Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2072
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/06/15 PDT
Homebrew Digest Sunday, 16 June 1996 Number 2072
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Basic Variables: Summary of Replies (Dave Greenlee)
pilsner (Stetson)
RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews (Martin Wilde)
cider and ale (Kathy Booth)
Re: Water bath RIMS heater (jstone@stratacom.com (Joseph Stone))
Re: RIMS takes a bath (jstone@stratacom.com (Joseph Stone))
HBD address (shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele))
Grain Permeability-Runoff (Charlie Scandrett)
Alternate Bittering Sources - gauging bitterness (asteinm@nyc.pipeline.com (Art Steinmetz))
Firkin Beer (ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie))
American Brewer's Guild Courses (ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie))
RIMS bath OK? (Charlie Scandrett)
Re: Wort chilling ("C.D. Pritchard")
Re: Water bath RIMS heater ("C.D. Pritchard")
RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews (Robert Paolino)
Gelatin/Pectin (Moncsko@aol.com)
aeration and esters (Domenick Venezia)
Tired of Cascade Pale Ales ("Frederick L. Pauly")
SNPA vs Carbination ("Frederick L. Pauly")
RIMS hose/Canadian supplier ("C.PEKARIK")
re: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews ("C.D. Pritchard")
Only Anchor? (RBoland@aol.com)
Lautering Toys, etc (Kyle R Roberson)
World Beer Cup! (Rob Moline)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES
homebrew@aob.org (SUBMISSIONS only)
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org (for REQUESTS only)
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@aob.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-digest-request@aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending a
one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
This list service is now being provided by majordomo@aob.org, so some
of the commands may have changed. For technical problems send
e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION
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 or visit
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web. Othere information is available by
e-mail from info@aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob.
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 at /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. Some
archives are available via majordomo@aob.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Greenlee <daveg@mail.airmail.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:00:50 -0500
Subject: Basic Variables: Summary of Replies
In HBD 2068, I wrote asking which of the following factors was most
important to control:
+ multi-step vs. single-step fermentation
+ ferment temperatures
+ plastic vs. glass/stainless primary fermenter
+ mostly extract vs. mostly grain primary malt base
Following is a summary of the replies I have received to my question
regarding basic variables in HBD 2068:
Of 9 replies so far:
+ Temp: 8 most important, 1 second most, 0 not so important, 0
not important
+ Extract: 0 most important, 3 second most, 4 not so important,
2 least important
+ Multi-stage: 0 most important, 3 second most, 2 not so
important, 4 least important
+ Plastic: 0 most important, 0 second most, 1 not so important,
8 not important
Notes: If a response did not comment on one of the issues, I ranked it
not important. Most who ranked multi-stage specified that they ranked it
where they did with the caveat that they were only speaking of ales, not
lagers. Most who said anything about plastic qualified their opinion by
emphasizing that sanitation becomes more of an issue and that plastic
will eventually have to be replaced.
The following factors were voluntarily mentioned by the number of people
shown as being especially important:
+ Use liquid yeast 5
+ Use high volume or full boil 2
+ Quick-cool hot wort 1
+ Use finings 1
+ Eliminate chlorine 1
+ Be sure to aerate before fermentation 1
+ Use unhopped extract 1
+ Use fresh, high quality extract 1
Many thanks to the following folks who replied:
Steve.Robinson@analog.com (Steve Robinson)
h.smith@e-mail.com (Howard Smith)
DLH1@trpo3.tr.unisys.com (David L Houseman)
draitt@scri.fsu.ed (David Raitt)
KJBREW@aol.com (Ken Rich)
waterr@albany.net (Bob Waterfall)
morleyd@cadvision.com (Dan Morley)
Keith.A.Chamberlin@gsfc.nasa.gov (Keith Chamberlin)
cabell@ix.netcom.com (Dennis Cabell)
------------------------------
From: Stetson <stetson@global2000.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:47:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: pilsner
Hello, I brewed a pilsner, not a lager, and its been in the bottle for
about 6 to 7 weeks now. When you first start drinking one, it has a
dusty taste to it, and after a while, it goes away. Its not real
overwhelming, but was wondering if anybody had any suggestions on why it
tastes like this? My sanitising and brewing process was no different
than any other time.
Thanks, and happy brewing!
stetson@global2000.net
------------------------------
From: Martin Wilde <Martin_Wilde@ccm.jf.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 13:20:00 PDT
Subject: RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews
In HBD #2070 Bruce DeBolt writes:
> I'm interested in the collective's wisdom on making flavorful low
> gravity brews. I'm not looking for recipes of conventional styles
> (e.g. bitter), but any techniques/tips for improving the flavor of
> lower alcohol beer. In the past I've diluted at bottling with good
> results, but this time I want to avoid the potential oxidation.
One of the easiest ways is to follow the British practice of producing
a high gravity wort (usually ~1054) and then diluting it after the
boil down to the desired gravity. I don't know all the reasons for
doing this, but it does work and it is very easy to do.
Martin
------------------------------
From: Kathy Booth <kbooth@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:50:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: cider and ale
Been wanting to try this combination of cider and ale brewed together, so
I set three test bottles aside. Not bad. Took it to the hb club
meeting and it was well received by a wide array of tastes. Sort of like
the beer and lemonade mixtures or beer and 7-UP.
The British army used to serve it to the troops and one mutiney occured
because of the dilution of the strength of the brew.
Unfortunately I've mislaid the reference to what it is called. I lent my
cider book that had the details and it probably won't return.
Does anybody remember the historical name for cidre and ale fermented
together? Are there recipes out there you'd recommend?
Cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
------------------------------
From: jstone@stratacom.com (Joseph Stone)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 14:58:36 PDT
Subject: Re: Water bath RIMS heater
>WARNING: Me be computer geek / engineer. Me no spell good. Writing
>bad too. Me explain better.
Me two. Now <=> Know, Where <=> Were, There <=> Their, ...
>>>Actually, now that I think about it, what I had was an immersion
>>>chiller running backwards. Instead of the coils sitting in a pan of
>>>ice water, they were in boiling water.
>>Not quite. With an immersion chiller, you only need to clean the
>>outside of the copper. With what you are talking about, you would
>>need to make sure that the inside of the copper was very clean (no
>>oils, minimal oxidation, no crud). One reason I like my immersion
>>chiller is because I can clearly see how clean the surface is that
>>touches the wort.
The inside of a counter-flow wort chiller needs to be very clean
because it contains cooled wort. The inside of a counter-flow wort
heater contains hot wort. Cleanliness is not much of an issue.
>The system is not perfect (yet), but I think it is better than a
>heating element in direct contact with the wort. And yes, not only do
>you have to monitor the wort temperatures, you have to monitor the
>water temperatures as well but I think the advantages out-number the
>the added disadvanage.
If you are comparing two manual RIMS, I can start to see where
your manual indirect gas inline approach MAY have advantages over
a manual direct electric inline approach. However it doesn't begin
to compare to an automated or programmable solution. I'm normally
mowing the yard or running to the hardware store during the mash
and sparge.
An advantage to a manual direct electric inline RIMS is that it
can be easily converted to an automated or programmable RIMS. I
don't think the same can be said for your approach. Granted, you
may have no interest in this.
I use a 1500W electric hot water heater element in my SPARGE vessel.
This is controlled by the same computer that controls my RIMS element.
You could apply a similar technique to maintain the temperature of
your water bath only I'm afraid that the response in the feedback loop
between the water bath and mash would lead to uncontrollable
oscillations in temperature. Again, you may have no interest in
automating the process.
I think what you have is a very practical approach to a manual RIMS.
Functionally, I don't see it having major advantages over simply
applying heat to the bottom of your mash vessel while recirculating.
If you are having to sit and watch thermometers while adjusting heat,
I think you'll notice that the pump has quit or that the temperature
is rising/dropping uncontrollably. Now if you are at the hardware
store while this is happening, that's another question. Did someone
call the fire department?
Joe
------------------------------
From: jstone@stratacom.com (Joseph Stone)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 15:41:19 PDT
Subject: Re: RIMS takes a bath
>Of course, enough heat must be added to the wort to exceed the losses in the
>plumbing and mash vessel insulation, in order for the temperature to
increase.
To increase, or even to MAINTAIN a temperature, the temperature of the
water bath MUST be higher than the target step (mash) temperature. If the
water bath is at 150 oF and I have 3 oF of line loss, the mash will never be
at 150 oF.
Any idea what kind of performance I can expect in terms of increasing
temperature if the water bath temperature never exceeds the target step
temperature? Say for example, I have 20 lbs of grain at 150 oF and I want to
mash out at 170 oF. How long is this going to take if my water bath is
(eventually) at 170 oF? I get 1 oF per minute if I apply the heat directly to
the wort (i.e. 20 minutes to mash out).
I think the HLT concept is excellent. I use a 1500 W heater element in my
sparge vessel and have had excellent results. My thermowell is mounted
directly across from the heater element. Both thread into SS fittings welded
to the sides of the pot, just above the bottom "curve".
Joe
------------------------------
From: shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 19:10:34 -0600
Subject: HBD address
BTW: the homebrew digest posting address is:
homebrew@aob.org
(or homebrew-digest@aob.org)
The address for subscribing and unsubscribing is:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
Please just send it e-mail stating "subscribe" or "unsubscribe". Extra
wordage just confuses the program.
Some of you are still posting to Rob's machine, you may want to update
your aliases.
Also, if you plan on vacationing, leaving school, changing jobs or
whatever, please unsubscribe FIRST!. 1-2% of you have "full
mailboxes", "internal mailer errors" and other nastiness, generating a
great deal of error messages. If everyone can't get this under
control, I will have to be very harsh with bouncing e-mail.
TIA,
shawn
Digest Janitor
------------------------------
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:47:18 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Grain Permeability-Runoff
Guy G posts
>It occurred to me one day, as I was again fighting a stuck runoff from my
>zapap lauter tun, that the hydraulic problem at hand was one of
>over-drainage. I was removing more sweet wort from the valve than the grain
>could yield. I came up against the problem fairly fast: What is the ability
>of grain to yield wort, or water? That way, I could size my valve or
>otherwise redesign my system so the valve could not remove wort from the
>below the false bottom faster than the grain could provide the material.
And then he went on to calculate the "hydraulic conductivity" of a lauter
bed in an impressive bit of fluid dynamics.
I think there are too many variables (pH, temp, glucans, oxidized protein
linkages, crush, adjuncts, depth etc) to calculate what the permeability is
with every brew.
These are two important factors to consider in deciding your runoff rate,
1/ Efficiency- (both filtration and extraction) affected by the Velocity of
Wort, Bed Depth and Particle Distribution (crush and set). i.e. must be slow
enough to allow sugars to transfer from *inside* particles into flowing
wort. This is dependant on pressure differential, viscosity, bed depth and
permeability and particle size.
Usually 1.5 hours is the optimum mean lautering time and =/>300mm is the bed
depth for homebrewers, and care taken to recycle to achieve clear wort.
Shallower beds will give faster runoffs but greatly increased lipid
extraction, with possible head retention, fusel alcohol and staling aldehyde
problems. Commercial combination mash/lauters are typically 450 kg/m2 (10
lb/ft2) and seperate lauters 150 kg/m2 (2.7 lb/ft2), achieving similar rates
of sugar extraction but different lipid extractions.
2/Too Fast Runoff-leading to bed compaction and stuck sparges. Much as I
like to quantify things in formulas, this is best gauged empirically with
each different batch. Three clear tubes, one from the overlying sparge
water, one from mid grain bed, and one from under the false bottom or in
manifold, are your gauge. The difference in the wort heights in these 3
sight tubes gives you your cross bed pressure differential, due to
resistance to flow (in inches/cms of water). When the bottom one drops
quickly, you are running off faster than the bed can release wort and you
are at risk of compaction and a stuck sparge. If they begin to increase
together, slow the runoff to maintain a lower pressure differential. If the
middle to top difference is much greater, you have "tieg", or top dough,
permeability problems. Raking the top few cms/inches usually fixes this.
I hope this helps.
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: asteinm@nyc.pipeline.com (Art Steinmetz)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 03:06:20 GMT
Subject: Alternate Bittering Sources - gauging bitterness
I'm interested in using some herbs as hop alternatives, specifically
horehound. Larry Bell mentioned it at Homebrew Bayou and my Mom used to
make horehound candy so Larry tickled my childhood memory.
I'd like to make an intelligent guess as to the amount required. The
obvious path is to make an boiling water infusion (using unhopped wort
instead of water?) and adding a std. amount of hops to one and varying
quantities of the herb to others. Let the tastebuds decide. Anybody know
a better way?
Another issue is the bacteriostatic (?) property of hops. Does horehound
posess it? (I'll be amazed if anyone can answer that). Thanks.
BTW, in my research I found a fascinating 1906 herbal on the web. It
includes a large section on hops including recipes for things you and I
wouldn't call beer, but the auther does. The section on horehoud mentions
"horehound ale" as bening popular in Dorchester, I believe. Check out:
http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/mgmh.html
Art,
40* 48'N 74* 30'W
http:/ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/asteinmetz
------------------------------
From: ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:13:32 +0100
Subject: Firkin Beer
Greger: You beat me to the punch on this one (I was just about to bring
this firkin subject up). Around here (Portland, OR), the word "firkin" is
plastered all over. Recently, I had a debate about what exactly "firkin"
means. One said it was a synonym for cask conditioned, the other said it
was a measure of volume. What gives? ...CDR
<--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie@wnstar.com
World Wide Web: http://www.wnstar.com/ritchie/
------------------------------
From: ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:26:55 -0700
Subject: American Brewer's Guild Courses
Has any taken a course at the American Brewer's Guild? I ask specifically
in reference to the Advanced Homebrewer's Weekend course ($149), which
sounds kind of interesting. I can't decide, however, if it'd be worthwhile
or not (given the associated travel expenses, etc.). Any info by private
email is appreciated... CDR
<--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie@wnstar.com
World Wide Web: http://www.wnstar.com/ritchie/
------------------------------
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino@buggs.cynergy.com.au>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 22:24:15 +1000 (EST)
Subject: RIMS bath OK?
Ken Schwartz posted his RIMS heater design and asked "thermo types" to take
a shot. OK, I'll bite!
__ __
|| ||
KEN S>|| <-- IS THIS ~ 350mm?-CS-----------> ||
|| || <- plastic bucket
|| || (HLT?!)
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
||/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|| <- water level
|| ||
_||_ 3/8" or 1/2" tubing _||_
--| || |---------------------------------| || |-- <- bulkhead
--|_||_|---------------------------------|_||_|-- fittings
|| wort flow ----> || (w/gaskets)
__|| O=====||== <- temp sensor
| || ||
| ||==============================\ || <- electric
| ||==============================/ || element
|__|| ||
||_____________________________________||
|_______________________________________|
<SNIP>
KS> Temperature rise across the heat exchanger can be somewhat controlled with
KS>pump speed but since nothing hotter than your target temperature is ever in
KS>contact with the wort, it shouldn't really matter.
KS>Add a spigot to the above and it doubles as your HLT! Even heats the sparge
KS>water while you mash (well, some of it anyway).
As with all heat exchangers, the issues are boundary layers (which reduce
heat flow by 90%), exchange areas, and temperature differences.
1/ You don't have to pump very fast to achieve turbulent flow, in this case
a bit less than <.5 m/sec, or <3.5 litres/minute. BUT the outside of the
tube would have a boundary layer unless it was stirred.
2/ The area seems a bit small, (.0137 m2) but it is increased by multiple
complete passes by the wort.
3/ Let us calculate the temperature difference required?
In this example
If the heating water was held at X degrees C, and the 17.2 litres (5 gals)of
wort was at say 52C and you wanted to go to 67C in 15 minutes (1C/minute).
The *overall coeficient of heat TRANSFER* for 3mm Cu under turbulent flow
conditions is about 12.5 kW/m2 K. In this case with one boundary layer, I'd
estimate about 7.5 kW/m2 K.
now Q = U*A*O (where Q= rate of heat transfer, U= overall heat transfer
coeficient, A= area, O= log mean temp difference in Kelvin)
O= log mean temp difference(trust me, this figure is thermodynamically
important). This is the variable we don't know and equals
((X-52)-(X-67))/(loge((X-52)/(X-67))) = 5/loge((X-52)/(X-67))
U= 7.5 kW/m2 K
Q= is calculated by how fast you want to go from 52C to 67C, 15 minutes. The
ammount of heat is 17.2L * 4.2 kJ/L/C* 15C= 1083.2 kJ. The rate is
1083.2/(15mins * 60 secs)= 1.2 kilowatts
A= .0137 m2 * number of total wort passes at the minumum of 3.5 litre/min.
In 15 minutes the effective area would be 3.06 complete passes, effectivly
tripling the length and thus area= .0411 m2
So 1.2 = 7.5* .0411*0
0= 3.89 = log mean temperature difference. Substitute into the equation above.
This gives a heating water temperature of ~ 73C. This is only theoretical
but is in the range and at the upper limit of enzyme tolerence.
I would say this system will work! With stirring, even better.
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 09:40 EDT
Subject: Re: Wort chilling
Aaron Sepanski <sepanska@it.uwp.edu> in #2068:
>Although it many cool their wort in the boiler, which obviously takes >less
time, it would seem to me that you are running the greater risk of >infection
doing it this way. Your lid on your boiler is not airtight.
It needn't and probably shouldn't be air tight- cooling of the vapor space in
the boiler reduces the interior pressure and will suck in air when you open
the top. You'll have to forceably pry it open if the boiler was truly
airtight- assumming the lid or boiler doesn't deform due to the dP). I use
plastic wrap to seal the opening between the lid and the boiler necessary for
the immersion cooler and racking manifold I use. It's not airtight but it does
keep stuff from falling into the wort. Bottom line is that some air is going
to be sucked in one way or another.
>I put my boiling wort directly into a sealed (airtight) and sterile >carboy.
What do you think?
It'll suck the stopper right into the wort as the wort cools even with a small
air space above the wort. The other problem is that the thermal shock of the
boiling wort on the carboy could easily shatter the carboy. Contact of the
wort with air would become a lesser concernn at that point.
c.d. pritchard (cdp@chattanooga.net)
------------------------------
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 09:40 EDT
Subject: Re: Water bath RIMS heater
Kevin McEnhill <kevinm@kci.wayne.edu> posted:
>With a controlled electric heater, you have two possible failures....
>Two: Your temperature controller can fail...
>Depending on how the control system is built, the element will either
>turn off (Nice and fail-safe but difficult to design)...
A "relatively" safe controller isn't difficult to design or implement. Here's
one way:
Normal Controller---Triac----Relay----Heater
|
High Limit Thermostat----------+
IMHO, the risk associated with the failure of my controller vs. the cost of
the redundant control doesn't justify the added expense and effort. YMMV...
The basic idea certianly has merit. With good design, wort carmelization and
enzyme denaturing could perhaps be reduced below that of a Morris style RIMS.
Assumming the heat exchanger is 1/2-way efficient, you don't want to use
boiling water as a heat source! 170 degF (a guess) or so should be adequate.
With proper design and perhaps an air to water heat exchanger in the sparge
line, the water tank could also serve as a source for sparge water- a big
plus.
The description so far hasn't included a very important part of a RIMS- the
temp. control means. I think a valve in the water line from the heat exchanger
back to the hot water tank will be needed since some means of controlling the
heat input to the wort recirc (and hence the mash is needed). Since the pump
is a dual-head type, one can't easily control the flows (and, in your system,
the heat transfer) via pump speed as we do with typical RIMS. Control via
changing the temperature of the water in the hot water tank is impractical
since there would be way too much lag in control response and the boost times
will be too lenghtly. A power operated throttling valve ($$$) instead of a
cheaper soleniod valve will probably be needed. The reason again is the lag in
control response- you'd have wild fluctuations in the wort recirc temp if the
water temp is much greater than the wort temp.
My bottom line: the approach is doable and would perhaps reduce damage to the
wort compared to a Morris type RIMS but careful design is needed. OTOH, my
Morris type system doesn't damge the wort to a noticable extent...
c.d. pritchard (cdp@chattanooga.net)
------------------------------
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino@execpc.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:19:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews
DEBOLT BRUCE <bdebolt@dow.com> wrote:
>I'm interested in the collective's wisdom on making flavorful low gravity
[snip]
>but any techniques/tips for improving the flavor of lower alcohol beer.
[snip]
START YOUR LAWNMOWERS!
If brewing with extract and grains, use _lots_ of crystal malt. Don't,
however, use more of the darker crystal malts than you want for colour and
flavour. I use a lot of DeWolf-Cosyns carapils (one to two pounds in a 4
or 5 gallon batch, depending on what other grains I'm steeping along with
it) to give the additional perception of body and mouthfeel without
affecting the colour or flavour profile appreciably. (The DeWC carapils is
really a very light crystal, and does not need to be mashed.) For all
grain, a higher mash temperature will increase the nonfermentables.
I've never made lower alcohol beers by diluting with water at bottling
time, as you describe. You expressed a concern about oxidation: I'd
preboil the water to reduce that problem.
>From a healthy fermentation standpoint what's the lower limit on original
>gravity?
I can't give a biologically technical answer, but I have done a couple of
1.024(+/-) beers with some success. The usual advice for any beer applies,
but is more important here: lots of healthy yeast and aeration. But
because these beers are "delicate" and will display off flavours
mercilessly, attention to avoiding higher fermentation temperatures is
essential. Even esters that would be otherwise pleasant in some ales will
overpower in a beer like this, so keep it cool. Also, this is not a beer
for procrastination about racking and bottling (so says a brewer who has
yet to bottle a beer from April and another from May, but they're both huge
beers, so I'm pretending not to worry). But when to rack is a tough call--
rack too soon and you get lots o' diacetyl. I had that happen with one of
my low gravity beers. The bottles first consumed were like butter extract
and I thought the batch was a lost cause. But after a month (probably
sooner, but I didn't drink any then), the yeast in the bottle had done its
work on the D-monster, and it was a pleasant, flavourful, delicately hoppy
lawnmower beer.
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino
Madison rpaolino@earth.execpc.com
Have a beer today... for your palate and for good health
------------------------------
From: Moncsko@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:52:30 -0400
Subject: Gelatin/Pectin
A friend of mine (NOT me!!!) wanted to clearify his beer with gelatin in the
secondary. He couldnt find the Knox gelatin, as I instructed him, but did
find a pectin called "Sur-gel". He did the normal knox gel routine etc...
When he asked me if there was a difference, I said, lets ask the experts on
HBD. So? is HIS beer ruined? Should he add rasburys? Note, he wasnt wearing
plaid. E mail is fine. TIA.
Jim Moncsko - Jim's Amazing Brewing Company
Moncsko@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: aeration and esters
My beer IS ruined. However, the experiment may add a data point to the
aeration/pitch rate/esters debate.
In my quest for a perfect Fuller's ESB clone I decided to try do
everything I could to get my bootleg yeast to behave properly. In
batches past (3) this yeast has stalled at 1.025 from an OG of 1.057.
I assumed that the yeast had a high oxygen requirement as it comes out of
an open fermentation with dropping environment. For a 5 gallon batch I
created a 5 quart (yes, 1.25 gallons) 1.050 yeast starter which I aerated
periodically with pump and airstone during the fermentation. I allowed
the yeast to settle out and form a yeast cake. At pitching time I
decanted all the liquid from the starter, created a slurry with new wort
and pitched. Aeration was extensive and periodic during the active
primary fermentation at 63-66F. I aerated at 0, 14, 24, and 54 hours. At
54 hours I was still getting 43 airlock bubbles/min (max was 101) so I
knew the yeast was still very active. The fermenter is a 7 gallon glass
carboy with 5.75 gallons in it so there was plenty of headspace to aerate
with the pump and airstone. The airstone was left in the sealed carboy
during the fermentation and the air filtered to remove nasties.
The fermentation stopped dead at 1.020. The beer tasted good, even
Fulleresque, though it was pretty heavy. I detected no excessive
fruitiness or esteriness and it did not differ too much from previous
batches with this yeast that were pitched and aerated normally. I guess
that my single data point is this: in one batch with a massive starter and
extensive aeration (during active fermentation) excessive esters were NOT
formed.
So, how did I ruin my beer? Like General Montgomery I went too far. I
decided to put my own speculations to the test and see if aeration would
restart a stuck fermentation. I aerated again at 101 hours when there was
NO airlock activity whatsoever. Oops. Can you say "20 minute
shelf-life"? Can you say "cloying"? Can you say "sherry"? The
fermentation did not restart; the beer began to go off.
A number of lessons should be learned from this. Not all "stuck"
fermentations can be cured with aeration. DO NOT EXPERIMENT WITH THE
WHOLE BATCH. This of course is the most important lesson. Draw a
gallon and experiment on that.
I think that I can salvage this batch (I am an optimist). By diluting the
brew with 2-2.5 gallons of preboiled water the SG will drop from 1.020 to
1.013. Part of this water will be a hop tea made from Kent Goldings.
Hopefully, this will dilute the sherriness and mask it enough to make the
brew drinkable. And of course, this time I will experiment on a gallon at
a time.
Finally, what else could I have tried to unstick the fermentation or
to get it to continue longer? I think that it is safe to assume that
the fermentation was NOT oxygen limited. The accepted dogma is that
all-grain worts are oxygen limited and extract worts are nitrogen (FAN)
limited. I speculate that the wort became FAN limited and that perhaps
the addition of yeast fertilizer (ammonium sulfate) would have restarted
the fermentation, or the initial enrichment of the wort with ammonium
sulfate would have allowed the fermentation to continue. One thing leads
to another and it occurs to me to ask what would be the effect of using
calcium chloride as a calcium source and using ammonium sulfate as a
sulfate source for water treatment?
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m@galen.med.virginia.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:04:06 -0400
Subject: Tired of Cascade Pale Ales
Well, not that I would not drink another Pale Ale brewed with
cascade but I've found lately most of my Pale Ales have been
brewed with Pearl or Mt.Hood bittering and Cascade for flavor and
aroma. Finding, by the way that I rather prefer 3-4oz of leaf
Cascade of the heat in a 10 gal. batch (all grain) to 2 oz dry
hopped.
Anyway, I'm looking for suggestions on other hop combinations for
Ales, pale or other wise.
And as an aside I would like to thank the collective for the
wonderfull discourse that occouring in this forum gave me the
courage to build the 10gal. all grain system that I enjoy today.
Rick Pauly
Nuc.Med. Tech
Charlottesville, Va
And I really liked the signiture line I saw...
" sparing no expense to make homebrew ecconomical "
------------------------------
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m@galen.med.virginia.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:08:30 -0400
Subject: SNPA vs Carbination
since I have been kegging my beers I have noticed a big diff. in
the level of carbination, which I accepted as just the diff
between bottle and keg. But there has been a growing awareness of
how much carbination affects the perceived flavor of the beer.
Tasting my pale ale against a bottle of SNPA
my beer being kegged, with the first tasting the bottled SNPA has a
very sharp initial taste followed by some malt and predominate
hops where mine is sommoth and rounded on entry with a finishing
bitterness. BUT, stirr the CO2 out of the SNPA and the initital
taste is very much the same, not sharp, but smooth rounded,
almost "buttery" .
So, the question, has anyone else noticed this difference between
kegged and bottled beers, and is there a way to get the level of
carbination in a bottled beer in the keg? Or do we accept the
difference?
Rick Pauly
NucMedTech
Charlottesville,Va
------------------------------
From: "C.PEKARIK" <74163.1163@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 15 Jun 96 17:26:01 EDT
Subject: RIMS hose/Canadian supplier
Hello folks,
Ive enjoyed lurking HBD the last 6 months and I thank
all for sharing your knowledge.
I'm in the final stages of building my homebrewery; soon
to be dubbed "Gotcha Goat! Brewing", and I need hose for the RIMS.
All components in the RIMS are connected by 5/8 OD SS tube
except for six inches either side of the heater tube where I want the
see-through, heat-resistant, food-grade, 5/8 ID hose.
I plan to make a sight tube with the same hose. Is
oxygen permeating a big problem?
Does anybody know of a Canadian source for the hose,
so I don't have to dance with Customs?
I live one hour NW of Toronto, Ontario.
Thankyou, Larry Kress
E-mail: 74163.1163@compuserve.com
(the E# is my partners but I live there too!)
------------------------------
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 19:47 EDT
Subject: re: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews
DEBOLT BRUCE <bdebolt@dow.com> asked:
>I'm interested in the collective's wisdom on making flavorful low gravity
>brews. I'm not looking for recipes of conventional styles (e.g. bitter),
>but any techniques/tips for improving the flavor of lower alcohol beer. In
>the past I've diluted at bottling with good results, but this time I want
>to avoid the potential oxidation.
In extract days, I had better luck brewing big and diluting down. I think
Charlie P has a recipe for a lawnmower brew in one of his books that uses this
method. Oxidation shouldn't be a problem if you boil and cool the dilution
water to remove disolved O2. This would also help sanitize and remove Cl.
Adjusting pH to 5 or so is a very good idea! I'd use a bottling pail or carboy
and rack the brew on top of the water or water/priming sugar to help with
mixing. I never bothered stiring- just make sure the end of the racking hose
long and it's end is arranged so that it creates a gentle whirlpool-like
motion.
c.d. pritchard (cdp@chattanooga.net)
------------------------------
From: RBoland@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:31:50 -0400
Subject: Only Anchor?
I'm looking for beers of the "Californis Common" style. Are there any true
to style besides Anchor Steam?
------------------------------
From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 19:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Lautering Toys, etc
As several people have pointed out, I missed the "4" key
and typed 32 instead of 42 gal in a bbl of oil. I spent
a decade in the oil business and it was a while before I could
steel myself to saying 31 gal a bbl (beer). The fact that an
"oil bbl" is internationally standardized is irrelvant. My
point was that the size of a bbl depends on what it is a bbl
of, whereas the size of a liter doesn't. I like funny units
though, for example, a miner's inch is a flow rate.
Those engaging in the debate on when bitter wort becomes beer can
reflect on DeClerk's opinion that it becomes beer when the majority
of the extract is consumed during fermentation. I'm writing from memory
so I don't remember what the word exactly was (plus it is a translation
from the French), but it had a clear implication that primary fermentation
was mostly over before he considered it beer.
Those of you having stuck mash problems and those interested in
nifty gadgets, might consider putting in manometers in your mash
bucket. Take two plastic tubes (like racking canes with part of the
hook taken off), and mount one in the bucket below the screen and
one above the grain bed. Strap the tubes to the bucket and seal the
holes where they penetrate the wall. Put screen over the ends so
they don't get stuck. Put them side by side so you can easily compare
the heights of the water in each one. Fill your bucket with water and
the liquid will run up the tubes. Differences in pressure will be
hydrostatic head. Now run your lauter. Adjust your flow out rate so
that there is only a few centimeters difference. The one below the
screen will show a "suction" relative to the one above the bed.
If you let it get too high, you will compress the bed and stick
the mash. With only a few centimeters difference, you will
efficiently wash the grains without compacting areas. There is
a picture of this device in De Clerk where a third manometer is
put in the collection tube to make sure the gooseneck is not
providing suction.
Kyle
------------------------------
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:19:50 -0500
Subject: World Beer Cup!
YAHOO!!
Rob (Jethro Gump) Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company
Manhattan, Kansas
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about
beer!"
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2072
****************************
