Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2336
HOMEBREW Digest #2336 Wed 05 February 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Amylase enzyme (Bob McCowan)
RE:Belgian wit (Kit Anderson)
London Ale III (Kit Anderson)
Cab I filter water from the faucet to the fermenter? ("Jim McNealy")
Recipes (Bill Giffin)
Thin mash temp variablilty / stone's in my beer! ("Nathan L. Kanous II")
wyeast 1028 (Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering)
Canning in beer bottles/Bittered wort/Small boiler volumes (George De Piro)
Indy Water Assay (DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932)
RE: How does beer affect you (Ganister Fields Architects)
RE: Inverted Fermentation (Ganister Fields Architects)
Flaked Barley in Partial Mash / Wyeast California Lager / Foam (LARSONC)
Re: Unflavored Gelatin to clear (David Burki)
Re: Sterilizing carboy neck ("John R. Bowen")
Re: Tongue Map (Steve Alexander)
Re: AcCoA and Esters (Steve Alexander)
re:Multi-part all grain (Charles Burns)
Bulk Malt Extract (Richard D. Cuff)
aeration bacteria amount (BAYEROSPACE)
barley wine and yeast (Volt Computer)" <a-branro@MICROSOFT.com>
can lauter-tun mesh be too fine? (Robert Parker)
Brew-Ski '97 (Homebrewing Competition) (Jeff Handley & Gene Almquist)
Compressed Gas Transport Summary (William D Gladden )
Gambriunus Honey Malt, post lengths (Jim Cave)
Recipe Formulation - Request for Assistance ("Steven W. Schultz" )
sparge/HSA questions ("Ted Hull")
BruHeat and Step Mashing (Paul Ferrara)
Lactic Acid (Darrin Pertschi)
Erstaz Fermentap? ideas (Volt Computer)" <a-branro@MICROSOFT.com>
storing hops (Edwin Thompson)
Barleywine musings (korz)
re: yeasts and barleywine ("Curt Speaker")
Re: How does beer affect you? (Energo Ed)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://brew.oeonline.com/
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:00:40 -0500
From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan@bmd.cpii.com>
Subject: Amylase enzyme
My homebrew shop has small vials of "amylase enzyme" distributed by Crosby
and Baker. Aybody ever use this to augment the enzymes in a mash with
marginal enzymatic power? Any idea what the mix of alpha/beta is? How much
do people use.
I figured that this stuff might be useful to have on the shelf for a
emergency purposes...
Bob
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McCowan
ATG/Receiver-Protector voice: (508)-922-6000 x208
CPI BMD fax: (508)-922-8914
Beverly, MA 01915 e-mail: bob.mccowan@bmd.cpii.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:35:58 -0500
From: Kit Anderson <kit@maine.com>
Subject: RE:Belgian wit
TEX28 (if that is your real name) showed us his wit recipe using;
>Belgian Wit
>5# Belgium 2-Row
>4# Malted Wheat
> .5# Flaked Oats
I'm sure this is a good beer but it will be truer to style substituting
flaked wheat for the malted wheat.
- ---
Kit Anderson "Welcome to Northeast Texas-
Bath, Maine a survival guide for Texans in New England"
http://members.aol.com/garhow1/kit/index.htm
Maine Beer Page http://www.maine.com/brew
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:35:55 -0500
From: Kit Anderson <kit@maine.com>
Subject: London Ale III
A while back, someone asked about experiences with Wyeast London Ale III. I
brewed a pale ale (0G 1050) and then pitched the yeast cake into a 1075
Scotch ale.
It took two days for the pale to take off using a 500 cc starter and
aeration at 68F. If the temperature got to 62, activity would slow
drastically. It took 14 days until I was able to keg. The flavor is very
clean. Very low esters. No diacetyl.
The Scotch ale was 99% pale ale, 1% black, 35 IBU E.K. Goldings at 45 min. I
used Dr. Fix' partial reducton method of removing 3 qt of wort and reducing
it to 1 qt on high heat. I aerated on pitching and fermentation started
within hours. After 14 days at 68F, it was kegged. The flavor is again, very
clean. Very low esters. No diacetly. No smoke phenols.
The beer is still very cloudy. I used gelatin to clear it, but without any
noticeable effect.
The only problem is that the hops are not as high as I had anticipated. I
used the EK Goldings pellets (powder) from Sam Adams. They must be pretty
old. If you use these, increase the amount by at least 25%. Better yet,
don't use them.
- ---
Kit Anderson "Welcome to Northeast Texas-
Bath, Maine a survival guide for Texans in New England"
http://members.aol.com/garhow1/kit/index.htm
Maine Beer Page http://www.maine.com/brew
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:48:45 -0500
From: "Jim McNealy" <sasjcm@unx.sas.com>
Subject: Cab I filter water from the faucet to the fermenter?
I would like to have a setup that could attach to my kitchen faucet,
pass the water through a filter (i.e. inline ice maker filter), and on
to the fermenter. Does anyone have, or have seen, such a thing?
Jim McNealy
R3206 x5174
sasjcm@unx.sas.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 09:29:23 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin@maine.com>
Subject: Recipes
Good morning all,
Recipe formulation requires that you know what the underlying malt
taste like. One way of finding out what these flavors are is to brew a
"single malt" beer. Try brewing a beer with only pale ale malt, pilsner
malt, Vienna malt or Munich malt to an OG of 1.050 hop it at about 35
ibu's and you will wind up having a much better idea of what the
contribution of the base malt is to the beer. Might even have a great
beer.
If you want to brew an English style beer use English ingredients, or
German ingredients for a German style beer and so on. This is
important if you want to brew a particular style.
Use the KISS system in brewing. Most styles of beer can be brewed
with only two malts at most three. Don't follow the recipes in Zymurgy
as most of the recipes presented there were designed for only one
purpose and that was to stand out against all the rest and win. Most of
recipes in Zymurgy are to large for the style they were entered in and
most were over hopped (they probably were good beer just not to
style).
Keeping good records of what you have done can be helpful to
improving you recipes. If you use a method to calculate bitterness
don't bother changing it just because its results didn't provide the
bittering you thought it should just note if the beer need more or less
bittering and adjust the next batch. The last batch is done, either you
drink it, dump it or give it to unsuspecting friends, but you can't easily
change that batch.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 09:47:16 +0000
From: "Nathan L. Kanous II" <nkanous@tir.com>
Subject: Thin mash temp variablilty / stone's in my beer!
Greetings,
Just mashed a porter yesterday and somehow managed to dilute the mash
more than usual. I ended up with a water:grain of 1.5 qt:1 lb. I
usually use 1.25 qts of water per pound. I was unable to get an
accurate temp on this mash. I used three different thermometers and got
all sorts of strange readings. One step had readings from 136 degF to
174 degF. Can the "thinness" of the mash contribute to strange thermal
currents in my mash? Anybody else had this problem? Yeah, it was
groundhog's day.
Also, I bought one of those lovely wort oxygenating systems. I boiled
it in water for 15 minutes as per the directions. I got ready to
oxygenate my wort and turned on the O2 for what seemed like an eternity
(probably closer to about 45 secs). The directions say start low and go
slow, so I thought I did. The first sign of any oxygen moving through
the system was when the stone blew off the end into the wort. The
package recommends to avoid handling the stone with your hands because
oils in the skin can actually clog the stone. How about
lipids/break/yeast/etc. in my wort? Will this clog my stone forever
once I retrieve it? Anybody else managed to do this?
TIA. Private e-mail is fine.
Nathan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:06:15 -0500
From: gmoore@wacko.East.Sun.COM (Greg Moore - SMCC BOS Hardware Engineering)
Subject: wyeast 1028
I recently made a brown ale using Wyeast 1028. At bottling time, the
beer was still fairly cloudy. I bottled anyway because 1) I figured it
would clarify in the bottle and 2) I needed the yeast cake for my next
batch.
The next batch is done, and it too remained cloudy. I tried geletin,
and this helped a little, but it's still quite cloudy.
Is this natural for 1028? Could I have introduced some contaminates
that might cause this?
The beer tastes good, but I've gotten a headache when I tried either
batch. (I plan to do a more scientific study of this as other
environmental stimuli [aka kids] might have been the cause of the
headaches)
TIA for any info
-=G
gmoore@wacko.east.sun.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:07:41 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Canning in beer bottles/Bittered wort/Small boiler volumes
Hi all,
CD Pritchard writes about canning wort in beer bottles. He was
wondering about the integrity of the cap liners after boiling. As
some of you have read in the past, I sterilize my chiller and save
sterile wort in beer bottles by running hot wort through my
counterflow chiller (with no water running through it!) at the end of
the boil. I then seal the bottles and lay them on their side, so as
to ensure that the entire interior is in contact with the 200+F wort.
I have recently experienced problems with the seals on some bottles
melting and failing. It is quite easy to spot these bottles because
they get moldy after a week or two.
I now only leave the bottles on their sides for 30-60 seconds to avoid
overheating the caps. I am now also more careful about boiling caps
when bottling beer.
------------------------
Al K. writes that if wort tastes too bitter prior to fermentation,
then the beer will be too bitter because there will be less sugar
balancing that bitterness.
This is contrary to my experience. I find that freshly bittered wort
is deeply and harshly bitter, and that the bitterness is reduced and
smoother after fermentation. This makes no sense if only considering
the balancing sweetness of the wort sugars, but does make sense when
factoring in the fact that yeast activity reduces hop bitterness (by
what mechanism, though?).
------------------------
Tim Watkins describes his lack of ability to do full volume boils
because of his small pot. He wants to try mashing, and outlines a
rather labor intensive scheme involving the brewing of small batches
over a 2 or 3 day period, and then combining them in the fermenter.
Tim, please do yourself and the people around you a favor. Go to the
nearest department store and drop the $30-$40 on a 7 gallon
enamel-covered canning pot. You will be done brewing a 5 gallon batch
in one day. That's one day of brewing, cleaning, cursing, drinking,
ignoring the loved ones, etc., as opposed to 2 or 3.
You will not regret the purchase!
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:22:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932 <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@Lilly.com>
Subject: Indy Water Assay
Sorry for this regional post, but I'm looking for anyone in the
Indianapolis metro area who has obtained any water analysis
info in the past few months who might like to share it with me.
Of course the closer you live to the Broadripple area, the better
for my brewing needs. Any info would be great. Back to the HBD...
Dave in Indy
Home of the 3-B Brewery, (v.) Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 10:29:39 -0600
From: Ganister Fields Architects <gfarch@tiac.net>
Subject: RE: How does beer affect you
In HBD #2334 JET asks
<"How does beer affect you?">
Look no further than the signature (Edgar Allan Poe poem) in a posting by
Kevin Sinn on the same day of your posting (Feb 03).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 10:29:38 -0600
From: Ganister Fields Architects <gfarch@tiac.net>
Subject: RE: Inverted Fermentation
Stuart writes in HBD #2334
<
In my quest to eliminate the secondary fermentation and cut down on
washing up and other labor I am going to try inverted fermentation.
Rather than the available commercial set ups for this (Brewcap and
Fermitap), I am going to make my own stand for an inverted 6.7 gal carboy.
The stopper will be clamped on and a long tube will go to the bottom (top
when inverted) to allow CO2 to escape and a short tube at the top (bottom
when inverted) will allow me to pull off the yeast when the fermentation
is completed, preventing autolysis and overexposure to residual cold break
trub. I'm going to add another intermediate length tube to permit me to
sample during the fermentation.
Can anyone offer some advice? Pros and cons? >
Save your time and money Stuart. A neat idea, especially for lagers but
the slope of the carboy shoulders is not great enough to purge off the
yeast. The whole setup is more trouble than it is worth. I know because I
tried it with limited success. The best thing that came out of my
investment is a spare racking tube and a nifty stand to dry my carboys.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:51:13 -0500
From: LARSONC <Erik.Larson@MS01.DO.treas.sprint.com>
Subject: Flaked Barley in Partial Mash / Wyeast California Lager / Foam
Date: 02/03/1997 10:53 am (Monday)
From: C. Erik Larson
To: EX.MAIL."homebrew@brew.oeonline.com"
Subject: Flaked Barley in Partial Mash / Wyeast California Lager /
Foam Control (TM)
A couple of days ago, I brewed a stout employing the following recipe
(for 5.5 gallons), about which I now have some questions.
- -RECIPE - - - - - - - - - - - -
Partial Mash:
2 lbs Crisp Pale Ale Malt
1 lb Flaked Barley
1 lb Roasted Barley, and
1/2 lb Chocolate Malt.
Addidtional Sugars:
4 lbs Alexander's Pale Liquid Malt Extract
8 oz. Malto-Dextrine Powder
8 oz. Dark Unsulphured Molasses
90 minute boil with 2 oz of 4.7% AA Wilammette bittering hops.
Force cooled, force oxygenated, and pitched 1/2 cup of Wyeast
California Lager slurry. Also added 1 1/2 tsp of Foam Contro (from
Hoptech)..
It's happily fermenting at 57.8 degrees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now for the questions:
I usually do my partial mashes in a 2-gallon round Igloo water cooler, to
which I fitted a home-made "easy-masher". For the above brew, I
may have had my first stuck sparge. I say "may have" because things
were going so slow, that I took a long fork and gently broke up the grain
bed a couple of times to get things running. Nevertheless, it took nearly
1 1/2 hoiurs to recirculate the first runnings and sparge with 2
additional gallons of 170-drgree water.
Could this slow pace of the sparge have been caused by the relatively
high percentage of flaked (and I assume unmalted) barkey in the mash?
What are the collective's thoughts or experience using Wyeast
California Lager yeast in beers other than those of the California
Common style?
I have only seen Hoptech's Foam Control mentioned once in this forum; I
believe in one of Mr. Moline's J. Gump reports. I've used it in three
batches so far, and have been relatively happy with it -- the exception
being that it failed (at the recemmended dosing rate) to restrain the
blowoff in a Tripel I brewed a month ago. When I added a total of 4 tsp,
the blowoff subsided. When it works, the product lets me relax and not
worry that my wife will call me at work to report that my fermenting beer
is gushing all over the home office or worse.. Does anybody else on
the HBD use this stuff? How has it affected your beers? None of the
batches where I used foam control have made it to bottle yet.
Cheers,
Erik Larson (erik.larson@treas.sprint.com)
Ellicott City, MD
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:40:03 -0600
From: David Burki <davidb@pdainc.com>
Subject: Re: Unflavored Gelatin to clear
Spencer writes:
>Try adding some gelatin to your fermenter to drop the yeast the day
>before you rack to the keg: sprinkle the contents of one envelope of
>unflavored gelatin on 1/4 cup of *cold* water. Wait 10 minutes. Then
>add boiling water to make 1 cup. Stir until dissolved (almost
>instantaneously). Pour into the carboy and swirl gently. Watch the
>beer clarifly like magic.
Does this work for bottle conditioned as well as kegged brews?
David
<davidb@pdainc.com>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 10:13:42 +0000
From: "John R. Bowen" <jbowen@primary.net>
Subject: Re: Sterilizing carboy neck
There has been some discussion lately about flaming the neck of glass
carboys. I my bacteriologist days, I was taught that flaming the top
of tubes, etc, prior to sterile transfers was not done to sterilize
the tube, but rather to heat the tube a little to induce upward
convection currents in the air contacting it. This was to keep
airborne spores, etc. from settling into the neck of the open vessel.
This was before the widespread use of HEPA filtered air hoods. I am
willing to bet that not many modern bacteriologists working in hoods
bother with it.
When I feel the need to sanitize the neck of a vessel, I use 70%
ethanol. Either denatured ethanol rubbing alcohol if I expect to
remove it all from the surface, or (better) undenatured Everclear
diluted about 75 parts to 25 parts water to make about 70%. Then if a
little gets into the wort/beer/yeast, it won't matter.
-John
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 02:36:32 -0300
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Tongue Map
>>> Oh, and incidentally, that tongue map that has been printed in every
>>> encyclopedia in the US and many brewing books including Noonan and
>>> referred to in MBS is incorrect and a based upon a mis-translation
>>> of some German research done decades ago.
Michael Broadbent, Christie's wine expert, and President of the
International Wine and Food Society, writes in his 'Pocket Guide to Wine
Tasting', Simon&Schulster, 1990, regarding sense of taste, repeating the
tongue map info in text, but notes in a footnote that ... "According to
Dr. Roland Harper, 'There is relatively little evidence to support the
concept of primary tastes., (The Human Senses in Action, 1972)". By
'primary tastes' he is referring to sweet, sour, salty and bitter used
in the tongue map.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 07:56:52 -0300
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: AcCoA and Esters
A. J. deLange kindly writes re my question on AcetylCoA ...
Just to recap the motivation here. Alcohols with AcetylCoA in yeast can
produce esters. The desireability of esters in beer is highly dependent
on the beer style and the type and amount of the particular ester. To
understand *when* esters are produced it would be useful to understand
when yeast have pools of AcetylCoA available for this reaction.
>On Steve Alexanders question of question about M&BS remarks concerning
>acetyl-CoA availablility when growth is restricted: I have always taken
>this at face value i.e. during growth a larger proportion of the total
>available AcCoA is being taken for mevalonic acid and lipid synthesis and
>so less is available for ester formation. My simple model is that, for
>example, AcCoA + B <--> MA + D where MA is mevalonic acid and B and D are
>other stuff (water, NADPH, NADP, hydrogen ions) goes faster towards the
>right than AcCoA + ROH <--> RAc + G does because MA (mevalonic acid) is
>removed (converted to squalene) wheras the ester (RAc) sticks around. At
>the end of growth MA is not consumed, its concentration rises and the first
>reaction no longer procedes so rapidly to the right allowing AcCoA to
>accumulate pushing the second reaction to the right. If my little
>hypothesis is correct, a dearth of anything needed in the squalene or lipid
>pathways would work to make the esterification reaction procede with more
>vigor. I'm sure it actually much more complicated than this when the
>enzymes, the kinematics, the redox potentials, the pH...are all considered.
Yeast, like the rest of us, produce various isoprenoid compounds as well
as squalene from mevalonate. The relative amount of mevalonic acid used
for each during yeast growth isn't clear. Squalene can't be used to
form steroid rings without free O2, so once the fermentation goes
anaerobic there must/should be some mechanism inhibiting squalene
production. In eukaroyte cells at least the formation of mevalonate by
3-hydroxy3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase enzymes is the rate limiting
step. The activity of this enzyme and so the first reaction above is
modulated by phosphorylation of the enzyme - the phosphates are
presumably thrown off during the conversion of mevalonate to
pre-squalene compounds. This rather than the mevalonate build-up may be
the controlling factor in yeast too.
This all matches quite nicely with various references to the use of
ergosterol added as a growth factor for anaerobic fermentations - this
bypasses the need for O2 in sterol formation, but won't necessarily
inhibit AcCoA pooling or ester formation. Do we know if it does ?
The case for the pooling AcylCoA in lipid synthesis is much less clear
to me. Apparently the synthesis of unsaturated fatty acids in yeast
requires O2, (like squalene usage above) and this use for O2 can be
bypassed by adding oleic acid to an anaerobic fermentation. Some
unsaturated lipid syntheses don't require the free O2 - yeast appear to
tho'. The first step in synthesis is conversion of AcetylCoA into
Malonyl-CoA which requires an enzyme, biotin and several co-factors and
is irreversible. How this step is regulated isn't clear. Andy Walsh in
his 'Esters paper' refers to a trub study that indicated that the
presence of linoleic acids in wort prevents formation of some esters.
This implies that the unsaturated lipid product prevents the AcCoA
pooling. More study needed here.
Anyway, I guess my original question was how would NON-oxygen related
growth restriction (like lack of FAN) relate to ester formation. I
suspect an extensive understanding of the regulation of various
processes in yeast might be necessary to answer in detail.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 09:27 PST
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: re:Multi-part all grain
tim watkins askes about 3 separate batches combined in the fermentor in HBD
2333.
It sounds like a process that might work. But if you can do 3 gallon boils,
why not do 2 batches of 2.5 gallons instead of 3. If you have a 6 gallon
secondary it would probably be ok, but 6 gallons in a 6.5 gallon fermenter
will most likely blow out the airlock. Not enough headspace.
The only other thing I would question (someone else should comment on this)
is when you add the 2nd and 3rd batches to an existing fermenting wort/beer,
is there a need for futher aeration or would it be best to NOT aerate,
depending on what the additional air (or oxygen, depends on how you aerate)
would do the the yeast.
More a question than an answer.
Charley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:46:19 EST
From: rdcuff@juno.com (Richard D. Cuff)
Subject: Bulk Malt Extract
Hello -
Several months back there was a thread in r.c.b. on bulk malt extract.
Here's a bit of potentially helpful info:
Malt Products Corp. of Saddle Brook, NJ advertises themselves as an
extract supplier to the brewing industry and has an ad in the Winter
"Zymurgy" promoting Brew On Premises. I've also seen them listed in the
Thomas Food Industry Register.
They'll also sell malt directly to home brewers; smallest container is a
5 gallon pail. That should be about 60 lbs of extract.
Cost is $1.09 / lb FOB Garfield, NJ for light extract. Pail included.
Contact info:
Joe Hickenbottom, VP Sales & Marketing (hard to get a hold of; he said
"Debbie" would be able to provide info).
Phone: 1-800-526-0180; Fax 201-845-0028.
I asked about local pickup - since I drive between MD and CT regularly;
this would be OK; warehouse is in Garfield, NJ; its hours are 830a -
400p.
The message thread back in November mentioned there were no issues
regarding storage; some suggested spraying vodka on the surface of the
extract as a precaution. General opinion was that concentrated extract
was inhospitable to bacteria.
Sure beats $8.95 for a 3.3 lb can, or even $1.80/lb for a 12 lb pail.
Richard Cuff, Lutherville, MD
rdcuff@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:01 -0600
From: M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (BAYEROSPACE)
Subject: aeration bacteria amount
collective homebrew conscience:
bryan wrote:
>Kieth, those of us who don't (yet) have a pump and airstone resort
>to shaking our carboys and splashing our wort to dissolve O2. We
>(usually) don't have problems with infections due to using plain old
>air (unfiltered, of course). Why do you think that, by dissolving air
>with a pump of some sort, you would have a sudden infection problem?
>Am I missing something?
two cases:
in the first case, you aerate by shaking a closed carboy. there
is one gallon of headspace. there is one gallon of air's worth of bacteria
exposed to your wort.
in the second case, you pump unfiltered air through your wort. for how long?
dennis davison reported in a recent zymurgy article that it can take several
hours of pumping to achieve optimal dissolved oxygen levels using air. so
assume the pump runs for 3 hours. now, how many gallons of air have you
pumped through your wort? probably a lot more than one. all the bacteria in
the air you're pushing through the pump is being filtered out, not by a filter,
but by your wort. how much does it take to infect the batch noticeably?
i don't know. but why risk it?
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:16:00 -0800
From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro@MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: barley wine and yeast
From: Rob Moline <brewer@tfsksu.net>
Subject: Barleywines
- -->
Original B-W fermented with 'dry' ale yeast till all activity ceased,
then hit with 'dry' Champagne yeast, and a
wee bit of O2 as a propellant. OG 23.9 P (1.095). Paper calcs showed
roughly 10.25% ABV with ale yeast, rising to 10.5% ABV, following
champagne yeast. I had discussed this with my yeast specialist, and
decided this would be the way to go, and it did produce a nice product.
<---
Newbie question!
I have never done a barley wine, but am thinking of trying once i get my
all grain setup together. My question is why do you use the yeast like
this, (ale first, then add champagne)? what purpose does it serve? and
how do you get the o2 in? (a oxy bottle?)
thanks in advance
Brander Roullett(a-branro) aka Badger
http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/
For a quart of ale is a dish for a king. -William Shakespeare
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 13:16:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Parker <parker@rcltel.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: can lauter-tun mesh be too fine?
I lauter in a plastic bucket having a plastic false bottom that is drilled
with hundreds of holes. The holes are about 1/8 in. (maybe 3/16 in.) in
diameter.
I don't seem to get as clear a runoff as I'd like. It occurred to me to
put the false bottom in a nylon mesh bag as used for hops. Would this
1) make the mesh too fine and stick my sparges, or
2) give me minimal recirculation and clear wort?
Rob Parker
parker.242@osu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 11:20:14 -0700
From: Jeff Handley & Gene Almquist <homebrew@infomagic.com>
Subject: Brew-Ski '97 (Homebrewing Competition)
Just a quick reminder...
The 1997 Brew-Ski Homebrewing Competition held on February 22 at the Arizona
Snowbowl is only a few weeks away. This BJCP/AHA sanctioned competition is
open to all brewers. Refer to The AHA '97 guidelines for entry information.
With every beer entered you will receive a lift ticket on the day of the
event for $15.00. Entrys must be received by Feb. 19th. If you need info
please e-mail us outpost@homebrewers.com.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 08:18:56 -0500
From: William D Gladden <W_GLADDEN@Mail.Co.Chester.PA.US>
Subject: Compressed Gas Transport Summary
The following is a summary of responses to my question of what
the dangers are, and precautions to take, when transporting
compressed gas.
Many thanks to all who replied. The reponses were unanimous. In
short, a full 5 gallon cylinder has lots of pressure (around 800
pounds). The danger is if the valve stem where the regulator
joins the cylinder is damaged. IF it were damaged/broken, the
effect would be like when you blow up a balloon, don't tie the
end, and let go ... only instead of a balloon you have an
aluminum or stainless steel object being propelled (probably
through the walls of the car) by lots o' pressure. General
precautions include removing the regulator and firmly securing
the CO2 cannister and/or wrapping the valve stem area in an old
blanket, putting the cylinder in a protective cage for
transporting etc...
-Bill Gladden (Downingtown, PA)
<W_GLADDEN@Mail.Co.Chester.PA.US>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 10:56:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Cave <CAVE@PSC.ORG>
Subject: Gambriunus Honey Malt, post lengths
This malt does indeed smell like honey, in the grain. I don't really
think it gives honey like qualities to the beer however. Its profile is more
biscuity than anything else. I've got a 25 kg bag of the stuff that I was
given several years ago and I am still using it. It can add an astringency if
over used. I wouldn't go over 10% of the grist, certainly. It is similar,
but not identical too, Belgian Aromatic malt, the latter having a more intense
munich aroma.
BTW people: lets try and keep the length of some of these posts down.
We don't need verbatim repetition of the last person's post. Just paraphrase
what the person said, in a sentence. Brevity is (sometimes) the spice of life.
Jim Cave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 14:05:58 EST
From: "Steven W. Schultz" <swschult@cbdcom.apgea.army.mil>
Subject: Recipe Formulation - Request for Assistance
HBD-ers:
I am building a recipe for a partial-mash ale, along the general lines
of a bitter or special bitter. I'm not trying to make an exact copy of
any commercial beer, just a very quaffable ale with a bit of complexity
(maybe a touch of Biscuit, Victory, or Special Roast?).
The following are "givens:"
Mash:
0.5 lb. Torrified Wheat
1.5 lbs. Maris Otter
Extract:
3.3 lbs. Munton and Fison Extra-Light Extract
1.0 lb. Munton and Fison Amber DME
Hops (not sure of how I'll use them; but here they are):
1 oz. Chinook (12.4%)
1 oz. Styrian Goldings (5.4%)
Yeast
Wyeast Ale Blend (#1087)
OG (est.) = 1.040-1.042
I'm hoping to get good head retention via the torrified wheat;
and, I hear (mostly) great things about Maris Otter malt.
Any comments, criticisms, or witicisms are welcomed. Thanks.
Steve Schultz <swschult@cbdcom.apgea.army.mil>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 97 8:41:34 EST
From: "Ted Hull" <THull@brwncald.com>
Subject: sparge/HSA questions
The results I've gotten from the last couple of competitions
I've entered included comments on astringency and oxidation. As
a result, I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve my
process.
I assume that the astringency comes from oversparging my mash
and letting pH get too high. Generally, I don't monitor pH of
runoff b/c my pH meter isn't temperature corrected. And I don't
measure SG because 1) it's a pain and 2) I worry about pouring
the measured wort back into the pot and introducing air. My
water is soft and I usually just add some lactic acid to the
sparge water to adjust its pH and then quit worrying about it.
Are there any simple methods to avoid this problem? Also, is
there any difference in the runoff between draining the grain
bed for the last runnings and keeping water level above the top?
As for HSA (and oxidation in general), I may have eliminated my
problem by replacing the plastic valve on the outlet to my tun
with a copper one which doesn't suck in outside air. But I still
am interested in hearing what folks think is the right level of
caution, including 1) below what temp is HSA no longer a problem
and 2) whether people CO2 purge bottling buckets too (like you
would a corny)
I apologize for not searching the archives before posting, but
my web access is at home on AOL- America's Busy Signal (TM).
Private is OK. Thanks.
Ted Hull
Atlanta, GA
thull@brwncald.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:44:22 -0500
From: prf@cherry-semi.com (Paul Ferrara)
Subject: BruHeat and Step Mashing
LittleW@od31.nidr.nih.gov asked:
>Has anyone used the Bruheat(r) system to do a step infusion mash?
>Does this pulsed heat element raise temperatures rapidly enough
>without scorching?
I've been doing mashes in a BruHeat since I began all-grain brewing
- about 6 batches. I tried a step infusion once - and wish I never
had. I figured that, by stirring constantly during the boosts, I
would avoid scorching and make sure the heat distributed quickly.
My stirring achieved my stated goals, but ignored a more serious
problem...carmelization on the element: I ended up with a black,
hard as steel coating on my heating element. I have tried everything
to remove this, and nothing has worked. Fortunately, it doesn't seem
to have affected the element's performance. Someday, I'll order a
replacement element.
I plan on changing my brewing setup soon. I will keep the BruHeat
for heating strike and sparge water, and for wort boiling. For my
situation, the BruHeat is an ideal boiling vessel. I will use a Gott
cooler for mashing and lautering, and stick to single infusion mashes
for a while. Eventually, I hope to convert to a RIMS style setup
with the same components, and the addition of a pump and a few odds
and ends.
Bottom Line:
If you're a fan of step mashing, don't plan on mashing in a BruHeat.
Paul R. Ferrara
E.Greenwich,RI
prf@cherry-semi.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 14:51:01 +0000
From: Darrin Pertschi <darrinp@cowles.com>
Subject: Lactic Acid
So I picked up some lactic to keep my sparge water at a reasonable pH.
The thing is, i don't know how much to use per x-amount of water. During
my brew session yesterday, I added 1/4 tsp to 2 gal of water. Before the
addition, my yellow pH test strip would turn purple (I forget the
approx. pH), but after the addition the yellow strips didn't change
color at all. At the time I thought this was great. But in 2332 Al K.
states:
"Too acidic a water (very rare) can result in too low a boil pH (below
4.6, I believe) and can result in poor break formation, which will allow
excess protein into the finished beer."
Yes, my break was not very good.
So, the big question is, what is the proper way to utilize lactic acid?
TIA
- --------
Darrin in Central PA
Proprietor--Simpleton's Cosmic Brewery
- ---------------------------------------------
You never know just how you look through other peoples eyes. <B.H.S.>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:53:23 -0800
From: "Brander Roullett (Volt Computer)" <a-branro@MICROSOFT.com>
Subject: Erstaz Fermentap? ideas
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:01:02 -0800
From: "Stuart E. Strand" <sstrand@saul.u.washington.edu>
Subject: Inverted fermentation
- -->
I am going to make my own stand for an inverted 6.7 gal carboy.
The stopper will be clamped on and a long tube will go to the bottom
(top
when inverted) to allow CO2 to escape and a short tube at the top
(bottom
when inverted) will allow me to pull off the yeast when the fermentation
is completed, preventing autolysis and overexposure to residual cold
break
trub.
<--
not sure if this will help or not, but in reading your idea, the bright
oarnge stopper i use on my carboy came to mind, it has the center hole
that a racking cane fits in (for the "to the bottom" tube) and a
smaller, allowing the pulling off of the yeast tube. *IF* it could be
clamped down tight (? a large diamteer hose clamp) as well as smaller
clamps for the tubes, this might work for you.
just a thought, any one tried this?
Brander Roullett(a-branro) aka Badger
http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/
For a quart of ale is a dish for a king. -William Shakespeare
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 12:05:50 -0800 (PST)
From: ad339@freenet.unbc.edu (Edwin Thompson)
Subject: storing hops
I've been thinking of growing my own hops but I'm unsure how well they keep.
I was once in a brewpub where the brewer keep the whole hops in a
freezer, does anyone know if prolonged freezing affects the hop oil?
Is there a better way of storing themm?
Any information would be helpful. By the way does someone have a good,
partial mash, recipe for an oatmeal stout we have horses so there's no
problem getting rolled oats.
Yours
Ed.
- --
Edwin K. Thompson
ad339@Freenet.unbc.edu "If one thing abounds it's misinformation"
Prince George. B.C.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 14:51:32 -0600 (CST)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Barleywine musings
Jethro writes (quoting Robert):
>>Now onto a new question. A couple weeks ago I brewed a barleywine...
>>I've read in the archives about people leaving their b-wines in
>>secondaries for months. What's the benefit of this?
>>Is there some significant advantage of leaving a beer such as this in
>>secondary even after the target gravity is reached? All scientific,
>>psuedo-scientific, or anecdotal help would be appreciated.
>
> Here's a psuedo-scintific and anecdotal response...I recommend long
>secondaries for B-wines and any other high gravity brews. I wish I had the
>space to keep mine in secondary for a minimum of 6 months. It is my P-S
>opinion that high grav brews produce more of the higher alcohols, (fusels?),
Right -- they make all of all alcohols, *including* higher (a.k.a. fusel)
alcohols. Also, all that OG tends to increase the temperature of the
fermenting wort itself which *further* increases higher alcohol production.
>but that these can be reduced by long storage...I don't put any pressure on
>my secondaries, just rely on a foil sheet on top of the tank to keep the
>critters, both micro and macro, out. These higher grav brews also have a
>high percentage of residual proteins that take a long time to drop and
>clear. (Hell, they have more of everything.)
> My Barleywine was fermented for about 10 days in primary, and then
>had a dose of gelatine/isinglass in secondary, where it sat for 4 months
>prior to being force carbonated and served. The beer was 'rough' during
>sampling taken in primary, secondary, yet was smoother in serving...and it
>continued to mellow out over time and at judging time was 10 months old.
The yeast play an *important* role in reducing (oops, another chemistry
word)... er... decreasing the levels of the higher alcohols. Dosing with
gelatine or isinglass or filtering will actually SLOW the process of
esterification (yeast turning alcohols and acids into esters) and will
make the beer take LONGER to lose that "rough" character.
> Pseudo-scientifically, I don't know if this 'roughness' would
>diminish in a sealed vessel to a greater or lesser degree, than in an 'open'
>one...this would depend on whether or not the higher alcohols were
>absorbed/adsorbed or merely vented off, being volatile.
>Pseudo-Scientifically, I also think that such beers benfit from longer times
>'on the yeast,' in secondary. I don't think that they would benefit from
>early filtering. (Micah?) I just know what worked for me.
Yes, but they can also mellow (lose that roughness) in the bottle if the
beer is unfiltered. Consider how Sierra Nevada Bigfoot mellows. In my
opinion, a GOOD vintage of Bigfoot is one that burns the throat after one
month in the bottle. I've got sealed cases of Bigfoot and Thomas Hardy's
dating back to 1989 sitting in my cellar. Don't filter! Open or sealed
is not really a big factor although you want to make sure you don't
oxidize all those higher alcohols.
> I also know what doesn't work for me....Just tried another approach
>to my B-wines....won't do this again! Original B-W fermented with 'dry' ale
>yeast till all activity ceased, then hit with 'dry' Champagne yeast, and a
>wee bit of O2 as a propellant. OG 23.9 P (1.095). Paper calcs showed roughly
>10.25% ABV with ale yeast, rising to 10.5% ABV, following champagne yeast.
> I had discussed this with my yeast specialist, and decided this
>would be the way to go, and it did produce a nice product.
Have you tried using the whole yeast cake from a 1.050 beer for the BW?
I did this with several Barleywines (homebrewed) and it takes the 1.100+
wort down to 73 to 77% apparent attenuation without any other yeast
addition. I dare not try to ask this yeast to carbonate the beer,
however (chicken, I guess) so I DON'T FILTER, force-carbonate, and counter-
pressure fill the beer bottles. Yeast settles out in the bottles eventually
and does keep changing the alcohol and ester profile over the years. I've
used both Wyeast #1056 and #1028 for this -- both work well. Oh... of
course aerate or oxygenate a LOT... but you already knew that... ;^).
> Although I do believe that "perfect is the enemy of good enough," I
>tried it with champagne yeast only...bad decision...gravity fell to 14
>Plato, (1.056) and stopped....I hit it with another ale yeast, and a wee bit
>of O2, and got renewed activity, but very slow activity....some days later,
>tried it with a double dose of ale yeast, reconstituted and added to 5
>gallons of fresh wort, allowed to work for 6 hours before pitching.....now
>am getting decent activity, but it seems that the relatively high level of
>ETOH, and low pH are preventing reproduction, but are allowing the 3 doses
>of ale yeast to eat those sugars that are left after the 'bayanus' ate it's
>fill.
> I will return to the ale/champagne plan, next time around. At this
>rate, currently 12 P, it looks like another 2-3 weeks in primary. Might be
>good drain cleaner, though!
If you can afford to tie up kegs and space, how about just letting it
condition in kegs for a year or two? You probably want to keep them
airlocked as opposed to sealed for the first year. Based upon the first
corollary Murphy's Law, it will be your best beer ever and impossible to
duplicate! ;^)
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 15:31:19 EST
From: "Curt Speaker" <speaker@safety-1.univsfty.psu.edu>
Subject: re: yeasts and barleywine
Regarding the recent barleywine thread...
Based on a couple recipes in Charlie Papazian's second book (the
Homebrewers Companion), I have used Wyeast #1056 - American Ale
(also reputed to be Sierra Nevada's yeast) for the two barelywines
that I have made with excellent results. 1056 is a hard fermenter,
has a fairly neutral taste & can take high alcohol levels without
(appearent) damage. In both cases the beer carbonated well in the
bottle without repitching (one had a S.G. of 1.080; the other 1.096;
both ended in the teens).
I've never used champagne yeast with beer (only twice with mead), but
I am concerned that it would make the finished product too dry. A
good barleywine strikes a fine balance between lots of alcohol,
plently of hops and a solid maltiness to back it all up. I would
think that barleywines made with champagne yeast might be awfully
heavy on the alcohol and hops and a little thin on the malt side.
Anyway, for you barleywine makers, try Wyeast #1056, and be sure to
make a VERY BIG starter (mine was twice what I usually make for a
1.040-1.060 beer; a 1.5 liter wine bottle almost full of slurry!)
It has worked well for me.
Curt Speaker
President, S.C.U.M.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 16:53:24 -0500 (EST)
From: energo@fwai.org (Energo Ed)
Subject: Re: How does beer affect you?
>
>Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:36:20 -0500 (EST)
>From: JohnT6020@aol.com
>Subject: How does beer affect you?
>
>What is the feeling you get from drinking beer or any other alcoholic
>beverage. I'm serious. I would like to read some different people's
>description of the "feel-good" feeling they get from alcohol; not the
>drop-down-drunk feeling but the level at which the effect is pleasant.
Because my alcoholic drink of choice is beer, I find it hard to get the
nice numb like feeling I used to get with wine and hard liquor due to I get
sick first because of the volume of beer I would have to consume.
Energo Ed
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2336, 02/05/97
*************************************
-------
