harvest, he would have thrown the mess out. Someday, a
homebrewer may get a mutant bacterium in his beer that causes the
worst fermentation of old corn and sawdust to taste like Duvel;
you can bet that *that* won't be viewed as an infection very long.
In five years, we'll be buying it in little foil packets.
Whilst we wait for that mutant to come along, we have infections
that cause the beer to become something we wouldn't pour on the
compost heap, and infections so benign that we never even notice
them. You probably caught one of the more benign ones. C'est la
vie.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue@ratsnest.win.net
I prefer both my beer and my coffee to be dark and bitter; that way,
they fit in so well with the rest of my life.
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 20:30:42
From: braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Sugar(s)
"James Hojel" <JTroy@msn.com> asks:
>A fuzzy fat bearded man gave me some books last week on Real Ale.
>Reviewing the recipes, I noticed that the British are very fond of using
>sugars. The two primary types used are cane and inverted sugars. My first
>task is obtaining these sugars. Does anyone know where one can purchase these
>sugars in the USA and/or how to make them (inverted)?
Cane sugar is sucrose, your basic white or table sugar (okay, some
of it is made from beets, but the end product in identical).
Invert sugar is the same product, boiled for a time in an acid
solution. Sucrose is (bowlderizing a few concepts here) a
disaccharide, a compound of two simple sugars (monosaccharides),
glucose (a/k/a "blood sugar" or "dextrose", the common foodstuff of
life from your beer yeast all the way down to evolutionary chain to
me) and fructose, or "fruit sugar", a slightly different substance
just about as attractive to the yeast as glucose is. Boiling
sucrose in water (with the acid as catalyst) causes it to break
down into its components. I don't know where you might buy it, as
I've never gone looking for it myself.
>Another question that arose is what exactly do these
>sugars contributed to the beer. Other than the obvious alcohol,
what do these sugars contribute as far as taste, body, and aroma?
Not a lot. Beer made with an excess of sucrose (more than
one-third of total fermentables) is generally described as "cidery"
in taste, a term of opprobrium. Except for sweetness, sucrose is
about tasteless as possible, so the "cideriness" is generally
attributed to unspecified by-products of yeast metabolism when
confronted by large amounts of fermentable substances without
adequate other nutrients (your mother *did* tell you that sugar is
nothing but empty calories, yes?). If the beer is fermented under
conditions that lead to the sucrose or invert sugar not being
exhausted, the remnant will of course increase the body and cause
the beer to be sweeter.
>Is it possible to use 2-row and a low mash temp. to substitute
>using sugar? In conclusion, I'm trying to get a grip on brewing
>with sugars and how to substitute for them while retaining the
>desired characteristics.
Probably not. When mashing grain, one develops a veritable witch's
brew of mono-, di-, and polysaccharides (plus non-sugars) which
could be emulated only through careful preparation of a
pseudo-wort from the pure chemicals. Adding a pound or so of table
sugar to the brew just isn't in the same league. By the same
token, I know of no mashing technique that will produce an excess
of sucrose (the components of invert sugar are naturally present in
sparge). If there *was* such a technique, I suspect that very few
would use it.
My SWAG is that some British brewers added invert sugar to their
wort to make up for poor yields. Later, they just dumped in cane
sugar because it was easier (I've tried inverting sugar; it's a
major pain in whatever end of the spine you prefer). Finally,
they kept on doing it for the same reason that they drink port, and
that Americans drink Coors Light -- i.e., they were told so often
that it was great stuff, they came to believe it.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue@ratsnest.win.net
I prefer both my beer and my coffee to be dark and bitter; that way,
they fit in so well with the rest of my life.
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 19:12:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@eden.com>
Subject: results: To replace blow-off, or not?
Many thanks to all those who replied to my question:
>I've got a 5 gallon batch of Strong Scotch Ale in *very* active
fermentation. >After 24 hours, it's blown off about 2 quarts of bubbles,
and doesn't seem to >be letting up.
>
>I'm tempted to try to replace the lost volume with sterile water, but I
also >figure I'll just end up lowering the FG.
The final volume was ~2.5 quarts, and I must admit that my main concern was
the loss of a 6-pack of this (potentially) wonderful brew. In the end, I
went with the "don't mess with it" crowd; although several of the other
comments warrant some thought:
4 people:
"don't mess with it"
A. McGregor:
I've had large blow-offs (BO) for the past 10 batches (2-4 qts for 5 gal
batch!). I was having a hard time accepting the loss of 1/2 - 1 gal of
potential beer, so I've been experimenting with the BO.
I've saved the BO and put it into 1 gal wine jugs, then transferred
it off the trub to a secondary and eventually bottled it. My
experience is that the BO beer has a watered down character, less
body, and slightly more bitter than the rest of the batch. For the
past two batches, recycled the BO by siphoning the BO and main
batch of beer into the same secondary. I've bottled the beer, but
haven't tasted one yet :^( since my beer usually take 4 weeks to
carbonate properly. I have a third batch that I'm collecting
the blow-off and I will I'll continue this experiment to
determine if it is worthwhile. Now that it is colder, the volume of
BO has come down some, if it's too small, I won't bother the save it.
One thing I have noticed with the recycled the BO, is a second
krausen in the combined secondary. This may imply that there is
more active yeast in the BO or additional sugars in the solution.
D. Venezia:
If your FG is 1.015 and you increase your volume from 4.5 gal to 5.0 gal
you will only lower your FG to 1.0135. If you can live with that
then do it. Also topping off with preboiled water is a good way to
add some hop character. Boil the water for 10-15 minutes, throw in
some hops, COVER, and let boil for a minute or two, turn off the
heat and allow to cool COVERED. When cool add liquid to keg or carboy.
Thanks to all those who responded. I'll be cracking the first one tomorrow
in celebration of New Year's Day.
Have a happy 1996, y'all!
- --------------------------------------------------------
Michael & Carlyn -- wq5c & ka5khk -- pfeuffer@eden.com
Now Brewing: St. Pat's Dunkelweizen
Now Playing: poi dog pondering, _pomegranate_
PGP public key: finger pfeuffer@eden.com
Win95? No thanks, Linux is much more interesting...
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1924, 01/01/96
*************************************
-------
