Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2078
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/06/21 PDT
Homebrew Digest Friday, 21 June 1996 Number 2078
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
A bug in the new feature... (shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele))
Re: low-gravity beers (Jeff Frane)
Barry's Water / Brewing Techniques "Zine" (KennyEddy@aol.com)
Moonshine Recipe (Bill Rust)
RIMS => IHIMS, Counterflo Wort Heater (Steve Alexander)
Re: ANALYZE MY WATER (Eric S Guire)
Grains of paradise/cardomom (BrewBeerd@aol.com)
Mailing List (Jimbill@bexcol.demon.co.uk)
Water Filters (Michael Newman)
Decoction mashing ("Ray Robert")
CO2 and temp variations (montgomery_john@CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil)
Roast B/Enzymes/Maltiness cont. (Jim Busch)
World Beer Cup (John Adams)
Re: stuck fermentations, oxidation ("Tracy Aquilla")
Anchor Label Code (Ron Raike)
Chlorine Removal via Charcoal Filtration (Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation)
RE: Strange mash schedule (Scott Dornseif)
flavourful low-OG/sterile ice/high FG/high OG/hop calcs/warm lager/10gal coolers (korz@pubs.ih.att.com)
Vienna Pale/hot to carboy/trub/chlorimine/Belgium/cidery/fruity/dusty (korz@pubs.ih.att.com)
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: shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:59:32 -0600
Subject: A bug in the new feature...
Well, I added a feature so that the HBD now replies and lets you know
that your message will be posted... If you have your return address
correct. The bug is that it added a lot of silly stuff to the HBD if
your return address is wrong, which forced the HBD to be sent a tad
earlier than normal. (You know who you are ;-)
I've tried to correct the bug.
P.S. Since the 2nd digest is smaller (after I fixed it) than the first
one, some of you may have received them out of order. (The second would
have mailed faster.)
- - shawn
Digest Janitor
------------------------------
From: Jeff Frane <jfrane@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: low-gravity beers
Jim Busch wrote:
>
>I have found that attenuation is not necessarily linked to maltiness.
>Some of the more malty beers such as Paulaner Oktoberfest are very
>highly attenuated. Sweetness and maltiness are different flavors.
>
Depressingly true. One of the things that has always stymied me about
German brewing is how someone like Pinkus manages to get so much malt
flavor into such a dry, crisp beer as their Alt. Frustrating.
Jim DiPalma wrote:
>
> The key to brewing these low gravity styles successfully are obtaining body
>and malt character in beers with an OG that's only in the mid-1.030s. In this
>regard, rounded, sweet flavors are Good Things(tm), since they help give the
>impression that the beer is more full-bodied than it actually is. Conversely,
>sharp flavors such as hop bitterness and dark roasted malts are Bad
>Things(tm),
>since they will contribute to the impression that the beer is thin and watery.
>
Er, uh, well, not necessarily. See above, for Jim Busch's comments, for one
thing. What really helps the beers are, first of all, maltiness rather than
sweetness. Which is why British malts work so much better at it than those
boring old American malts.
And, secondly, a low-gravity Bitter gains most of its perception of fullness
from bitterness, not sweetness. Somewhere in H L Hind's book from the 1930s, he
states this pretty unequivocally--as opposed to lagers, where malty richness
is developed in the mash.
> With the exception of iso-amyl acetate (banana flavor in weizens), most
>esters tend to be sharp flavors. By diluting pre-fermentation, the wort has a
>much lower gravity, which helps minimizes ester production.
I don't think most of the esters are "sharp" at all, indeed just the opposite.
All that fruitiness just adds more to the perception of flavor and richness,
which is why I find fruity yeasts works so well. Which is precisely why I
vehemently disagree with the following:
> Yeast selection, always important, is critical with this type of brewing.
>Highly attenuative strains or strains that produce a lot of esters should be
>avoided like the plague. Ideally, a yeast that is relatively non-attenuative,
>leaves some diacetyl (see above, rounded, sweet flavors are Good Things(tm)),
>and does not throw a lot of esters should be used for these types of beers.
>
I agree that diacetyl is appropriate, but "sweet"?
For my money, the more complex the better.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 18:31:47 -0400
Subject: Barry's Water / Brewing Techniques "Zine"
Barry Wertheimer wants to know about his water:
> ph 7.45
> total solids 156
> alkalinity as CaCO3 90
> hardness as CaCO3 110
> chloride 16.5
> conductivity 226
> sulfate 11.2
> aluminum 26
> calcium 31.6
> copper 2
> iron 3
> magnesium 7.5
> manganese 3
> potasium 2.4
> sodium 6.6
> zinc 8
Barry, it looks pretty good, although the alkalinity is a bit "high" (closer
to 50 max would make it almost "ideal"). Calcium is low-ish but oughta give
you a decent mash pH; sulfate is nice at 11.2, sodium and chloride are low as
well; magnesium is OK. This is a good water since you can "build" on it
(it's not strictly "soft" but it's close enough).
Boiling your water is not likely to reduce your alkalinity much because of
your low calcium; you probably don't want to remove much calcium anyway. But
at 90 ppm it's not intolerable, and you have "room" to add a bit of gypsum or
(better) calcium chloride to modify your mash pH if it's even necessary. If
you're extract brewing, you're in fine shape.
*****
David Burley asked about Brewing Techniques magazine (although he wasn't
asking me...). Check'em out at http://brewingtechniques.com. Great 'zine,
as he speculates.
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: Bill Rust <wrust@csc.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 96 17:54 EDT
Subject: Moonshine Recipe
Greg writes:
>Does anyone have or know where I can find recipies on how to make
>moonshine? (or is this considered a "distilled spirit")?
>
>My grandfather has misplaced his recipie and I'm trying to track down
>one for him. THANKS!
Shaw nuff! We'd would be glad to send y'all a recipe. Just send us your
address and handcuff size to:
feds@bureau.atf.revenuers
If anyone happens to drop by in the next 24 hours or so, make sure to show
them proper hospitality by dropping to you knees and putting your hands
where they can see them.
See ya in 20-30!!
--------------------------------------------------------
Special Agent Barney Fife | 'Anyone see where I put that
Mayberry, NC | flamethrower?' The BATF
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:07:45 -0400
Subject: RIMS => IHIMS, Counterflo Wort Heater
Some random thoughts on mashing in a post-RIMS era.
I've just been catching up on recent HBD and the thread started by
Kevin McEnhill on Water bath RIMS caught my interest. The posts are
exciting and interesting, but on reflection I think that there needs
to be a re-thinking and explicit discussion of WHAT we are seeking in
a mashing system.
My immediate thought on Kevin's article was - Aha - now just combine
the functionality of a counterflo wort chiller (CFWC) with the water
jacket heater described by Ken Schwartz and reduce cost by sharing
heat exchangers. In practice this is a foolish economy, since a dual
pump system is required, far outstripping the heat exchanger costs.
And as Charlie Scandrett calculates, the tiny heat exchange surface is
adequate for heating function anyway.
Kevin wrote:
>After reading Morris's articel on RIMS using a hotwater heating
>element, I thought about the carmalizing question alot. My solution
>(so far not tried on real wort), was to heat a water bath and run a
>copper tube with the wort inside through the boiling water.
... which requires a non-cavitating food grade pump, able to withstand
mash temperature - just like a RIMS.
Since cost is always an issue in HB-Engineering, why not drop the
'food grade', and 'non-cavitating' requirements and pump hot water
thru copper tubing placed in the mash vessel ? I'm basically
proposing an immersion heated mash system (IHMS) vaguely similar to
the steam heated systems used commercially and described a few months
back by Charlie - but cheaper, safer, and of course less efficient.
The pump must withstand a few extra degrees of temp compared with a
RIMS but should be far cheaper and more available than the typical
RIMS pumps. Charlie's heat exchange equations still apply, by
symmetry. The cleaning issues for the exterior of the copper tubing
should be simpler than for a recirulating wort system. Electronic
control can be achieved by controlling either the pump or the hot
water source temperature.
I would propose using a much larger heat exchange surface than in the
previous posts, which is already many times larger that a RIMS heater
surface area. This should permit adequate heat transfer with minimal
wort stirring. This immersion mash heater system might also serve as
an immersion chiller for the cost of a few hose connectors.
If a two fluid system is used, then both sides of the liquid need to
be stirred or circulated across the heat exchanger surfaces - so some
sort of wort stirrer would be needed for the mash tun. An adequate
one designed for a somewhat different purpose was described in a
recent Brewing Techniques article. This would get around some of the
negatives of the RIMS, which include the cost and poor availability of
food grade hi temp tubing and pumps. The wort contact surfaces on a
RIMS are interior and difficult to clean. The shear forces induced in
a wort pump cause some additional enzyme degradation. Even with the
stirrer, I suspect that the immersion mash heating system will be
cheaper. The easy lautering advantage of a RIMS is missing of course,
but this is part of the cost of treating your wort gently.
Now will someone please invent an automated decoction unit for me ?
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
From: Eric S Guire <esg@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 00:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: ANALYZE MY WATER
Hmm. I just got around to calling in to my city water board for an
analysis, and, well, I thought it might be instrumental to compare what
they sent me to what you reported from your activated carbon filter a few
days ago:
Your report: My tap water,
according to the Eugene
(Oregon) water and
electric board.(ppm)
ph 7.45 7.3
total solids 156 53.5
alkalinity as CaCO3 90 19.1813
hardness as CaCO3 110 23.65 chloride 16.5
conductivity 226 57
sulfate 11.2 4.1415
aluminum 26 0.061
calcium 31.6 5.7753
copper 2 0.0619
iron 3 0.0931
magnesium 7.5 ?
manganese 3 not detected
potasium 2.4 ?
etc.
I was suprised to find that my tap water was consistantly cleaner than
the values you reported for your filtered water. I guess it just goes to
show, water sources around the country varry alot!
Eric Guire
__________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: BrewBeerd@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 20:12:29 -0400
Subject: Grains of paradise/cardomom
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
M Carlysle asks...
"Was trying out some of the Sam Adams Summer Ale and noticed that they use an
ingredent called "grains of paridise". That sent me on a quest to find out
what they are and so far have not been able to find any mention of them on
AOL or Internet. So Mr. Maven Sir - What are grains of paridise, where did
they originate and what flavors do they impart on a brew if I were to use
them in one of my recipies. "
Someone asked about this on the Homebrew Digest recently, as well (and,
therefor, I'm cc'ing the Digest on it)! A quick search of the web yields the
following....
"Grains of paradise are the aromatic, pungent seeds of species of Amonum,
native to western Africa. The plants are tropical perennials, spreading by
rhizomes and forming dense clumps. Plants attain heights of 4 to 5 feet, with
lanceolate, glabrous leaves up to 9 inches long. Seeds are borne in ovoid or
flask-shaped, pubescent capsules 2 to 3 inches long. Seeds were formerly used
as a substitute or adulterant of pepper. Now they are sometimes used in wine,
beer, spirits and vinegars. They are not produced, so far as known, in the
U.S. ... The seeds and plant of A. cardamomum are very similar to "grains of
paradise" . These seeds are also sold as cardamom.
(as quoted from
http://newcrop.hort.purdue.edu/hort/newcrops/Crops/Grains_of_Paradise)
Availability:
Grains of Paradise WH 2.30/oz from
Wild Earth Catalogue - Bulk Herbs
2611 Grant Street
Houston TX 77006
(888) 524-0388
molly@neosoft.com
and $28.15/lb, $18.30/8 oz, $11.26/4 oz, $8.16/2 oz from
Legendary Ethnobotanical Resources (L.E.R.)
P.O. Box 1676
Miami, FL 33233.
(no affiliation - they were found in my web search...)
I have only brewed with this once (actually, cardomom). As I recall, it added
a kind of detergent-like bitterness (usually referred to a "lemon and
ginger") to the beer when it was young. This mellowed out over time.
Hope this helps....
See ya!
Pat Babcock
aka Brew Beerd `{(P-{>
AOL FDN Homebrewing Questions & Answers Maven
------------------------------
From: Jimbill@bexcol.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:33:19 +0000
Subject: Mailing List
Dear Sir,
Please put me on your mailing list as I am interested in homebrew.
Thanks,
James Larking
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Michael Newman <100711.2111@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 21 Jun 96 07:42:19 EDT
Subject: Water Filters
Nate,
You ask what effect an activated carbon filter has on dissolved salts. Well I'm
not sure but the blurb with mine says this:
"...is designed to:
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE LEVELS OF:
CHLORINE
LEAD
ALUMINIUM
MERCURY
AND ALSO REDUCE THE LEVELS OF OTHER POLLUTANTS.
IT IS ALSO HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING:
ODOUR
DISCOLOURATION
CLOUDINESS
The Selfix Filter leaves virtually all beneficial salts such as those of
calcium and magnesium."
MICHAEL NEWMAN
------------------------------
From: "Ray Robert" <Ray_Robert@bah.com>
Date: 21 Jun 1996 09:10:38 U
Subject: Decoction mashing
Hello Brewthren!
Had a question regarding the volume of water and grist boiled for the
decoction. My brief review of the homebrew books did not give me any ideas.
Should it be a quarter/third/half? Currently, I am only taking about a fifth
of the grist and mostly water. It seems I can't step up the temperature fast
enough. Is the volume of the water and grist the problem? (Data: I do only
5 gal batches, Gott cooler for a mash/lauter tun). Any help would be
appreciated.
regards
Robert
ray_robert@bah.com
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: montgomery_john@CCMAIL.ncsc.navy.mil
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 08:14:45 CDT
Subject: CO2 and temp variations
Based on the tables and techniques in Zymurgy's Special Kegging issue
of a year ago, I force carbonated a batch of Alt at room temp (78F).
Don't have the table in front of me, but I think it was around 28 psi
for that temp. Came back the next evening and repeated.
The following evening, I stuck the keg in a fridge ("normal" fridge
temp) for cooling overnight. The NEXT day I tapped the keg and out
came chilled flat Alt. Why was the beer flat? There were no apparent
leaks from any of the seals. Don't the tables accomodate for chilling
down the keg? I would have reasoned that as the beer cooled down, the
appropriate amount of CO2 would have been driven into solution and
would be fine regardless of serving temp.
This was my first attempt at the force carbonating thing, so accept my
humble apologies if I've overlooked a basic aspect of this.
Respectfully yours,
John M.
montgomery_john@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil
------------------------------
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 09:55:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Roast B/Enzymes/Maltiness cont.
Bill writes:
<In fact roasted barley when used in low quantities, say an ounce for a
<five gallon batch, adds a sweet malty note to the beer.
I tend to think it imparts a dryness/bite to the beer that is not
sweet or malty to my palate.
David R. Burley continues on the enzymes/maltiness thread:
<Jim, you and I both agree, I think.
Only to a point.
<Likewise at the high
<end they are also active, but their concentration and rate constant are both
<substantially reduced over time and therefore their effect is less.
snip
<Ways to counteract this is by 1) increasing the time at the
<upper temperatures so the beta amylase( even though its concentration and
<efficiency is declining at the upper temperatures) can do its stuff and to 2)
<increase the concentration of all enzymes present by using a little stiffer
<mash. Both of these actions will improve the chances of increasing the
<concentration of fermentables for a saccharification step carried out at a
<higher temperature.
While I completely agree that the enzymes in question are active over
a wide range and time frame, I dont feel this is a major issue with
modern malts. Modern malts are not enzyme concentration limited. Even
German Pils malts have plenty of enzymatic power. Conversion times
at the optimum pH are very rapid. This is why many recipes call for
only 10-15 minutes at maximum beta amylase temps. The last comment
on increasing the fermentability is not well thought out. You would
be much better off working with optimum beta amylase temps then suggesting
high temp rests or increasing mash stiffness.
<Paulaner Octoberfest's "malty" taste is due to caramel type malts used in its
<production. For a given recipe, having a higher FG will produce a maltier
beer.
This is not true at all. The maltiness from P Ofest is derived from the
special malts they use and the the decoction mash programs. I bet there
is little to no caramel malts in this beer, Vienna/Munich malts are the
true source of the maltiness. Measure the FG of P Ofest, you will find
to be about 2P. I call that a well attenuated beer, remeber it has
and OG of about 13-13.5P but achieves close to 6% ABV. Residual sugars
and dextrins from higher terminal gravities do not necessarily impart
maltiness. Again, the classic Munich Ofests display this phenomenon
well.
Al writes:
<The alcohols will be oxidized to aldehydes, but not acetaldehyde. I've never
<smelled the characteristic green apple aroma of acetaldehyde in a beer that
<has post-fermentation oxidation.
Aeriation of still beer does increase acetaldehyde levels, but they
can be reduced in storage. (admittedly the O2 levels in the following
are very high...)
>From Beers and Coolers, M. Moll 1991, page 214:
"Sommer et al. (1977) who added 5-20 mg/L of dissolved oxygen during
transfer have shown that the dissolved oxygen was absorbed after 2-8
days. A lot of acetaldehyde was formed during storage but it was removed
after storage for 32 days."
If anyones interested in the Sommer reference email me. Its German.
As for the closed boiling business, most brewers employ a kettle
fan in the boiling vessal. This rapidly removes the steam and
helps to accelerate the evaporation rates. At Victory Brewing Co
our kettle fan will lift your hair up off your scalp its so strong!
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
------------------------------
From: John Adams <jadams@pipeline.cnd.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 08:49:27 -0600
Subject: World Beer Cup
>seems like a lot of beers that we consider "defining the style"
>weren't listed. No mention of Pilsner Urquell, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale,
>Anchor Steam, Pete's Wicked Ale, and even Salvator. Either they
>didn't win, or they didn't enter.
Pilsner Urquell,
Sierra Nevade Pale Ale,
Anchor Steam,
Paulaner Salvator - not entered
Pete's Wicked Ale - Entered but not awarded.
> This is something that has more than a few folks wondering as well.
> Last years GABF had a "*.* Ale" that won in a lager category, as well. Now
> I'm sure that without a test for the presence and/or absence of certain
> sugars, there are many products that would be capable of emulating a
> different style, or yeast, and how would the judges know? Seems to me
> though, that an obvious name like "ale" in a lager competition would be
> certain to draw the attention of someone, if not the judges, then certainly
> the person who has to assemble the beers for tasting, or the person who has
> to ascribe a name to a number at the conclusion of judging. Maybe this is
> one of those "Great Cosmic Unknowns." I do agree that there are names used
> by marketers that do not reflect the true nature of the product. But, it
> does make you reconsider when deciding which category to enter. "Maybe my
> *.* beer would be more competitive in this other category," where maybe
> there weren't so many entries last year or any other reason!
The brewery chooses the catagory they feel matchs the style of their beer
they brew. They may choose poorly or simply have a beer that doesn't fit
well into the guidelines.
Keep in mind many American beers are labeled Ales or Stouts purely for legal
reasons. State liquor laws have 'pre-catagorixed' beers based upon alcoholic
strength (Ales, Stouts, Malt Liquors) and have nothing to do with a more
formal style. Likewise they may choose to call their beer a ale to avoid
be taxed at the "Stout" level.
The judges have ZERO information regarding the beers, their names, their
ingredients, or their origin. They don't even get to see the bottle!
The PPBT staff does NOT re-categorize beers (that would be grossly unfair).
There was an instance in with my judges that a beer was clearly out of
style. We re-examined the beer entry and found it to be entered in the
style for which is was being judged (that was the intention of the
brewer). It didn't win.
> Frankly, I was amazed at the small number of participating
> breweries. With 3000 invitations sent out, for only 250 or so breweries to
> be interested seems like it could be just a 1st year situation, where the
> breweries wanted to see how the whole deal played out before making the
> go-ahead decision to participate. One of my customers said that he could
> easily understand why small fish like me would be eager to get in, while he
> doubted that any of the better established track records of some major
> European breweries would be enhanced by an "American up-start competition."
There were a couple of factors. First I completely agree with both the "1st
year situation" and "American up-start competition" reasons. But there
were also problems getting beers to the competition. Reportedly 40 beers
were known to not arrived. Package carriers and exportation restrictions
were two of the reasons.
I'll bet there will be a much higher percentage of European beers
represented in the 1998 WBC for the same reasons there were more US beers
this time around.
> I don't like being limited to only 3 entries either, but like the
> limit of 5 at GABF, it's probably for the best, so that judging doesn't take
> 3 weeks! And frankly, I'd go broke..my general manager doesn't believe in
> this kind of thing and all entries to competition have been paid for by me.
> I did manage to get him to shell out for GABF this year, though!
You could always do what Jim Koch did. He entered three from Boston Beer Co.
(Boston Lager, Double Bock, Golden Pilsner) and three from Samual Adams
Brewhouse (Scotch Ale, Summer Ale, Triple Bock). We are all familiar with
Jim's marketing skills and he will no doubt parade his awards around on
the highest pole he can find.
John Adams
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 96 11:01:15 CDT
Subject: Re: stuck fermentations, oxidation
In Digest # 2076:
John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> wrote:
>In hbd #2073, in response to a question from Domenick Venezia about stuck
>fermentations, Tracy Aquilla said:
>
>>Considering that you may have overpitched this
>>batch and the OG is only about 'average', it's also possible that yeast
>>growth quickly became FAN-limited, especially if you used much malt extract
>>in the recipe.
>
>If the batch was overpitched why would it matter that the growth became
>FAN-limited? Wouldn't there be enough yeast to do the job without growth?
Good question. There should be enough yeast to finish the job, but if the
cells suddenly run out of nitrogen, they'll crash.
>Or won't yeast ferment without growing at the same time?
Yeast can ferment without growing (if by growing you mean budding), but it
needs a source of nitrogen in order to maintain a high metabolic rate.
>Also, it has been mentioned by some (AL K. and others, I think) that as the
>yeast population grows, the growth rate slows. Is the population density
>growth limiting?
No. Nutrients (or lack thereof) are what limit the population in this
situation. In batch culture, the cells remain in log phase until such time
as nutrients become limiting and the stationary phase begins. At this point,
protein synthesis and budding cease almost instantly. Yeast can be cultured
to incredibly high cell densities if adequate nutrients are provided and
replenished constantly (eg. in a chemostat).
In Digest #2077:
<korz@pubs.ih.att.com> Al K. wrote:
>Alcohols are not oxidized to acids.
Alcohols can be oxidized to either aldehydes or acids, depending on how far
oxidation proceeds. This is elementary organic chemistry.
Tracy
------------------------------
From: Ron Raike <ron@mail.creol.ucf.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:12:03 -0400
Subject: Anchor Label Code
Does anyone know how to translate the code on the back
of all Anchor Brewing Products (i.e. Steam, Liberty, Foghorn..)
I don't actively read the digest, please respond privately,
I will post results if i get any.
Thanks for the help.
ron@mail.creol.ucf.edu
------------------------------
From: Michael Mahler/Shiva Corporation <mmahler@shiva.com>
Date: 21 Jun 96 11:29:38
Subject: Chlorine Removal via Charcoal Filtration
RE: water filtration
Since I used to live in Worcester, MA, which is notorious for some pretty
crappy water that is compensated HEAVILY for by the addition of large amounts
of chlorine from chlorine injection units very close to my house ;-(.... I have
become pretty anal about water filtering.
If you are using tap water (municipal - this is NOT for well water) for
brewing, you should consider the purchase of a water filter unit made by Amtek
(and also sold at Sears of all places) that is a two cartridge device that
includes a water spigot for mounting in your sink (I replaced the water sprayer
with it since I never use that thing, otherwise you need to drill). The unit
itself mounts under the sink and is very simple to install - should take about
an hour total. It also includes a flow valve that measures the gallons
filtered and shuts the filter off when the cartridges needs replacing - though
this depends on your water quality since mine often clogged before then (about
a 50% drop in pressure out of the spigot, but still clean water). The unit
costs about $100.00 and the cartridges are replaceable (that's the point) at a
cost of anywhere from $2.00 each to 27.50 each, depending on what you want to
filter. One plus I found is that the spigot end fits neatly into the typical
homebrew plastic tubing you use for racking (for those who add tap water to the
carboy, this makes it easy).
You've probably seen these filters, but may not have seen the unit since their
top seller is their counter top single cartridge unit. Which brings up this
point...
...when we moved we had sold the house with the filter (actually helped with
the sale by the way) since it's pretty much unremovable due to the saddle valve
that pierces the water pipe requiring plumbing work to seal the hole and, hey,
it's only $100. But the REAL problem was that we now rent and weren't going
to install another one only to leave it there (HEY, it's 100 BUCKS! ;-).
So, to make a long story yet even longer... I purchase two of the counter top
units (about $35.00 each) and connected the output of one to the input of the
other via brass threaded nipple and some teflon tape. So for about $75.00 I
have the same functionality without the flow valve (don't care) AND, since this
unit comes with a nifty little director valve for the faucet, it's portable so
it comes with us when we move.
As for the filters, I go with the carbon impregnated ones (about $3.50 each)
rated at 5 micron filtration in the first housing and then the $27.50 one (said
to remove lead and giardia cysts) in the second one - this particular filter is
rated at 0.5 microns (!) so if you have heavy sediment, you might have to
replace it more often than I do, but I generally get about 4 months out of it
with replacing the first cartridge every month and the water is fantastic! My
beer (and coffee and baby water and soups, etc) has definitely improved with
the use of this.
Also, for those who think you are getting better water from bottled water or
"party ice" - think again - when I was at school (WPI) a fellow student did a
study of about 18 different bottled waters and found that MOST of them had high
levels of bacteria and contaminants. Be careful - besides with this filter,
you are getting water MUCH cheaper (about 1000 gallons for like $10).
Write me at mahler@shiva.com if you want to know model numbers, etc... those
of you in Mass., I get this stuff at Spags (Home Depot has them too, but for
MUCH more money... )..
------------------------------
From: Scott Dornseif <SDORNSE@wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 10:49:06 -0500
Subject: RE: Strange mash schedule
In hbd #2076, George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro) states:
> The step up to 164 is quite unconventional. Even though you rested
> there a short time (2-3 min. I think), the mash was probably over 150
> for a while time during the trip to 164, so I would bet that most (if not
> all) the beta amylase was denatured. You probably denatured a good
> amount of your alpha amylase, also (most homebrew texts recommend
> mash-out at 165-168F for 5 min. to denature all enzymes). Bringing
> the mash back down to 146 was almost pointless, because there
> could not have been enough beta amylase left to do anything. If you
> had some alpha amylase left, some conv"...
Speaking only from experience, and direct communication from
another homebrewer... I have found that the 5 -10 min mash out is
sufficient for the *remaining* enzymes at the *end* of the mash but will
not denature *all* nor *most* of the enzymes at the begining of the mash
schedule. I have on at least one occasion, (I am a complete idiot),
mashed in at over 175 F without managing to reduce the temp below 165
within 15 mins. This was using a highly modified 2 row which converted
nicely.
Any way that's my experience and I'm sticking to it.
I didn't do it. Nobody saw me. You can't prove it.
Scott Dornseif
Cats' Ass Brewery and otherwise seldom used kitchen.
Chicago, Il
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 16:33:02 CDT
Subject: flavourful low-OG/sterile ice/high FG/high OG/hop calcs/warm lager/10gal coolers
Sorry about two consecutive posts, but I won't be at my terminal tomorrow
and I thought it better to try to keep current.
Martin writes (regarding how to get flavourful low-gravity beers):
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.
Perhaps, but that's not all. I would also say that using an low-attenuation
yeast like Wyeast #1968 would also be important as well as mashing at the
high end of the range (like 158F) for a less fermentable wort. Some crystal
is required, but don't overdo it.
***
Woody writes:
>There is a risk here; 60F tap water is unlikely to be sterile. Let me
>offer an alternative: since you are buying ice anyways, add it to the
>hot wort instead of to the bath. "Party ice" seems to be sterile: I
>suspect that liabilities would require it.
Commercial ice is no more likely to be sterile than our tapwater. If you
must use ice to cool (and assuming your kettle will fit it) you can make
it yourself by cooling boiling water in a sealed plastic milk jug to room
temperature and then cooling it down to 33F in the freezer. I don't
recommend dropping a block of ice into boiling wort -- splashing hot
wort on yourself is not fun.
***
David writes:
>However, Domenick and some of the other brewers are probably experiencing
>either a poorly attentative yeast - a genetic trait, in most cases, and
>unchangeable OR most likely, in the case of all grain brews, they are holding
>at a high a temperature ( say 158-160) for too SHORT a time during the
>saccarification stage.
I disagree. If indeed the time at 158-160F was too short the problem would
have been starch haze and not high FG. Read on.
>Remember that the higher the temperature, the faster the enzymes degrade. The
>lower the concentration of enzymes, ergo ,the slower the conversion of starch
>to sugar. SO, at the high end ( 155-158) of the saccarification region
>(145-160 F), even though the rate of saccrification (at a constant enzyme
>concentration), is higher, the stability of the enzyme is lower and is
>disappearing faster. This leads to a lower enzyme concentration, and
>depending on the ratio of water to grist in the mash, could lead to a high
>level of unfermentables.
Not quite. There are two amylase enzymes: beta and alpha. Beta amylase
creates maltose from dextrins and starches and alpha amylase changes starches
to dextrins and long chains of maltose molecules. Beta amylase is denatured
quite quickly at higher temperatures which is why higher mash temperatures
(like 155 to 158F) will give you a less fermentable wort (less maltose, more
dextrins). Cooler mash temperatures take longer, but result in the beta
amylase lasting longer and therefore turning more of the dextrins into
fermentables (primarily maltose). Technically "saccarification" is the
activity of the beta amylase, whereas the activity of the alpha amylase is
refered to as "liquification" (but few people use this term).
>The solution? Extend the saccharification time to
>get complete conversion. This will lower the unfermentables and increase
>the fermentables.
I'm afraid not. The solution is to lower the temperature into the 148-152F
range AND make sure you are mashing at least 1.5 hours. The actual time
depends on your pH, calcium, etc.
>You could also try using a lower ratio of water to
>grist. This will increase the concentration of the enzymes and speed up
>the conversion. I am skeptical, in the absence of data, that enzymes are
>more stable at higher concentrations, as some of the texts and HB books
>would have us believe. I am open to proof on the subject.
I have read about the enzyme stability, but I have never seen anything
regarding conversion rate being related to mash stiffness (thickness).
If you have a reference, please post. Thanks.
However, Dave's suggestion to use sugar tests to deterimine remaining
fermentables sounds possible to me. My only fear is that the yeast consume
the "easy to eat" sugars before they go on to the larger ones. Glucose
and fructose are eaten first then larger sugars. Maltose is probably next,
but I'm not sure whether the longer chains of maltose are eaten before
the sucrose is. The yeast cannot ingest sucrose whole, so they break
each molecule of sucrose down to its component glucose/fructose pair
by excreting invertase. This sounds like a lot of work to me and if I
were a yeast I would leave that till later. What percentage of remaining
sugars actually *register* on the diabetic sugar tests is what we don't
know. This needs to be known if we are to use these tests reliably.
***
Howard writes:
>I ended up at a gravity of 1.062. Does the malt sub explain this difference?
It doesn't. I suspect measurement error either in the volume of wort
or the weights of ingredents.
and:
>Second Q: when calculating IBU's, how do you weigh the different alpha acid
>percentages versus the time in boil and amount added? For example, if I
>add a 7% hop for 60 min., a 4.5% for 30 min., and a 4% finish, what would my
>AA % be that I use for the IBU calculation? Do you simply average the 3
>percentages if you use 1 oz. of each?
You have to do each separately. You use the formulas once for each addition.
***
Russ writes:
>I would like to stimulate some discussion of the May/June Brewing Techniques
>article regarding "warm" lager fermentation...
I skimmed the article and found that, while the author made some rather
questionable comparisions between acoustics and brewing, his method may
have merit. Before commenting further, I would have to see at what rate
he proposes the fermentation temperature be raised (this would further
depend on the fermenter material, dimensions, size, etc.) and do some
test batches to see if indeed ester production (the main concern, I believe)
is low enough so that the resulting beer doesn't taste like an ale.
***
Matt writes:
1. Should I hold out for a 10 gallon cooler? What kind of grain
capacity can I expect with the 5? (I brew Pale Ales, Browns, Porters,
and Wheats almost exclusively. I'm not much into BIG beers.)
I would, but I almost always do mult-temp infusion mashes.
2. How difficult would it be to do multi-step mashes in the 5 gallon?
I probably will do mostly single step but I want the option to do
more. Is it as simple as starting with a thick mash and adding more
hot water or drawing off some liquid and heating?
Slightly difficult, but time consuming. You would have to do decoction
mashing unless you were making a rather smallish beer or less than 5 gallons.
With my 8 gallon mash tun, 12 pounds is just about the limit for a three step
infusion mash. You MUST not draw off liquid and heat it. This will
denature the enzymes. This is why with decoction mashing you use the *thick*
part of the mash for heating and raising the temperature of the main mash.
3. For the first temperature rest do you overshoot by a little to
account for the energy absorbed by the cooler? If so, by how much?
It depends on the temperature of the grain and cooler as well as how quickly
you work and what your strike temperature is. All you can guess the first
time and then adjust on subsequent batches. Check some recipes in books
for a starting guess.
4. How much can I expect to pay for the 10 gallon (ball park figure,
I realize there are a lot of variables here)? The store I saw the 5
gallon in didn't have 10 gallon coolers.
I've seen the 10 gallon cylindrical Gott for $27 US at Builder's Square near
Chicago, but I've heard of people paying upwards of $50 in some areas.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 96 15:28:11 CDT
Subject: Vienna Pale/hot to carboy/trub/chlorimine/Belgium/cidery/fruity/dusty
Steve writes:
>Not to pick on Boston Brewing or Jim Simpson, vienna and munich malt
>in pale ales is becoming epidemic around here. One local brewery
>(Crooked River) uses this malt to excess in all of their ales that I
>have tried. A new local brewpub, with a German brewmaster is also
>adding a heavy dose of vienna to his hoppy ale. I guess I wouldn't
>object to vienna as a minor side note in an ales flavor, but these
>don't taste like APAs to me. Comments ? Am I alone ? Would a BJCP
>judge allow such a beer in the Amer Pale Ale category - Al ?
As noted before, the judge just judges the beer against the guidelines
specified in the competition. The entrant selects the subcategory in
which to enter the beer. The AHA guidelines say the colour of APAs
is from 4 to 11 SRM which means that the dark end of the scale is just
a shade darker than Bass Ale. I personally feel that as with the English
definition of "Pale Ale," namely a beer that is lighter than a "Brown Ale,"
the colour of American Pale Ales can vary in to amber. Even the AHA
guidelines allow for medium malt and light caramel flavour as long as
bitterness dominates. Those who measure all APAs against SNPA will find
that more than half of the beers labeled Pale Ale in the US will be very
different. Offhand, I can only think of two commercial APAs that are as
pale as SNPA (and have primarily a Pale Ale malt flavour).
There have been two articles in BT calling for an American Amber Ale style
of beer and I've been on the fence regarding this issue. Initially, I
thought it was a good idea, but more recently, I've been leaning towards
a wider APA description. I have yet to read the second BT article so maybe
I'll switch my opinion again.
***
Aaron writes:
>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. I put my boiling
>wort directly into a sealed (airtight) and sterile carboy. What do you
>think?
If you just use a funnel and splash the wort into the carboy, you are
definitely getting hot-side aeration (HSA) and risking cracking your
carboy due to thermal shock. Siphoning would solve the first problem
and a gallon of cold sanitized water would solve the second, but if you
are doing full boils (all 5 gallons) you don't want to dilute your wort
with a gallon of water, do you? Furthermore, once you have five gallons
of how wort in your carboy, how do you chill it. Letting it cool overnight
is less a problem of infection than a recipe for DMS-production. While the
wort is above 140F, DMS is being produced from SMM but is not being boiled
off as it is during the boil. Slow cooling of wort will make your beer
smell like cooked corn.
***
Aaron writes:
>I personally noticed a distinct difference when racking the trub in two
>brown ale one yes, and one no. The batch that I didn't rack the trub in
>there were fusels present and the beer was extremely "bitter." The batch
>that I racked the trub off of tastes just fine. Well, actually very good.
How did you measure the fusel (aka higher) alcohols? HPLC? GC? By taste?
Smell? Unless it was an incredibly high-gravity beer I suspect the
differences would be very small -- virtually impossible to detect by
taste/smell. Regarding the bitterness, did you perhaps wait till fermentation
began to rack the beer off the trub? If you did, you may have done what
the British brewers call "dropping" in which you siphon the beer out from
under the dirty head. As noted by Art, my Brewing Techniques article
pointed out the significant loss of bitterness (I believe it was 13-18%
not 10-15% as had been posted) if you separate the fermenting wort from
the dirty head in the kraeusen.
***
Steve writes:
>My water filter does a nice job of removing chlorine odors and tastes, but
>I can't swear that the contraption removes the chlorimines too.
It does. Activated carbon filters (like Brita) remove chloramines as well
as chlorine.
***
Someone (AGAIN) writes:
>Belgium beers
That should be BELGIAN beers! You wouldn't say Germany cars, America flag
or France food, would you? Sorry, pet peave...
***
Tom writes:
>Though, is it fructose that makes a cidery taste?
Not any more than sucrose or glucose. Excessive amounts of any of these
sugars will result in cidery beer. As long as you keep them well below 20%
of the fermentables, you should be okay.
***
Tracy writes:
>It's extremely fruity (apple and orange hints), noticeably alcoholic, and
>bitter, but I don't detect much diacetyl or ethyl acetate. Since I
>dry-hopped with about 4 oz. of EKGs (in 5 gallons), there is also a massive
>hop presence which may be masking the other flavors and aromas.
Whoa!!! 4 ounces of EKG and you can still smell esters? That's some
sniffer you've got there... actually, I don't think that any human can
identify esters with that kind of hop aroma. Did you judge the fruity
aromas before you added the dryhops? Otherwise, I can't believe that
you really smell any esters at all there. Sorry...
***
Stetson writes:
>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?
Hmmm... first of all, I assume that you mean that you brewed a Pilsner
recipe, but fermented it at ale temperatures. Pilsners (Bohemian,
German, American) are all lagers (i.e. they are fermented cold and cold
conditioned). As for the "dusty" taste, could it be mold? I know
that I've tasted some commercial beers and homebrews that have had a
"powdery" aroma... like one of the main components of the aroma of
Gloria Vanderbilt perfume. I have not been able to correlate that with
any particular hop or yeast, but I haven't really tried that hard.
What about "papery?" Could it be called "papery?" If so, then I
would say it's oxidation.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2078
****************************
