Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2003
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/04/05 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #2003 Fri 05 April 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Water (A. J. deLange) - Lime (Steve Alexander)
Portland brew clubs, wheat malts (Ken Johnson)
Help with new Wyeast strains... (z-corn)
Spotted some Owls. (Russell Mast)
RE: Rye in my beer/question on secondaries ("Gregory, Guy J.")
Re: cruddy kegs ("Robert Waddell")
re: Argh! (Al Stevens)
Wyeast 1968 (Dutch)
Brauwelt (Rob Lauriston)
Mucor Racmosus (John Thompson)
Scale/Water Treatment (A. J. deLange)
Really Cheap-Ass Digital Thermometer (KennyEddy)
ploidy in yeast (again), London ESB strain (#1968) ("Tracy Aquilla")
old yeast / US Open competition ("Keith Royster")
First Wort Hopping info pt1 ("John Lifer, Jr.")
First Wort Hopping Pt 2 ("John Lifer, Jr.")
recipe for 100-year-old bock/news of 370-year-old whiskey (Carl Etnier)
Lifer's Water / Rolling PIns & Specialty Grains (KennyEddy)
Wyeast London ESB and SNPA Yeast Blend (GSHUTELOCK)
Pronunciation of Pilz (Michael K. Cinibulk)
******************************************************************
* 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: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 14:40:50 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Water (A. J. deLange) - Lime
A. J. deLange writes:
>Another source of calcium is lime either as quick lime (calcium oxide) or
>slaked lime (calcium hydroxide). The problem with them is that a source of
>food grade lime is difficult to find and that detailed, accurate
>calculations are required for the addition and even then the results are
>not fully predictable. DeClerk recommends working with test batches of
>water followed by analysis before making the adjustments to the production
>water. All this is too elaborate for the homebrewer.
Lime (labelled as hydrated lime) is available from suppliers of
pickling and preserving jars. Apparently it is used as a rinse for
pickling cucumbers ?!!? In particular Ball Corp (as in Ball canning
jars) packages pure salt(NaCl) and hydrated lime this way rather
inexpensively.
My experience matches A.J.'s reading of DeCleck. My water has lower
carbonates than Louvier's water, but like him I have an inadequate
amount of Ca ions in the water to boil and precipitate chalk
effectively. Using hydrated lime to match the Calcium and Carbonate
ion molarity in my water produced only a modest precipitation (much
less than a Gypsum+boil treatment), and the pH remained very high
overnight; 9.0-ish, my tap water is pH 7.8! Increasing the hydrated
lime addition by 50% above what I had previously calulated produced
copious precipitation, and the pH settled around 7.0 overnight.
Tricky stuff.
A.J. - could you elaborate on the calculations.
Stevea
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:59:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Ken Johnson <kenjo@santafe.wv.tek.com>
Subject: Portland brew clubs, wheat malts
If anyone knows anything about brewing clubs in the Portland area, please
email me the details.
Also, does anyone know the pratical differences between Great Western
wheat malt and Belgian wheat malt (I don't know the specific malter)?
kj
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:39:36 -0500
From: z-corn@cyberspace.grnet.com
Subject: Help with new Wyeast strains...
Hello all-- Two month lurker, first time poster...
Last weekend I brewed a Brown Ale and I used the new Wyeast strain 1318
London Ale III. I was wondering if anyone could point me in a direction
for info on these new strains, and also FAQ's on yeast varieties in
general.
So far, all I can tell is that it seems to work FAST. There is little
activity in my primary after 3 days... The starter did the same thing.
Thank You Very Much,
And Happy Brewing To All,
Matt Z.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:00:03 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Spotted some Owls.
> From: bob@carol.net (Robert Rogers)
> Subject: cooler than room temperature brewing
> (and you don't mind spotted owl for lunch :) (yes, that is a joke)
Joke? Nonsense. I have spotted owls for lunch all the time. Their table
manners leave a lot to be desired, but they're always very gracious otherwise,
and they generally bring a really nice dessert or bottle of wine when they
come over. If you're thinking about having spotted owls for lunch, keep in
mind they don't like very spicy food.
> From: Victor J Farren <wigwam@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
> Subject: how much wheat extract to use to get goog head retention..
> I am wondering if I should go ahead and use 1 lb. or 1/2lb.
Yes, you should. :-) Seriously, I'd go for the full 1 lb. At that level,
it will affect the taste a bit, but I enjoy the taste of a little wheat.
You certainly won't get "too much" head retention from 1 lb of it.
> From: NParker@Lockheed.on.ca (Neal Parker)
> Subject: Really Stuck Ferment / High FGs
> I've got an extract-based ale in the carboy. OG= 1.048. Expected
> FG from ingredients = 1.016. It is stuck at 1.026 (even after adding a
> packet of dry yeast and yeast nutrient) - no action.....
> But the real frustration of all this is that this is happening to most of my
> recent brews..... different brands of extract .....
Hmm... I was just about to say something about Laaglander. Double check your
hydrometer to make sure it's set correctly. The paper in those often slips
and gives bad readings. Other than that, well, it's some factor common to
all your brews? Maybe it's your water. Usually, though, I'd think most
extracts would be able to make up for that.
> Pitch even more yeast? Aerate even more?
That's a good idea for all of us, whether or not we're having problems.
> Dance naked around
> the fermenter praying to the great yeast gods?
That is, too, but it probably won't unstick your ferment. (Though keep your
hand, etc, away from the carboy lest it get stuck...)
> From: Athol <ktp52952@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
> Subject: H.G. Blow-off
> ...considerable (and impressive) amount of blow-off...
> 1) does the water lost need to be replaced?
> (this wouldn't be a problem with low OG beers, but...)
> 2) due to the water lost, i assume the OG will be inflated a bit
> (correct?). will the new inflated OG be to high for the London Wyeast?
Unless you use wildly different brewing techniques than I'm familiar with,
that was NOT water that blew off from your fermenter. It is probably the
same SG as what's in your carboy at the time it's blown off. In other words,
you have the same stuff in the carboy, just less of it.
> From: asteinm@pipeline.com (Art Steinmetz)
> Subject: "Scale Watcher" water treatment
>
> I got a brochure the other day for a gizmo called "Scale Watcher." You
> wrap some kind of induction coil around a cold water pipe and "modern
> integrated circuitry" sends out "modulated frequencies" to precipate
> dissolved calcium ions into "insoluble calcium salts which move in a
> suspended form in water." The idea is that the precipitated particles
> won't cause scale in pipes and such.
Holy cow, they're already marketing this thing? I read about this in the
Economist a few weeks ago. It's pretty dubious technology, however, it has
been shown to work under certain conditions. The study they cited indicated
that you needed to know the pipe diameter and flow rate beforehand. Also,
the mechanism by which it prevents scale buildup is not understood.
> It strikes me that (if it works) a little filtration down the line would
> provide the benefits of pre-boiling and racking off the precipitate.
I'd highly doubt it. The amount of 'stuff' that builds up in your pipes is
a very minor proportion of the total content of the water. Scale problems in
pipes are measured in decades - I doubt that a few gallons passing through
one of these would be distinguishable from a few gallons without one.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 16:25:00 PST
From: "Gregory, Guy J." <GGRE461@eroerm1.ecy.wa.gov>
Subject: RE: Rye in my beer/question on secondaries
I've been brewing with rye for about a year and a half. I've used the
pre-gelatinized flaked stuff and the malted rye grain. My supplier and most
other full-service grain guys have at least some. The flaked stuff is
convenient, but great-wort-in-the-morning, is it sticky. Yes, get out your
grain rakes and your stopwatch, you're reducing the permeability of your
mash by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude. The grain isn't bad, as long as you
stay under about 20% total grain. My personal tastes run about 15-18% of
the grain bill...below that you wonder if you forgot to put rye in at all,
above that rye can overwhelm you. I protein rest and step through the alpha
and beta amalayse rests, and mashout about 170. The resulting wort has lots
of trub, and the fermented beer is generally cloudy. Mighty refreshing,
though. Makes a great summer ale, dry, crisp, and just dandy. You can't
hardly buy the stuff, either, which is one reason I like homebrewing.
A question: I'm thinking of using an old, beat-up, no pressure release
corny keg for a lagering vessel. Does anyone have any advice?
------------------------------
Date: 3 Apr 96 17:47:00 MST
From: "Robert Waddell" <V024971@Tape.StorTek.Com>
Subject: Re: cruddy kegs
>Victor Asked:
> I just bought a used Corny keg that used to have the lemon-lime
>soda Slice, in it. I have tried to clean it using just Clorox and
>water. I have let it soak for days on two seperate occasions, but I
>can't get the sweet smell out of it. Is there a better cleaner that I
>can use. I have never used B-bright or idiophor (?) so I have no
>experience with these products. Will they work better than Clorox? Is
>there anthing else I can use? Thanks in advance...
> Victor F.
Victor, these are the same ones that I ran into. I used about 1/4 cup
Cascade automatic dishwasher powder in each one and put about 1 gallon
of VERY hot water into them and agitated until it dissolved, then filled
the rest of the way with water as hot as I could get out of the hot
water heater. I let them sit for about an hour then rinsed 3 times
with hot water. (I took the poppets and O'rings and dip tubes apart
and let them soak, too.) The result was: no odor or flavor. If you
try this you should probably use some eye protection as automatic
dishwasher "detergents" can cause serious burns to the eyes if you should
splash it about to much.
I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that
gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it
off the bed at night.
Women...
--Pat Babcock
*** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! ***
******************************************************************************
V024971@TAPE.STORTEK.COM / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared (though not by my employer).
"Holder of Past Knowledge"/
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 03 Apr 96 22:20:03 EST
From: Al Stevens <72704.743@compuserve.com>
Subject: re: Argh!
> But the real frustration of all this is that this is happening to most of my
> recent brews. FGs of 1.022, 1.021, 1.020, etc. when expected FG is 1.008 to
>1.016. I've been using various yeasts, different brands of extract, different
> fermenting locations, even changing my method but I'm still left with those
> high FGs. Plus the beer produced hasn't been up to my standards at all.
I have been having the same problem with extract beers. Something must have
changed, they used to work.
Anyway, I just started with all grain, and although I still have improvements to
do, the quality is *far* superior to the extract batches. I have a "clarity" of
flavour that I just couldn't get with extract. However, it is this clarity that
lets me taste mistakes that were probably masked over before.
As stated earlier in the HBD about going to all grain. Just Do It !!!!
Al Stevens
Bennies Corners
(just north of Almonte)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:34:41 -0500
From: leake.5@osu.edu (Dutch)
Subject: Wyeast 1968
Hi HBD this will be my first posting to the digest.
I use Wyeast 1968 for almost every ale I brew and have also found it not to
be very(?) anttenuative. The yeast I use I get from a brew pub (Barley's
ale house no.1 Columbus, OH.) I help brew there sometimes and can stop in
and get yeast whenever I need some. I have used varying amounts (from 2oz
to 8oz packed yeast) for pitching and have not found the amount to affect
the the FG. In the last batch I brewed I agitated my primary (after 3 days)
and secondary (after 4 & 7 days) fermenters by swirling and found the
fermentation rate to increase. My thought was this stuff packs so fast and
so tight that maybe I need to get the yeast back into suspention (the brewer
at Barley's thought I was crazy.) So anyway I forgot to take a final
gravity reading (Duh) but the beer was definatly more atenuated then the
brew before that used the same recipe. My findings were recently confermed
when I got a copy of the Wyeast yeast profiles pamphlet which says that 1968
is so flocculant that additional aeration and agitation is needed.
The recipe I tried this with was an IPA.
8 lbs Alexanders Pale syrup
1-1/2 lb Muton & Fison Lt. DME
1/2 lb 20l crystal
4 oz centenial (whole leaf) hops alpha 11.4
2 oz boil
1 oz finish
1 oz dry
1/2 oz hungarian med toast oak
1/2 oz freanch med toast oak
no steaming, 2 weeks in secondary
Yesterday I tried this recipie but substituted 10 lbs klages for 4lbs of
alexanders and 1-1/2 lb Mf/lt. OG 1072 which is a little low, I stopped my
collection of the run off to soon. (I don't think I eill use that 1010 rule
any more.)
I like big beers!!!!
Get some in ya
Walter
leake.5@osu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 96 23:27 PST
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: Brauwelt
In HBD # 2001, "James Hojel" <JTroy@msn.com> asked about Brauwelt.
Brauwelt is a German trade magazine which also appears in an English edition
called Brauwelt International. It is published by:
Fachbuchhandlung Hans Carl
Postfach 990153
D-90268 Nu:rnberg (Germany)
If they have an e-address, I don't know it.
You would want to be careful to specify Brauwelt or Brauwelt International
when subscribing, even if 'we' often call the English edition simply Brauwelt.
Many homebrewers would be disappointed by the magazine if they are expecting
something along the lines of Zymurgy, Brewing Techniques, or Brew Your Own.
While there are some articles about the brewing process that a home brewer
might apply, many articles deal with the technology of (large) commercial
breweries. For example, "Novel measuring and control method of evaporation
during boiling with external heat exchangers", "Economic crossflow
filtration of beer" "New studies of computer-aided acceptance tests of
bottling plants" or "Installation of a co-generation plant with hot cooling
to heat bottle washing machines".
The magazine is also a translation of the German, and so it is always a
_serious_ read. There is never any pleasing prose and it is sometimes hard
to figure out what is being said (like "hot cooling" above). It's mostly
grammatically correct, but it still seems like some sort of pigeon <g>.
That no doubt adds to the confusion in the reports about first wort hopping.
Lots of glossy pictures of brewing equipment!
With those warnings, there certainly is good stuff in there. (standard
disclaimer; no affiliation)
In addition to publishing Brauwelt, Hans Carl also mail order technical
publications dealing with brewing and other subjects. They have a handy
catalogue, "Fachliteratur fu:r Brauerei, Ma:lzerei & Getra:nke-wirtschaft"
Those marooned on the island of English would fast forward to the
Fremdsprachige Fachbu:cher which features lots of the well-known technical
references for brewing. (Those in the United States may have better
sources for publications. In Canada, I've noticed that in the last few
years our customs is more vigilant in stopping shipments from the U.S. to
add GST, handling, brokerage, etc. while overseas publications are just mail.)
- -- Rob Lauriston Vernon, B.C. Canada.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 06:45 EST
From: scoop@chattanooga.net (John Thompson)
Subject: Mucor Racmosus
To All:
A friend of mine has been told to avoid Mucor Racmosus and was told by a
non-medical type that it was found in beer. Can anyone tell me what this is
and is it indeed found in beer?
Thanks
John Thompson scoop@chattanooga.net
Arthritis Foundation
Regional Director, Planned Giving
THINK GLOBALLY, BREW LOCALLY!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:05:19 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Scale/Water Treatment
John Palmer posts in #2003 that the electronic water descaler is a hoax and
from the descriptions I have heard it certainly sounds like one. I would
like to point out, however, that when it comes to your plumbing, scale is
good news and bad news. The bad news is, of course, that scale can build up
to the point where pipes become occluded (especially in boilers where the
temperature is raised favoring deposition of scale) but the good news is
that a thin coating of scale protects metal pipes from the action of the
water which would eventually dissolve them. Distilled water and RO water
cannot be distributed in metallic pipes because the pipes would not last
long. Water authorities try to tune their water so that it is just
saturated or slightly supersaturated with calcium carbonate.
In the same number John Lifer asks about the effects of boiling on the
chemical compisition of his water. That depends on the original composition
of the water i.e. on whether it is supersaturated with caclium carbonate or
not. If not, it will not precipitate chalk when boiled in which case the
boiling (for chlorine removal) will not affect the chemistry appreciably
(the pH will rise and this alarms some people but the alkalinity won't
change much) and you can use the pre-boil analysis for the ion concetration
base numbers. If precipitation does occur during the boil the calcium,
bicarbonate and possibly the magnesium levels will change. The alkalinity
will decrease. In this case you will need a post boil analysis in order to
plan salt additions accurately. Given a good pre-boil analysis all you need
to measure is the change in hardness. This is equal to the change in
alkalinity if both are in ppm or mg/L as CaCO3. Divide the hardness change
by 50. Then multiply by 20 to get the change in calcium ppm and by 61 to
get the change in bicarbonate ppm. This is reasonable for the usual case
where the water was saturated with respect to calcium carbonate but not
magnesium carbonate so that no magnesium carbonate precipitated. Test kits
for hardness can be obtained at pet stores (they used by aquarists).
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:22:48 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Really Cheap-Ass Digital Thermometer
If you already own a digital voltmeter (DVM), you're about $2.50 away from a
highly accurate digital thermometer! This thermometer is more for
"demonstration purposes" because it does not read out directly in degrees,
but a one-time measurement and a sheet of graph paper can solve that problem.
This thermometer will be accurate to about 1 to 2 deg F depending on the
resolution and accuracy of your DVM.
Although digital thermometers are available, and are often reasonably-priced,
homebrewed units can be adapted to your specific needs and can be quite
cost-effective, especially if you're trying to monitor several points at
once. I'm considering preparing an article on digital thermometry which will
include this circuit, a low-cost direct-reading thermometer I have built, and
a new RIMS controller with direct temperature *and* setpoint display using
your DVM or a digital panel meter. The RIMS controller is still under
development but will be easily constructed with Radio Shack parts (plus a
solid-state relay module). It will be fully isolated from the AC mains for
greater safety.
I built the direct-reading thermometer last night and it tracked my dial
thermometer perfectly once adjusted. Simple diodes and transistors make
low-cost but very precise temperature sensors when used correctly. A diode
through which current flows generates a voltage across itself, about 0.7
volts at currents of 1 mA or more. At a constant current level, this voltage
is constant -- at a given temperature. The voltage drops as temperature
increases and rises as temperature falls. This change is *very* linear.
Problem is it's also fairly small. Over a 100 degree F range the change may
be only 0.120 volts. But even this is within the measurement capability of a
typical DVM, and only slightly more complicated circuitry will provide a much
more usable range.
The "cheap-ass" thermometer is based on a direct reading of the diode
voltage. By measuring the voltage at two temperature extremes (ice water and
near-boiling), a straight line can be drawn on graph paper between the
points, providing a voltage-to-temperature conversion chart. No adjsutments
or claibration is required after the initial characterization.
First, prepare any garden-variety NPN transistor (TO-92 case works nicely) as
follows. I called out the 2N4401 since it's the cheapest one Radio Shack
sells (#276-2058; $0.49), but any NPN will work. Actually, a PNP will work
just as well; just reverse the "+" and "-" polarity label if you use PNP.
Solder the "base" to the "collector" , and attach two wires (color coded so
you can keep track of the polarity). Mount in a copper, brass, or SS tube,
or simply leave it on the wires. The exposed wires must be gooped with
food-grade epoxy or silicone to seal. Leave as much of the plastic
transistor housing exposed (ungooped) as possible.
Sensor Preparation
_______
| |
| | 2N4401
|_____|
| | |
| |_| Viewed with flat
| | side facing you
| |
- +
Now connect a 9-volt battery, a 7805 regulator (#276-1770; $1.49) and a 4.7K
resistor (#271-1330; $0.49 for 5) as shown to the sensor leads. Attach your
DVM as shown and set it to a low DC volts scale, say, 0-2 volts (three digits
to the right of the decimal point). Prepare a glass of ice water and a
coffee mug of near-boiling water. Also round up your favorite thermometer as
a calibration reference. Tie the sensor to the thermometer with a twistie
and dunk it into the ice water. Allow both the sensor voltage and the
thermometer time to settle. I found that the transistor took about the same
amount of time to settle as my 5" dial thermometer. Stir the water to be
sure they both see the same temperature. Record both the thermometer reading
(temperature) and the DVM reading (voltage). Repeat with the hot water. You
now have two data points.
"Thermometer" wiring
_________
| |
| O |
|_______| + -
| | |--DVM--|
|LM7805 | | |
| | | |
|_______| 4.7K | |
| | | | |
__| | |____/\ /\ /\ _|_(+ -)_|
/ | \/ \/ \/ sensor |
| | |
| | |
| |___________________________|
| |
| |
_[_]__[||]_
| + - |
| |
| |
| 9-volt |
| |
| battery |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|___________|
The regulator and resistor form a "constant current source". Whatever
*current* error exists due to changes in the sensor voltage (about 4%)
translate to negligible *voltage* error, which means negligible *temperature*
error.
On a piece of graph paper, plot the two points (as indicated by the "*"
below) and draw a line between them. Note that the voltage range will be
small so expand the horizontal scale! 0.500 volts to 0.700 volts is typical
but YMMV. Now all you have to do is read the DVM, check the chart, and you
can find the temperature with great precision! Prove it to yourself using a
glass of hot tap water (~120F). The temperature from the graph should match
the thermometer temperature very closely.
|
200F -
|*
| \
| \
| \
| \
100F - \
| \
| \
| \
34F - *
|
0F -____________________________________
| |
0.500V 0.700V
Typical Chart
If there is sufficient interest in this topic, let me know, and I will
continue to report on the RIMS controller and other thermometer projects.
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 08:22:02 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: ploidy in yeast (again), London ESB strain (#1968)
In Digest #1992:
Michael Coen <COEN.MICHAEL@igate.pprd.abbott.com> wrote:
"All this talk of mutations and genetic drift. I would think, naively
maybe, that a brewing yeast would be unusually stable in its genetic
makeup since there are multiple copies of each gene.
And I then responded:
Good point. However, while in the vegetative stage of its life-cycle (i.e.
budding, not sporulating), S. cerevisiae is haploid.
[snip]
Since then, I have received more definitive information on the subject from Jim
Crowley, who works in a yeast lab. Although the above statements are true
(vegetative stage is haploid), it's really only laboratory strains of S.
cerevisiae that are truly haploid (single genome), while most wild type and
industrial strains are actually polyploid (either triploid or even tetraploid).
I guess all those geneticists mucking around with DNA are confusing this issue!
In Digest #2001:
George Shutelock (GSHUTELOCK@aol.com) wrote:
"There's been some mention in recent HBDs about this yeast being one of the
lowest attenuating of the Wyeast family.", referring to Wyeast 1968, London ESB.
"1) Does this mean it will just take a lot longer to ferment and/or that
my FG may not hit the TG? (OG is 1.055 and TG is 1.012-1.014 per the recipe).
It depends on several factors. See below.
2) Is there anything special I should do for this yeast beyond making
the usual one pint starter? Would pitching a larger starter help offset the
low attenuation properties of this yeast? (I plan to aerate heavily with an
Oxynater before I pitch the starter)."
Yes, pitching a larger starter should help. The test-wort attenuation figures
reported should be considered as relative points only, as a means of comparing
strains. This strain happens to be my favorite ale yeast and I've been able to
get about 80% apparent attenuation with this strain (and others) under certain
circumstances. IMO, the main thing about 1968 that contributes to the relatively
low attenuation is that it's a highly flocculant strain. Since it flocculates so
well (great for kegging), it often doesn't finish completely, but if you rouse
it once or twice during the primary fermentation that will help. By doing this,
I recently made an IPA with 1968 that started at 1.061 and ended at about 1.012,
with a nice estery, alcoholic profile. I used about 50 IBUs worth of Columbus
hops in the kettle and dry-hopped it with 2 oz. of EKGs. I think it's possibly
the best IPA I've ever made.
Tracy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:43:13 -0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Subject: old yeast / US Open competition
Ray Gaffield asks about using old yeast:
> I just popped a packet of Wyeast Belgium Ale which is about a year
> old. My question is : if the packet swells successfully , is the
> yeast OK to use or is there something else that may be wrong with
> old yeast ?
I made a Belgium Lager less than a year ago and my pack of Wyeast
was also one year old. It had been sitting in a cardboard box in a
friend's basement. The pack swelled OK, and the beer fermented OK,
but the resulting beer could have been poured over pop-corn!
Drinkable, but very strong diacetyl!
And recently, I kegged a pale ale (Wyeast#1056) that also has a very
strong diacetyl flavor. The yeast I used for this batch was not old,
but I did accidentally pop it in the freezer for a few days instead
of the fridge after getting home from the brew store. After about 5
days in the freezer I didn't think there was any hope for it, but
after about another 5 days after I smacked it, it swelled.
I've never had diacetyl problems in other beers (at least not this
bad), so I'm assuming that the stressed yeast is the culprit. On the
other hand, I do tend to lager my beers (including my ales) in a
spare fridge, and I tend to just turn the temp down to about 35F
after secondary fermentation is finished. Is this too fast of a
chill and could it explain some of my diacetyl problems?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Just a friendly reminder that the entry deadline for the US Open
homebrewing competition (BJCP recognized) is fast approaching. The
competition will be held in Charlotte on the 20th of this month, but
we are asking that all entries arrive no later than the 15th. For
more info you can check out:
http://www.wp.com/@your.service/cbm/brewmast.html
and follow the link to the US Open page. There you will find all of
the necessary details and even an online entry form and bottle labels
(thanks Spencer!).
-Keith Royster
-Mooresville, NC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 07:58:25 -0600
From: "John Lifer, Jr." <jliferjr@felix.TECLink.Net>
Subject: First Wort Hopping info pt1
Ok guys, Here is a little exerpt from a recent book entitled " A New Art of
Brewing Beer, Ale, and Other Sorts of Liquors" published in the Year of Our
Lord 1691.
It will follow in a separate post as it is rather long.
This page describes adding your hops into your "reciever" after mashing and
then after soaking, run thru your cooler for the first strong wort and then
adding more water for a second and if you wish a third batch. Second and
third batches were brought to near boiling temperatures but NOT BOILED! The
author did not believe in boiling wort, he felt it would harm the beer. Ok,
who is brave enough to brew with this method? Actually it poses a good
question, Why do we boil the Wort? First and only I think of is to extract
bitterness from hops. What are the others?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 07:58:30 -0600
From: "John Lifer, Jr." <jliferjr@felix.TECLink.Net>
Subject: First Wort Hopping Pt 2
Ok here is second part, the quotation from A New Art of Brewing
> "First, Make your Water or Liquor near boyling hot, then put just so much
into your Mashtub as will wet your Mault, stir it, and let it stand half an
hour, which will dispose the Mault the better to give forth its Virtues and
Sweetness into the Liquor; then add your whole quantity of Water or Liquor
to your Mault that you purpose to put up the first time, then let it stand
one hour and a half, but if you would have your first Wort very strong then
two hours, if the Season be not hot; then put what a quantity of Hops you
think convenient into your Receiver, and let your Wort run to them, and
after your Hops have infused an hour and half in your Wort, then strain it
off into your Coolers; you have done with your first Wort. Then put upon
your Mault your second Liquor near the same Heat as the first, rather cooler
if any difference; but this must stand on your Mault but one hour at most;
then take what quantity you please of fresh Hops, and put into your Receiver
as before, and let your second Wort run to them; then take both second Wort
and Hops together, and put up into your Copper, there let them infuse till
your Wort is near boyling, but not boyl; then strain this also into your
Coolers, which you have done with also. Now if you would inlarge your
quantity, which is not proper, which in its due place I shall demonstrate,
then put up what qunatity you think convenient of cold Water, and let it
stand, not more than half an hour, and then run it off to some fresh Hops,
and then put this third Wort, and also Hops, into the Copper, as you did the
second, and let the Hops infuse till they are near boyling, then strain it
off into your Coolers, and you have done; but you must remember that your
Liquor or Water do not boyl, for boyling of Water does irritate and
evaporate the subtle fine penetrating Spirits, whence the more friendly,
mild, opening qualities do exit, which do make such Water or Liquor more
harsh, hard and fixed, which do render it not so capable to draw forth or
extract the sweet virtues of the Mault; for boyling of Water does open its
Body, and sets the Spirit on the wing; for this cause all Water that hath
been boyled becomes of a colder, harsher, and harder Nature than that which
hath never been fired, and therefore it will not prepare any Foods and
Drinks so Natural, not to that advantage as that which hath not been boyled."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:46:46 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Carl Etnier <Carl.Etnier@abc.se>
Subject: recipe for 100-year-old bock/news of 370-year-old whiskey
Requests keep coming in for me to dig out the recipe for the 1895 vintage
bock I described the other day. I have dutifully sent a recipe to those
inquiring, but I doubt it was what they expected. Neither the beer nor
the recipe ever existed. It was all a story built around the concluding
line, "Your ruin is beered," a tale whose telling was permitted by the
holiday of hoaxes on the first day of this month. The real reason I asked
Russell to send in the post was that I was away from my computer over the
weekend and couldn't time the posting right myself.
German speakers would have been alerted immediately by the name of my
friend, Lustig von Spass. It has "this is a joke" written all over it (in
both modern and old German script). Students of Bavarian history might
have noticed that much is made of the fact that this tasting took place
on September 31, the (incorrect) anniversary of the death of Ludwig II.
Users of the Gregorian calendar might have realized that no Bavarian has
ever died on September 31. (Think about it :-)
The post wasn't entirely fanciful. There really are Bavarian mugs with
Ludwig II's picture both on the outside and on the translucent bottom.
The idea is that you can see his face illuminated from the back as you
take the last swig. Though I'm sure it's not translatable to German, I
like the fact that you really can pour beer both into and onto the
monarch's mug.
The battleship Vasa did sink in Stockholm's harbor in 1628, and there was
an archeologist who got a disease otherwise unknown for 100 years after
eating a bit of the butter found there sometime during the 1960's or
1970's. Here's the real treasure for the lover of drink: at least one
barrel of liquor (whiskey, I think) was also found aboard and is
preserved in the Vasa Museum's archives. Once a year the museum staff
assembles and gets to sniff the whiskey, according to our guide on my
last visit (which was not on April 1).
Today, April 4, is the second birthday of Scott Wisler's daughter, Aubrey
Brighton. You may remember that he was going to make barley wine in her
honor and then save it for her 18th or 21st birthday or a wedding. The
flavor profile of "Von Spass Bock" was inspired by the discussion of how
to brew this. How's it going, Scott? Did I miss a progress report
somewhere? Does the little tyke like beer yet? Have you started an
ineluctable process of sampling "just one bottle" to see how the BW is
developing?
Congrats to Spencer Thomas and Nir Navot, who saw through the hoax, and
Mary Blais, who cleverly avoided taking a stand on whether the story was
true or not.
Cheers!
- --Carl
Carl.Etnier@abc.se, Carl.Etnier@ios.nlh.no
A Kinetic Yankee in King Harald's Port
Oslo, Norway
"'Fraud' cried the maddened thousands, and the echo answered 'Fraud.'"
- --Casey at the Bat
P.S. Here is the recipe I sent to those who asked for it (actually a post
from about a month ago):
Von Spass Bock (as described in brewing notes from 1895):
>Ingredients:
> 4 kg white sugar,(corn if preferred)
> 2 cans (1.13kg) Brewmix malt
> 1 can doric malt
> various types of hop pellets to taste.
>This makes 14 doz. bottles of brew. About 7%
>alcohol by vol.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:37:35 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Lifer's Water / Rolling PIns & Specialty Grains
John Lifer asks:
> Depending on
> the hardness, etc. would not I lose some of the minerals that were in the
> water originally, and how would I then correlate this water to my original
> water? Should I spend the dough on a separate water test? If so should I
> then test post boiled water too? Or should I give up and keep brewing as I
> have been (and getting relatively good beer IMHO)? Or should I just brew
> with distilled water and add correct doses to adjust the water?
As far as I know, boiling will have significant effect (as far as minerals
go) only on Calcium, as it reacts with bi/carbonates to form precipitated
chalk. Thus, boiling to remove carbonates also removes calcium. Calcium is
needed to help acidify your mash (if mashing), so depending on how much was
stripped out, it could end up having much the same effect as leaving in the
carbonates! The rule o' thumb is to take your starting carbonate ppm,
subtract about 30 - 50 ppm, then figure about 2 ppm Ca will react with every
3 remaining ppm carbonate. This will tell you if you'll have a net deficit
or surplus of calcium. If you're still above ~30 ppm calcium, you're
probably OK, but if this brings you below ~30, add calcium chloride or a bit
of gypsum before the boil to boost the calcium (but realize that you are also
adding chloride / sulphate).
As I have been working with trated water and the seemingly convoluted science
behind it, I find that a large majority of styles can be successfully brewed
with a wide range of ion concentrations, meaning that unless your water is
very wierd (like mine), or unless you're talking Burton ales or Pilsner
lagers, you're probably in OK shape. Since my tap water is so high in SO4,
Na, and Cl, I have decided to use distilled water and salts to better control
the content. Your tap water just might be wonderful, in which case don't
change a thing.
********************
On the specialty-grain / rolling pin thing --- put the grains in a
gallon-size heavy-duty ZipLoc bag, suck out all the air (with a straw), then
seal. Now when you roll, the mess stays inside. Actually, the grains will
poke tiny holes in the bag but a little flour on the counter beats a grain
store on the floor.
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:29:44 -0500
From: GSHUTELOCK@aol.com
Subject: Wyeast London ESB and SNPA Yeast Blend
First - thanks to those who responded to my question about using the Wyeast
ESB in my IPA. A few responses advised that using a really really big
starter would give my brew a good attenuation. Another said that he pitched
without a starter and got great results. Oh - well. That's what I get for
worrying!
I didn't receive anything of culturing SNPA yeast but I tried it myself. I
decanted three bottles of SNPA saving the sediment and drinking the rest of
course. (This was the most enjoyable starter I've made so far - maybe next
time I'll use 4 to 6 bottles). Anyway, I made a pint starter of 2 oz light
DME, cooled, aerated with a shot of O2 and added the slurry. After 2 1/2
days its bubbling away just fine. In the meantime my Wyeast ESB pack is
still slowly swelling and should be ready to add to a starter within 24
hours.
My question is does anyone see a problem with mixing the two yeast strains
into one starter - after all they're both pale ale strains (one is London the
other American - sort of an intercontinental blend)? Should I mix them now
(to let them become acquainted) or make two seperate starters and pitch both
to by beer on brew day?
TIA - George
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 12:37:02 -0500
From: Michael K. Cinibulk <cinibumk@ml.wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Pronunciation of Pilz
Hank writes:
>Regarding mushroom "Pilsner"...Al Stevens is the victim of
>a punster. Germans frequently refer to pilsner beer as "pils"
>and usually order it as such. The pronunciation is identical
>to "Pilz" which is German for "mushroom". There is no connection
>to the flora of the Czech Republic.
The pronunciation is not identical. Pils is pronounced pills, and Pilz is
pronounced pilts. Got it?!?
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2003, 04/05/96
*************************************
-------
