Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2139
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/08/08 PDT
Homebrew Digest Thursday, 8 August 1996 Number 2139
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Another Recipe Request (sharrington@CCGATE.HAC.COM)
hop storage/Larry's Stout (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Re: 120V Fermenation *Heater*? (RUSt1d?)
mashing/sparging/etc. (M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace@mac))
RE: Keg fittings (John Wilkinson)
Re: residual sugars; Scottish Ale strain smoky? ("Tracy Aquilla")
Bottles in the oven/ Saccharomyces deblrueckii (Peter Ensminger)
re: non brewing-related posts ("Bridges, Scott")
North American Brewery List ((Shawn Steele))
Re: Sparging technique, mashout / RE: RIMS Questions (hollen@vigra.com)
Sterilants/Fusels (Jim Busch)
Baking Bottles (Russell Mast)
Re: Bulk Sparging and Oven Sani. (Mark Thompson)
my brewery ((Jeff Sturman))
Slow Starting Wyeast (TMartyn@aol.com)
Terminology, Math, Lambic (Jim Liddil)
Sulphites NOT as sterilants (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
on sparging methods (Gregory King)
combo fermentation chiller/heater ((Mike Uchima))
PET/pLambic brewing/batch vs. fly sparge/Rauchbier/dry lager yeast (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
and include only subscribe or unsubscribe in the body of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info@aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sharrington@CCGATE.HAC.COM
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 08:47:10 PST
Subject: Another Recipe Request
I hate to fill the digest with recipe requests, however, since I have
just remodelled my house, I can find none of my sources for recipes.
All this talk about Scotch Ales has gotten me interested in brewing
one. Does anyone have a favorite all-grain Scotch Ale they would mind
sending to me.
Thanks,
Stephen Harrington
Manhattan Beach, CA
sharrington@ccgate.hac.com
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 11:08:22 CDT
Subject: hop storage/Larry's Stout
Kevin writes:
>I use hop pellets (from those nifty foil bags). How can I preserve the
>leftover pellets? Is a ziploc refrigerated bag sufficient? How long will
>they last?
Ideally, you would purge out any air that got in with CO2 and then
heat-seal the nifty foil bags. You can buy "economy" heat sealers
for under $30 at some stores. Barring that, glass jars with good
seals would be my second choice, again, replacing the air in the
headspace with CO2 (or nitrogen if you've got that handy).
Garden variety ziplock sandwich (or even freezer) bags are made from
polyethylene which is notorious for being oxgyen permiable. I think
you would be better off folding over the corner of the foil bag a
couple of times and holding it shut with a couple of paper clips than
storing the hops in polyethylene bags.
If purged with CO2 or N2 and stored in an oxygen-barrier container in
a freezer, they hops would pretty much last indefinitely. I've used
three-year-old hops packaged in CO2-purged, oxygen-barrier bags and kept
at only 40F and the hops smelled as fresh as the day I got them and
resulted in a beer with the expected bitterness.
***
Larry laments about an "aftertaste that is too malty or vanilla like."
Could this be diacetyl (i.e. buttery or butterscotch)? If you suspect
that it may be, then perhaps a different yeast would help. The Wyeast
#1084 (Irish) is notorious for being a strong producer of diacetyl.
Other things will increase the amount of diacetyl that reaches your
glass. The two primary ones are:
1. oxygen *during* fermentation, and
2. separating the beer from the yeast too early.
If you are racking to a secondary, try to avoid any aeration. I, personally,
don't use a secondary for 90% of my beers. Use a big starter, aerate or
oxygenate the wort well after cooling and let it ferment in the primary for
two weeks. That will eliminate the aeration that may have been occurring
during your transfer and will give the yeast more opportunity to reduce
the diacetyl they create.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: RUSt1d? <rust1d@li.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 12:22:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 120V Fermenation *Heater*?
>><snip>the controller to be able to control both hot and cold.
>><snip>needs to be able to switch 115 VAC and control temperatures
>>between 32F and 70F.
>LOW VOLTAGE THERMOSTAT SHOULD NEVER BE USED WITH 120 VOLTS!
>From a safety perspective, messing with 120 volts is dangerous
I would use a solid state relay to switch the 120V line from the 12V
output of the thermostat. I know what I am doing with 120 volts, and
plan on installing a GFCI breaker in the box as an extra precaution
(since it could get wet).
>As far as heating goes, it's *feasible*, but remember that the unit is
>constructed from plastic foam. Should your heating element "stick on" for
>some reason, a meltdown or fire could conceivably occur.
For a heater, I planned on using either one of those cermanic jammies
(with it's own heat controls) or simply a french fry lamp. For these
reasons I need 120V. I also plan on lining the ice/heat chamber with
aluminum backed fiberglass insulation to make it more fire resistant.
________________________________________
| FAN=> => | My version of the chamber will have
| | | internal dimensions of 72"x20"x27".
| ICE/ | | The ice/heat compartment will take
| HEAT | | up 12" of 72" and will be able to
| | | hold up to 8 frozen two gallon water
| ____|_____________________________ | jugs. The air flow will circulate
| <= <= AIR FLOW | under the floor of the chamber.
|______________________________________|
The last time I was in Home Depot I saw several Hunter thermostats. One item
they had was called Winter Watchman (or something) that plugged into a 120V
line and then had an outlet for you to plug a lamp into. The idea was that
if you were on vacation you could plug a lamp into this thing. If the temp
in the house dropped below the set point, the lamp would come on (which a
watching neighbor could then see and come to your aid). It said on the
package not to plug anything rated above 100 watts into it. This seems
limiting.
Thanks for the replies...
John Varady
Boneyard Brewing Co.
"Ale today, Gone tomorrow"
------------------------------
From: M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace@mac)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 11:56 -0600
Subject: mashing/sparging/etc.
collective homebrew conscience:
ian smith asked about sparging technique and mashout:
><snip> When sparging is it
>better to simply drain the entire mash tun of sweet wort and THEN begin
>sparging or is it better to SLOWLY drain the wort while adding sparge
>water to the top of the mash tun ?
you don't mention recirculating the mash liquor until it clarifies. this is
a technique that can help your beer. letting the mash liquor into the
kettle before clarifying results in a far cloudier wort, more hot break,
and probably some other clarity/fermentation problems (cue for other more
knowledgable brewers to jump in). running it out quickly is not a good
idea if you want clarified wort.
> and then slowly
>sparge away for the next 30 minutes. Anyone tried this ?
for a 5 gallon batch 30 minutes is not a slow sparge, in my experience. i
think maybe you should try sparging even slower.
>I usually mash for 3 or 4 hours (more convenient for my schedule on
>weekends). Do I still need to do a 170 F mashout or can I just go ahead
>and start sparging since all enzyme activity should surely be finished by
>this time ?
i once didn't mash out a beer that i infusion mashed in my lauter tun. i
experienced some sparging difficulties with my false bottom, and the
recirculation and sparging process took a very long time. what i ended
up with was outstanding extraction and thin beer. it started at about
1.050 and ended at around 1.008, and it was a dark ale. so i think
assuming that enzyme activity is surely over after 3 or 4 hours might be
a mistake. i'm not an enzyme expert. enzyme experts, pour forth your
knowledge.
kevin wrote:
> How can I preserve the
>leftover pellets? Is a ziploc refrigerated bag sufficient? How long will
>they last?
the keys for hop preservation are keep them cold and keep them away from
oxygen. i have heard that ziploc bags are not airtight. is the bag you
bought them in made from airtight material? if so, fold it over and tape
it shut and stick them in your freezer. otherwise, just do the best you
can, but i definitely recommend freezing them. they will last a very
long time if you can keep them away from oxygen and keep them cold. i've
brewed with german hallertau hops that were 2 years old, but vacuum sealed
and kept very cold, and the beer was outstanding.
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 12:12:07 -0500
Subject: RE: Keg fittings
In HBD #2136 Mickey asked for a source for Cornelius keg fittings.
I have bought them from South Bay Homebrew Supplies (800) 608-BREW.
No connection, etc.
John Wilkinson - jwilkins@imtn.dsccc.com
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 13:53:58 CDT
Subject: Re: residual sugars; Scottish Ale strain smoky?
In Digest #2132:
Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com> wrote:
>A while back Tracy Aquilla(I believe?) posted that dextrins shouldn't
>contribute to perceptable sweetness, and my recent reading on flavor
>science confirms this. A short table in volume 2 of M&B Sci shows
>residual carbs in a list of beer types, including sweet stouts, and
>what sticks out is that what I imagine as the sweeter tasting beers
>on this list contain more fermentable sugars !! How can this be ?
>Aside from filtering or really adverse yeast growth conditions, I
>can't imagine what would prevent any yeast - even a poorly attenuating
>one from finishing off virtually all of the really simple sugars
>(glucose, fructose, sucrose).
Flocculation.
>I thought that the attenuation ability
>of yeast is primarily a function of which sugars they are able to
>metabolize, and not their ability to 'completely' metabolize a
>particular sugar.
Attenuation is also partly dependent on flocculation.
>So what does make a sweet beer sweet ? Is it the ~<1% residual simple
>sugars ?
I think it's mainly the residual sugars, which in many beers is probably
higher than you might think. Ethanol is also perceived to be sweet by most
people, and certain small peptides taste sweet as well.
In Digest #2135:
<korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com> Al K. wrote:
>The *Scottish* Ale strain has a tendency to give smoky notes to the
>beer. This would be unwelcome in a Brown Ale, in my opinion. At the 1995
>Chicago Beer Society (1996 AHA Homebrew Club of the Year) Spooky Brew Review,
>I judged a Scottish Ale that was *too* smoky. I later found the brewer and
>asked how much smoked malt he used... "none," he said... "Wyeast Scottish Ale
>yeast."
I make and drink a LOT of Scottish/Scotch Ales using this strain and this
anecdote is contrary to my experience. I've never encountered anything but
clean flavors from this yeast; it is one of the cleanest ale strains I've
ever used.
I'm moving to Chevy Chase, MD next weekend. Anybody care to share a homebrew
once I get to town (e-mail me)?
Tracy
------------------------------
From: Peter Ensminger <ensmingr@npac.syr.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:33:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Bottles in the oven/ Saccharomyces deblrueckii
Steve Ensley asks about putting bottles in the oven as a method of
sterilization/sanitation.
A number of times, I have covered my thoroughly rinsed and dried bottles
with tin foil hats and put them in the oven. I noticed no detectable
problems with infection and it was less labor intensive. I left them in
the oven for about 3 hours at 350-400 degrees F, turned off the oven to
let them cool down, and then used caps which I had soaked in a bleach
solution.
However, I had a problem with this method, so I returned to bleach
treatment. My bottles seemed to develop a white film following oven
treatment. This film was removed after a prolonged soaking in a high
concentration bleach solution. Does anyone know what this film is and
what causes it?
.....................................................................
On another topic, I was wondering if any yeast geeks out there could help
me with a terminology question.
I have been told that the yeast species Saccharomyces delbrueckii is the
type typically used for fermenting of Bavarian wheat beers.
Others have claimed that there is no such species as Saccharomyces
delbrueckii but that there is a species named Lactobacillus delbrueckii
which is used in fermentation of Berliner Weisse beer.
Which is it?
Also, I have heard that the specific epithet (delbrueckii) comes from a
turn of the century German scientist named Max Delbrueck. What is his
relationship to the German immigrant and Cal Tech Nobel laureate Max
Delbrueck, who is more of a contemporary?
Peter A. Ensminger tel: 315-478-6024
256 Greenwood Place email: ensmingr@npac.syr.edu
Syracuse, NY 13210 URL: www.npac.syr.edu/users/ensmingr/
U.S.A.
------------------------------
From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess@mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 96 12:37:00 PDT
Subject: re: non brewing-related posts
George De Piro writes:
> I hate to do this, and will keep it VERY short. PLEASE STOP USING
> THIS FORUM FOR NON-BREWING ISSUES. This IS NOT the place for
> discussing the policies of the GABF, BATF, or anybody else!
>
> I have sent private E-mails to offenders, but new people keep doing
> this, and I can't keep up! PLEASE STOP IT!
>
> George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
George,
I'd like to express an opposing opinion. I have no problem for using this
forum for discussing these brewing-*related* topics. Certainly the GABF,
ATF and other such stuff is germaine to brewing (home and commercial).
Frankly, I get a little tired of the "crabtree effect" and "at what temp
does alpha amylase get denatured" kind of threads. I think that there is
far more bandwidth wasted (ain't even close, IMHO) on supposed "brewing"
issues than these non-brewing issues. These related posts sometimes provide
an interesting diversion to the digest. Feel free to keep sending emails.
You can save yourself the trouble of sending one to me, though.
Scott
------------------------------
From: shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 13:06:38 -0600
Subject: North American Brewery List
Our brewery list on the web now has more information for breweries in
the U.S. and Canada. Visit http://www.aob.org/aob/brews/brewlist.html
- - shawn
Shawn Steele
Webmaster
Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 118 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 shawn@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://www.aob.org/aob (web)
------------------------------
From: hollen@vigra.com
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 12:42:59 PDT
Subject: Re: Sparging technique, mashout / RE: RIMS Questions
>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Royster <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com> writes:
>> When sparging is it better to simply drain the entire mash tun of
>> sweet wort and THEN begin sparging or is it better to SLOWLY drain
>> the wort while adding sparge water to the top of the mash tun ?
Keith> No, no, no! Always leave an inch or so of water on top of your
Keith> grain bed!!!! The water is supporting (ie floating) the grain
Keith> on top of your false bottom. You are almost sure to get a
Keith> stuck sparge if you drain it all first.
I "batch sparge" and have *never* had a stuck sparge. I almost
completely drain the lauter tun of the first runnings before adding
any sparge water.
>> It seems to be that it might be better (and faster) to just drain
>> the wort, add hot sparge water and then slowly sparge away for the
>> next 30 minutes.
Keith> The words "better" and "faster" should never be used together
Keith> when referring to sparging. A slower sparge is *always* a
Keith> better sparge. The slower you sparge the better your
Keith> extraction effeciency.
Logically and technically, I agree with Keith, but in practice, I have
to disagree. As I privately told Ian, I have always sparged for about
1/2 hour with outflow valve wide open. Decided to try slowing it down
and doubled the sparge time without any *detectable* increase in
yield. The one possiblity that makes the difference undetectable is
my batch sparging technique. It might make a difference it I kept an
inch of water above the grain. But heck, I would rather add 70 cents
worth of grain and cut off an hour of brewing time and who cares about
my efficiency. The only criteria I adhere to with regards to
efficiency is that it is predictable enough that I can formulate any
recipe and come out with actual OG within 2 pts. of what I targeted
and I do this every time.
>> What's the max capacity of a 10 gallon Gott (lbs of grain)?
Keith> Not sure what the max is, but I've done 20+ pounds without any
Keith> problem. Could have done another 10 pounds! I think your
Keith> limiting factor will be your boiling kettle more than your mash
Keith> tun, unless you are making a barely wine or have a 20+ gallon
Keith> kettle.
Did you somehow misunderstand, Keith? Gott Cooler?? An 18# grain
bill in *my* 10 gal Gott is 4" from the top. Where is there space for
another 10#?? How far from the top was your 20# mash?
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
------------------------------
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:13:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Sterilants/Fusels
Al and Dave are back at it:
<Facts are that acidic sulfites in the region below 3 are excellent sterilants.
Dave, you are falling back into the terminology ditch. Sterile != Sanitize.
It may in fact be a good sanitizer but its certainly not a sterilizer nor
could one call it excellent. Id also be wary of citing 1912 references
(just think how far measurement technology has come!).
As for the issue of casks and diffusion of ethanol/fusels:
In whiskey maturation one of the key reactions involves diffusion of
products from within the cask, through the cask wall. Basically its
called a subtractive reaction in this case. The key parameters that
pass through the cask are water and ethanol. The lower the molecular
weight of the compound the easier it is to evaporate through the cask.
This means that it is much easier to reduce the concentration of ethanol
in a cask than it is to reduce fusel alcohols, as the latter are longer
carbon chained alcohols. This route is also the main factor in DMS
reduction in whiskeys. Hasuo and Yoshizawa, '86, found that the rate
of evaporation of a model whiskey ranged from 32% of the total present
in the spirit for acetylaldehyde to 5% for isoamyl alcohols to 1% for
ethyl hexanoate and acetic acid. So the permeability per compound is
quite different. The texts seem to indicate that in whiskey maturation
there is a net concentration of fusel alcohols and esters of fatty acids.
Similar results apply to cognac production where Ive seen a reference
that indicates a typical loss of 3% per year in both water and ethanol
and a concentration of fusel alcohols.
The chemistry of spirit maturation in casks is quite involved and
interesting. The key reactions are extractions from the cask, chemical
reactions and oxidative reactions inside the vessal (which continue as
the flavanols, tannins, hemicelloses and lignins leach) and concentration
reactions. How much of this is applicable to concentrations found in
beer is yet another story.
Jim Busch
------------------------------
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:20:43 -0500
Subject: Baking Bottles
> From: Steve Ensley <steve@globaldialog.com>
> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:20:08 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: Sanitizeing bottles in the oven
>
> I have occasionally seen comments about sanitizeing bottles by putting
> foil over the neck and stacking them in the oven and heating them up.
> What is the procedure for this. Specifically how hot and how long?
Basically, just get it up to the boiling point or so. If you're worried
about weird mold spores or something, a little higher will do fine.
You don't need to hold the temp there for any significant amount of time,
but until you get a lot hotter, it's not a big problem doing so.
I find an over thermometer handy for this.
> Anyone have any comments on this technique?
Yes. Let them cool down overnight, slowly, in the stove. If you take
them out and let them cool quickly in the air, and then fill them right
there, you risk weakening the bottles and eventually breaking them.
- -R
------------------------------
From: Mark Thompson <markt@hpdocp3.cup.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 13:37:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Bulk Sparging and Oven Sani.
Jurie Dekter wrote:
> My colleague and I were discussing brewing beer (as usual), specifically
> sparging, and he came up with the following question:
>
> If sparging is the process of leaching out the sugars from the grains, why
> not dump *all* the water in the mashtun at conversion, stir like h*ll for a
> few minutes to dissolve the sugars, and then just drain the whole lot,
> thereby completely eliminating the long process of sparging? The stirring
> with fresh water ought to dissolve the sugars as effectively as the
> sparging. All that remains is to drain the lot, with perhaps a second
> stir-up with fresh water to get those last sugars out.
I use the following method which is fairly close to what you describe.
I can't take credit for it though. Russ Pencin hipped me to it in an
old
HBD post.
1. Mash normally.
2. Grind specilities fine (in the blender)and steap about 45-60m in
170df water.
3. Do a mashout at 170 and add the steaped grain mush to the mash.
4. After a 10m mash out drain all the mash liquor after recirculate
5. Add all your mash water and stir for 5 or 10minutes. rest 10
minutes.
6. Recirculate then drain all the mash liquor.
(drain doesn't mean open the valve wide open.
I usually take about 15 minutes to drain the whole thing.
This isn't the most efficent method but it sure is easy and quick.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Lenny Garfinkel wrote
> I oven sanitize all the time and never had a problem. I rinse bottles
> immediately after use and dry them. After I've accumulated 30 or so in a
> covered box, I cover the mouths with aluminum foil and stand them up in the
> oven. I heat to 50C for 15 minutes, then 100C for 15 minutes, then 150C for
> 30 minutes. You'll have to translate to fahrenheit yourselves.
> F=(9/5*C)+32 (clue: 150C=302F). My oven is electric, but that shouldn't
> matter. I leave them to cool overnight, then store indefinitely in a closed
> carton until I'm ready to bottle.
The only thing that i would add is to leave the oven closed after the
final
temp rise. Let the bottles cool down slowly with the oven.
Mark E. Thompson: Enterprise Objects Program/Networked Computing
Division
Hewlett-Packard Co.: 19447 Pruneridge Ave, Cupertino CA:
markt@cup.hp.com
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
------------------------------
From: brewshop@coffey.com (Jeff Sturman)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:49:48 -0600
Subject: my brewery
I just put my home brewery on the net! To view it go to:
http://www.coffey.com/~brewshop/brewery.html
Questions/Comments welcome. Picture and description included.
jeff
------------------------------
From: TMartyn@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:55:32 -0400
Subject: Slow Starting Wyeast
Brian Kuhl asked in #2137 why his Wyeast #1338 seemed to be starting so
slowly.
Maybe this is way simple, but read the date crimped into the seal at the
bottom of the pack. You'll learn something about your supplier's turnover
and the relative popularity of different yeast strains, as well as avoid the
problem of "wort's ready, starter isn't".
For ale strains, I allow 1 day per month since the crimp date for the pack to
swell, plus an additional day for a 1 pint starter to get ripping. For lager
strains, which seem to me to start slower, I allow 1-1/2 days a month, plus a
day for the starter. Works for me.
By the way, I try to time my starter so that when I'm done chilling the boil,
my 1 pint starter is ready. I then rack to my primary, plus a quart into a
half gallon growler, into which I pitch the 1 pint starter. The primary
(actually a 5.25 gal. "secondary" carboy) goes in the fridge overnight; I
return it to room temp the next morning, then rack off the massive break &
trub deposit into my real primary, and pitch my 1 - 1.5 quart starter which
is invariably roaring by then.
Why go to the trouble? My ferments start within 8 hours for ales and 16 - 24
hours for lagers, and I feel my beers are cleaner for having removed more of
the break material.
The downside is more planning ahead.
Tom Martyn
TMartyn@aol.com
Brattleboro, VT
------------------------------
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL@AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:30:00 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Terminology, Math, Lambic
Dave Burley wrote in response to Al:
>
> Facts are that acidic sulfites in the region below 3 are excellent
sterilants.
>
> I quote from "Table Wines" op.cit p399
>
> "As Cruess (1912) and others have shown, 100mg per liter ( 6 oz of potassium
> metabisulfite per ton) will eliminate over 99.9 per cent of the active cells
of
> micro-organism from normal musts."
>
> How do you think Webster will define "eliminate". Is "over 99.9%" enough to
> classify sulfites as a sterilant?
Again we need to use the correct terminology. From Block "Sterilization is the
act or process, physical or chemical, that destroys or eliminates ALL FORMS OF
LIFE, especially microorganisms." (my emphasis)
So now let me use a math example. It is not uncommon to find 1,000,000
microorganisms per milliliter in a rich media like wort or must. Thus there
are still 1000 microorganisms/ml if only 99.9% are killed. This does not fit
the definition of a sterilant. You would have to have 0 (ZERO) live
microorganisms for it to be sterile.
A few more definitions:
Sanitizer is an agent that reduces the number of bacterial contaminants to safe
levels as judge by public health reqirements. From the AOAC manual, a
sanitizer is a chemical that kills 99.999% of the specific test bacteria in 30
seconds under the conditions of the test.
Sulfites thus do not fit the definiton of a sanitizer either.
Disinfectants are defined as agents that destroy disease or other harmful
microorganisms but may not kill bacterial spores.
To a large extent these terms are defined by various tests under defined
conditions. But IMHO it is important to use correct terminology so that we are
not describing things incorrectly.
Robert wrote:
>
> Dear HB,
>
> My blackberry crop is pretty good this year and I am planning on brewing a
> blackberry ale. I just don't know how.
>
> Most fruit homebrews I have tried so far were simply too sour (may be too
> young) and not fruity enough. I am pretty sure that is because the wrong
> microorgansms (yeast/bacteria) were used.
>
> >From my limited winemaking experience I know, that after the sugar is
> degraded, there still is CO2 production due to malolactic fermentation, which
> degrades malic acid to lactic acid and thus reduces the acidity. From my
> german wheat beers I know, that only certain yeast are able to produce an
> estery = fruity aroma. I should probably use a belgian yeast/bacteria mixture
> for lambics but I don't want to keep the beer in my secondary for half a
> year, like Papazian suggests.
>
> So how can I brew a nice blackberry lambic, which isn't sour and doesn't
> block my equipment for too long.
You dont' want to tie up equipment for 6 months, well you really need to wait
1-2 years. Check the lambic digest archives. Make a blackberry wheat beer
and add 1000 ppm acetic and 3000-5000 ppm actic acid and you will be done.
Jim
Just Say NO to Wyeast!
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 16:49:40 CDT
Subject: Sulphites NOT as sterilants
Dave writes:
>Al, in my last post on this I tried to give you a way out by quoting the
effect
>of sulfites as a function of pH as it relates to beer.
In other words, saving face is important to you... I appreciate the "out"
but I stand by my books, experience, intuition and keyboard.
>I quote from "Table Wines" op.cit p399
>
>"As Cruess (1912) and others have shown, 100mg per liter ( 6 oz of potassium
>metabisulfite per ton) will eliminate over 99.9 per cent of the active cells
of
>micro-organism from normal musts."
>
>How do you think Webster will define "eliminate". Is "over 99.9%" enough to
>classify sulfites as a sterilant?
Even if Webster did, I wouldn't. Have you ever made a 2-liter starter from
a plate? Basically, you are making the starter from a single cell.
What might the wild yeast and bacterial cell counts be in a pound of grapes?
A million? (I'll bet there may be a million on a single grape!). Even if
you killed 99.9% of them, you could still have nearly 1000 live cells.
Far from sterile, Dave...
I have not even addressed the issue of spores... they are not "active cells."
Surrender Dave... ;^).
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: Gregory King <GKING@ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 18:33:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: on sparging methods
In HBD #2138 Keith Royster <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com> responded
to Ian Smith's question about sparging:
IS>It seems to be that it might be better (and faster) to just drain
IS>the wort, add hot sparge water and then slowly sparge away for the
IS>next 30 minutes.
KS>The words "better" and "faster" should never be used together when
KS>referring to sparging. A slower sparge is *always* a better sparge.
KS>The slower you sparge the better your extraction effeciency. Don't
KS>think of sparging as *washing* the sugars out of the grain. Instead,
KS>think of it as adding fresh water to the top of the grain bed and
KS>letting gravity settle the heavier sugars down through the grain bed.
KS>The slower you sparge the better these sugars will settle.
Keith is correct in saying faster != better when it comes to sparging.
Here's another picture of what's going on in the sparging process. Think
of the sparge water as being a continuous series of horizontal layers of
water traveling down through the grain bed. The amount of sugar that
each layer of water can pull out of the grain is proportional to the time
it is in contact with the grain. So, slower sparging means more contact
time, which means better extraction efficiency.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In the same HBD (#2138) Jurie Dekter <juried@ozemail.com.au> posed the ques-
tion:
>If sparging is the process of leaching out the sugars from the grains, why
>not dump *all* the water in the mashtun at conversion, stir like h*ll for a
>few minutes to dissolve the sugars, and then just drain the whole lot,
>thereby completely eliminating the long process of sparging?
This is a good question. Let me take a stab at answering it. The sugar in
the grain will only leach out into the surrounding liquid if the concentration
of sugar is greater in the grain than it is in the liquid. If you add all of
your sparge water at once, the concentration of sugar in the liquid will in-
crease and the concentration of sugar in the grain will decrease until the
concentrations are equal. The problem is that there will still be a lot of
sugar in the grain at this equilibrium point. A quick rinse of the grains
(after you drain the sparge water off) will simply not pull enough additional
sugar out to make this an efficient technique.
The conventional (i.e. gradual) sparge is very efficient because liquid that
is high in sugar content is constantly being removed from the grain, and
"virgin" sparge water is constantly being added.
Greg King
gking@arserrc.gov
------------------------------
From: uchima@fncrd8.fnal.gov (Mike Uchima)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 17:33:34 -0500
Subject: combo fermentation chiller/heater
KennyEddy@aol.com writes:
> I designed the Fermentation Chiller for 12 VDC for several reasons. A 12-V
> fan will provide as good of results as a 120-V fan.
> [snip]
In fact, it will probably work a lot *better*. I was looking at fan specs the
other day, and it seems like the 120VAC units require a lot more power (in
terms of wattage) than the 12VDC ones, for the same airflow. So the motor in a
120VAC fan will dissipate a lot more heat, causing your ice to melt faster.
> As far as heating goes, it's *feasible*, but remember that the unit is
> constructed from plastic foam. Should your heating element "stick on" for
> some reason, a meltdown or fire could conceivably occur.
Here's a thought: How about using a resistor as a low-voltage heating element?
You could just wire it in parallel with the fan. A 50 ohm resistor @ 12VDC
would dissipate something like 3 watts, which may be enough to heat a small,
confined space. Just make sure you use a resistor with a high enough power
dissipation rating (e.g. 5 watts, to give yourself some leeway), and mount it
such that it cannot come into contact with the foam. If you have trouble
finding a 50 ohm, 5 watt resistor, you could even wire 10 500 ohm, 1/2 watt
resistors in parallel to achieve the same effect. Even if it "sticks on", I
don't think enough heat would be developed to be a danger (might ruin the
beer, though).
I haven't actually tried the above technique yet, but I plan to...
- -- Mike Uchima
- -- uchima@fncrd8.fnal.gov
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 96 17:44:03 CDT
Subject: PET/pLambic brewing/batch vs. fly sparge/Rauchbier/dry lager yeast
Terence writes:
>We here in South Africa have been using the PET bottles for homebrew and
>micro-brew for some years now. The bottles are available in 5ooml,1
>liter,1.5 liter and 2 liter. They are coated to prevent excessive gas
>leakage and are coloured brown or green so skunking is not a problem
Brown and green colouring does not eliminate the need to protect the
bottles from light. Due to a process called non-radiative energy
transfer, visible light of any frequency (not just the green to UV
range) can skunk the beer. Brown is better simply because it is
darker than green which is darker than clear. Some, but not total,
protection. There was a very good article in a recent Zymurgy on
this. Appropriately, the issue had a skunk on the cover.
Incidentally, there are PET bottles which claim to have "UV"-blocking
coatings on them. Due to non-radiative energy transfer, this is another
mis-representation... it gives no protection from skunking. [Thanks
again to Pierre for explaining NRET to me.]
My concern with PET was with the oxygen transfer. I could not find PET
in my plastics tables, only PETG (which has about 10% of the oxygen
permiability of HDPE (said to be much too oxygen permiable for long-term
beer storage)). I don't know the relationship between PET and PETG so
this is probably inconsiquential data. I also know they use PET for beer
in Canada also, but I certainly wouldn't trust it for aging a Barleywine
for three years!
***
Rober writes:
>I should probably use a belgian yeast/bacteria mixture
>for lambics but I don't want to keep the beer in my secondary for half a
>year, like Papazian suggests.
That's wishful thinking. My pLambic didn't start to get interesting till
8 months and wasn't worth entering in a competition for two years. It
scored poorly in the 1995 AHA Nationals, but won a 1st place in the 1st
round of the 1996 AHA Nationals. This was four years after pitching.
If sourness turns you off, a pLambic is not what you should be seeking
to brew. Try pasteurizing the fruit and adding it to the secondary. Then
add lactose at bottling time to sweeten it. Have one periodically to make
sure some bacteria or super-attenuative yeast didn't slip by your sanitation.
***
A number of posters have recently asked about batch sparging (draining
the lauter tun and then refilling) versus fly sparging (continuous
addition of sparge water while draining at the same rate. One even suggested
adding all the sparge water at the same time. First let me address the
last suggestion. Adding all the sparge water may be possible but only if
you have a huge lauter tun. Even if it was possible, it would be the least
efficient of the three methods. Because we are working with concentrations
of sugars which we are trying to extract from the grain bed, theoretically,
the fly (or continuous) sparging method is the most efficient. I posted
a detailed description of why in HBD perhaps three years ago, so I won't
repeat it here. I say "theoretically" because if you have a lot of channeling
in your grain bed, the batch sparging method may be more efficient. In
an ideal system, with an ideal grain bed, fly sparging is more efficient.
Where the break-even point is can be debated and could never be quantified
anyway, but my intuition says that for most of us the fly sparging method
will give better results (it takes less time too because you only have
to establish a grain bed and recirculate once).
***
Rich writes:
>ALSO a local Beer historian, Peter Blum (a Strohs/
>Augsburger brewer and noted historian) mentioned that a scare about
>nitrosoamines dropped consumption of Rauchbier severely several
>years ago in Germany, it was reported that the smoking of the grains
>were introducing the deadly nitrosoamines into the beer itself.
There was a post on HBD (not the most accurate, but certainly one of the
most passionate sources of information) a few years ago that the cancer
rate in Bamberg (basically the center of Rauchbier in the world) is no
higher than in the rest of Germany. Just another (possible) datapoint.
Search the HBD archives to see the source of the data... I've got to
run... got a date with my brewing equipment.
***
Ok, one more...
Bob writes:
>When I brew lagers, I usually use starters made from liquid yeast which
>produce reasonably active ferments at below 50 degrees. On my last batch
>however I decided to try a dry yeast for a change. The brand was "Superior"
>and is from Australia.
>Has anyone had success with this? I pitched 2 packages (re-hydrated) into
>a batch Sunday and there's been very little activity for 3 days in a 50 deg
>refrigerator. When I finally placed my carboy in a room temperature
>environment the yeast appears to be waking up.
I've tried this yeast and although some yeast experts (at Lallemand) say
that there is not currently any true bottom-fermenting yeast available in
dry form, if the yeast ferments at 50F and is clean, I'd say it should
make a lager-like beer. My results with this yeast have been very promising.
As for your restarting yeast, it could be just that you shocked the yeast
when you added them to the fermenter -- try coolineg the fermenter down
slowly back to 50F and see if fermentation doesn't continue. My guess is
that it would.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2139
****************************
