Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2296
Homebrew Digest Friday, December 27 1996 Volume 02 : Number 016
Procedures:
To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew@aob.org>
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo@aob.org>
with the text "unsubscribe <your email address>" in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
<majordomo@aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
body. This will return a list of all subscribers. Search this
list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
(including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin@softsolut.com>
with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
the problem.
1 Christoffel
2 Mills
3 Wyeast 1021 (Nottingham Ale)
4 Re: My Answers to 2 Questions from Al. K (Jim Bentson)
5 My error in previous post (Jim Bentson)
6 Iodophor residue issues (Alex Santic)
7 Re: Partial mash efficiency (Alex Santic)
8 keeping hop pellets out of fermentor
9 Re: Iodophor residue issues (Alex Santic)
10 Wheeler Questions/Hydrometers and Trub
11 Club
12 beginner mead - wild mead
13 re: Corona vs. Roller
14 Beginner's Mash
15 Wit Beer / Lactic acid
16 Expansive Pots, Cornie mystery, (Ronald J La Borde)
17 weight/volume
18 email list
19 Al's chemistry questions
20 re: Corona vs. Roller
21 Hi, all...Current listserver status
22 Acronyms
23 No-Sparge Data
24 beginner mead, lambic comment
25 Re-using Yeast
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:56:12 -0600
From: Mike Urseth <beernote@realbeer.com>
Subject: Christoffel
>i bought some Christoffel Robertus, mainly becuase it was in a cool 1/2
>gallon growler with an aluminum handle. the style claims to be
>"dubbelgemout bier". the card on the bottle neck explains it comes from
>holland (st. christopher brewery), and the brewer calls it a "dubble malt
>beer" brewed in the "munich tradition". the freshness date claims sept97
>(go figgure). it is dark amber, with no esters present. it is very malty
>and dry, and maybe a little sour. Does anyone know how to brew something
>like it, or what flavor components are in it that i haven't identified?
>
>bob: brewing in the heart of the bible belt
>bob rogers bob@carol.net
Drop a message to: stale19@mail.idt.net Lanny Hoff is with All Saints
Brands, importers of Christoffel and other tasty brews. He might be able to
help you.
Mike Urseth
Editor & Publisher
Midwest Beer Notes
339 Sixth Avenue
Clayton, WI 54004
715-948-2990 ph.
715-948-2981 fax
e-mail: beernote@realbeer.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:57:06 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas@lucent.com>
Subject: Mills
Olin writes:
>Please Bill, I think Al has probably had more exposure to mills than
>yourself, and his opinions probably represent what any shop owner will
>tell you. Selling all three mill myself, I know I feel the same way.
Bill may have had more experience with the Corona (believe he has been
brewing more years than I), but I certainly have more experience with
the PhilMill and MaltMill since they were invented after I started
brewing. I'd like to add two more things:
1. A shopowner interested only in profit will push the Corona since
it is a fraction of the cost (less money tied up in capital) and
it's usual retail price includes a much bigger markup than either the
PhilMill or the MaltMill (more profit per capital dollar invested).
2. I don't sell any of the three although I have in the past (I don't
even own a store anymore). I have no interest in convincing homebrewers
to get rollermills other than wanting them to be happy and to brew better
beer more easily.
Finally, I'd like to point out that I didn't start this discussion.
Bill, out of the blue, decided to post that he feels the Corona is
better than the PhilMill or MaltMill. I happen to disagree. I just
wanted to present the other side of the story and I gave my reasoning.
Hoppy Halidays!
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz@xnet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 13:41:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Douhan <gdouhan@mail.wsu.edu>
Subject: Wyeast 1021 (Nottingham Ale)
Does anybody know anything about this yeast? I think it is new and I could
not find any info on it.
Greg Douhan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 17:06:37 -0500
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson@htp.net>
Subject: Re: My Answers to 2 Questions from Al. K (Jim Bentson)
In HBD v2 #14 Al wrote:
>Subject: Here's another one for the chemists...
>
>I've got another question for the chemists, although any
>person who has taken any classes that require analytical
>lab work would probably know.
>
>Okay...
>
>Percent by weight (% w/w) is easy: grams/100 grams or pounds/100 pounds
>(okay, pounds are technically a force, not a weight, but on earth...)
>
>Percent by volume (% v/v) is also easy: ml/100ml or gal/100 gal, etc.
>
>Now, what's with % w/v? What the heck is this? Is this some sort of
>agreed-upon convention (like w is always in grams and v always in liters)
>or is it just a mistake? How can something be a percent weight of a
>volume?
>
>Is this really a measurement convention or are a lot of people using
>the wrong symbols when they mean w/w and v/v?
Al:
w/v is a ratio not a percentage. Any percentage must be based on a ratio of
two numbers with the same units. People often use the term 'percentage' when
they really mean 'ratio' .
w/v is often used in 'recipes' for mixtures involving powdered or
granulated solids being added to liquids. The reason is that by packing the
solids differently, one can get different volumes for a fixed weight of
solid material ( see the disclaimers on any bag of potato chips about the
volume change in shipping). Notice that our grain bill or extract bill is
always quoted as a given WEIGHT for a given VOLUME of water. An interesting
side note is that when I started brewing I bought individually packaged bags
of priming sugar in 5 oz. bags. Only later did I notice that most people
quote 3/4 cups as the correct amount to prime. By experimenting I found I
could get almost a 3/4 ounce difference depending on how well packed the
sugar was. I only use weight to measure my priming sugar and have never had
a bottle explode or undercarbonate due to sugar.
With regard to your previous question about specific gravity (S.G.) of
suspensions, the suspended particles DO affect the reading. The physics of
why is quite involved and would bore most people, so I will omit it but it
definitely happens as has been verified by a number of recent posts.
Some of the comments sent in expressed the opposite opinion based on the
argument that a rock in water raises the weight of the "mixture" and the
S.G. goes up. They miss the point that S.G. is the ratio of the weight
DENSITY of the material being tested to the weight density of water at
'standard' conditions. Density is a 'local' property (at a point) not a
'global' property (applicable over the whole volume) thus in the analogy
they gave they only calculated the ' volume averaged' S.G. of an inhomogeous
mixture ( sorry for all the jargon). In fact, the rock is not 'mixed' in the
water and thus does not affect the S.G. reading
The point of all this is that a hydrometer is calibrated ASSUMING a
homogeneous mixture (the density is the same everywhere). IF you had any
significant stratification or gradients in the test sample the measured
values would be incorrect.
Happy Holidays to All
Jim Bentson <jbentson@htp.net>
- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 23:39:07 -0500
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson@htp.net>
Subject: My error in previous post (Jim Bentson)
Dave Burley (and also Kelly Jones) is (are) correct in his assertion that I
should go back and relearn basic physics. I really blew that one when I used
the analogy of thermal stresses on a clamped bar (which was OK) and then
carried it over to the cylindrical wall of the pot. The pot is totally
unconstrained. My mistake was to forget that the bottom has to expand and
thus the outer circumference of the bottem as well as the sides all expand
equally with no constraint or stress buildup. I originally was thinking of
the bottom as a constraint and forgot it's expansion. The end result is,
as Dave said, that the pot expands the same as if it were a solid block. The
correct change in volume (to first order) is 3 x exp. coeff. x temp. change
x original volume. For the 50 liter 304 steel pot under a 95 deg change this
turns out to be .00273 times the original volume which is about and still
insignificant.
Sorry for such bad info in a first post. My apologies to all. Next time I
will wear my asbestos underwear.
Happy Holidays
Jim Bentson
- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:13:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Iodophor residue issues (Alex Santic)
In #15, Bob Bessette described the careful sanitation methods he employed
in his last brew session. It reminded me of something that I occasionally
wonder about.
When using Iodophor at the correct concentration, it is said to be safe to
air-dry equipment without rinsing. Is this based on the very low
concentration of iodine compound in the solution, or is it based on the
volatility of the iodine compound? If the latter is the case, then air
drying would seem to be necessary. If the former, then you could use
well-drained equipment that was still wet from an iodophor soak, as Bob
did.
Anybody know?
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 01:36:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: Partial mash efficiency (Alex Santic)
Chris Cooper wrote:
>I have been following the no-sparge thread for a while and would like to
>calculate the mash efficiency of my last brew (a partial mash).
>
[snip]
>
>Original Gravity: 1.044
>wort volume (in primary): 5.5 gallons
>potential points per lbs. of pale male: 32 ???
>DME contribution (points/pound/gallon): 40
>total points in brew: 44 X 5.5 = 242
>DME Contribution: 3# X 40 = 120
>total from mash: 242 - 120 = 122
>points per pound of grain: 122/6 = 20.33
>effective yield of no-sparge partial mash = 63.5%
>
>I would like your feedback on any of the values that I have used.
I changed a few of your assumptions and took account of the crystal
malt, as follows:
Original Gravity: 1.044
wort volume (in primary): 5.5 gallons
potential points per lbs. of pale male: 37
potential points per lbs. of 60L crystal: 34
DME contribution (points/pound/gallon): 45
total points in brew: 44 X 5.5 = 242
DME Contribution: 3 X 45 = 135
total from mash: 242 - 135 = 107
extract potential of grain: 5 X 37 + 34 = 219
effective yield of no-sparge partial mash = 49%
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:59:48 +0200
From: Lenny Garfinkel <lenny@inter.net.il>
Subject: keeping hop pellets out of fermentor
I recently switched from whole to pellet hops. In my last batch, I
whirlpooled the wort after cooling and before transfer to fermentor.
However, it was impossible to not have the hops go along without losing half
of the wort, so I transferred the whole lot and racked to secondary after a
couple days, leaving behind the settled hops.
How does one leave the pellet hops behind without losing lots of wort?
Lenny Garfinkel
Leonard Garfinkel, Ph.D.
Bio-Technology General
Kiryat Weizmann
Rehovot, Israel
lenny@inter.net.il
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:21:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Pfeuffer <pfeuffer@eden.com>
Subject: Re: Iodophor residue issues (Alex Santic)
At 01:13 AM 12/25/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In #15, Bob Bessette described the careful sanitation methods he employed
>in his last brew session. It reminded me of something that I occasionally
>wonder about.
>
>When using Iodophor at the correct concentration, it is said to be safe to
>air-dry equipment without rinsing. Is this based on the very low
>concentration of iodine compound in the solution, or is it based on the
>volatility of the iodine compound? If the latter is the case, then air
>drying would seem to be necessary. If the former, then you could use
>well-drained equipment that was still wet from an iodophor soak, as Bob
>did.
>
>Anybody know?
>
I'd like to submit a tangent to this question: I've been suffering from
chronic infections during 2nd stage fermentation. I've eliminated all
possible sources except one: I too, have been in too much of a hurry
to allow my equipment to air dry after soaking in Iodophor. Can anyone
confirm my suspicions that this is a likely source of my infections?
TIA,
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:29:40 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Wheeler Questions/Hydrometers and Trub
I'll take a whack at the inorganic chemistry stuff RE Al's questions on
Wheeler's book:
"The presence of calcium sulphate reduces the solubility of
undesirable carbonates."
Solubility is determined by solubility product thus for calcium carbonate
[Ca++][CO3--] < 3.3E-9 i.e. if the concentration of calcium ions multiplied
by the concentration of carbonate ions (moles/liter) excedes 3.3E-9 (value
for calcite at 25C) calcium carbonate will precipitate. Thus if a solution
is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate and a calcium salt or a
carbonate salt is added precipitation will occur. There is a tie-in to pH
and that is through its effect on the concetration of carbonate ion
relative to the amount of bicarbonate ion. Thus, given a solution saturated
with respect to calcium carbonate, increasing the pH will result in
precipitation because bicarbonate will convert to carbonate and the
solubility product will be exceded. Similarly, if a "solution" contains
undissolved calcium carbonate, lowering the pH will cause some of the
dissolved carbonate ion to pick up a proton becoming bicarbonate with the
result that the carbonate concentration goes down so that more can
dissolve.
"The addition of acids to the water, such as citric acid or lactic
acid, will also cause the precipitation of carbonates."
The addition of acids will lower the pH causing carbonate to convert to
bicarbonate and bicarbonate to convert to carbonic. If the carbonic
concentration excedes the partial pressure of CO2 in the space over the
solution (as it is bound to do since it was in equilibrium to start) some
will escape until the equilibrium is restored. There is, therefore, loss of
carbonate but it is not by precipitation but rather conversion first to
bicarb and then carbonic gas.
"Calcium sulphate is difficult to get into solution in the boiler,
whereas the problem doesn't exist if it is mixed into the mash."
This probably refers to the fact that gypsum is more souluble in cold water
than hot (but not dramatically so).
"Calcium sulphate is alkaline and actually increases the pH of the
water to which it is added, but... reduces the pH of the resulting
mash..."
It is slightly alkaline (pKb = 1.2 for calcium hydroxide; pKa2 = 1.9 for
the second proton of sulfuric acid) but the effect is not likely to be
noticeable in waters with any appreciable buffering capacity. Certainly its
use for pH reduction in the mash is well accepted.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On the question of how a hydrometer responds to trub I think the answer
must depend on whether the additional material is in suspension above the
bottom of the hydrometer. Consider a hydrometer shaped like a cylinder.
This cylinder will sink into a test sample to the depth at which the
pressure multiplied by the area of the bottom face equals the weight of the
cylinder. If there are particles such as trub particles above the bottom
face they will have an effect on the pressure at this level. If they are,
like trub particles, heavier than the liquid they will move downward at
some terminal velocity with that velocity having the value which results in
an increased pressure on the bottom surface of the particle which balances
the difference between the buoyant force (mass of liquid displaced) and the
weight of the particle. Thus, if the particles are dispersed vertically
throughout the column of liquid, as they are at the outset, the vertical
pressure gradient is higher than it would be if they were not present and
the hydrometer will ride higher. Conversely, as the particles settle below
the bottom of the hydrometer, their additional weight has no effect on the
hydrometer.
If some trub-laden wort were placed in a test jar and the test jar weighed,
the weight would include that of trub particles in uniform vertical motion
(note that lying on the bottom is uniform vertical motion at constant speed
of 0). The reasons for discussion of uniform vertical motion is that it is
established quickly on average (we're ignoring Brownian motion because it
averages to 0) for particles as small as those of trub and for uniform
vertical motion the total weight of the trub is added to the total weight
of the liquid. If we assume that the particles are accelerating then the
weight measurement would indicate less than the total weight of trub plus
liquid. Returning to uniform motion, the weight (minus the tare) of the
test jar divided by the area is the pressure at its bottom. The same is
true at any other height in the jar: the pressure indicates the weight of
the total mass above it if the mass includes only liquid and particles in
uniform motion. Thus a hydrometer should indicate the presence of suspended
trub particles above the bottom of the hydrometer.
"OK", you say, "I just went out into the yard and put a hydrometer into the
swimming pool and then threw a handful of buckshot into the other end. The
hydrometer reading didn't change. Why not?" The answer to this is that the
suspended particles (the shot pellets) are not uniformly distributed
throughout the fluid in the vicinity of the hydrometer i.e. the fluid is
not even close to being isotropic so that the pressure changes to the
column under the shot result in local fluid flow which is not seen in the
vicinity of the hydrometer. In the case of trub, however the particles are
much more numerous and are uniformly distrubuted in the fluid volumn
surrounding the instrument.
Holliday greetings to all.
A. J. deLange
- - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
Please Note New e-mail Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:32:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Aaron Sepanski <sepanska@it.uwp.edu>
Subject: Club
I just wanted to "publicly" thank all of you that wrote me back with your
ideas for a homebrew club. All of your ideas were great and there were
many that I didn't think of myself. You guys were a real big help!
Thanks again!
Aaron Sepanski
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:42:28 -0800
From: "Kevin R. Kane" <deviator@aracnet.com>
Subject: beginner mead - wild mead
I have to agree with an earlier post on mead. 10 pounds of honey for a 5
gallon batch of mead seems light, especially w/ champagne yeast. I have
had my best results with 3 to 4 pounds per gallon for an adtipodal (sp?)
mead.
Has anyone done a mead w/ a self collected "dark and wild" honey? How
did it come out?
Hope you all had a nice Christmas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 06:59:26 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Corona vs. Roller
A.J. posted in #15:
>I contend that the method by which the Corona crushes the malt (a radially
>striated plate, rubbing up against another plate at a small angle) is
>fundamentally flawed.... This only contributes to the splintering of the
>husks.... It's a pretty big factor in tannin and silicate extraction,
>that's what.
A.J.'s right. I've used malt ground by a fellow with a Corona who has used
it extensively for years. The finished ale, when compared with almost the
same brew (a bit more hops in the later) made from grain crushed on my
roller mill had more harshness. FWIW, plans for my mill are on the URL in
the sig. line.
c.d. pritchard
Email: cdp@chattanooga.net
Web Page: http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Dec 1996 08:26:55 -0400
From: "Penn, Thomas" <penn#m#_thomas@msgw.vf.lmco.com>
Subject: Beginner's Mash
Here's an idea for those who want to start mashing but are reluctant to take
the plunge: Make an all-grain yeast starter. Use about a pound of pale malt
and mash it in a thermos bottle or other insulated container and experience
the joys of converting starch to wort in your own home! If you blow it (which
you won't), then use dry malt extract to make that starter. This exercise was
enough to convert me to all-grain.
Tom Penn
Bordentown, NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:05:59 +0000
From: "Nathan L. Kanous II" <nkanous@tir.com>
Subject: Wit Beer / Lactic acid
Greetings!
Just looking for info regarding lactic acid in Belgian Wits. I would like to brew one
this weekend and am looking for some input.
My thoughts:
1) add lactic acid after fermentation - may take longer for flavors to "marry"
2) add lactic acid during boil - shouldn't boil off, ? same time as #1
3) lactic mash - adding handful of grains before boil, ? predictability of ferment and
target for this mash (what pH or time for mash?)
4) lactic mash - buy a pure lactobacillus culture for pre-boil or secondary fermentation
- - ? different profiles of pre-boil vs. secondary fermentation with culture
Any input from brewers experienced with any techniques would be helpful. I would like
to be able to drink this as quickly as possible (I'm thirsty!). Private e-mail would be
fine and I could post responses later.
TIA.
Nathan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:41:20 -0600
From: "LaBorde, Ronald" <rlabor@lsumc.edu>
Subject: Expansive Pots, Cornie mystery, (Ronald J La Borde)
Dave says this about stainless steel pots:
...The pot is make from an isotropic material. It gets wider and
higher along all dimensions according to the expansion coefficients'
value...
All theory aside, I am using a plastic boiler and I can SEE the expansion,
it does indeed expand along all dimensions. I can roughly tell the liquid
level by looking at the pot straight on. The bulge is very visible when
boiling.
- ------------------------------------------------------
And this about his CO2 supply hose:
...when I pressed the carbonator onto the fitting before the CO2 was turned
on in the hose, I got a substantial vacuum! I have repeated it a number
times and each time as I press this fitting on, my palm gets sucked in
tight and has to be forcefully pulled off...
Hmmm, most interesting, I usually use my finger to push the center pin in
for a few seconds after I turn on the CO2 pressure. I assumed the hiss was
from pressure. Will have to pay more attention next time.
I wonder if any infection would occur from the above procedure. I haven't
had any infection problems, but then again the number one problem at my
brewery is running out of product. The beer is not arround long enough to
develop any infection.
If you could rig up a gauge onto the end of your fitting, maybee you could
monitor the readings and be better able to see whats happening. Please keep
us posted on this.
Happy Hollidays
Ron
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:04:00 -0500 (EST)
From: djt2@po.cwru.edu (Dennis J. Templeton)
Subject: weight/volume
Al K asks:
>Now, what's with % w/v? What the heck is this?
Al's comments re: units before this were right on the money. w/v is in fact
the most common unit in a biological lab, because it is so easy.
The confusion between w/v and w/w arises because we don't often *weigh* our
final solutions, we check their volume more easily. Therefore grams of
sugar dissolved per liter of wort seems more natural than grams per
kilogram of wort.
For an 10 % w/v solution, dissolve 10 grams solute in water or other
solvent, then adjust the volume to 100 ml. This is how most folks naturally
think of percent solutions. To get a 10 % w/w solution, you'd take 10 grams
of stuff and dissolve it in 90 gram of water, and get a solution that is
somewhat greater volume than 90 ml. If you want to add 100 mg of sugar from
a 10% w/v solution, we know that will require 1 ml of solution. It is
impossible to predict precisely how much volume of a 10% w/w solution to
use, since the final volume is unpredictable, and varies for one solute or
another.
Note that since 1 ml of water weighs 1g, w/v and w/w measurements are
*almost* the same at low concentrations of dissolved substance. It is when
you start talking about 20% or 50% solutions that big differences occur.
Dennis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 96 11:26:01
From: jnovak <jnovak@kreis.com>
Subject: email list
Please put me on your email list. Thx
JNovak@Kreis.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:30:00 -0400
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@ot.com>
Subject: Al's chemistry questions
In HBD #15, Al K asks many questions about stuff from the CAMRA guide:
> "The addition of acids to the water, such as citric acid or lactic
> acid, will also cause the precipitation of carbonates."
>
>Whoa! I was under the impression that it was the acidity of CO2-saturated
>rainwater that actually caused the dissolution of chalk and the introduction
>of carbonates/bicarbonates into ground water. Isn't it exactly the opposite
>of what Wheeler writes? Doesn't the addition of acid *increase* CO3
>solubility?
I think Wheeler is rather confused. Addition of acid will help DISSOLVE
carbonates, NOT precipitate them. However, it WILL reduce the CO3 level.
If you acidify CO3-- to the acid form, it bubbles out of solution. This
helps drive the equilibrium to dissolve more of the carbonate.
> "Dextrins are mostly non-fermentable, but also contain some very
> slowly fermentable sugars." and "Yeast continues to attack dextrins
> for many months, even years, and are therefore regarded as slowly
> fermenting sugars."
>
>Is this right? I was under the impression that "dextrins" were unfermentable
>by our cultured brewers' yeasts. S. diastaticus, perhaps, but this is not
>a desirable yeast in the average brewery. Could this just be a question of
>nomenclature? Could Wheeler have meant "oligosaccarides" when he wrote
>"dextrins?"
I have noticed that after initial carbonation, the carbonation level
continues to slowly climb for many months in my more chewy beers. I have
long speculated that either the yeast could slowly metabolize the dextrins,
OR that the dextrins were slowly hydrolyzing to simpler sugars that the
yeast could work on. You don't need to get much hydrolysis to explain
enough fermentation to mess up carbonation levels.
>
> "High mash temperatures favour the extraction of high molecular
> weight nitrogenous compounds..."
>
>Are polyphenols nitrogenous? It sounds like proteins to me... I don't think
>that's right. I believe that either the proteins will be soluble or it won't
>and that increasing the mash temperature will only increase polyphenol and
>silicate (and, of course, unconverted starch) extraction, no?
I agree that it sounds like proteins; polyphenols contain oxygen, but no
nitrogen. Protein solubility is a complicated thing - increased
temperature could either increase or decrease protein solubility. Since
during sparging you have a constant flow of fresh water, I think the real
issue isn't so much solubility level (assuming *some* solubility) but
rather kinetics of dissolution. That will be faster at higher
temperatures.
- --
Dave Whitman
dwhitman@ot.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:39:24 cst
From: Bill Giffin <bill-giffin@juno.com>
Subject: re: Corona vs. Roller
Top of the afternoon to ye all,
>>Al K says:
Hope that breeze is at your back because otherwise you'll be covered
head-to-toe in grain dust.
<<
Wrong.
>>Al K again:
I contend that the method by which the Corona crushes the malt (a
radially
striated plate, rubbing up against another plate at a small angle) is
fundamentally flawed.
<<
As is the small diameter of the rolls of the available homebrew roller
mills. the knurling is at an angle to the path of the grain and it too
causes the husk to fracture and be cut.
>>Al K from the Mount:
Screen tests are great if and *only* if you are sure that what's going
through the screens is milled endosperm and not pulverised husk. Since
you can't, I would say your evaluation lacks good procedure.
>>
All you have to do is to look at the husk under a small magnification and
you can tell if the hush has been fractured. By the by I wasn't thinking
of you evaluation procedure but you brewing procedure.
Remember Al when you said that if the pH of the mash were correct then
husk fractions were not a problem as tannins would not be extracted..
The roller mills that are available to the homebrewer are not adequate
for the job. The rolls are all too small; the manner in which they have
been knurled also cuts the husk of the malt creating a greater area for
the husk to release tannins and silicates.
Part of the flavor profile for beer comes from the husk. 15% or so of
husk material is in the final product. Beers that have been made by
screening away all the husk material do not have the correct flavor
profile. Hysteria such as Al K presents as Gospel is not always correct.
Al would like you to believe he is correct, frequently he is not.
>>: Steven Lichtenberg
My main complaint with the Corona(which I still use but am thinking of =
buying a Valley Mill) is that it is too slow.
<<
Corona, Maltmill, or Phil's Mill when driven with an half inch drill all
crush 10 pounds of malt in about the same time 3-4 min. Big deal. My
Corona has not had to be adjusted for over 15 batches, and then only
because I wanted to crush some wheat malt finer.
Bill Giffin
Richmond, Maine
P. S. There are a bunch of other folks in my homebrew club that have had
the same results with the Corona so I guess you can make good beer with
it to have with your tortillas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:10:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Adrian Goins <monachus@softsolut.com>
Subject: Hi, all...Current listserver status
Hello again....
I went through the bouncing mail files and deleted all of the outdated
entries from the list, as well as a number whose mailboxes have been full
for over a week. Our mailserver tries to resend mail every 30 minutes, so
when a person's mail is refused for 5 days, that's a lot of load on our
system. If anyone finds themselves deleted because of this, please
resubscribe and try to keep space in your box for the digest.
I've set up another piece of software called Procmail which is now sorting
messages as they arrive in the digest-owner's mailbox. This allows us to
approve things faster, as well as more readily identify the status of the
digest to avoid problems. Procmail went up this morning, and it seems to
be working well (it let me burn through 300 messages in under an hour!).
As other things come up where I feel that the operation can be
streamlined, I'll add them in. I want to thank all of the people who have
come forward in support of the AOB and our efforts to rebuild the HBD and
have it run smoothly. Your comments are very appreciated.
If any of you have any other simple ideas on how the HBD could be
administered more smoothly (without extensive code revisions), please feel
free to send me mail at <admin@softsolut.com>. I'll try to incorporate
them as best I can.
Thanks!
Adrian Goins
System Administrator - Internaut
100% Software Solutions, Inc.
http://www.softsolut.com 303-689-0100 voice
http://uls.softsolut.com 303-891-4507 pager
**Please use the PGP key available from "finger admin@softsolut.com"**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:51:01 -0800
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: Acronyms
HBD - Homebrew Digest
r.c.b - rec.crafts.brewing
HSA - Hot-Side Aeration
RIMS - Recirculating Infusion Mash System
FWH - First Wort Hopping
EKG - East Kent Goldings (hop variety)
NSB - No Sparge Brewing (still awaiting public acceptance)
APA - American Pale Ale
IPA - India Pale Ale
ESB - Extra Special Bitter
SNPA - Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
PU - Pilsener Urquell
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
RO - Reverse Osmosis (water processing technique)
MWP - Molecular Weight Protein
LME - Liquid Malt Extract
DME - Dry Malt Extract
HBU - Homebrew Bitterness Units
IBU - International Bitterness Units
AA - Alpha Acids or Alpha Amylase - depends on context
SRM - (color quantification)
SG - Specific Gravity (density measure)
LDPE - Low-Density PolyEthylene (plastic)
HDPE - High-Density PolyEthylene
PET - PolyEthylene Terephthalate (aka polyester)
SMM - S-Methyl Methionine (precursor to DMS, found in malt)
DMS - Di-Methyl Sulfide
ETOH - ethyl alcohol
AB or A-B - Anheiser-Busch
SA - Sam Adams
AHA - American Homebrewers Association
AOB - Association of Brewers
GABF - Great American Beer Festival
BJCP - Beer Judge Certification Process
ATF - U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (party store)
BT - Brewing Techniques, Magazine
NCJOHB - New Complete Joy Of HomeBrewing
BLB - Brewing Lager Beer
NBLB - New Brewing Lager Beer
M&BS - Malting & Brewing Science
RDWHAH = Relax. Don't Worry. Have a Homebrew.
IMBR - Is My Beer Ruined?
SS - Stainless Steel
Cu - Copper
Al - Aluminum
SM - Scott Murman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:03:45 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: No-Sparge Data
On Monday Last I brewed two batches of no-sparge beers to attempt to quantify
the process. Bruce DeBolt writes in #14 about his experience, which seemed
to track with my results, so I'll use his data as well.
From where I sit, the two pieces of information one needs to design a
no-sparge brew sesion is (A) the amount of sugar transferred to the boiler
versus that retained and (B) the conversion efficiency.
So for item (A), I have the following (including Bruce's data, batch "3"):
Batch 1: 12 lb malt + 4 gal water (1.33 qt/lb). Obtained 2.4 gal runoff @
1.080. Retained = 0.53 qt/lb = 0.13 gal/lb.
After draining this, I decided that too much sugar was being left behind
compared to my initial assumptions, so I added more water to Batch 2 about
halfway though its mash:
Batch 2: 16 lb malt + 6.8 gal water (1.7 qt/lb). Obtained 5 gal runoff @
1.054. Retained 0.6 qt/lb = 0.15 gal/lb.
Batch 3: 12 lb malt + 4 gal water (1.33 qt/lb). Obtained 2.5 gal runoff @
1.075. Retained 0.5 qt/lb = 0.125 gal/lb (jives well with my Batch #1).
I found that the wort flow slowed toward the end, compared to full-sparge,
which makes sense. This would be a worthwhile point to ponder while draining
- -- making sure as much wort is drained as possible, which may take some time.
In Batch #2, there was still a bit of outflow leftover after I stopped
draining, though it was very slow, so the liquid withheld is probably closer
to #1's and #3's result.
As far as efficiency goes (item B), this is where I had varying results.
I'll start by saying that I first recalibrated my system with a marked
gallon jug & water carefully wighed to correctly graduate the jug. I found
that my previous marks were off somewhat, which affects my efficiency
assumptions. I had been using 77% but accounting for previous volume errors,
my updated efficiency is more like 73%.
Batch 1: Potential Points = 449 -- In 4 gal would be 1.112 -- Runoff was
1.080 -- Eff = 80/112 = 71%
5-gal Gott w/copper-pipe manifold
71% matches OK with 73% predicted.
Batch 2: Potential Points = 557 -- In 6.8 gal would be 1.082 -- Runoff was
1.054 -- Eff = 54/82 = 66%
10-gal Gott w/Phil's Phalse Bottom
Much lower than expected.
Batch 3: Potential Points = 436 -- In 4 gal would be 109 -- Runoff was 1.075
- -- Eff = 75/109 = 69%
System Unknown (Bruce?)
Don't know why Batch #2 was so much lower in efficiency. I might be using
"wrong" potential extract figures for the actual grain/crush I have. #2's
recipe is mostly Munich & Vienna whereas I usually use pale ale malt, so the
extract of these grains may be lower than I assumed compared with the pale
ale malt.
The disheartening thing about this is that you lose 0.5+ qt/lb of wort. This
is much higher than Dr. Fix's figure of 0.32 qt/lb in his experiment. This
has enormous impact on the amount of extra grain to use. In Dr. Fix' case,
at 1.28 qt/lb mash thickness and 0.32 qt/lb lost, he uses 1.28 / (1.28 -
0.32) = 1.33 times (33% more) as much grain. If I mash with 1.28 qt/lb but
leave 0.53 qt/lb behind, I must use 1.28 / (1.28 - 0.53) = 1.71 times (71%
more) as much!! As Bruce DeBolt sais, YMMV. I suppose three are potentially
some equipment issues here, or perhaps crush quality makes a big difference,
but in any case, be prepared to use a lot of extra grain to achieve the
results. A thinner mash will also improve extraction -- go as high as 2
qt/lb (at this thickness you'll need only 36% more grain).
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
kennyeddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 96 01:51 +0100
From: Eckard Witte <EWitte@t-online.de>
Subject: beginner mead, lambic comment
Hello,
is there a certain reason, why you use champagne yeast?
This is the way, I make mead (for about 10 liters): I dissolve 3 kg honey in 8
liters of black tea, add 1 spoon of flour and potwine-yeast. It takes half a
year at least for fermentation and clearing. After that I take half mead, half
wine of hips, put it in an oak barrel and let it rest for a year or two. After
that its like port-wine.
I take champagne-yeast only for making a sparkling-wine, especially from apples
and rhubarb (fermentation in bottles)
Eckard Witte
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:43:11 +0500 (EST)
From: macher@telerama.lm.com
Subject: Re-using Yeast
I am new to home brewing, having done only 8 batches of extract over the
last two months.
Tomorrow (saturday) I plan to rack an ale to the secondary, and to use
the sediment in the primary in my next batch of ale. This sediment is the
result of my first use of Wyeast liquid yeast, London ale #1028.
I read in the HBD that some have had success with racking the cooled wort
on top of sediment that remained in a freshly emptied primary fermenter.
I use a glass carboy as my primary.
If this is too risky, or a big mistake, if anyone can let me know, I
would greatly appreciate it.
I will either just put the wort in the freshly emptied primary carboy, as
it sits with the trub(?) and everything in the bottom, or perhaps pour the
sediment/yeast stuff into a clean and sanitized carboy...
Just sounds like this could be an easy first step in the learning process
of re-using yeast. I eventually hope to cultivate yeast using slants, but
am not ready to start that yet.
Thanks for any advice/help given...
Bill
Bill Macher macher@telerama.lm.com Pittsburgh Pa. USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest V2 #16
*****************************
