Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2330
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1997/01/29 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #2330 Thu 30 January 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:
RE: Freshman Digest ("Scott Braker-Abene")
Forecasting final gravity (Charles Rich)
Decoction Mash ( STEVE GARRETT)
Clad vs. Unclad ("Clifford A. Hicks")
Filtering Cold Break (Steve Armbrust)
Hohum, the old system (Nightcrawler)
Recipes!!!!!!!!!! (Nightcrawler)
Re: No Head, Re: Lacking Carbonation ... (Chris North)
Re: Cutting Corny dip tubes...how much? (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Gueze Pronunciation (Spencer W Thomas)
Yeast doing summersaults (Heiner Lieth)
Re: Esters & Oxygenation (Steve Alexander)
I know there was a head (Gavin Scarman)
Re: Re: Improving my beer (Matt Peterson)
Wyeast 1084, Irish Ale (eric fouch)
taste test ("Gustavo Perez")
Clove Taste from Wheat Yeast (William D Gladden )
Cloudy when chilled. (BStephens)
Use of Rye Malt. (Alan Folsom)
Re: Relief valve source: was RE: Keg Conditioning (Dion Hollenbeck)
MgSO4 (Bill Giffin)
strange tasting brew (Gary Krone)
Jump on Al, ("David R. Burley")
RE: Cold storage of ale (Ganister Fields Architects)
Another data point on carbonation (Tim Kelsey)
Magnesium Laxatives ("Nathan L. Kanous II")
RE: Filtration, carbonation, and head retention/Freshman HBD (George De Piro)
RE: Kitchen Aid Grain Mill ("Furbee, Richard L")
dip tube summary/barleywines ("Robert DeNeefe")
Aeration with a "Y" (Bill Giffin)
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://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd/hallofame.html
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: Tue, 28 Jan 97 15:07:20 CST
From: "Scott Braker-Abene" <sbraker-abene@comark.com>
Subject: RE: Freshman Digest
In # 2325, Al K says:
>I mean, as much as I like to help out and answer beginners'
>beerstone removal,and anthocyanogens, I don't know if it could >keep
my interest.
Wayne said:
>I think the whole point, Al, is that some people want to talk on >own
level, and aren't concerned with your interest.
>Not everyone is a Ph.D., or Chemist, or Metallurgist. Some ordinary
>people want to have ordinary talk about ordinary things.
>I use the 'page down' extensively on many posts, and would probably
>subscribe to both digests. I'm no expert, hell, I don't even play one
>on TV, but I do like to brew, but not in the ethereal plane.
I say this whole Big Headed Ego brewer shit is really starting to get
on my nerves. None of us, and I mean NONE OF US! (are you listening
Al, Dave, John) are above learning from any member of this forum.
I have been brewing for a long time. Probably longer than many of you
out there but I am still learning about homebrewing methods and
equipment everyday. you know what? Sometimes I even learn from extract
brewers, or god forbid first timers.
Get off your damn high horses and stop turning into big headed asses!
What are a bunch of Newbies doing here Al? They are trying to ask
questions and learn how to brew as well as you do (and you do brew
very well). Without all of the long time brewers helping the newbies
the hobby will become a bunch of secretive bad tempered "Good Old
Boys". The whole point of this digest is for people to learn more
about every aspect of the hobby and despite the fact that I think I
personally know everything
I DON'T!
and neither does anybody else in this forum. If we did, we wouldn't be
here.
Although I tend not to post often, I still get a ton of very good
information from the HBD.
What might appear to be useless info to any one of you is somewhere
helping someone else make a much better beer...
Have you ever stopped to think of that..? Have any one of you ever
taken the time to look at any one of your rambling nasty ass put down
posts to some poor brewer that just asked a simple brewing question or
made a brewing mistake that was to you all so obvious? Have you ever
stopped to think that after making that brewer feel so bad about the
methods that he used or the mistakes that they made they have since
never brewed again because they were convinced that they couldn't
brew?
Without new brewers, without seasoned brewers, without extract,
partial, all-grain and innovative brewers there can be no turnover of
knowledge and the learning process stops. Look at the AHA, that is
what they have become. Do you want to become that too? I hear they are
hiring.
An HBD for newbies would be great only if there were advanced brewers
to hold their hands and teach them to brew better beer. These people
are not lepers, they are merely seeking the knowledge and experience
that some of us have. Don't cast them off to some island to live by
themselves. Teach them to brew for crying out loud! Make them a better
brewer than yourself. Encourage them to go all grain. Show them the
ways of PLAID but
TEACH THEM DAMN IT!!!
This forum is all about learning. Again, let us not forget that fact.
We learn through calm discussion, moderate and sometimes very heated
but we are still here to learn and don't ever forget that.
-Scott "feeling much better now thankyouverymuch" Abene
################################################################
# ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT #
# Scott Abene <skotrat@wwa.com> #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page) #
# OR #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat/Brew-Rat-Chat/ (Brew-Rat-Chat) #
# "Get off your dead ass and brew" #
# "If beer is liquid bread, maybe bread is solid beer" #
################################################################
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 10:50:36 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR@saros.com>
Subject: Forecasting final gravity
In HBD #2328 David R. Burley <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM> states:
> Also, the hydrometer is an"approximate" measurement of the sugar
> content not an "accurate" one and difficult to use, at best, in fermenting
> beer. Only if you know the final gravity accurately ( which you can't
> at the time of measurement) will the SG give you a good value of
> fermentable sugar.
Actually, you can ferment out a sample, taken after pitching, at a
higher
temperature (75F-80F) for a good approximation what the FG of the
batch will be.
Cheers,
Charles Rich
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:14:40, -0500
From: sdginc@prodigy.com ( STEVE GARRETT)
Subject: Decoction Mash
Subject: Decoction Mashing
In my continuing quest to develop an efficient decoction routine for
my Czech Pils and German Helles/Bock/Fest beers I did a double
decoction batch this past weekend. It was a Bavarian Pils with mostly
Durst Pils malt and a little Carapils dextrin.
I decided to use the oven to help maintain the decoctions at rest
temperatures. This worked so well, I decided to extend the idea. I
turned the oven up to 225F and once I got a strong boil of the decoc
going on the burner, I covered the SS pot and put it in the oven. I
checked 5 minutes later, and it was merrily boiling away with no
scorching or sticking. So I ended up doing my 30 minute boils in the
oven. Checked once in the middle of the boils to make sure it wasn't
scorching and to stir. Seemed to work great.
Now a question. I just re-read Richman's Bock book. He has a lot of
good info on decoction mashing. In his discussion of the formation of
melanoidins he emphasizes that the malty aroma/flavor melanoidins
from the combination of the amino acids valine and leucine with
simple sugars, will only occur once 212F is reached. I brew at 5000+
feet where the boiling point of water is only 200F. My stove top
decoction boils stick at 200F. Will that hinder me in producing these
melanoidins? Maybe I should crank the oven up some more.
Cheers!
Steve Garrett
sdginc@prodigy.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:21:29 -0500
From: "Clifford A. Hicks" <74631.2471@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clad vs. Unclad
I just bought a 10 gallon Vollrath brew kettle from Precision Brewing
Systems.
I was told this was one of the best available. It does not have an
alluminum "clad" bottom but, instead, the alluminum was apparantly
"sprayed" on and then machined down to a smooth surface. It is hard to tell
exactly how thick the bottom of the pot is. My question is this: Should I
return the pot and hold out for one with an alluminum clad bottom or am I
being a worry-wart. Is the pot I have the best?
Please respond to simtech@compuserve.com
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:12:18 -0800
From: Steve Armbrust <stevea@thepalace.com>
Subject: Filtering Cold Break
Greetings Fellow Beer Lovers,
I'm confused about cold break and whether I'm actually
removing it or not.
My normal procedure is to cool with an immersion chiller
and then pour the cooled wort through a mesh kitchen strainer
into my carboy. I didn't whirpool or siphon because I use whole
hops and that seemed impractical and slow. Plus, if I siphoned
instead of strained, I wouldn't aerate the wort as much and my
ferments would be slower.
But, in HBD 2327, Jeff Irvine mentions that using an immersion
cooler will make reasonable removal of cold break if you filter it
through a hop bed. Which is exactly what I do when I dump wort
into my strainer. After the first scoop, the whole hops line the
strainer and the remaining wort filters through the hops as I
dump it in.
So, am I actually doing any beneficial cold break removal, or
should I move on to whirlpooling experiments? (btw, my beer
isn't bad, but I am interested in legitimate process improvements.)
Thanks.
Steve Armbrust stevea@thepalace.com
Human Factors Engineer
The Palace Inc.
9401 SW Nimbus Drive
Beaverton, OR 97008
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:43:02 -0500 (EST)
From: Nightcrawler<shane@cais.com>
Subject: Hohum, the old system
I see we're back to the old system, huh?? Oh, well.
However _I_ liked the other newer system, the one
which listed numbers beside the titles of the articles.
No chance of going back to that one, any chance??
Shane Saylor, Eccentric Bard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:43:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Nightcrawler<shane@cais.com>
Subject: Recipes!!!!!!!!!!
I know this is about beer & all, but besides all this
techie talk do we [ the members ] think it would hurt if
we posted a few recipes. Recipes we either go off the
'Net or made ourselves?? I think it would be nice we
saw more recipes posted. At least equall amount of
each. Thoughts on this??? Thanks!
Shane Saylor, Eccentric Bard
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:54:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris North <chrisn@infohwy.com>
Subject: Re: No Head, Re: Lacking Carbonation ...
Several posts about no carbonation. I had this trouble. Now I keg and
force carbonate, problem gone. When I couldn't get my bottled conditioned
beers to carbonate, my local brewers, homebrew shops, etc..., acted as if
they had never heard of such a thing and only suggestion was maybe I got
them infected. From what I had heard, however, infection makes a gusher
(not an accurate discription of the problem). I was begining to think that
my sanitizing operations were to blame. I even wondered if I had acutally
added my boiled and cooled priming sugar or could it have been a container
of sanitizer? But in reviewing my brewing log, I discovered that the
batches that would not carbonate had spent a considerable amount of time
(three weeks or so) in the secondary. I assumed that too much yeast had
settled and that I needed to let my problem batches condition some more.
After a month or more, they were fine. If I am going to bottle now, I
*always* jab the racking cane in the yeast cake a couple of times and watch
the yeast flow through. Not much, but a little. Just in case. With
bottled batches, I haven't had this problem since starting this parctice.
Don't throw out your beer because of this, particularly if it tastes OK,
only flat. Let them sit some more. You couldn't have removed all of the
yeast. Keep the bottles warm, but not hot (68-74F) and be patient. It's
well worth the wait.
chris north
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:24:05 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Cutting Corny dip tubes...how much?
I don't clip my dip tubes. I find that after the small amount of
yeast remaining in the beer settles, that I suck up a little bit from
around the bottom of the tube, and then the beer runs clear.
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.
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 01:26:16 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Gueze Pronunciation
Can one of our Belgian colleagues record the correct pronunciation (in
Flemish in particular, as I can fake the French) and put it up on the
web? 'Twould be a service indeed to all of us!
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:18:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth@telis.org>
Subject: Yeast doing summersaults
I had a strange experience two or three weeks ago with some yeast that I had
stored from the sediment of a secondary.
Some of you will recall that I asked about the viability of the yeast at the
bottom of all those beer bottles that we carbonate by priming. The responses
I got then indicated that those yeast cells were merely dormant and happy to
be called back into action.
So I took this a step further and with a recent brew: after I had transfered
the beer out of the secondary into the bottling bucket, I swirled the
remainder of the secondary and bottled the entire sludge mess into a
sanitized champagne bottle, capped it, labeled it, and stashed it in my brew
closet. The bottle was filled to within about 2 inches from the top. After
a few days everything settled out so that about 30% of the content of the
bottle was yeast, the rest beer. I figured that any residual activity would
give a slight carbonation.
Well, during a recent brew session I was looking forward to drinking that
beer just prior to pitching this yeast. But here is the strange part: when
I uncapped the bottle all the yeast lifted off the bottom and ended up on
the surface of the beer, some of it erupting out of the bottle. There was
quite a bit of pressure in the bottle, but not a lot of carbonation in the
beer that I could see. How is it possible that the release of pressure
allowed the yeast to all of a sudden start to float?
I was bummed out by this for two reasons: (1) the beer was now all cloudy
(Sorry, but I hate drinking yeasty beer) and (2) I figure the sudden change
in pressure must have killed the little guys so that they were now all
"belly-up" floating on the surface. Since I had no back-up yeast ready, I
pitched as much of this yeast as I could. well, everything worked out
pretty well - I had pretty good activity within a few hours.
I'm going to do this again in the future because bottling a "ton" of
sediment is much less work then stepping up the yeast from scratch. I might
be inclined to do some "yeast washing" but that sure sounds like a lot of
work for little gain.
Anyway,... why would the yeast do this strange summersault? It doesn't
happen when I open a regular beer bottle (there the sediment stays parked on
the bottom).
Also, only slightly related: It seems that there are some posts occasionally
that suggest that the sediment in primary and secondary fermenters contains
many dead cells. A few days ago I placed wort directly into a fermenter
without removing the (10 day old; Wyeast Koelsch yeast) sediment. I swear,
there is currently nothing on the bottom of that fermenter: every one of
those "dead" cells is back in action. I've never seen my airlock bubble so
fast.
Heiner Lieth.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:43:11 -0300
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Esters & Oxygenation
My friend David Burley writes ... (Hi David) ...
> Does anyone have information about ester formation rate as a function of time
> elapsed in a fermentation?
In a paper in JIB V100, 1994 pp 321- by Douglas A. Gee and W.Fred
Ramirez of U.Colorado at Boulder titled "A Flavor Model for Beer
Fermentation" - there is a development of formulae to model amino acid
and sugar uptake, fusel alcohol, ester, VDK and acetaldehyde production
and yeast mass. The parameters for these models are experimentally
determined to fit some sample fermentations which they have
instrumented. For the three esters modeled we have ...
Ethyl Acetate (fruity solvent smell) [EA]: Arising from enzymatic
esterification of ethanol and acetyl-CoA. They model the intracellular
concentrations as proportional to the sugar uptake or EA' = -y *
(G'+M'+N'), where the single quote denotes the derivative with respect
to time. EA is the ethyl-acetate conc. G, M and N represent Glucose,
Maltose and maltotriose concentrations. This constant (with respect to
time) "y" seems to rise rapidly with temperature in their experimental
data.
Ethyl-Caproate (apples)[EC]: is generated from a reaction of ethanol and
caproyl-CoA. Caproyl-CoA is an intermediate product in the fatty acid
anabolic and catabolic pathways and is the limiting rate factor. The
activity of the fatty acid synthesis and breakdown is related to the
cell growth so EC' = y * X', where X is the yeast mass.
The third ester considered is Isoamyl-Acetate (bannana ester) [IA]:
which results from a reaction of isoamyl alcohol [IAA] and acetyl-CoA in
the cell. The concentration of isoamyl alcohol is considered to be rate
limiting (since Acetyl-CoA is abundant) so : IA' = y * IAA' * X, where
the IAA' term can be further reduced. The rate of IAA formation IAA' is
due to a synthetic mechanism related to the yeast growth rate X' and
limited at high Leucine levels, and also due to an 'Ehrlich mechanism'
which term which is proportional to the Leucine uptake rate -L' .
The above is my restatement of portions of the Gee and Ramirez paper,
I'll take the blame for any typos or misinterpretations. Gee and
Ramirez and their references deserve credit for the model development.
In the portion of the experimental data shown, all three esters increase
at a roughly constant rate and then the formation slows. EA and EC
formation slows as the fermentable sugars are exhausted and yeast growth
ceases. IA formation stalls as leucine is nearly exhausted. The
modeled results for esters, VDK and acetaldehyde are fairly good, the
results for sugar uptake amino acid uptake and fusel alcohol production
seem extremely good. Temperature and yeast strain dependence is not
addressed in this paper. Only these important three of the 90 or so
esters are in beer are modeled.
I'm afraid that the best advice regarding esters levels and oxygenation,
pitching rates, cold trub and available FAN is that it all depends on
the specific ester you are considering and its formation mechanisms.
Generalizations that ignore formation mechanisms of the fusel alcohols
or the various acetyl CoA compounds aren't likely to be very revealing.
Andy Walsh and Tracy Aquilla were involved in an HBD exchange last June
culminating in a referenced note on ester formation by Andy in HBD #2080
which also appears at "The Brewery' website. Andy's note includes
specifics that contradict some of the simple extrapolations that one is
tempted to draw from the equations of Gee and Ramirez.
One confusing point made by Andy and M&BS as well, is that "Acetyl CoA
plays a key role in growth .... hence any restriction of cell growth
will elevate acetate esters, by increasing the the availability of
Acetyl CoA ..." implying that Acetyl CoA is less available for ester
formation during 'unrestricted' yeast growth. I don't understand why
this should be so except in the case of oxygen restriction of cell
growth where the metabolic processes require more Acetyl CoA. Does
growth restriction by carbohydrate or lipid or amino acid limitation
also increase Acetyl CoA and esterification ??
In addition to Andy's excellent references on esters, Gee and Ramirez
reference ...
Nordstrom, K., 'Proc of the EBC Congress Stockholm', 1965, 195.
(elucidated esterification pathway)
Greenberg, D.M., 'Metabolic Pathways', Academic Press 1967.
on the modelling see ...
Engasser, Marc, Moll & Duteurtre, 'Proc of the EBC Congress,
Copenhagen', 1981.
Gee & Ramirez, Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 1988, 31, p224-234.
Gee & Ramirez, "Online State Estimation and Parameter Identification for
Batch Fermentation", submitted to Biotechnology Progress, 1994.
Gee's, "Modeling, Optimal Control, State Estimation and Parameter
Identification Aplies to Batch Fermentation Process", Ph.D thesis at
U.Colo, 1990.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:43:46 +1500
From: Gavin Scarman <scarman@satech.net.au>
Subject: I know there was a head
I have a quite dark weizen (used too dark a 'dark malt'), which is almost
porter-like. At 2 weeks it had a great head, at 3 the head was ok and at 4
well there's no head. However there is a lot of corbonation, too much in
fact. I suspect this was a stuck fermentation tho it finished about 1.013.
It's almost coke-like in it's large bubbles with a head that quickly
dissappears. My question is why did the head retention fade with excess
carbonation?
- ----------------------------------
http://www.satech.net.au/~scarman
mailto:scarman@satech.net.au
- ----------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 06:17:55 -0600
From: mattsp@stat1.cc.ukans.edu (Matt Peterson)
Subject: Re: Re: Improving my beer
>
>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 14:22:34 -0500
>From: dnconger@primenet.com (David and Nancy Conger)
>Subject: Re: Re: Improving my beer
>
>> I've got an easy answer to that: as soon as the strainer start to become
>>clogged with hop gunk, fling the gunk into the kitchen sink. At most, you
>>might have to rinse the strainer under the kitchen sink for a second or
>>two. I can easily strain 2.5 gallons of wort (using 6 oz. of hop pellets
>>for an IPA) into a carboy in less than 5 minutes.
>
>That's exactly what I did. Pour, clog, rinse, pour, clog, rinse -- 45 mins.
>I bet your strainer is bigger than mine. Now I feel inadequate. Thanks
>anyway Matt.
>
>David Conger
>
David,
I think I know where our techniques differ. I use a 8-10 inch strainer
placed inside a large funnel. My strainer is rather coarse: the gaps
between the wires look to be around 2-3 mm wide.
My strainer doesn't get all of the gunk out, but the rest is left in the
primary after I rack to the secondary. You might want to try two strainers
- -- a coarse one followed by a fine one.
-Matt
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 08:28 EST
From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc@mcimail.com>
Subject: Wyeast 1084, Irish Ale
Date: Wednesday, 29 January 1997 8:21am ET
To: STC012.PREQUEST@STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch@STC001
Subject: Wyeast 1084, Irish Ale
In-Reply-To: The letter of Wednesday, 29 January 1997 1:05am ET
HBD-
From: Paul Ward <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Stout
This is the most expensive batch I will have brewed to date so I'm a
little concerned that it also be the best batch I have brewed. Any
special 'quirks' I should be aware of with this yeast?
Paul-
Congratulations on your purchase of liquid yeast (presumably your first).
Your "most expensive batch" will be greatly improved because of it.
Wyeast 1084, Irish Ale, is a strong fermenter. You need to pay close
attention to your headspace. A colleague of mine recently blew the lid off
his 7 gallon plastic primary using this yeast. He had 2 gallons of headspace]
(He did not use a blow-off - his bubbler became plugged).
A batch I have going right now blew foam out the blow-off for two days before
settling down. Use a large blow-off tube and check it often during the first
few days to be sure it is unobstructed.
As far as the lack of black patent- that may be the reason you did not like
Guinness- they use black patent. My personal preferance is to use twice the
amount of roasted or chocolate barley instead of black patent. That will give
youcomparable bitterness and color without the charcoal bite.
Eric Fouch
These are my opinions and not necessarily those of Bent Dick YactoBrewery's
Love to eat those animals
Kentwood MI
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:36:28 -0500
From: "Gustavo Perez" <pereg@aromat.com>
Subject: taste test
Is the taste of the wort just prior to bottling a good
indicator of it's final quality?
My present batch smell very good although I though it had
a bitter taste. Will this change as the beer continues to
ferment in the bottles? I've only brewed a couple of batches
so I don't have a good feel for the whole process yet.
Thanks,
Gus
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:16:16 -0500
From: William D Gladden <W_GLADDEN@Mail.Co.Chester.PA.US>
Subject: Clove Taste from Wheat Yeast
Just one datapoint. I brewed an extract batch of wheat beer
using YL Bavarian Wheat yeast, stepped it up twice with starters,
pitched and fermented at 60 degrees. I used a secondary, then
racked to keg where it currently resides at 55 degrees. LOTS OF
CLOVES. Time has somewhat mellowed out the clove but it is still
very pronounced. I'm not sure how much if any banana there is in
it. I've eaten bananas but really don't like drinking them (i.e.
milkshakes etc...), so it must not be too pronounced. Next batch
I am going to increase the fermentation temp. a few degrees to
try to get more of a tart taste to complement the clove (it's a
personal preference thing - why else would I homebrew!).
Hope this helps.
Bill Gladden, Downingtown PA
W_GLADDEN@Mail.Co.Chester.PA.US
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 97 9:24:15 EST
From: BStephens@banyan.com
Subject: Cloudy when chilled.
I've been brewing beer from extracts for about two years with pretty decent
success. But with the last few batches I've noticed that the beer becomes
cloudy after chilling. The beer is very clear in the bottle and is clear
if it is chilled for less than 24 hours or so. However, if I leave it in
the fridge for a couple of days or more, it becomes cloudy. To my
recollection this hasn't happened in my previous batches. Any ideas? I am
using a small amount of Irish Moss in the last 10 minutes of the boil and
have done so for quite a while. There aren't any off odors or tastes that
would indicate contamination. I have recently moved to a new residence so
perhaps the water is the reason... Any suggestions of things I could try?
I might go with bottled water next batch to see if that helps.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 06:47:47 -0800
From: folsom@ix.netcom.com (Alan Folsom)
Subject: Use of Rye Malt.
I am interested in brewing a batch of IPA this weekend, but
experimenting with Rye Malt in the batch. My plan is to use 3 lbs of
Rye in a total grain bill of 11 lbs (some crystal, some carapils, some
flaked barley, about 6 1/2 lbs of Marris Otter Pale), a little more
than 25%.
Does anyone have any experience with Rye Malt? Is this too much? My
hope is to closely duplicate an IPA I made last weekend, varying just
by the substitution of Rye for some Pale. I did not do a protein rest
with the first batch, but will the Rye necessitate it?
Any comments or suggestions would be welcome.
Thanks,
Al Folsom
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1997 07:46:29 -0800
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen@axel.vigra.com>
Subject: Re: Relief valve source: was RE: Keg Conditioning
>> Bob McCowan writes:
dion> Then I attach an adjustble pressure
dion> relief valve on the "gas in" fitting and set it for about 20 psi.
Bob> What are some good sources for such a valve, and how much do they
Bob> cost? Any recommendations on ones that work, ones to stay away
Bob> from?
Don't know of any ones to stay away from since I got a good one on my
first try. See my web page and take the link to my gadgets page and
the first article there is what you want.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
http://www.vigra.com/~hollen
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:41:11 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin@maine.com>
Subject: MgSO4
Top of the morning to ye all,
>Al K said:
Finally, let's do a reality check on our posts before we jump all over Al,
eh?
<
We did Al and that is why we made the posts. I didn't want anyone to
add too much MgSO4 to their beer.
Al be so kind to explain what characteristic that MgSO4 brings to a
beer. When is this character appropriate and when is it not?
Or perhaps you don't think that it makes any difference?
By the by the correct dosage of Epsom salts is 2 teaspoons in a full
glass of water once a day. Might help you out Lad.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:51:40 -0600
From: Gary Krone <gkrone@inconsys.com>
Subject: strange tasting brew
I still have some of my second batch that I keep hoping will someday turn
out to be drinkable. The brewing went well but the beer has a "grapey"
flavor to it, like there was some grape juice added to it. Anyone have any
ideas.
Thanks
Gary Krone
gkrone@inconsys.com
gkrone@execpc.com
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 97 10:54:18 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Jump on Al,
Brewsters:
AlK says:
>" Finally, let's do a reality check on our posts before we jump all over Al,
eh?"
I didn't see any jumping going on by anyone, just commenting. As I recall
though, you said that magnesium didn't contribute to the bitterness, just the
sulfate.
>Al K said:
>>>>Yes, the water would be harder after these additions, but it's the
>sulphate that accentuates the bitterness and not the Ca or Mg.
><<<
In the last HBD he said:
>I do not contest the fact that magnesium sulphate is bitter, but the fact is
>that the increase in bitterness in the beer *cannot* be accounted for simply
>by the bitterness of the MgSO4
To prove his point, AlK did a one of a kind experiment in the following way:
> Just to be sure, I took a gram of MgSO4.7H2O
> and mixed it well into a liter of water. This will give 98.64 ppm of
> Mg++ and 389.58 ppm of SO4-- (in addition to any Mg++ and SO4-- already in
> my water which is less than 15ppm of Mg++ and less than 25ppm SO4--).
> Bottom line: it was *not* noticeably more bitter than plain tapwater.
>
> Let's recall that 1 gram per liter is a lot more than you would normally
> add to any beer (even Burton-upon-Trent water is only 45-65ppm of Mg++).
> That's like a teaspoon in a 5-gallon batch!
>
I posted from M&BS as part of the discussion, with no intent to harm or
disparage Al's contribution:
> >Magnesium sulfate is used as a standard as one of the substances to evoke
> >bitterness in tasters. Its taste threshold is 4.6X10^ -3 M or 5.54 X10^ -2%.
> op cit p848.
> Rather than salty, magnesium sulfate only tastes bitter op cit p. 849.
>
Translating this theshold to Al's ppm terms:
5.54 X 10 ^ -2 % is 0.055 % = 0.000554 g /g of solution or 554 ppm of magnesium
sulfate or about 100 ppm of magnesium if we assume the standard is not Epsom
salts, but rather the anhydrous magnesium sulfate. This is just about what Al
ran and didn't find it to be bitter. If the standard is Epsom Salts with 7
waters of crystallization ( which I doubt) then this reported threshold level
is about 50 ppm. Whether it is valid to calculate the contribution from the
magnesium by simply assuming that it is a weight for weight contribution by
magnesium and sulfate, I doubt it.
Al comments that he doesn't disagree that magnesium sulfate contributes to
bitterness, just that magnesium sulfate is below the taste threshold, based on
his experiment. He comments that the magnesium ion content of Burton water is
less than his experiment.
It may be that, since the sense of bitterness for magnesium sulfate and for hops
are both felt in the back of the tongue and mouth (bitter (2)) , that even
though the magnesium may be below the threshold, it still contributes to the
sense of bitterness if this sensation is in any way additive to the hops' (or
for that matter sulfate) contribution. If this were the case, then even though
both the hops and magnesium sulfate may individually be below the threshold, the
combo may be above it and the taster senses bitterness. Also, the relative
contribution of magnesium and sulfate to bitterness is still unknown (at least
by me) given the little I have read on this subject. Are there any experiments
in which sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate are used to evaluate the relative
contribution of magnesium and sulfate? How about magnesium sulfate and
magnesium chloride mixtures? Any comments?
- ---------------------------------------------------
AlK also says:
>
> 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.
Enlighten us, please.
- ---------------------------------------------------
AlK says about the possibility of hops, rather than light being the source of
Skunky Heineken's
>
> No, skunking is most commonly due to the beer being light-struck. I've read
> that the same compound (prenyl mercaptan) can be formed from isohumulone
> by heat, which is maybe what you are thinking of?
Well, that may have been the reference. Could this be formed in hops drying?
Would pasteurization somehow contribute to the formation of the prenyl
mercaptan? Hard to believe since the wort is boiled. Being a photochemist, a
non-photochemical reaction makes more sense to me in this particular instance,
given what appears to be a lack of light. I know PU has a similar( but not the
same) problem. I too had a good Pilsner Urquell just recently. Same green
bottle. A plain chemical source seems to make more sense to me than skunking
by light inside a package. OTOH, why doesn't it show up in Holland if it is
formed in the hops drying stage. Is it the decomposition, over time, of
something that is forming a mercaptan? The only factor that I can see that is
common beside green bottles is Saaz hops and a long time from brewing to
drinking. I'm still mystified.
- -----------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:21:21 -0600
From: Ganister Fields Architects <gfarch@tiac.net>
Subject: RE: Cold storage of ale
Tim Watkins writes:
Does anybody out there see any problem with using a cold secondary
fermentation of an ale (to aid in clearing)?.....
I personally do not use a secondary fermenter when making an ale unless I
need the yeast for my next batch of ale. I think the benefits are
outweighed by the risk of contamination during transfer and the time
involved.
Your wort should clear at 65 deg. If you like using a secondary, that's
okay but my concern is your ale yeast will become inactive before its time
at temps below 60 deg. An experience I had while bottle conditioning an ale
at 50 deg. resulted in no carbonation until I conditioned them at 65 deg.
for a couple of weeks. I then stored them colder.
The sediment should settle well. Its very nice to see a bright beer at
bottling time with hopes that you will keep this sediment to a minimum but
I'm not sure the amount of sediment at the bottom of a well conditioned ale
has any effect on flavor.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:31:28 -0500
From: Tim Kelsey <twk2@psu.edu>
Subject: Another data point on carbonation
Denis Barsalo Writes:
<snip>
>Could these dark beers been "stripped" of too much of their head
>forming proteins?
>Those of you who have had success brewing Brown Ales, Porters and
>Stouts, do you usually use more sugar to carbonate those beers?
I don't have an answer, but am interested in this thread because just
before Christmas I had a milk stout that wouldn't carbonate in the keg. I
force carbonate, keeping the CO2 attached at 12 psi at all times.
Typically it takes a few days before a keg carbonates fully. The two other
kegs in the same refrigerator (a bitter and an Oktoberfest) and also
attached to the same 15 lb CO2 tank with a manifold carbonated nicely, but
the stout never carbonated after several weeks. No head, no bubbles
visible in the beer, and tasting very flat. I checked for leaks, made sure
CO2 was getting into the keg, swapped the gas-in lines between the kegs,
swapped the liquid-out lines between faucets, made sure the manifold really
was on, etc. Nada. After about a month I finally just hooked the keg up
to my 5 lb CO2 tank and kept it at about 20 psi... where it carbonated
properly after several days, and continued to dispense correctly at that
pressure. Meanwhile, the two other kegs sitting right next to it in the
refrigerator were almost over carbonated at 12 psi.
Since then (and before this mysterious batch) other kegs hooked up to my
kegging system have worked fine at 12 psi. The milk stout was all-grain,
and I had followed the same recipe about a year earlier with no kegging
problem. I still don't know what caused this.
Tim
Timothy W. Kelsey Dept of Agricultural Economics
tkelsey@psu.edu & Rural Sociology
(814) 865-9542 Penn State University
http://www.aers.psu.edu/f/kelsey.htm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 12:38:37 +0000
From: "Nathan L. Kanous II" <nkanous@tir.com>
Subject: Magnesium Laxatives
With regards to magnesiums laxative effects, I haven't done all of the
math because I don't have all of the numbers, but here goes. Goodman
and Gilman's The Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics indicates that a
40mEq dose of magnesium is sufficient to produce a laxative effect.
Since magnesium is a divalent cation, this would correspond to a dose of
40mMol. I don't have the molecular weight with me to calculate the
milligram dose that would be required. Anybody else care to take it
from here?
Nathan
P.S. yes, I am a pharmacist
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:08:08 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: RE: Filtration, carbonation, and head retention/Freshman HBD
Hi all,
It has been pondered here that filtration can hurt a beer's ability to
form and hold a head, and that filtration (and force carbonation) can
also cause those large fish-eye bubbles.
Filtering does strip protein from beer, and can be over done, but you
can formulate recipes to compensate. One reason a beer like
budmilloors has poor head retention and no body is because it has so
little protein in it to begin with! The use of adjuncts like corn and
rice lowers the protein content of the beer, thus lightening body, and
killing the head.
Many fine, commercial beers are filtered, and demonstrate great head
retention and have full body. They also have nice, fine bead
carbonation.
In my experience, it is difficult (if not impossible) to tell the
difference between force carbonated beers and bottle conditioned ones
based on bubble observation. All display fine bubbles as long as they
have been given adequate conditioning time and are served below 60F
(15.5C).
I think carbonation becomes rough at higher temps or short
conditioning times because the CO2 is leaving solution so quickly that
it can form larger bubbles regardless of protein content.
-------------------
About the "Freshman Digest" thread:
I asked it 6 months ago and I'll ask it again now: Who will answer
the questions in a digest for beginners, if only beginners are reading
it?
Stick with the HBD. It will expand your knowledge faster than you
will believe possible (much to the dismay/annoyance of your friends
and loved ones)!
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:10:10 -0500
From: "Furbee, Richard L" <Richard.Furbee@unisys.com>
Subject: RE: Kitchen Aid Grain Mill
>Michael Switzer Asks
>----------
>>Subject: Kitchen Aid Grain Mill Question
>
>>Kitchen Aid makes a Grain Mill attachment for its mixers
>>and I was wondering if anyone has used this? Is it
>>adjustable or does it just make flour out of the grains?
>>How much does it cost? Any other comments would be
>>welcome.
I use a Kitchen Aid grain mill for brewing. It is adjustable, however,
I had to make a simple modification by adding a washer to each bolt
holding the front plate to avoid too fine a grain. This is intended to
make a fine quality flour. It is definitely Kitchen Aid quality. I
think I paid over $100. I like having the speed control and sturdy
overall design. I have not had any problems with stuck sparges and
still get clear beer so I isn't too bad. I have to admit having roller
mill envy.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:24:36 -0600
From: "Robert DeNeefe" <rdeneefe@compassnet.com>
Subject: dip tube summary/barleywines
First off, thanks to everyone for their suggestions on cleaning dip
tubes. The most common suggestion was to use a rifle brush that fits
inside the tube. Such a brush should be available wherever ammo is
sold. A rod (also available where quality ammo and other
explosive-propelled projectiles are sold) would also probably be needed
to push the brush through. Another suggestion was to use a bent wire
coat hanger with some cloth (or a piece of cleaning pad). One person
suggested soaking the tubes along with everything else inside a keg
filled with a TSP solution. Since I had decided use TSP to clean my
rootbeer-smelling kegs anyway, this way seemed the easiest for me, and
that's what I did. A rifle brush seems like a good idea for future
cleanings though, and since I've never cleaned a gun before, I would
never have thought of it! Ah, the power of sharing ideas... I now
have clean, shiny, neutral-smelling kegs, and not a drop of beer to put
in them. This problem I can solve by myself though. :)
Now onto a new question. A couple weeks ago I brewed a barleywine
(about 2 and a quarter gallons) that was pitched with a 500ml starter
of Wyeast 1056. It fermented well for one week at about 65F, at which
point it had slowed considerably and I moved it to a secondary. The
gravity was about 1.026 from an OG of 1.085 or so. It bubbled well for
a few days and now just barely has positive pressure on the airlock.
I've read in the archives about people leaving their b-wines in
secondaries for months. What's the benefit of this? I was planning on
leaving it in for about 2 weeks total and then bottling for extended
aging (as I don't want to tie up one of my new kegs for over a year).
Is there some significant advantage of leaving a beer such as this in
secondary even after the target gravity is reached? I bottled a batch
of OG 1.085 FG 1.030 imperial stout two months ago after only a couple
weeks in the secondary. Was that too early? All scientific,
psuedo-scientific, or anecdotal help would be appreciated.
Robert
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:51:33 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin@maine.com>
Subject: Aeration with a "Y"
Top of the afternoon to ye all,
This is not part of the bit on how much is enough. It just another way of
aerating your wort.
I took a piece of 3/16" brass tubing and soldered it into a piece of 3/8"
tubing, I did make a hole, connected an aquarium pump to the 3/16" tubing
and the 3/8" was connected to the racking cane.
As the wort was being racked out of the kettle I had the pump running which
then aerated the stream of wort going into the carboy. Seemed to work quite
well.
Bill
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2330, 01/30/97
*************************************
-------
